The Supreme Court and Creation Science in the Schools

James White, along with me today, Rich Pearce, as we take a break in between series here and discuss the subject of creationism and the whole subject of secular humanism today.

On the dividing line, we do invite your phone calls today at 278 -55 -55. That's 278 -55 -55.

It is July 4th, Red, White, and Blue Day. I've already had my hot dogs, no apple pie, and I drive a

Volkswagen, so I guess I'm really out of the spirit today, I guess, but you drive a Chevrolet, don't you? I drive a blue one.

A blue one? Okay, well, that means did you have your hot dogs and apple pie yet? No. Oh, okay, well, you still got a chance.

I'm not buying a Chevrolet yet. The fireworks are tonight, though. Okay, all right, I get it. Anyhow, I wanted to take the opportunity today, we've just finished up a series on Jehovah's Witnesses beginning next week.

We are going to start an entire series on the subject of atheism, and that will be running for at least five weeks.

I have scheduled five weeks right now. I suppose if there was popular demand, we could take it longer, but over the next couple of weeks, we'll be discussing atheism and the atheistic worldview and how we as a

Christian can deal with that. We'll be talking with two gentlemen representing the Christian viewpoint.

On the 25th of this month, Dr. Robert Morey, author of Death and the

Afterlife, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, books such as How to Answer a

Jehovah's Witness, How to Answer a Mormon. A well -published gentleman will be our guest on the 25th.

On the 8th of August, my professor from Fuller Theological Seminary for Christian Apologetics, Dr.

Lynn Bullock, will be our guest. So those will be our two Christian apologists. Then we will be talking, beginning next week, to sort of start off and introduce the subject of atheism with Mr.

Jim Lippard. Mr. Lippard is a local gentleman. He's written a pamphlet, a book entitled

Fundamentalism is Nonsense. He will be with us next week to explain his viewpoint and how he's arrived at his conclusions.

The week after that will prove to be an extremely interesting week when we discuss the subject of the

Bible with Mr. Dennis McKenzie. He is the editor of a publication called Biblical Errancy, and it is published once a month.

It basically attacks the Bible, supposedly shows contradictions and things like this within Scripture.

We will be talking with him on the 18th of this month. Then when we push all the way back to August 1st, we will be speaking with Mr.

Dan Barker, who is with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He is a former minister, a former

Christian, as he calls himself. He is now with the FFRF.

We will be talking to him long distance as well. We will have three folks coming from the atheistic viewpoint and two folks, aside from myself, obviously, coming from the

Christian viewpoint. We hope that you will be listening and you will be taking note of the things that are happening over the next couple of weeks.

I decided to take today to discuss the subject of creationism and the recent Supreme Court decision on that subject.

We would like to hear about your viewpoints on it at 278 -5555. Let me just mention very quickly that this program is brought to you in part by Dr.

Martin Galuz of the Black Canyon Chiropractic Center. We thank him for his participation, as well as by WT Consulting.

We will be talking about some end -of -the -month clearance sales that they are having later on in the hour. Also by Sheff Steel.

We appreciate those people who make this radio program possible. A couple of weeks ago,

I wasn't here on the program because Kelly and I managed to get away for two days up a little cabin in the woods.

We woke up on a Saturday morning and there was a newspaper on our front porch, the little cabin we were at.

The front headline of the newspaper was, The Arizona Republic read, Creationism Classes Crushed.

Court Bars Mandated Teachings. This was about the decision the day before, the

Friday before that, concerning the striking down of the Louisiana state law that mandated the teaching of creation science along with the teaching of the theory of evolution.

Whenever the theory of evolution was presented, according to Louisiana state law, the theory of creation had to be presented as well.

The bill, the law, lost 7 -2 in the

Supreme Court. The article mentioned that the two justices who opposed the ruling were

Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist were the two that voted for the

Louisiana state law. The others voted against it. Interestingly enough, the second article, the second paragraph said,

On a 7 -2 vote, the justices said in 1981, Louisiana law mandating creation science instruction is a, quote, sham, unquote, that violates the legal principle of separation of church and state.

This was followed by another quote that said, The Supreme Court has just rescued the nation's public school students from narrow -minded fanatics,

Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers declared. Television evangelist Pat Robertson called the decision an outrage to every single

American who believes he or she was created by God. The Louisiana law, quote, was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created mankind, unquote, the court said.

The Constitution bans laws, quote, respecting an establishment of religion, unquote. Louisiana is the only state with a creation science law in its books, but religious fundamentalists elsewhere have mounted strong campaigns in recent years to get the biblical view of creation taught in public classrooms.

A similar law was passed in Arkansas, but was struck down after a highly publicized trial in 1982, and state officials chose not to appeal it.

In Arizona, repeated attempts to have schools teach evolution only as a theory, not fact, have failed.

Representative Gary Giordano, Republican in Phoenix, introduced a bill this year that said teachers must not discuss the origin of humans, quote, in such a way as to foster a belief in a religion or to cause a disbelief in religion, unquote.

The bill died in the House Education Committee. Fundamentalist organizations and the two justices who dissented on the ruling,

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the ruling would unduly restrict the ideas to which children would be exposed.

Quote, now these children will not be exposed. The academic freedom of being taught a variety of scientific theories and the origin of the earth will have their learning experience limited to the teaching of just one idea, said

Beverly LeHay, president of Concerned Women of America, a fundamentalist lobbying group in Washington.

And the article goes on from there. Possibly we can pick up some more of that later on in the afternoon.

Basically, it's interesting for me, anyhow, to point out that the Louisiana law did not mention

God. It did not mention the Bible. It did not mention Genesis. And yet, of course, those who opposed the law have attempted to make it look like it did, as if it was some sort of narrow -minded biblical law.

It was not. It was just simply a law that said that when the theory of evolution was presented, that there must be other theories presented as well.

In other words, that the teaching system had to be balanced. When I first read this, the first thought that came across my mind was the unfairness of this, for the very simple reason that the

Supreme Court hid behind the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It says that the government will make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

And they said, well, this law respects the establishment of religion, so it is not constitutional.

Interestingly enough, in an article that I've written for our newsletter called The Dividing Line, which should be coming out in a week or so,

I titled the article, Supreme Court Establishes Official State Religion. And that sounds rather strong, but I think it's very straightforward, because basically what the

Court has said is that the only religion that can be presented in our schools, in our science classes, is the religion of secular humanism.

Now I realize that it's not popular to call secular humanism a religion. They try as much as possible to keep out of the area of being a religion.

They like to say, well, we don't believe in a god, so we're not a religion. That's irrelevant. Whether you're religious or not, you can be religious and not believe that there's a god at all.

It's simply holding to a worldview that affects your entire outlook, your entire activities, your entire mindset and thinking.

You can be a religious person whether you believe that god is god or that god is a chair. It's irrelevant. You're still religious.

It's interesting to me, few Christians have ever read the

Humanist Manifestos 1 and 2. In the first Humanist Manifesto of 1933,

I'd like to read you the first three sections of the Manifesto.

Listen to what it says. First, religious humanists regard the universe as self -existing and not created.

Article 2nd, humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

And Article 3rd, holding an organic view of life, humanists find the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

These are the first three articles of the Secular Humanist Manifesto, Humanist Manifesto 1 of 1933.

Did you notice something in the very first article? The very first word is religious humanists.

First phrase, religious humanists. They are the ones who use the phrase, not I. I did not put that in there. It says, religious humanists regard the universe as self -existing and not created.

Second, the first three all deal with what? The very center of the religion of secular humanism is the belief in evolution, in a non -created being of man, in the lack of a creator, in a completely humanistic and natural viewpoint on the origin of man.

Now, basically what the Supreme Court has said is, that's alright. We call that science.

Now, I also noticed something very interesting. The article directly said that the court called the creation science instruction a sham.

S -H -A -M, in quotation marks. I hold here in my hand a book called, The Secular Humanist Declaration, drafted by Paul Kurtz, the king of secular humanists.

Listen to what he says on revolution. It sounds like it could have come directly from the Supreme Court decision. Today, the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists, although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences.

There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution, yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it.

Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists, especially in the United States, to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks.

This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society.

Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas.

But it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum.

If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself. Notice that the exact same terminology is used by Paul Kurt, the secular humanist, in a secular humanist declaration as the

Supreme Court used in its decision on the subject of creationism in the

Louisiana state law. That is somewhat scary to me because basically what the

Court has done is it has violated what it said it would not do, and that is the Establishment Clause of the

Constitution regarding the establishment of religion. They have established a religion.

It is called secular humanism. It is a religion. They have said that it is fine. You can teach that in school, but you cannot teach anything else.

Now the problem is, of course, that the mindset of people is, well, if you are going to teach creationism, you have to tell them about God and you have to tell them about the

Bible. No, wait a minute. Time out. I am a person who has studied biology.

I majored in biology at Grand Canyon College. I was Department Fellow of Anatomy Physiology there. I know the field fairly well.

I don't have a Ph .D. or anything like that, but I have studied it. I am a semi -scientific person because of that.

At the same time, I am a religious person and I see absolutely no conflict between the two.

You can present the model of creationism right alongside the model of evolution, and you can deal with that on a very unbiased basis, far less biased than the presentation of evolution is made right now.

I have never seen a textbook in any school I have attended, whether secular or Christian, that was not based on evolution.

Very rarely have any of the science teachers that I have known through my career presented evolution as anything but fact.

Now some, I know of at least one, who clearly said it was theory, but no other theories were brought forward to explain anything other than that.

When your textbook is based upon very underlying presuppositions, very underlying documentation, and everything is on evolution, then you are probably going to come out of that textbook having a fairly good idea of evolution, but you are not going to be able to view facts, figures, and data in any other way other than that.

That is truly a shame. When I come back from this short break, I am going to talk to you a little bit about creationism.

We would like to get your phone calls on this subject at 278 -55 -55. I am not interested in the monologue today.

278 -55 -55 is the number that you can call and get involved in the program today.

I would like to mention something that is going on right now over at WT Consulting. I just got some end of the month clearance here.

Now you say, wait a minute, it is the 4th of July. The end of the month is a long ways from now. I think this is June, but it is going on still.

We can just stretch out the end of the month here a ways. There are a number of things here that if you are a computer person at all, you will want to get involved in.

For example, and if you are also thinking of getting involved with computers at all, you might want to take advantage of this as well.

One thing you cannot do without are cables. WTC right now has 10 -inch shielded

IBM parallel cables, which is what I use for my computer to go to my printer. They normally run $35 and they are on sale for $15.

$15 for 10 -foot, did I say 10 -inch? That is an awful wide one. 10 -foot shielded

IBM parallel cables, $15. That is cheap. 6 -foot shielded IBM AT serial cables, normally $30 on sale for $12.

That is a steal. That is a giveaway. WTC is where you can get those. You can get the leading edge word processor.

It normally runs for $99 on sale for $75. You can get the leading edge word processor with merge, print, and spelling correction.

There is something. There is something I wish I had had when I was in school. Spelling correction.

Boy, that would have been nice. Take it home and run it through the spelling corrector. Anyways, it normally runs $125, but it is on sale for $100.

For a word processor, that is very reasonable. You can get other things at WTC like the

Nutshell Information Manager. If you are always losing your day timer and you can't lose your computer because it is a little hard to lose in your day timer, this information manager might be for you.

It is regularly $99 on sale for $75. You say, how do I get hold of them? You can get hold of WTConsulting at 279 -9014.

279 -9014. There are a couple of other things on sale that I will be talking about in a couple of minutes.

Here on the dividing line, we thank them for being a part of the program, even though I am not sure exactly which direction our friend over there would go on this.

We have had some discussions. He is a science person too. I am a science person, but he is a computer science person.

I am a biology person. They don't get together very well at all. It is really strange. We had a discussion of time once and it really got to be crazy once we started getting into how computers use time.

Anyhow, I think that unfortunately most Christians today are in a defensive status on the subject of creation.

I think we automatically become defensive about it instead of offensive. I would like to know why that is.

278 -5555 is the phone number. We would like to get your feedback today at 278 -5555.

What do you think about the Supreme Court's decision? Was it right? Was it wrong? Do you care one way or the other?

You may not have children in school. Your children may be out of school. It may not be a concern to you one way or the other anymore, unless the future of this nation and this country is important to you, and then it might be important to you.

278 -5555. I frequently tie into what are called computer bulletin boards.

I never did understand how people could spend much time doing that. We call it BBSing because it is a bulletin board system, so when you get involved with that you are

BBSing. It takes up a lot of time, unfortunately, if you really start getting into it because you are getting on all these bulletin boards.

We have been discussing evolution and creationism on the number of the boards, on about three of them, actually.

One is a board that is predominantly run, has the most number of people calling it, coming from a humanistic viewpoint.

Then there are two Christian boards, and there are some that call in there that are interested in the subject as well.

One thing that I have discovered in talking to these folks is that we have the idea from the media,

I believe it is from the media, that evolution is scientific and creationism is not.

I mean evolution has lots of evidence and creationism has nothing. That is how the media presents this subject.

I remember the Sunday after the Supreme Court decision, I tuned to NBC as I recall, and they had a talk program on, there was a commentator sitting there, and he said, evolution is not a theory, evolution is fact.

He said there is no denying it, there is no getting around it, everybody knows it, evolution is a fact. He was just adamant about it.

Well, this is the viewpoint that is brought out. They say, hey, we know these things, there are scientific facts beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I say, wait a minute, time out, let's think about this just a little bit. First of all, evidence, facts, and data is not pro -evolution or pro -creation.

Evidence is evidence. Evidence is completely and totally neutral. Evidence doesn't lean toward any one side.

Science is supposed to be concerned with and interested in nothing other than just simply gathering evidence and formulating theories to explain the evidence.

Fine. Evidence is evidence. Now, much of the quote -unquote evidence of evolution can be fixed as well into the model.

What you need to do is you need to step back and say, okay, here are two models. Creationism says this universe was put into motion by a creator, that he established certain guidelines, mechanisms by which those things he created could exist and could adapt to their environment.

Evolution says that life is from non -life, that life simply happened by chance, that by complete non -directed genetic mutation and natural selection working on those mutations, a variety of life has come about.

Nothing truly is accidental. There is nothing teleological about it, no action to what we see around us today.

Now, what we do is we take the evidence and apply it to these two models to see which explains it better.

Now, most evolutionists will say, well, what is natural selection? See, natural selection proves evolution. I go, well, why does it prove evolution?

Well, they go, well, beings change, they adapt. I agree, they do. In fact,

I don't see any disagreement at all. Natural selection is a fact. We see it happening. If a certain animal creates more and healthier offspring than another animal, then there are going to be more animals around than anything else.

That's pretty logical. That's a very basic way of expressing it. Natural selection is a fact.

Believe in it. It's not whether I believe it or not, it's a fact. The point is natural selection,

I believe, fits much more clearly in the creation model than in the evolution model. Why? Because natural selection, 99 .9

% of the time, will favor keeping a life form at the position it's in right now.

No change. If the environment doesn't change, then natural selection will keep the animal from changing.

Mutations that they talk about, I'll see here, mutations, and all the mutations change that, 99 .99

% of the time are weeded out, and they are not favorable. If there's nothing in the environment to act upon that mutation, it's not going to have any advantage over anybody else.

In other words, natural selection works as a maintenance device.

It's not that what you'd expect to find in the creation model, a maintenance device. Well, of course you would, and that's exactly what you've got.

Now, that means that 99 .99 % of natural selection fits in my creation model, and 0 .001 % fits in the evolution model, and yet they think that supports evolution.

It doesn't make any sense at all. None at all. So when people start saying, well there's so much evidence for evolution, what are you talking about?

What do you mean evidence for? Here's the evidence, now let's discuss the evidence in the light of these two models.

But people are not willing to do that. You're not going to hear that happening on a secular radio station. You're not going to hear that happening on secular television.

It's just not going to happen. And the thing that scares me the most about this Supreme Court decision is the fact that they are in essence saying that my son, when he goes to school, is going to be only allowed to see how the evidence fits in one model.

Not numerous models, but one model. He is not allowed to see how this could possibly fit just perfectly into a creation model.

That is the establishment of a religion. In fact, there's a new book coming out.

I haven't gotten to see it yet. I'm not sure if I brought my discussion over here or not.

I was looking for it anyways. It's just been released by a molecular biologist that takes the evolutionary scheme to task.

He's not coming out as a biblical fundamentalist or creationist or something like that.

He is just simply pointing out, hey folks, this stuff is garbage. What we see in the scientific community today is that if you open your mouth and say that, you can find numerous professors who have stood up and said, no way.

I refuse to teach this. I'm going to let my students know all the weaknesses here. They lose tenure.

They lose their positions. They're out in the cold. That is not science. What it looks like to me is that science has decided that this is our

God. This is our viewpoint. This is our treasured belief. Don't you dare question it.

If you question it, then we're going to make you look like you're a nut. We're going to make it look like you're not a scientist like we're scientists.

Then you start looking at the secular humanist manifesto and things like this. You start going, whoa, wait a minute.

That belief in evolution is part and parcel of secular humanism.

It's interesting. If I attempted to present something in a science class that was based on the first three articles of the

Westminster Confession, it would be pretty obvious that I was presenting and pushing Protestantism.

Yet, when they present the first three articles of the Humanist Manifesto in science classes, that is science.

No, that is religion. When you really talk about it, the whole discussion of origin is a religious question.

It is not a scientific question. Science deals with that which can be repeated and verified.

You can't repeat and verify spontaneous generation, which is what science says. That's how life started.

Life started by the chance association of certain molecules that formed into amino acids and formed into proteins and enzymes and DNA and mRNA and tRNA and ribosomal mRNA and all the rest of this stuff.

It all managed to somehow come together and work. I'll tell you something. I think it takes much more faith for a person to say that life came from non -life than it does for me to say that life came from life.

That life was created by a creator. It is not science to believe in spontaneous generation.

You can't make it happen again. Oh, you can take laboratory conditions and mix chemicals together and fire lightning bolts at it and all the rest of this stuff and get chance amino acids to form, but you ain't going to get

DNA. You're not going to get that stuff to come together and replicate itself and create a living cell and mitochondria and everything else.

That ain't going to happen. No way. So it is not science to state that I believe in spontaneous generation.

It just doesn't work. And yet, the Supreme Court said, well, yes it does. That's acceptable.

That scares me. 278 -55 -55, 278 -55 -55 on July 4th talking about the creationism debate and humanism as a religion.

We'd like to hear what you have to say about it. I think this really does involve everyone, especially if you're a Christian American. What has the

Supreme Court said about religion in the United States? Are we being prejudiced against?

I believe we are. In favor of another religion, the religion of humanism. I think we're being prejudiced against because we are just simply open in saying we believe there's a

God. Humanists are not open. They believe there's a God too. It's called man themselves. They are the ultimate and highest authority.

That is a religion. That is a religious statement. No matter what, someone has some type of worldview, some type of religious belief where they reject

God or accept God is irrelevant. They have a worldview and we as Christians are being prejudiced against, being discriminated against in our public school.

I recall when the decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, immediately the news media went nutso.

They just really started covering the story and interviewing everybody and anybody that they could. PBS ran an interview, a debate with two gentlemen.

I remember the gentleman who was taking the creationist view stated that the

Louisiana law was proposed by a legislator who, number one, himself was not a creationist.

What had happened was that his child was in class and the inference that I got from it, we're talking about a young child, was in class and the child was asked by the teacher what was their view, what did they think about evolution.

The child said that they didn't believe evolution, that they believed in creation and that we were created.

The child was ridiculed by not only the teacher but the other classmates as well. The legislator felt that this was wrong.

Not that necessarily he didn't share that view with his child but the fact that his child should not have been ridiculed or cut down for professing a belief in this.

There should have been an equal opportunity there and the child should have been allowed to voice his opinion.

I agree a thousand percent. All the way through school I was the lone creationist, is sort of very unfortunate but I think it was very good for me because I was able to think through where I was coming from because I had to.

If I didn't think it through I was going to get ridiculed even more. My name is James White, your host today along with me

Rich Pierce discussing the subject of creationism as well as secular humanism and we'd like to hear from you at 278 -55 -55.

Let me mention coming up on The Dividing Line starting next week a five -week series on the subject of atheism.

Next week Mr. Jim Lippard will be in studio giving you some perspectives on where he's coming from as an atheist.

I think a lot of Christians just simply don't know what atheists believe. Of course they don't even like that word at times but what kind of worldview they have, what they believe about us, what they believe about ethics and morality and the supernatural and the

Bible and Jesus and things like that. Mr. Lippard will probably be a good person to give us some viewpoints on that.

Then the week after that Mr. Dennis McKenzie of Biblical Herency will be with me and that one should prove to be interesting.

Mr. McKenzie and I have debated in his newsletter and there are a lot of unanswered questions in our debate.

In fact, the last letter I wrote to him, he cut out the last part of my letter when he published it without any indication and we're going to find out why.

Yes indeed, the week after that Dr. Robert Morey, a Christian apologist, author of Death and the Afterlife, the

New Atheism, the Erosion of Freedom, How to Answer a Mormon, How to Answer Jehovah's Witness, will be our guest.

The week after that Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Then August 8th we'll close up with my professor from Fuller Theological Seminary, Christian Apologetics, Dr.

Lynn Bullock from California. That's what's coming up in the next couple of weeks. We're sort of using this program as a transition between discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses, who by the way are creationists,

I'm not sure if that makes any difference, and the subject of atheism coming up in the next couple of weeks.

We'd like to hear from you on the subject at 278 -55 -55. We were just during the break,

Rich had been asking the question concerning what does a Christian do when the subject comes up?

What are some of the best approaches to take? Well, I think that probably the most unusual approach a person could take is simply to be logical and rational on the subject and say, okay, wait a minute, let's discuss this, let's lay out what we're saying, let's point out that facts are facts, that they are evidence, that we need to deal with the evidence, we need to fit the evidence into our theory, and if our theory doesn't fit the evidence, then our theory has probably got a problem with it.

So instead of saying that evolution is science, creationism is religion, let's back off from this and say, okay, here are the two models, let's look at the facts, let's look at the evidence and see how it fits.

One interesting thing to me has always been that I've enjoyed sitting back and watching evolutionists go at each other.

Because you see, if you put a hundred evolutionists in a room from a number of different disciplines, you'll have a hundred different theories of evolution.

The geneticists are into micro -mutational evolution, subtle changes in the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid,

DNA. And they're into how natural selection works on micro -mutations and the

Hardy -Weinberg law and all the rest of this stuff, and this is how evolution supposedly takes place. Then you get a paleontologist with them, and the paleontologist is dealing with fossils.

He's dealing with the record of past life. And he says, you're nuts, that doesn't work.

You just don't have any evidence for that. So they come up with all sorts of wild stuff. One guy came up with a theory about 15 years ago called leapfrog evolution, where you'd have a lizard lay an egg and a bird would hatch out of it.

Isn't that great? In other words, these massive leaps of 15 ,000 mutations in one shot, and bingo, because this fit the fossil record.

And of course, each one proves that everybody else is totally wrong. So the question that must be asked now that the Supreme Court has said that evolution is science and creation is a fraud is, which theory were they talking about?

I'm not sure whose it was, because you go to one school and you have one professor for biology, and you go through with that person, and you get that, and you go to another school, and this person believes that your last professor was a kook.

It's truly amazing, because there is no one theory. That's fine. That's what science should be able to look at itself, look at its theories and rip it apart.

So I've got no problem with there being numerous theories. What I've got problem with is the idea that this overriding theory has been set up as some sort of shrine on an altar that you bow down and sacrifice your students to.

That's what bothers me. So which theory is it that they're actually teaching in school and presenting as fact?

Depends on which professor you have when you get into the higher levels. Where are the textbooks coming from?

Well that depends on the textbook writer. I mean if you've got a textbook that was written by a guy who's more into paleontology than a textbook written by a guy who's into genetics, they're coming from different directions.

Now most textbooks obviously for use in a public school are going to be so basic that the main differences between all these different theories of evolution are not going to be brought out very clearly.

But once you start getting into the college level, then things start changing a great deal. 278 -55 -55 is the phone number.

We're going to take a phone caller here in Glendale, and this is Ken. Hi Ken! Hi Jim! How you doing?

Okay buddy. Hey, you know if you're expecting a lot of phone activity on that subject today,

I don't think you're going to get it. Everybody that's listening agrees with you. The audience you get generally are

Christians like us, and there's really not a lot of reason to call to tell you that we agree with you.

You don't want to vent your spleen at the Supreme Court? Well no, because you've already said it all, and I think that any born -again

Christian takes your position. Well now wait a minute, let me ask you something about that,

Ken. That brings up a very interesting point. I know many Christians, many born -again Christians, that don't take my position.

Well, obviously they're wrong. Yes, okay, thank you

Ken. No, seriously, let me give you an example. I went to a

Christian college. I went to Grand Canyon College, but there are no science professors there who are creationists.

None. Most of them are Christians though. They believe in what is called theistic evolution, which means that they believe that God started the process, and some of them believe that God directed it, some of them don't.

But eventually what boils down to it is that about 25 ,000 years ago, in this viewpoint, God took two highly evolved primates and infused into them spirits, and they were

Adam and Eve. Whether a person believes that that process was directed by God or not, you have to ask the particular individual.

But this is called theistic evolution. It provides for God, and yet it does not say that God created in the way that the

Bible seems to indicate that he did. But they would say, well, we're not given the mechanics of creation in the first chapter of Genesis or anything like that.

And there are a large number of people who come down that direction. Had you ever heard of that? Oh, sure.

Yeah, you know, but I'm sure that everybody that's listening to you has heard of that, so I shut up and let you explain it.

Well, what do you think about that, though? Well, I think it's appalling, you know, that we have people who are calling themselves

Christians that are taking that stance, and especially, and regrettably, they are teaching that stance in our colleges and in our seminaries.

And I just don't understand why people don't read the

Bible. And every issue that comes up on television and even in this

Sunday or Saturday supplement, you know, this religious supplement that's in the

Arizona Republic every Saturday, the people that write that and the people that they quote simply don't read the

Bible. Well, I'll agree. I do have, I am not a theistic evolutionist.

I am a creationist. But let me say one thing, though. There is one theory of theistic evolution that does not drive me right up the wall.

In other words, I'm not going to have a problem going out witnessing to someone with someone who believes this, okay? I don't have a problem with it.

I think what's important, theologically on this subject, is the fact that the Bible says that man once was in a position that he no longer is.

That there was a fall. That there is sin. Paul said that all men die because of Adam's fall.

Yeah, are you getting the gap theory between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? No, that's not theistic evolution.

No, but I mean, is that what you're alluding to there? No, no, not at all. The gap theory, which

I personally happen to hold to myself, is not a theistic evolutionary viewpoint because that allows for special creation.

But what I'm talking about here is the idea is, it's important to me that in any understanding we have, man once had a position with God that he no longer has and needs a

Redeemer to bring him back into that relationship that was lost. Now, evolution itself obviously denies that.

In fact, liberal theologians who of course deny creation. I remember reading one book called

Wrestling with Romans by John A .T. Robinson and he was a liberal theologian. When Paul said in Romans 5, as I recall, that in Adam all men die,

John A .T. Robinson said, well of course we know this isn't true, but Paul didn't know that. We all tried to keep our lunches down after reading it, it just really made me sick.

But this type of viewpoint is very common. In one form of theistic evolution, there is a point at which

Adam and Eve existed, they had a proper relationship with God, and they fell from that. Now, I still see it's breeding a lot into the

Bible, but a person who takes that position could say that once those spirits were infused in Adam and Eve, they would not have died, therefore death could be the result of that.

But even then, you've got a problem in the fact that Paul says that death and the entire creation is due to man's fault.

So it just doesn't really fit, but I can see why someone might take that position. That's the only one that I would be a little bit nicer to than anything else.

Well, one other quickie thing there, where can I get a copy of the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2?

Well, that's interesting. I think you could order it through B. Dalton or Walden or something, because it's published by Prometheus Books back in New York.

I just order them directly from Prometheus. They're only about $2 or $3, they're just a little paperback thing.

But Prometheus Books is the one who has it, and the Manifestos 1 and 2 are bound together in one small paperback book.

If Walden's or B. Dalton couldn't get it for you, then you could just call us at the office.

I can give you the address to Prometheus so you can write for him. Okay. Okay? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Bye -bye. 278 -55 -55, 278 -55 -55.

It's about 16 minutes until 4 o 'clock. Still plenty of time for your questions and comments, and we go to Phoenix with Henry.

Hi, Henry! How are you doing, Jim? Pretty good. How are you? Good. I've been very interested in your organization for a while, and what

I wanted to do is get on your mailing list for your newsletter. Okay. And I have another question.

From what I understand, the Constitution was written by a group of men. I'm not sure.

I believe they were deists. Yeah. Is deism sort of the beginning roots of deistic evolution?

Well, a deist is a person who believes that there is a God, but who believes that God started things off and walked away from there, and that he's not actively involved in this world at all, that we really know very little about him, it, her, however they might want to express it.

And it's true that many of the Founding Fathers were deists, that they were not

Christians in the sense that we understand that term. Now, obviously, it's hard to say that that's the fountainhead of deistic evolution, because the evolutionary theory was not even discussed at that point in time.

And so, the connection, obviously, would be more in a humanistic realm than it would be in anything else. I see.

Now, let me mention to you and to anyone else who would be listening, if you would like to receive The Dividing Line, which is our newsletter, it goes out on a quarterly basis.

I have been slaving over it this past week. I have been staring at a little orange screen on the computer at work for hours every day, and I'm rather happy with the result, to be perfectly honest with you.

If you'd like to receive The Dividing Line, you can get your name on the mailing list real easy.

All you got to do is tell us you want to get it. There's no charge to receive The Dividing Line. You can do it by either calling our office at 265 -4844.

That's 265 -4844. You can call right now if you want. You'll get an answering machine, but just simply say,

I'd like to receive The Dividing Line, my address is, and we'll get it to you. You can do that by calling any one of our phone message machines, such as our message for Mormons at 266 -2LDS, or our message for Jehovah's Witnesses at 266 -2JWS, and just simply say at the end of the message,

I'd like to receive your newsletter, and give your name and address. Or you can write to us, and do it that way, and give us your address that way, at Post Office Box 47041,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85068. That's Alpha Omega Ministries, Post Office Box 47041,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85068. I understand that you have a teaching basis with the ministry, but I'm also quite ignorant of the ministry, and I don't know if there's any way to get involved with you guys on the

West Side. Well, when you say teaching basis, we have seminars, and tracks, and materials available, and we try to do seminars on somewhat of a regular basis, anyways, on such subjects as the

Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses. We had a seminar in March on Mormonism, and we obviously are involved in evangelistic activities.

We were at the District Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses last week. We were the guys with the signs. We were the guys with the signs, yes.

Easy to pick out. We are sort of on the West Side, at least a lot of our people are.

Well, the office is at 16th Street. That's sort of central Phoenix, but we have people on the West Side as well.

So just get in contact with us, and we get together on a weekly basis, just down at the office, to do whatever it is we do as far as work, and answering the phone machines, and things like that.

We'd be more than happy if you'd just drop by and say hi. Okay, thank you. One other question.

Okay. You mentioned a book about molecular biology. Am I correct a little earlier in the program?

Yeah, I mentioned a book that I haven't gotten my copy yet. I'm sitting here looking at a review of it from a number of different sources called

Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, who is a molecular biologist.

The subtitle is, New Developments in Science Are Challenging Orthodox Darwinism. It's fully documented, 368 pages, 9 -page subject, and proper name index.

It looks like it looks to be a rather interesting book. I don't know where it's available right now.

This happens to be through a book club, a member of the Conservative Book Club. But it should be available in bookstores,

I would imagine, fairly soon. I see. In Christian bookstores? I don't know.

I doubt it. It should be. I know that if you would let Ron over at Berean know about it, he could probably track it down for you.

Okay. Do you have any recommended teaching materials to teach this creationism?

Well, no I don't. Other than the Institute for Creation Research over in California.

They, for example, have published a junior high level textbook in biology that I happen to have,

I got a number of years ago, that presents the data from a creationist viewpoint.

At ICR, I don't have their address with me, but I could get the address for you once I was in the office during regular business hours.

They would probably be able to set you on to anything like that. Alpha Omega Publications, which is not attached to us in any way, shape, or form, though we get phone calls for them about every day, over in Tempe, is a

Christian homeschooling group. Obviously, their science materials would probably come from that viewpoint, too.

Interestingly enough, though, I would suggest for Christians to be open -minded and present both viewpoints.

Obviously, I think you should point out the superiority of the creationist viewpoint, because I'm a creationist. But I don't think we should go to the other extreme and be so close -minded that our children are not aware of what all the other children believe.

I don't think they'll be able to have a meaningful dialogue if they don't know what the world believes about evolution.

That's why we're having atheists on the program the next couple of weeks. We need to have a meaningful dialogue.

I don't think we should be as close -minded as the Supreme Court has been on this issue. Yes, that's an understatement.

I just happened to be reading in the paper, I don't know how old it was, they were doing a write -up, one from the

Washington Post, which apparently is quite liberal, and one from, I believe, the Chicago Times, or Sun -Times.

It was amazing, the two viewpoints that they came at, and they really didn't attack the whole issue, at least as far as I understand creationism.

And another thing that I think that we need to do as Christians when we present this particular model, as we call it, is to be a little bit more...

because they already believe that it's a religious idea, even though it really stems from that, you know, immediate beginnings.

But we have to also show that there's quite a bit of evidence that really can fit inside the creation model.

Oh yes, definitely. It's really amazing how much material that we have in science and PBS twists everything that we get to that particular slant.

As soon as you say that you're a Christian, that you believe in creation science, which is different than the...

What is the difference between creationism and creation? I don't know how

I'd answer that question. I don't see a real difference other than creation just refers to that which

God created, and creationism is a belief in the fact that God created it. I don't see much of a difference there.

Obviously, the main thing is creation science. That phrase is held open to very public ridicule in most of the press in the world today.

Okay, well I really appreciate your time, and I appreciate your ministry. Super. I think we need to be very vocal on what we stand for, and know what the other side believes, so we can defend ourselves.

If you don't know what they believe, then how can you answer? That's very true. Thank you for your call today.

Thank you. Okay, bye -bye. I think that when I was in school, which was longer than you...

Longer ago. Ago than you, not longer. But anyway, when I was in school, the teaching on evolution was not as heavy as it is today.

They didn't spend as much time on it. They waited longer to present it in elementary school. I don't think I saw it until fourth grade.

From what I understand now, the children are seeing parts of it as soon as second grade. Did they have the theory of evolution back when you were in school?

Careful now, careful. But they did teach it as theory, and it is my understanding that now they are saying the word theory, but they are stating it and presenting it as fact.

And to me, when I was going through that phase of my life, they taught us things like hypothesis, what it was.

They taught us things like theory, what it was, etc. And to me, our modern -day scientific representation of the theory of evolution has broken science's first law.

And that is, you will not state that this is fact unless there is complete evidence for it.

Exactly. This is completely verifiable, and obviously it's not. 278 -55 -55 278 -55 -55 is the phone number for your calls, your comments today.

And I just want to mention real quickly, we are running out of time, and I was going to mention this before. One more time on WTC, because there is one thing

I forgot. OnGuard3 security software. And I asked about this.

I had never heard of security software. Is this a disk you pick up and it shocks you when you do that? What is security software?

I didn't know what that was. What it does is, you can put it in your computer and you have to have access codes and things to get into your data.

And he mentioned to me that it would take a million years of someone randomly trying to try to hack through this thing.

Now, I don't know if your data is that important. Mine, of course, obviously is. If your data is that important to you, then you might want to get hold of the

OnGuard3 security software especially if you're in a business. Your financial records and things like that are very important to you.

It's normally less for $495, but it's on sale for $310 at WTC. And I wanted to mention one more time the 10 -foot shielded

IBM parallel cables. They go in the back of your computer and connect your printer to your computer.

They normally run $35. Nuh -uh. $15. That is a steal of a deal.

WTC2799014 WTC2799014 Write it down. Because I know,

I know there are a lot of people who say, I'm never gonna get a computer. I don't like them. I'm scared of them. I was that way when

I was younger. And now I cannot live without a computer somewhere nearby me because that's how I write. That's how

I organize. That's how I... I'm just... Anyways. If I don't have a word processor,

I'm lost. In fact, this is a word processor speaking to you right now. That's right, folks. I am not live. No. That's not true.

We are here and we're live. And we are discussing secular humanism. It has come to my attention a lot recently the fact that Christians normally are unable to recognize humanism when it walks up and hits them in the face.

There are so many self -help people running around these days talking to you about how the answers are within you.

The things that are happening to you are the result of this or the result of that. And if you'll just think this way or think that way or you'll have happy attitudes and things like this, then things will just go great.

And the problem is what that does is that it directs people's attention on themselves. Now, 400 years ago, actually about 450 years ago now, there was a man who lived in Geneva.

And he ended up writing about a 22 -volume commentary set on the Bible. And he wrote a rather famous work called

The Institutes of the Christian Religion. And those institutes start off by saying that the only way that we can possibly have a true knowledge of ourselves is if we have a true knowledge of God.

Because once we see God for whom he is, then we will have the proper perspective from which to view ourselves as we are.

But if we do not know who God is, we do not see God for whom he is, we will always have a warped and distorted view of ourselves.

Now, that man was John Calvin. And John Calvin was a Christian. And what he said is very true. Secular humanism focuses our attention upon ourselves.

And it is because of this that we have such distorted views of man. It is from this that we have the permissive society around us that we have today.

Because we have a contorted and twisted understanding of the very makeup of man. The Bible have none of that.

Christians can have none of that. Christians cannot fellowship with humanism. It does not work.

The Bible says that first you must come to fear God. And realize that he is your creator, he is your sovereign master.

Once you understand that, then you will have the proper understanding of who man is. And you will have the proper basis for being able to relate to yourself and to others as well.

So it is unfortunate that in my opinion the Supreme Court has basically said secular humanism is a religion of the land, that it is scientific, that it is the religion of the

United States. We need to be aware of that. And we need to recognize it as it crops up in our everyday life.

Next week we begin the subject of atheism with Mr. Jim Lippard. We hope that you will be with us. We hope that you will be listening.

Let your Bible study classes know, your church know, let your pastor know about these series coming up.

We are putting a lot of time and effort into preparing them and getting ready for them. And we hope that you will be ministered to by them.

It begins next week. July 11th runs through August 8th. I'd like to say thank you to Rich for being here and also to our sponsors such as WTC and their end of the month clearance and those wonderful cables on sale.

Remember that 279 -9014 279 -9014 jot it down. You never know when you are going to run over your cable and wipe it out and might need another one.

So pick one up 279 -9014 279 -9014 is the number for WTC. We are also brought to you in part by Dr.

Martin Galluz of Black Canyon Chiropractic and we thank him for his support of the program as well as by Chef Steele and we thank them for their part in bringing

The Dividing Line to you. Next week, Atheism, if you'd like to contact us get on the newsletter list,

Alpha Omega Ministries post office box 47041 Phoenix, Arizona 85068 that's

Alpha Omega Ministries post office box 47041 Phoenix, Arizona 85068 drop us a line let us know you are listening let us know you care you are interested in what we are doing and we'd like to hear from you.

Post office box 47041 Phoenix, Arizona 85068 you can call us at the office at 265 -4844 265 -4844 and don't forget our 24 hour recorded phone messages for Mormons at 266 -2LDS and for Jehovah's Witnesses at 266 -2JWS

Thank you for being a part of the program today and we'll see you next week right here on The Dividing Line.