As I've said before, my books don't exist to make money.  They exist to help marriages and families, for the spread of the Gospel, for the glory of GOD.  So this Christmas I'd like to remind you that you can purchase any of the three books below for less than $5--no hassles, no strings attached, no quantity limits.  

Step 1: copy this discount code: 4HM3HHEE

Step 2: Buy the books you want through these specific links: Water of the Word, Prayers of an Excellent Wife, Setting Their Hope in GOD.

Step 3: Paste the discount code into the discount field and click "Apply Discount".

Step 4: When the books arrive, wrap them in pretty paper and give them away to friends and family.

Step 5: Pray that GOD would use them to bless the socks off of those marriages and homes.

If you still would like to have or give one of these books, but can't afford it, there is a whatever-you-can-afford policy here.

Want to preview the books?  Click away below:

Johnson next proceeds to examine molecular evidence.  Not surprisingly, the evidence at the molecular level is even less promising for Darwinists.  In the years of scientific advancement since Darwin, DNA has been discovered, and the genomes of animals and humans can be analyzed at the molecular level.  This has opened up what seems to Darwinists to be a breakthrough in solving the embarrassing problem of the fossil record.  When contrasting the DNA of humans and gorillas, the arrangement of chemical “letters” looks almost the same, even though the information content of the human genetic system is significantly different from that of apes.  Many evolutionists look at the arrangement of the chemical letters and casually (yet triumphantly) declare that the difference is very slight; 99 percent of their genes look identical.  Naturally, a evidence-starved evolutionist will automatically proclaim this sort of thing to be incontrovertible evidence.  But the fact still stands that the content is radically different, and even to the superficial observer, there are drastic visible and functional differences.  Moreover, evolutionists take it for granted that these genetic similarities only point to common ancestry and confirm the “fact of evolution”, which is a false assumption.  Regardless of how ingenious this excuse seems to be, it still inevitably fails to explain how the significant molecular differences could have developed by natural causes. 

  As another tactic, Darwinists regularly refer to the “molecular clock” as sure evidence for evolution as verified.  Essentially, though, this “clock” is merely an intimidation device to cow non-scientists, since it seems to work like magic, is forbiddingly technical, and produces impressively precise numerical figures.  This demonstration of high-tech precision turns away attention from the fact that their hypothesis assumes the validity of the common ancestry thesis which it is supposed to confirm.  As greater complexity at the molecular level is discovered, the more impossible the task of evolutionists becomes to explain how living structures could evolve by mutation and selection.

Predictably, the same sort of backward reasoning on the part of Darwinists comes into play when talking about pre-biological evolution.  Conditions necessary for spontaneous life to develop out of some primordial soup are often a distraction from the sheer complexity of the most basic organism capable of independent life.  It is one thing to discuss how it might be “possible” for a rat to have a mutation that helps it survive, and then it produces offspring that inherit the same mutation, and on down the line.  The rat already can reproduce.  It already is a living organism.  But chemicals do not reproduce, thus the insurmountable obstacle is figuring out a way that a basic living organism could have come together by natural causes in order to get the evolutionary process started. 

The problem is foremost that no scientists, even with the most advanced techniques and intelligence, can yet manufacture living organisms.  Therefore, to speak of such a thing appearing spontaneously is simply another way of referring to a miracle.  Because Darwinists are forced to see this as miraculous, there is nothing to stop them from just about any speculation other than creationism, even the most bizarre theories.  In the end, scientists describe cells with design language, reiterating how complex and organized everything is.  Most Darwinists do not feel obligated to explain the miracle of life because they can handle it with a philosophical argument.  To them it is obvious that life exists, and since development by naturalistic causes is the only acceptable or conceivable explanation then it must not be as miraculous as it looks.  As long as the overwhelming impossibility is looked at through eyes of faith, anything is possible, or even inevitable. 

            Johnson explains that the essential starting point for Darwinism is the complete absence from the cosmos of any creator.  This is the rule.  No other foundation is allowed.  All “science” must conform in one way or another to this rule.  When Judge William Overton specified five essential characteristics of science in 1981, these characteristics brought into bold relief this underlying rule, which is more truthfully a rabid commitment to avoid God, whatever the cost.  These characteristics articulated a firm faithfulness to naturalism and empiricism.  An empiricist makes no conclusions that cannot be supported by experiment or observation.  If any theories or claims are contradicted by the evidence, a good empiricist is ready and willing to discard them.  The only problem is that the Darwinist theory of how things came to be is no more observable than the Creationist’s.  Although it may produce evidence for minor changes within existing populations, the rest of Darwinism’s claims are nothing but pure philosophy.  Thus, although the rules of science dictate that tenable research and conclusions must be based on hard evidence, there actually is no commitment to empiricism at all among evolutionists.  Underlying all of this, more candidly, is an uncompromising dedication to maintaining a naturalistic worldview. 

            The drive to preserve a wholly naturalistic worldview leads then to a prioritization of “scientific rules” that will always preclude any other points of view.  As though this were not enough, they feel the need (out of extreme insecurity in their bluffing) to exalt “science” as truth and treat anything unscientific as fantasy.  Naturally, this sort of thinking induces a frightening blindness.  Men like Heinz Pagels can somehow look at the evidence for a Creator straight in the face, and make the exact opposite conclusion.  Conversely, it makes people so blind that they may look at the utter lack of evidence for Darwinism and conclude that it is a sound fact. 

            According to the popular consensus among Darwinists, religion and science are mutually exclusive, separate realms of human thought.  To combine the two is utterly taboo.  Anyone who would like to be serious about science while at the same time adhering to any religious beliefs is required to give up those beliefs at the door of the laboratory, and conversely, give up science at the door of the church.  To them modern science has several important implications in relation to religion.  First, there is no purpose or designing force in nature that is rationally detectable, since the world is strictly organized according to mechanistic principles.  Second, because of the first direct implication of modern science there are no moral or ethical laws—no absolute principles by which to guide human society.  Third, human beings become ethical persons by two mechanistic principles: environmental influences and heredity.  Fourth, death is all there is that awaits human beings.  Modern science directly implies that there is nothing else after death.  Fifth, uncoerced freedom does not exist.  A being that is truly free to make choices could never be produced by the evolutionary process as it is currently conceived. 

            The broad assumption is that most “real scientists” are atheists, and any scientist who does not perceive an incompatibility between his religion and his work is simply compartmentalizing his thinking, is obtuse, or he is an undercover atheist.  When anyone ventures to mix religion and science, it is highly obnoxious to Darwinists.  This is because religion is not only considered incompatible, but also a menace to human progress. The prevailing notion among Darwinists has been that technology and science will pave the way to a utopia of abundant and meaningful life.  Traditional religions, however, are a major obstacle to achieving this golden age of humanity. 

            As is natural with all human beings, they must have something to worship in the end.  Darwinists have not really rejected religion at all.  They have instead replaced God with evolution as the sovereign theory to which all other knowledge, theories, and people must bow.  Evolutions is the light that illumines all of observable reality.  The adherents to this religion must learn to look to evolutionary science as the reliable fountain of knowledge, and the only hope for the betterment of humanity.  For such a religion as this, a system of indoctrination must be set up and enforced.

Johnson shows that on occasion some ingenuous education about Darwinism has slipped into the public arena.  For instance, the British Museum of Natural History, in a brief moment of honesty and realism, actually put up evenhanded information about the origin of life.  They admitted that evolution is not a scientific concept or theory, but rather is a kind of logical deduction that has no empirical evidence.  Moreover, they gave credence to the fact that there might be another possibility—a Creator God who made all living things perfect and unchanging.  In other words, they were truthful about the dubiousness of evolution as a theory to explain all life, but that it is an important explanation for slight changes that occur within species. 

As one might imagine, this behavior by the British Museum was met with vitriolic disapproval by the broader world of Darwinists.  Such negative publicity for Darwinism was quickly dismantled and replaced with the more common propaganda that asserts the utter infallibility of evolution as the only viable option for a thinking person to believe.  This cycle has repeated itself many times over since the rise of Darwinism as a repressive religion.  There are enough scientists who are not willing to lie and present a theory as fact, therefore it is a fulltime job for the Darwinists to keep these people from spoiling their public image.  Seeds of doubt must never be spread into the minds of laypeople.  In fact, the goal is to keep the casual observer from even realizing that there is anything controversial about Darwin’s theory at all.  This has led to the proliferation of the idea that most people find that evolution presents no conflict with their religious beliefs.      

            Johnson explains that the effort has not only gone into covering up the ugly truth about evolution’s problems.  It has also been poured into positive indoctrination through textbooks and in the classroom.  By successfully persuading the State Board of Education to adopt a Policy Statement on the Teaching of Science, Darwinists have now ensured that their beloved theory will be taught, and taught only as they understand it—as a fact.  Rather than teach it as an opinion to be questioned, teachers are forced to present naturalistic evolution as something belonging to the category of knowledge.  Any resistance to it is essentially a display of ignorance.

             The craving to be right many times leads to the embrace of what is wrong.  Haters of God have wanted so desperately for Darwin’s theory to be right that they have developed a wrong approach to and definition of science.  Johnson lucidly helps us retrace what science truly is all about.  First of all, a theory that explains everything really explains nothing.  This is precisely wherein naturalistic evolution fails miserably.  No matter what kind of discouraging evidence appears, Darwinists are quick to reshape or twist their theory to include that evidence, make an excuse for it, or change it into proof.  However, the starting point for all honest investigation is a willingness to test one’s theory and be proved incorrect.  No progress will ever be made by searching the world only for confirming examples, which can always be found or fabricated.  Rather, the approach of authentic science involves searching for falsifying evidence that would reveal the need for a new and superior explanation.  Again, valid scientific methodology must involve rigorous empirical testing instead of merely protecting the theory while guarding it against tests.  Intellectual integrity involves the willingness to make a mistake, admit it, and move on.  In contrast, Darwinists only take refuge in a false security that derives from having a worldview that explains things too easily.  Thus, evolution has become a game under the guise of “science” that searches only for confirming evidence, and ingeniously explains away any negative evidence.  Only when the deadweight of Darwinism’s extreme prejudice is removed will science be freed to be science, which will mean the freedom to once again look for truth. 

            For the concluding chapter of his book, Johnson discusses some of the responses to his book from evolutionists when it was first published.  Even in their responses, much of what Johnson has claimed regarding the glaring flaws in Darwinism has been confirmed.  The same confusions seem to cloud their engagement in the debate.  One of their primary confusions is that any appeal to theistic design and creation automatically implies some sort of extreme religious fundamentalism, or a form of superstition.  The common misconception is that any attempt to reclaim theism as a legitimate consideration in the universities is tantamount to claiming that it thunders because the gods are angry.  This childish oversimplification runs rife through the Darwinist camp, while they fail to realize that they are closer to superstition in their own a priori philosophical metaphysics that they parade as “science.” 

            At least some are willing to admit that Darwinism is a philosophical preference, but rarely does anyone go so far as to grant that there may be other valid preferences that one might hold.  To adhere to any other preference or core of ideological assumptions is simply irrational.  Paradoxically, scientific naturalists insist that the cosmos can be understood by a rational mind only if it was not designed by a rational mind.  Thus, it is irrational to recognize the imprint of rationality on everything around us! 

            As discouraging as the prospects seem for freeing education and science from the death-grip of Darwinism, Johnson is encouraged by the progress that has been made.  He finds that as he visits universities there is an increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and historians of science who are willing and often eager to discuss the issues he has raised in his book.  He also hopes to sway those who ascribe to theistic evolution away from that view.  This is because, if a naturalistic understanding of reality is true and complete, then there is no place for God at all.  Moreover, a mind cannot serve two masters, and God will not be the marginal servant to a view that has its roots chiefly in the hatred or avoidance of God.  

I finally got around to recording this. See if you can name all the animals in the first part. The applause sound at the end isn't for me--it's for the LORD--the sound of "all His hosts." Enjoy!

Psalm 148 by andrewdcase