Danger Polite Evolutionists from NSTA · section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code as a subordinate organiza-tion of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Vol. 34, no. 2 (spring 2020)

spring 2020

DangerPolite Evolutionists from NSTA

—Review of

“Rethinking Radiometric Dating”—

Faulty Logic Led to the Darwinian Revolution

—Evidence for Evolution

—Dawkins: My book is a

“Seduction of the Mind”

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Bruce Holman, Ph.D. chemistry.

PRESIDENT: Mark Bergemann, B.S. engineering

VICE-PRESIDENT: Patrick Winkler, M.Div. M.S. eng., P.E.

SECRETARY: JeffreyStueber

TREASURER: DerekRabbers,B.S.ed.

PASTORAL ADVISOR: Troy Schreiner, M.Div.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS PaulHoffmann,B.S.history. WarrenKrug,M.Ed. JamesA.Sehloff,B.S.biology,M.S.

TECHNICAL ADVISORS Paul Finke, Ph.D. chemistry. DoyleHolbird,Ph.D.physiology, M. zoology, M.Div. DwightJohnson,Ph.D.business. GaryLocklair,Ph.D.computerscience, B.A. chemistry, B.S. M.S. David Peters, M.Div., S.T.M., A.B.D. Charles Raasch, M.Div., S.T.M., A.B.D. Alan Siggelkow, M.Div., S.T.M., M.S. StevenThiesfeldt,M.Ed. JohnWerner, Ph.D.Molecularand Cellular Biology.

LSI Journala forum for diverse views consistent with Scripture

Views expressed are those of the au-thor or editor, not necessarily those of the Lutheran Science Institute.

Published four times a year (winter, spring, summer, and fall) by Lutheran Science Institute, Inc.

ISSN 2572-2816 (print), ISSN 2572-2824 (online)

Editor: Mark Bergemann.Editorial Committee: Patrick Winkler, JeffreyStueber.

Rates: Free in electronic form (pdf). Printsubscription (US $) 1 year $7.99; 3 years$19.99. Includespostage toUSA. Askforquote to other countries. Bulk rates low as 70centspercopyincludingshipping.OrderviaLSIwebsiteorbycontactingtheeditor.

LSI Journal copyright © 2020 LutheranScience Institute, Inc. LSI grants schools and churches permission to reproduce itsarticles for use in their school or church, but LSI must be named and its web ad-dress included in every reproduction. Re-quests by others to reproduce more thanbrief excerpts should be sent to the editor.

Lutheran Science Institute (LSI)13390 W. Edgewood Ave., New Berlin WI 53151-8088www.LutheranScience.org [email protected]

EvolutionEvolution a Lutheran Responsea Lutheran Response

Lutheran Science Institute, inc. has tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code as a subordinate organiza-tion of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Vol. 34, no. 2 (spring 2020)

4 Rethinking Radiometric Dating Review of Cupps’ book JamesA.Sehloff

5 Evidence for Evolution Mark Bergemann

6 Dawkins: My book is a “Seduction of the Mind” Mark Bergemann

7 Danger –Polite Evolutionists from NSTA Mark Bergemann

15 Faulty Logic Led to the Darwinian Revolution JeffreyStueber

28 Dear Supporters Financial Report

Journal CirculationMembership

Front cover photo credit: Pixabay.

Scripture quotations from the Holy Bible, Evangelical Heritage Version® (EHV®) © 2019 Wartburg Project, Inc. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

4 Rethinking Radiometric Dating

Book Review

Rethinking Radiometric Dating –Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicistby Vernon R. Cupps. Dallas TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2019. 138 pages, hardcover, $24.99

MyfirstreactionwhenopeningthepackagethatthebookcameinwasthatIboughtacoffeetablebook.Itwasbigandglossywithalotofpicturesandlargeprint.Iwaswrong.TheauthorhasaPhDinphysicsandhasworkedasanuclearphysicistformanyyears.Thatqualifieshimtowriteaboutnucleardecay.Heisalsocommittedtoarecent6-daycre-ation. In shortchapters,thebookexaminesseveralofthemethodsthatsecular scientistsuse todetermine theageof rocksandorganicmateri-al.Eachmethodisdescribedandtheassumptionstheyarebasedonarelisted.Allassumeaclosedsystem.Neitherparentnordaughterisotopesare added to thematerial from outside sources and none are removed.Cupps feels that this closed system assumption is unrealistic given theamountoftimethesecularmodelrequires.Anotherfrequentassumptionisthatthenucleardecayrateisaconstant.CuppscitesICR’sRATEstudythatdemonstratedthattherearefactorsincludingtheGenesisFloodwhichmayalterdecayrate.

Healsoshowsthatagescalculatedbydifferentmethodscanvarysignificantly.Hecitesanexampleofrocksproducedbyavolcanicerup-tioninNewZealandabout65yearsago.Theserocksweredatedas197plusorminus160millionyearsold(page86).

Mostofthecalculationsareputinsidebarssothosewhodonotwanttofollowthemathematicaldetailscanskipthem.Mostcalculationscanbefollowedbyanyonewithanunderstandingofhighschoolalgebra,butsomearemoreadvanced.Thebookiswelldocumentedsothatitcanleadtomoredetailedfollow-up.

The book seems to advance the flawed idea thatwe can proveevolutionfalseusingsciencealone.Withthatwarning,Istillfoundthisbooktobeausefulapologetictool.

James A. Sehloff

5

Evidence for EvolutionMark Bergemann

Creationistsoftensay,“Thereisnoevidencefor[insertapartofevolutionhere].” Ido thissometimestoo,butweshouldconsiderhowotherscantaketheseclaims.Suchclaimsareoftenpoorapologetics.Ifwepresentthisclaimtoastudent,andthenthatstudenthearsabouttransi-tionalfossilorotherevidencewhenwesaidthereisnone,thatstudentmayconcludethatwedonotknowwhatwearetalkingabout.

Itisafarstrongerclaimtoacceptthattherearesometransitionalfossilsandthatthereisevidenceforevolution,buttomentionthegreatweaknessofthatevidence,orhowthatevidenceisbasedontheunprov-ableassumptionsof“noGod,”“noFlood,”and/or“deeptime”(millionsofyears).Pointouthowthesamefossil,rock,etc.isnotonlyevidenceforevolution,butalsoevidenceforcreation.

LearnaLutheranresponsetoevolutionbyreadingtheLSI Jour-nal.Importantarticlesinclude:

“AssumptionsofEvolutionists”(www.LutheranScience.org/2017fall)

“Natural Selection” (www.LutheranScience.org/2016fall)

“Geologic Column” (www.LutheranScience.org/2018winter)

“Evolutionists andCreationistsOftenAgree–Therearemanypointsofagreement on natural selection” (www.LutheranScience.org/2019spring)

Evolutionistspresentmuchevidenceandmanyfossilsassupport-ingevolution.Forustosimplysaythereisnone,istobeincorrect.Weneedtoaddresstheevidenceevolutionistspresent,ortheassumptionsonwhichthatevidenceisbased.

Weakevidenceisstillevidence.Weakevidencecanbeverycon-vincingtomany.Also,notallevidenceforevolutionisweak.Pointingouttheunprovableassumptionsonwhichthatevidenceisbasedisasolidapologetic,evenagainstthestrongestevidenceforevolution.

Evidence for Evolution

6 Seduction of the Mind

article seriesEvolutionist Say Amazing Things

Dawkins: My book is a “Seduction of the Mind”

Mark Bergemann

IlovereadingbooksbychampionevolutionistRichardDawkins,sincehesobluntlydescribeshowdifficultitistoacceptevolutionastrue.

Dawkinscallsevolutionan“implausible theory.”1 He says that evolutionis“aleapofimaginationsolarge,thattothisday,manypeopleseem unwilling to make it.”2Thesequoteswerepreviouslydiscussedinthe LSI Journal.3

Dawkinsalsosayshetakeshisreadersdownthe“primrosepath”througha“step-by-stepseductionofthemind,”asheexplainswhyevolu-tionistrue.Thefirstparagraphofchapterthreeinhisbest-sellingbook,The Greatest Show on Earth-The Evidence for Evolution,includestheseamazingwords,

Thischapterembarksonastep-by-stepseductionofthemindaswepassfromthefamiliarterritoryofdogbreed-ingandartificialselectiontoDarwin’sgiantdiscoveryofnatural selection,viasomecolorful intermediatestages. Thefirstoftheseintermediatestepsalongthepathofse-duction(isitoverthetoptocallitaprimrosepath?)takesusintothehoneyedworldofflowers.4

1RichardDawkins,The Greatest Show on Earth-The Evidence for Evolution, hardcovered.(NewYorkNY:FreePress,2009),422.2RichardDawkins,The Blind Watchmaker-Why the Evidence of Evolution re-veals a universe without Design,2nded.(NewYorkNY:W.W.Norton&Co.,1996),xix.3 See thewinter 2017 issue atwww.LutheranScience.org/2017winter and thewinter2018issueatwww.LutheranScience.org/2018winter. 4Dawkins,TheGreatestShow,45.

7Polite Evolutionists from NSTA

DANGER:Polite Evolutionists from NSTA

Mark Bergemann

ANationalScienceTeachingAssociation(NSTA)1bookstates,[Science teachers]haveanethicalresponsibility tohelpstudentslearnsciencewithoutfeelingthattheirreligiousbeliefs are being challenged or contradicted by us ortheirpeers.Studentsmayhavequestionsabouttheinter-actionbetweenscienceandreligion,butnostudentinapublic-schoolclassroomshouldfeelasthoughheorsheneedstochoosebetweenscienceandfaith.2 [Science teachers should] consider a teaching approachthatguidesstudentstounderstandevolutionbutnotnec-essarilytobelieveit.3

Thesepointsareadvancedinanew217-pagebookpublishedbythe NSTA, MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION –Strategies for the Classroom and Beyond.4 Thefour leadauthors,and thesixteenauthorsofindividualchapters,representawideswatchofUSscienceed-

1 NSTA “is the largest organization in the world committed to promoting excel-lence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. NSTA’s current membership of 50,000 includes science teachers, science supervisors, administra-tors, scientists, business and industry representatives, and others involved in and committed to science education.” “AboutNSTA-AnOverview,”NationalScienceTeachingAssociation,https://www.nsta.org/about/overview.aspx(accessed1-30-20)2JosephW.Shane,etal.,“ScienceandReligionasPartofOurProfessionalRe-sponsibilities,”inMAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION –Strategies for the Classroom and Beyond, JosephW.Shane,etal., (ArlingtonVA:NSTAPress,2020),8.3LeeMeadows,etal.,“ScienceandReligioninMiddleSchoolandHighSchoolClassrooms,” in MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION –Strategies for the Classroom and Beyond,JosephW.Shane,etal.,(ArlingtonVA:NSTAPress,2020),80.4Theprintand/oreBookcanbepurchased,andchapter7downloadedforfree,at https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681405766 (accessed1-24-20).

8 Polite Evolutionists from NSTA

ucation,includingsomeChristianteachers.5

At first this may seem like a good development, but it is not as it seems. This NSTA proposal seeks to destroy students’ faith that God cre-ated as He says He did. As we will soon see, the authors’ purpose is that Scripture be interpreted so that it conforms with evolution. The authors wish to define what constitutes correct Christian doctrine.

Manychampionsofevolution, likeHowardBloom(THE GOD PROBLEM), biologistRichardDawkins (The God Delusion), andbiol-ogist Jerry Coyne (Faith vs. FACT),areatheistswhoopenlymockGod.OtherchampionsofevolutionareseeminglymoreacceptingofagodwhomayhaveinitiatedtheBigBang.Someofthesepoliteevolutionistsbe-longtoscientificgroupsliketheNationalAcademyofSciencesandtheNationalScienceTeachingAssociation(NSTA). Bothorganizationsin-cludeChristianswhobelieveGodusedbillionsofyearsofdeathandsuf-fering to create.

The LSI Journal previouslyshowedthattheNationalAcademyofSciences,whilemorepolitethanBloom,Dawkins,andCoyne,stillhasasitsgoalthatstudentsrejecttheirCreatorGod.6 This is also the case with theNSTA,asdemonstratedintheirnewbook.

Thebookpointsoutthatclassroomtensionoftenexistswhenstu-dentswhobelieveina6-daycreationandayoungeartharetaughtaboutbillionsofyearsandcommondescent.Meadows,thesecondleadauthor

5Authors include teachers from ten universities and two high schools, five ad-ministrators from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and two representatives from the Smithsonian. Religious views are represented in this group of twenty authors, such as by a Baptist university science professor (Mark Bloom) and a Baptist high school science teacher (Josh Hubbard). The lead author (Joseph Shane, a college professor of chemistry and science educa-tion) mentions his teaching of Sunday school at Christian churches, “In 2007, the pastor at my church asked me to teach a three-week adult Sunday school class on science and religion, and I have been teaching similar courses ever since at re-gional Christian churches” (page vii). He also describes himself as a “practicing Christian” in the “Presbyterian denomination” (page 13).6See“EvolutionApologeticsbytheNationalAcademy–RecommendedreadingfortheCreationist”inthewinter2017 LSI Journal, www.LutheranScience.org/2017winter(accessed1-24-20).


along with several others writes,ManyAmericanscience teachersknowthe issues facedby students who are resistant to learning about evolu-tion.Wehaveseenthemstruggle.Wehavehadastudentraiseherhandandsay,“YoumeanGoddidn’tcreatetheworld?”Wehaveseenalittlebitoffearinhereyes.Wehavewatchedabrightstudenttakehisfirstzeroeverbe-causehewouldnotevenattempttheevolutiontest.7

Thebookproposesasolution:“a teachingapproachthatguidesstudentstounderstandevolutionbutnotnecessarilytobelieveit.”8 Class-roomquestionsshouldaskhowscientistsexplaintheearth’sorigin,notwhatthestudentbelievesaboutit.Theauthorstelltheirstudents(grade9-12),andthestudents’parents,thatstudentsdonothaveto“compromisetheirarticlesoffaith”whilelearningaboutevolution[italicsnotinorigi-nal],

Evenwith carefully constructedquestions,LindseyandNathanhavehadoccasionswhenastudentansweredinareligioussense.Theyusetheseasopportunitiestohaveaconversationwiththestudenttoclarifyhowtheydonotintend to force students tochoosebetween theirbeliefsandlearningscience.Theypointouttheintentionalword-ingofassignmentandtestquestionstothestudentasanexampleoftheircommitmenttohonoringstudents’jour-neysas learnersanda signof respect that theydeservethespaceandfreedomtolearnnewsciencewithoutbeingrequiredtodiscardorcompromisearticlesoftheirfaith.Similarconversationshavehelpedconcernedparentsfeelmore at ease with this approach to science instruction,evenwhen it seems to conflictwith their views. Ulti-mately, when students are allowed to walk between both worlds, they stand a much greater chance of understand-ing and accepting scientific ways of thinking.9

7Meadows,77.8Meadows,80.9Meadows,85.


Noticethelastsentenceinthisquote.Ithintsattheauthors’goalbehind their recommendations:Theyhope that in the future thestudentwill change his religious views so that they conform to evolution. Shane, thefirstleadauthorshowsthisgoalinclearerwords.Hewill“oftendirectstudents”tolearnabouttwoChristianscientistswhothinkGodusedbil-lionsofyearsofdeathandsufferingtocreate[italicsnotinoriginal],

Likemanyscientistsfromthepast,FrancisCollins(2006),currentdirectoroftheNationalInstitutesofHealth,andKennethMiller(2007),cellbiologistandpublicadvocateforevolution,viewtheirscientificworkasaformofwor-shipandargueforthegeneralconsistencyofscienceandtheir religious faith. I often direct students to these two scientists,andthefollowingstatementfromCollins(2007)is something I recite in every science-religion course that I teach: “But why couldn’t this [evolution] be God’s plan for creation? True,thisisincompatiblewithanultra-lit-eral interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin,thereweremany thoughtful interpreters likeSt.Augus-tine,whofounditimpossibletobeexactlysurewhatthemeaningofthatamazingcreationstorywassupposedtobe.SoattachingoneselftosuchliteralinterpretationsinthefaceofcompellingscientificevidencepointingtotheancientageofEarthandtherelatednessoflivingthingsbyevolutionseemsneitherwisenornecessaryforthebe-liever.Ihavefoundthereisawonderfulharmonyinthecomplementarytruthsofscienceandfaith.”10

TheNSTAadvertisesMAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE AND RE-LIGION togradeK-12teachers.Inits68-pagefall2019printcatalog,theNSTAclaimsthat“scienceandreligioncanco-exist.”Itsdescriptionofthisbookbeginswiththesewords,

It’sinevitable:Ifyourlessonsdealwithevolution,genet-ics, the origin of the universe, or climate change, some

10Shane,16.


studentsarebound toquestionwhether theycan recon-cilewhatyouteachwithwhattheybelieveaboutreligion.Making Sense of Science and Religion is the book thatwillhelpyouanticipateandrespondtotheirquestions―and help students learn sciencewhilemaintaining theirreligiousbeliefs.Understandingthatscienceandreligioncanco-existcanalsomakestudentsmorewillingtolearn,regardlessofthemessagestothecontrarythattheymayhearoutsideyourclassroom.11

The NSTA leads Christian students to adapt the false religious doctrines of liberal Christians

TheNSTAwebsitegoesevenfurther.Itclaimsthatthisbookwill“helpstudentsreconciletheirreligiousbeliefs”withevolution.Itclaimsthatthereisonlya“perceivedconflictbetweenscienceandreligion.”Itclaims that “educators have an ethical obligation tominimize” the stu-dents’beliefthatsuchaconflictexists.TheNSTAwebsitestates,

The book will help you anticipate and respond to stu-dents’questions—andhelpstudents reconcile their reli-giousbeliefsevenasyoudelveintotopicssuchasevolu-tion, geochronology, genetics, the origin of the universe, andclimatechange.…[Theauthors]knowthateducatorshaveanethicalobligationtominimizetheperceivedcon-flictbetweenscienceandreligion.Astheauthorswrite,“Whenstudentshearaconsistentmessageduringscienceinstruction—thattheycanlearnsciencewhilemaintain-ing their religiousbeliefs—theyaremuchmorewillingtolearnregardlessofmessagestothecontrarythattheymighthearoutsideofyourclassroom.”12

11“Fall2019NSTARECOMMENDSProfessionalResourcesforScienceEdu-cators,”(ArlingtonVA:NSTA,2019),4.12“ScienceStore–MakingSenseofScienceandReligion:StrategiesfortheClass-roomandBeyond,”NationalScienceTeachingAssociation,(accessed1-30-20)https://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781681405766


Leading Students to Reject What God Reveals in Scripture

ByinsistingthatChristianityandsciencearenotinconflict,andthat students can “reconcile their religious beliefs” with evolution, theNSTA leadsChristian students to adapt the false religious doctrines ofliberalChristians.Theseunbiblicalteachingsinclude:

• Scripturemustbeinterpretedinawaythatagreeswithscience(hu-manreasonisaboveScripture).

• Jesusknew that creationand theFloodarenot true,buthe taughtthemanyway,becausethat’swhatpeoplewanted.

• WritersofScripturedidnotunderstandmodernscience,sotheygotsome things wrong.

• Godusedbillionsofyearsofdeathandsufferingtocreate.

• TheBiblerevealswhyGodcreated,nothowGodcreated.

• Deathandsufferingarenottheresultofsin,theyarethemeansGodusedtocreate.

Science is NOT neutral about the supernatural Rejection of the supernatural is an

unprovable presupposition of science

Is Science Neutral About God?

Theauthorsdescribe science incorrectlywhen theywrite, “Hu-mans often use supernatural explanations, but students understand thatsciencehastostayneutralaboutthesupernatural,arguingneitherfornoragainst it.”13 Theseauthorscertainlyknow that science isbased solely

13Shane,11.


onnaturalexplanations,rejectingsupernaturalones.Theyactuallystatethat in theverynextparagraph14andseveralotherplaces in thebook.15 Rejectionofthesupernaturalisanunprovablepresuppositionofscience.ScienceisNOTneutralaboutthesupernatural;itrejectsthesupernatural(miraclesandacreator)beforeanyscienceisstarted.

Whiletheabovequotewasfromthechapteronprofessionalteach-ingresponsibilities,hereisasomewhatsimilarquotebyanotherauthor,thistimeinthechapteroncollegeinstruction,

Science is limited toempiricalquestionsandcannotbeused to supportor refute supernatural explanations.Af-terinstructionemphasizinghowacceptanceofascientifictheory does not necessarily preclude the existence of asupernatural entity, college freshmenwere less anxiousaboutlearningaboutevolution.Somestudentswithspir-itualviewsintegratedtheirreligiousunderstandingsintoscientific ones and others claimed that their faith wasstrengtheneduponlearningthatevolutiondoesnotneces-sarilyconflictwithreligion.16

Hereweseethatstudentsareinstructedthatscienceneednotcon-flictwithreligion. It is falselyclaimed thatscience“cannotbeused tosupportorrefutesupernaturalexplanations.”Thetruth:EvolutionISusedtorefutethesupernaturalexplanationofbiblicalcreation.Thesestudents

14“Now, if you continue that focus on evidence as you begin the evolution unit, students are less apt to cry foul that you are teaching offensive content. Instead, you can make clear that they are going to be looking first at actual evidence for evolution, basing all of their learning in real data, and then working together to see how scientists explain that evidence limiting themselves to natural process-es”(boldadded),Shane,11.15Twoadditionalexamples:“Additionally, science can only provide explana-tions that employ natural processes and cannot invoke supernatural causes” (BinnsandBloom,69). “Science is limited to natural phenomena and natural explanations of them. This characteristic of science is critically important for discerning science from non-science, particularly when it comes to interactions between scientific and religious claims”(BinnsandBloom,75).16LisaBorgerding,“ScienceandReligioninHigherEducation,”inMAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION –Strategies for the Classroom and Be-yond,JosephW.Shane,etal.,(ArlingtonVA:NSTAPress,2020),95.


arebeingmisledintorejectingtheirCreatorGod.

Conclusion

EvolutionisincompatiblewiththeChristianfaith.Chris-tianswhoacceptevolutionplace theirChristianfaith injeopardy.Falseteachingsaboutcreationare just likeallother false teachings, they lead away from Jesus.Theyareextremelydangeroustoaperson’sChristianfaith.…Evolution attacks the gospel and the need for aSavior.Evolutiondeniesthedoctrinesofsin,thelaw,anddeath.EvolutiondispenseswiththeneedforaCreator.…Eventhoughpartsoftheevolutionstoryaretrue,muchoftheevolutionstorygoesagainstScripture.WecanbeCER-TAINthatthepartsofevolutionwhichgoagainstScrip-tureareFALSE,becauseweknowthattheBibleistrue.17

Insomeways,IthinkitmaybebetterforourstudentstohaveanoutspokenatheistteacherclosertoDawkinsthanamorepoliteChristianteacherlikeNSTAauthorShane.AtleastDawkinsletsyouknowtokeepyourguardup,becauseyouknowheintendstodestroyyourfaithinGod.ShanehideshisintensiontodestroyyourfaithintheCreatorGodofScrip-ture,andyoumaynotnoticehowheslowlydamagesyourfaithdaybyday.

Mark Bergemann is a retired electrical engineer with a B.S. from the Uni-versity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. He serves as president of the Lutheran Science Institute and as Martin Luther College adjunct instructor for the online courses Creation Apologetics 101 and 102. He is a member of Good Shepherd’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in West Allis, Wisconsin.

17MarkBergemann,“DidGodUseEvolutiontoCreate?”atwww.LutheranScience.org/DidGodUseEvolution.

15Darwinian Revolution

Faulty Logic Led to theDarwinian Revolution

Jeffrey Stueber

Backinthe1990s,IwasreadingPhillipJohnson’sbookDarwin on Trial,acritiqueofsupposedevidencesformaterialisticevolution,anddiscovered Johnson’s suggestion that evolutionists ofDarwin’s day didnotwantthescarcityofevidencetodisproveDarwin’sarguments.Ibe-came interested inhow thishappenedamongDarwin’scontemporaries,but realized that readingwhat theywrotewouldbedifficultbecauseofhow long ago they lived.Myworkhere andnowwouldhave to focusoncontemporaryevolutionistwriters—RichardDawkins,StephenGould,andMichaelRuse,forinstance.

Because of this,my interest remained on the back burner until2019whenIdiscoveredEdwardLarson’sbookatoneofmylocalbook-stores, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. This book, by an historian, features the history of scientific thought before,during,andafterDarwin,explainingthereasoningbehindDarwin’sbe-lieversaswellashiscritics. Iquicklyreadhisbook,payingparticularattentiontotheevidencethatLarsoncitesasthereasonsforthetriumphofevolutionamongscientistsofDarwin’sday.

An evaluationof the evidence is important, because, asLarsondocuments, scientists of that day often were quite critical of Darwin’sideas.By1900,biologists,Larsonsays,werespeakingofDarwin’sde-mise.Despitethat,asLarsontellsit,Darwinwasveryquicklyuncriticallyacceptedastheonlyplausibleexplanationforlife’soriginanddevelop-ment.Larsonsaysthat“bythe1870s,Darwinwasaninternationalceleb-rity.”AdozenyearsafterthepublicationofDarwin’sOrigin of Species, AmericanpaleontologistEdwardDrinkerCopeconcludedthatDarwin’stheorywas“ascertainedfact.”1

1EdwardLarson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory,2nded.(NewYork:ModernLibrary,2006),105-107.

16 Darwinian Revolution

I came to the conclusion that the evidence and reasoning thatledthemtotheirconvictionswas,inDarwin’sday,oftenphilosophicallyflawed.Oftentheevidencedidnotexist,anditcontinuestonotexisttothisday.Someoftheevidencewaslaterfoundtohavebeenfabricated.Someofthesearguments,despitebeingnolongervalid,areadvancedto-daybymodernevolutionists.

Let’s takeabriefsurveyofsomeof theflawedevidenceevolu-tionistsusetoadvancetheirclaims.

To reason as atheistic evolutionists do, is to beg the question by only allowing

conclusions they like and dismissing as inadmissible divine explanations.

The Nature of Science

Entirebookscanbefilledwithdiscussionsonthenatureofsci-ence(whatisscientificandwhatisnot).Onereason,accordingtoLarson,thatevolutionwasacceptedsoearlyisthatDarwinandHuxley(andmostlikelyothers)claimedspecialcreationisunscientific.Larsondoesn’tex-plain in detailwhat evolutionists of that day considered scientific, andsoit’sdifficulttoassesstheiropiniononthismatter.However,areveal-ingquotation,fromLarson,ofgeologistGeorgeFrederickWright,Ithinksumsuptheirattitude.

We are topressknownsecondarycausesas far as theywill go in explaining facts. We are not to resort to anunknown(i.e.supernatural)causeforexplanationofphe-nomenatillthepowerofknowncauseshasbeenexhaust-ed.Ifweceasetoobservethisrulethereisanendtoall

17

scienceandallsoundsense.2

Thisisexactlyhowatheisticevolutionistsreasontoday.Togivejustoneexample,materialistskepticandprofessorofneuropsychology,BerryBeyersteinsays(asquotedinThomasKuhn’sbook Close to Truth),

Thebrainandthekidneysarebothphysicalorgans.Bothhave anatomical structures and physiological processesthat generate particular things. And, yes, the output ofoneisurineandtheoutputoftheotheristhought.3

This is clearly illogical because itwouldmake impossible anyrational thought, including thesupposition thatour thoughtsaremerelyinternalsecretions(incretions)inourbrain.WhatleadsBeyersteintoar-guethiswayisdevotiontothesametypeofmaterialismasWright.Again,Beyerstein(asquotedbyKuhn)says,

Ican’tseeanythingthatweneedtobringinfromtheout-side to explain anything inneuroscience. I’mgoing topushthematerialistpositionasfarasitwillgo.It’scon-ceivablethatsomedayIcouldcomeupagainstsomethingthatdoesn’tfittheneurosciencemodelofmind,andifthathappens,thenI’llhavetochangemymind.4

Clearly materialistic evolutionists see science as the only pathtotruth.Sincetheirsciencerulesoutanythingnon-naturallikeadivinework,anyactbyGodcannotbeanexplanationforanythinginourworld.Isthis,however,avalidwayoflookingatscienceorevensearchingfortruthregardingtheoriginanddevelopmentoflife?Creationistscientistsclaimtheirconclusionsaboutlifecomefromscientificstudiesofnature,andeventhoughtheydonotinvokeanaturaleventorprocessasanexpla-nationforlife’soriginanddevelopment,theysaytheirscientificstudies

2Larson,110-111.3 ThomasKuhn,Close to Truth: Challenging Current Belief (New York: Mc-Graw-Hill,2000),20.4Kuhn,22.

Darwinian Revolution


leadtothesuppositionthatGodactedtocreatelife.Toreasonasatheisticevolutionistsdo,istobegthequestionbyonlyallowingconclusionstheylikeanddismissingasinadmissibledivineexplanations.CreationistHen-ryMorris,Ithink,explainedthesituationperfectly,

Althoughmanypeopleteachevolutionasthoughitwereaprovenfactofscience,itisobviousthatthisisfalseteach-ing.Thereareliterallythousandsofscientistsandothereducatedintellectualstodaywhorejectevolution,andthiswouldcertainlynotbethecaseifevolutionwereasobvi-ous as many scientists say it is. The same is true of cre-ation,ofcourse....Neitherevolutionnorcreationcanbeeitherconfirmedorfalsifiedscientifically.Furthermore,itisclearthatneitherevolutionnorcreationis,inthepropersense,eitherascientifictheoryorascientifichypothesis....Thisisbecauseneithercanbetested.Avalidscientifichypothesismustbecapableofbeingformulatedexperi-mentally,suchthattheexperimentalresultseitherconfirmorrejectitsvalidity....Allofthesestricturesdonotmean,however,thatwecannotdiscussthisquestionscientifical-lyandobjectively.Indeed,itisextremelyimportantthatwedoso,ifwearereallytounderstandthisvitalquestionoforiginsandtoarriveatasatisfactorybasisforthefaithwemustultimatelyexerciseinoneortheother.5

Morrisgoesontopointoutthatweshouldconsiderdifferentsci-entific modelswhichagreewithScripture. Themodel thatexplains themostdataisthepreferredmodel.

Useless Organs

Darwinwroteaboutrudimentaryorgans(alsocalledvestigialor-gans)asremnantsofablindprocessandnottheintelligentworkofacre-ator. Larson writes,

5HenryMorris,Scientific Creationism,2nded.(ElCajon,CA:MasterBooks,1985),8-9.


Useless organs and less-than-optimal homologiesmadeperfectsenseasby-productsofevolutionarydevelopmentbutlittleatallastheartworkofanIntelligentDesigner.Seizingonthisevidenceforevolution,comparativeanat-omistsandevolutionarymorphologistsfoundanever-in-creasingnumberofsuchfeaturesthroughouttheanimalkingdom,andthenmovedbeyondDarwinbyusingthemtoinvestigategenealogicalrelationshipsamongspeciesinaboldefforttodiagramtheevolutionarytreeoflife.6

Thereisaphilosophicalproblemwiththisapproach.Evolution-istsoftencriticizetheisticand,ingeneral,ChristianclaimsthatGodmadeeverythingintheuniverseasa“godofthegaps”claim.Whattheymeanisthatinplaceswherecreationistsfinditdifficulttoexplainabiologicalfact,theyinvokeGodastheexplanation,andtheyonlyinvokeGodasanex-planationbecausetheyhavenonebetter.Asscientistsfindmoreandmorenaturalexplanationsforbiologicalfacts,thingsthatrequireGodasanex-planationbecomefewerandfewer.Yet,thisevolutionistclaimthatorgansarevestigialisitselfaclaimthatparticularorgansareuselessbecausetheycannotfindauseforthem.It’saclaimbasedonlackofknowledge,andasscientistsfindusesforthesesupposedlyvestigialorgans,thenumberoforgansthatarevestigialdeclines.

Also,many organs once considered vestigial have been showntobeuseful. LeonardBrandnotes that,around1900, therewasa longlistofabout80vestigialorgansconsideredevidenceformacroevolution.However,thelisthasshrunkbecauseoflaterdiscoveries,andBrandgivesexamples.Thehumanappendixwasoncethoughtvestigial,butitisnowknowntobepartoftheimmunesystem.Thetailboneoncewasthoughttobeuselessbutisnowknowntobeanattachmentpointforthemusclesthatallowustowalkupright.Hindlimbsofwhalesaretheattachmentpointsformusclesusedinthereproductivesystem.7 Jerry Bergman goes so far astosaythatthelistshranktozeroin1999andgivesadditionalexamples

6Larson,112.7LeonardBrand,Faith, Reason, & Earth History(BerreinSprings:MI,AndrewsUniversityPress,1997),152-153.


oforgansoncethought tobevestigial. Theyincludethethymuswhichfunctionssimilarlytotheappendixinhelpingtheimmunesystemandthepinealglandwhichsecretsahormoneimportantinourcircadianrhythmandhasotherfunctions.Bergmannotesthatevolutionists,tosalvagetheirtheory,havechanged theirdefinitionof “vestigial” to anyorganwhoseusehasdiminishedovertime.Bergmangoesintodetailonwhythisnewdefinitionisflawed.8

Negative Theology

Larsonnotes thatDarwinalso, tobolsterhisevolutionist ideas,usedargumentsbasedonwhathethoughtGodwouldorwouldnotcreate.“Darwin,” he says, “pressed the case for natural selection over specialcreationbycitingexamplesofself-servingcrueltyandlackofperfectioninnature.”OneparticularinstancethattroubledDarwinwasthefactich-neumon(parasiticwasps)deposits itseggs in the livingbodiesofotherinsects.9Twootherscholars,RobertClarkandJamesBalesaddtothisbydescribingDarwin’sformofargumentthisway:“Eitherallwasdesignedinthemostminuteeventsanddetailsornothingwasdesigned.”DarwinwrotetouniformitarianCharlesLyellin1861askingLyellifhecouldhon-estlytellDarwinwhethertheshapeofhisnosewasordainedandguidedbyanintelligentcause.Darwincouldnomorebelieveincreationthanhecouldbelievethatthespotwhereeachraindroplandswasdesigned.10 It wouldseemtomethatDarwinsetuphisargumentssohehadnochoicebuttorejectBiblicalcreation.

ThemajorproblemwiththisargumentisthatatheistswhomakethisargumentwillononehandclaimGodisunknowablewhileontheoth-erhandclaimtheyknowwhatGodwouldorwouldnotdo.Thisisamajorflawthat,tothisdate,noatheisthasconfrontedorevenacknowledgedisaflawintheirarguments—atleastnotthatIhaveseen.ToknowwhatGod

8JerryBergman,“DoAnyVestigialOrgansExistinHumans?”Journal of Cre-ation, 14no.2(august2000):95–98.https://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans(accessed2-19-20)9Larson,91.10RobertClarkandJamesBales,Why Scientists Accept Evolution(GrandRap-ids:Baker,1966),47.


wouldnotcreateistoalsoknowwhatGodwouldcreate,andthisimpliesknowledgethatcouldonlycomebydivinerevelationthusimplyingthatGoddoesindeedexist.

A2009exampleofthisclaimbyevolutionistsisGeoffreyBerg’sbookThe Six Ways of Atheism,whichIcritiquedina2011LSIarticle.11 Berg argues,

God,beingbydefinitionsupremelygoodandomnipotentandourcreator,wouldifheexistedhavecreatedthebestpossibleworld.Yetwecanbesure...thattheworldtakenas awhole throughout the ages is not thebest possibleworld. Therefore it is logicallyshown thatGodcannotactuallyexist.ThereforeasGodcannotexistwithintheparameters of Logic,God cannot and does not exist atall.”12

Yet,healsoclaimsthatwecannotidentifyGodevenifGodexists.Ifthisistrue,thenhowareweabletoknowwhatGodwouldorwouldnotdo?Bergdoesnotacknowledgethiscontradictioninhisbook.

Haeckel’s Embryos

German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) included illustra-tionsoftheembryologicalstagesofvertebratesinaseriesofbookspub-lishedbetween1868and1908.13Darwin,whowasnotanembryologist,saidthatHaeckel“hadrecentlybroughthisgreatknowledgeandabilitiestobearonwhathecalledphylogeny,orthelinesofdescentonallorganicbeings.”Darwinwrote,

11JeffreyStueber,“GeoffreyBerg’sTheSixWaysofAtheism,”LSI Journal,25,no.1 (January-March2011):8-11.www.LutheranScience.org/2011-1(accessed2-20-20)12GeoffreyHughLewisBerg,The Six Ways of Atheism : New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God[G.Berg,2009],82-83.13MatthewCobb,“HowFudgedEmbryoIllustrationsLedtoDrawn-OutLies,”NewScientist, January 14, 2015, www.LutheranScience.org/Cobb-Embryo (ac-cessed2-20-20)


[The] leading facts in embryology ...are explained ontheprincipleofvariationsinthemanydescendantsfromsome one ancient progenitor, having appeared at a notveryearlyperiodof life,andhavingbeeninheritedatacorrespondingperiod.14

Larsonnotes thatHaeckelhas“greatlyexaggerated thesimilar-itiesof theearlyembryos.” However,ashenotes,Haeckel’sargumentserved as a powerful argument for evolution and his sketches of theseembryoswerewidelyreproduced.Theyalsoservedasscientificsupportforracism,asLarsondocuments.15

JonathanWellsprovidesmoredetailinnotingthatHaeckelfakedhisdrawings.Vertebrateembryosneverlookassimilarashemadethemtobe,andthestagehelabeledasthefirststageactuallyappearedmidwaythroughdevelopment. The similaritieshe exaggerated areprecededbystrikingdifferences in the early stagesof development. He choseonlythosevertebrateembryosthatcameclosetofittinghistheory.Heshowedonlyfiveofsevenclassesofvertebratesomittingjawlessandcartilaginousfish. To representamphibians,heusedasalamander rather thana frogwhich looks very different. Half of the embryos aremammals and allfromoneorder (placentals)while someother orders are omitted.Writ-ingin2000,evolutionistStephenGouldsaidthatHaeckel“exaggeratedthesimilaritiesbyidealizationandomissions,”andGouldconcludedthatHaeckel’sdrawingsarecharacterizedby“inaccuraciesandoutrightfalsi-fication.”16

Similarities as Proof of Evolution

Itiscertainlytruethatdifferentanimalsresembleeachother,andLarsonliststhisasoneofthereasonsDarwin’scontemporariesacceptedevolution.Darwin,Larsonnotes,feltthathumanmentalfacultiesdiffer

14CharlesDarwin,The Origin of Species,Mentored.,(NewYork:NewAmeri-canLibrary,1958),403,418.15Larson,113-114.16JonathanWells,Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington D.C.: Reg-nery,2000),chapterfive.


in degree not in kind, and he attempted to bridge the gap by stressingthehuman-likefeelingsofsomeanimalsandtheanimal-likequalitiesofsavages.“Canwefeelsurethatanolddogwithanexcellentmemory…neverreflectsonhispastpleasuresinthechase?Andthisbeaformofself-consciousness,”DarwinwroteasquotedbyLarson.17 Despite that,somescientistsofDarwin’sdaydidnotacceptthisreasoningbecausehu-mansareuniquebecauseoftheirmindandemotions,thingsnon-humanslack.

Evolutionistsbelievethatanimalssharecommonorgansandlimbsbecausetheyinheritedthemfromacommonancestor.Forinstance,thearmsofhumans,legsofcats,andwingsofabatweresupposedlyinheritedfromacommonancestorbecausetheylooksomuchthesame.However,whereanimalssharecommonorgansandlimbsthatdonotcomefromacommondescent,thatisexplainedasthe“convergence”18 of evolution on aparticularbodyplan.

WhatIlearnedfromGeorgeMcGhee’sbookConvergent Evolu-tionisthedifficultyindecidingwhatisconvergentandwhatisnot.Hebegins his book describing howmuch the porpoise looks like a fish: astreamlinedbodylikeatuna,finsonitsside,andsoforth.Yet,hetellsus,itisnotafishbutamammal:itgiveslivebirthandnursesitsyoung,forinstance.Themammaltraits,hetellsus,arederivedfromthemammalianancestor,but thefishtraits,hesays,“are independentlyderivedconver-genttraits.”McGheeshowsusseveraldiagramstoexplainthedifferencebetween convergent evolution and others types of evolution (discussedbelow)butthenmakesastunningadmission:19

In real life, however, evolutionary relationships are not

17Larson,96.18 Evolutionists normally assume that two different creatures having a simi-lar feature (such as four limbs) descended from a common ancestor (“divergent evolution”). Often, evolutionists place creatures with a similar feature (such as feathers) on their “tree of life,” so that those creatures do not have a common ancestor (“convergent evolution”). In those cases, evolutionists imagine that the same feature evolved separately in two (or even in dozens) of different creatures. 19GeorgeMcGhee,Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful (Cam-bridge:MITPress,2011),1-4.


known beforehand, and we must carefully analyze alltraits that we see are shared by different species. Dothese species share these traits simply because they allinheritthemfromacommonancestor?Orarethesetraitsconvergent—have they independently arisen in speciesthatbelongtoseparateevolutionarylineages,inseparateclades?Aporpoiseisnotafish,eventhoughitlookslikeone.20

That’spreciselythepoint.Wedon’tknowtheevolutionaryrela-tionships,butweinferthemfromsimilarityoforgansandlimbs.Wouldn’twebeascorrectinsayingtheporpoiseisdescendedfromafishbasedonmorphologywhen,afterall,that’sexactlyhowwedecidethatthehumanarm,bat,andcatshareacommonancestor.Likewise,ifwecan’tassumetheporpoiseisdescendedfromthefishormammalbasedonmorphology,whatconfidencecanweplaceinotherjudgementswemakebasedonmor-phologicalsimilarities?

Thereisalsothephenomenonofreverseevolutionwhichislossof function inbodyparts insteadof their increasingcomplexity. JennyMorbersuggeststhatpenguinsareanexampleofreverseevolutioninthattheyarebirdsthatlosttheirflightability.However,thesebirdshavelargermusclesanddenserbonesforstrengthwhichallowthemtoswim.Snakes,shesuggests,losttheirlegsalthoughtheydohavethestructuresneededtohearprey.BirdsnolongerhaveteethalthoughMorbersuggeststhelossofteethhelpedbeaksgrowasaprecursortoflight.21Itshouldappeartoanyonetheseanimalsareexcellentlydesignedfortheirhabitats,butevo-lutioniststhinkthat,iftheirtheoryistrue,theseanimalsshouldhavemorelimbsandorgansthantheydothatpointtogreaterongoingcomplexity,not regression.

Furthermore,therearemanygenesthatarepresentonlyinsome

20McGhee,5.21JennyMorber,“5TimesEvolutionRanin‘Reverse’-Hagfish,penguins,andaphidsarejustsomeofthecreaturesthathavebeenshapedbywhat’sknownasregressiveevolution,”NationalGeographic,www.LutheranScience.org/MorberReverseEvolution(accessed2-20-20)


plantsandanimalsbutnot inothers. Thesearecalled“orphangenes.”EvolutionistRichardBuggsstatesthatorphangenes“compriseasizeableproportionofeachnewgenomesequenced.”22Hesaysthatscientistsex-pectedtofindthesegenespresentinassumedancestralpopulations,butthat has not happened over the past 20 years of looking. These genesarecalled“orphans,”becausetheyseemtohavenoevolutionaryparents.Buggsfound that9,604of the38,852protein-codinggenes inash treeswereorphangenes.HeandhiscoauthorspublishedthisresearchinthepremiersciencejournalNature.23BuggscommentsabouthisNature ar-ticleinapaperwithatellingtitle:“TheEvolutionaryMysteryofOrphanGenes—Everynewlysequencedgenomecontainsgeneswithnotraceableevolutionary descent—The ash genomewas no exception.” This evi-dencefitscreatedkindsandgoesagainstevolutionarycommondescent.Evolutionist Buggs writes,

Orphangenesare“thehardproblem”forevolutionaryge-nomics.Becausewecan’tfindothergenessimilartotheminotherspecies,wecan’tbuildfamilytreesforthem.Wecannothypothesizetheirgradualevolution;insteadtheyseem toappearoutofnowhere. Variousattemptshavebeenmadeatexplainingtheiroriginsbut ...theproblemremainsunsolved.24

Evidence Against Evolution Is Re-Purposed as Evidence for Evolution

So,asalways,evolutionisttheorydrivestheassumptionofwhatbiologyshouldshowus,notwhatbiologyactuallyshowsus.Somefea-turesareclaimedtoshowdescentfromacommonancestor,except when they don’t―inwhichcasetheyareexamplesof“convergent”evolution.

22RichardBuggs,“TheEvolutionaryMysteryofOrphanGenes-Everynewlysequencedgenomecontainsgeneswithno traceable evolutionarydescent–theashgenomewasnoexception,”EcologyandEvolution,www.LutheranScience.org/BuggsOrphan(accessed2-20-20)23 ElizabethS.A.Sollars, et al., “GenomesequenceandgeneticdiversityofEuropeanashtrees,”Nature541,(2017):212–216.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20786(accessed2-20-20)24Buggs.


Somefeaturesareclaimedtoshowaprogressofanimalformstogreaterfunctionandcomplexity,except when they don’t―inwhichcasetheyareexamplesof“regressive”evolution.Genesshouldhavepreviousances-tral forms, except when they don’t―inwhich case they are called “or-phan”genes.Thereshouldbeintermediatelinksbetweendifferentanimalgroupsaccordingtoevolutionisttheory,except when there isn’t―inwhichcasethemissinglinksaresupposedlydueto“punctuated”evolution(rapidjumpsinevolutionbetweenlongperiodswithnochange).

What I realizewhen studying evolution in thisway is that theevidencedoesnotvalidateDarwin’scentraltheoryofdescentwithmodifi-cation.Rather,theorycomesfirstandthedataislabeledinaspecialway(convergent,regressive,orphan,orpunctuated,forinstance)tore-purposewhat could be falsificationofDarwin’stheoryintoanexception to Dar-win’stheory.Inthiscase,itwouldbeincorrecttosaysimilaritiesinbodilyorgansorlimbsvalidateDarwin’stheory.

Furthermore,DNAoftendoesnotagreewithmorphology. Ho-mologous structures (bodily features shared by numerous animals thatcomefromacommonancestor)shouldbespecifiedbyhomologousgenes.However,MichaelDenton,writingin1986,sayshomologousstructuresarespecifiedbyquitedifferentgenesindifferentspecies.25 This, to me, suggestssomethingelsecontrolledthegenerationoftheorgansoftheseanimals other than DNA. Perhaps they were divinely created that way.

Progress in the Fossil Record

Finally,LarsonnotesthatDarwin,inhisbookThe Origin of Spe-cies, claimed “the fossil record displayed a recognizable continuity inthesuccessionofspecieswithincontiguousareasandatendencytowardgreaterorganicvarietyandcomplexityovertime.”Thisdemandsagreatdeal of intermediates between simple and complex animals, of course.Withfurtherresearch,Larsonsays,Darwinfeltpaleontologistswouldfindmissing links in the evolutionary tree of life.26

25MichaelDenton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis(Bethesda:MA,Adler&Ad-ler,1985),149.26Larson,139.

27

Whatscientistshavefound,however,isthattherearegapsinthefossilrecordoftenwithallegedtransitionsbetweenmajorgroupsofani-mals—betweenthereptilesandbirds,forinstance.Darwinsuggestedthatthefossilrecordwasincomplete,andtothisdaysomeevolutionistsarguethiswayevenaftermorethan150yearsoffossildiscovery.Otherevolu-tionistshavereplied,asevolutionistsStephenGouldandNilesEldredgedidin1972andcollegetextbooksstilldotoday,thatthesegapsareduetothephenomenonofpunctuatedequilibriumwhereanimalsevolvequicklyleavingfewifanyintermediatefossils.

OneoftheprominentexamplesofthisphenomenonistheCam-brianexplosion.InPrecambrianrock,fewifanyfossilssurvive,butintheCambrianrockanexplosionoflifeispresentchallengingevolutioniststoexplainit.AnarticleonthePBSwebsiteindicatesthisisstillaproblem,arguingthatonereasonforthemissingfossilsisthelackoffossilizedrem-nants.27So,Darwin’sexplanationofpoorfossilizationpersistsevenafterover150yearsoffossilresearch.ThefossilrecordisnotdocumentingthefossilsthatDarwinfeltwewouldfindtoratifyhisbeliefs.

Conclusion

WhatstruckmeuponreadingLarsonishoweasilyevolutionwasacceptedbyDarwin’scontemporaries,andevolutioniststoday,withouttherealizationthatthecartwasputbeforethehorse.Evolutionwasacceptedandcontinues tobeacceptedforpersonal reasonsaspartofa rebellionagainstGod.Thetruthisthattheevidenceisn’tthereanymorenowthanitwasinDarwin’sday.That’swhatweshouldrealizewhenstudyingthehistory of evolutionist thought.

Jeffrey Stueber, a free-lance writer, serves as secretary of the Lutheran Sci-ence Institute. He is a member of St. John Evangelical Lutheran Church in Watertown WI.

27“TheCambrianExplosion,”PBS,(accessed2-22-20)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

Darwinian Revolution

28

DearSupporters,

Thankyousomuchforparticipatinginthisapologeticminis-try.Withyourprayersandfinancialsupport,andbytellingothersabout thisministry,youareproducinganddistributingConfes-sionalLutherancreationapologeticmaterials.Thisisanexcitingtimeofgrowth.Youaregettingcreationapologeticmaterialsintothehandsofmorepastors,teachers,students,andlaitythaneverbefore.

Youhaveenabledanexpandingapologeticministry.Apolo-geticmaterialsfor5K–grade12werepublishedinthespringandfall2019LSI Journals,afirststeptowardfulfillingthelong-termgoalofproducinganapologeticcurriculum.Anambitious2019conference schedule included displays at bothWELS andELSnationalconventionsandmultipleteacherconferences,wherewedistributed thousandsofLSI Journals andspokewithhundredsofcalledworkersandlaity.LSIpersonnelledfoursectionalsatteacherconferencesandledadultBiblestudiesatseveralcongre-gations.

TheLSILessonBook,“Evolution–aLutheranResponse,”isnowbeingusedasatextbookinhighschoolsandcollegesandindozensofadultBiblestudies.2020plansincludemailinganex-panded2ndeditiontoeveryWELSandELScongregation(about1,400 churches), and to teachers atWELShigh schools. Yourgenerositymakesallthishappen.

Mark BergemannPresident,LutheranScienceInstitute

29

Financial support in 2019 came from a record number of newdonors (22)anda recordnumberof repeatdonors (24),nearlymeetingour2019expenses.Since2017,sixty-fiveindividualsandgroups(suchas congregations and conferences) provided $22,395 in gifts and dues.Pleaseconsidermakingagift in2020sothatourpastors, teachers,stu-dents,andlaitycontinuetoreceivetheapologeticmaterialsforwhichtheyare looking. Consideragiftof$25,$125,$250,$500,ormore.

www.LutheranScience.org/donateor mail your check to Lutheran Science Institute,13390 W. Edgewood Ave., New Berlin WI 53151

Print Journal for Individuals

14%

Conference Displays

30%Print Journal for

Churches and Schools

47%

Software + Website

4%

Office5%

2020 Budget: $11,400

30

Operating FundJan 1, 2019: Balance $3,853.59 Gifts $6,952.53 Dues $801.00 Print LSIJournalsubscriptions $914.64 Other income $1.60INCOME $8,669.77 Expenses $9,300.71 Outstanding Liabilities $0.00EXPENSES $9,300.71Dec 31, 2019: Balance $3,222.65

Trust FundJan 1, 2019: Balance $8,230.81Interest $209.50Dec 31, 2019: Balance $8,440.31

LSI in Your Will TheLSITrustFundisreadytoreceiveestatesofallsizes,whether$3,000or$300,000.TheTrustFundaccumulatesfundsforlargerminis-tryprogramsandpossiblyforapaidstafftodotasksourvolunteerstaffisunabletodo.ItalsoensuresLSIoperatingexpensesaremetinyearsofincomeshortfall,asoccurredin2016whenthetrustprovided$2,000towardoperatingexpenses.TheLSITrustFundwascreatedinlate2014andisgovernedbythedocumentat: www.LutheranScience.org/Trust

Assets: Dec 31, 2019 Operating: US Bank checking $3,222.65Operating Fund Assets $3,222.65 Trust: US Bank (separate account) $1,528.89 Trust: LACE 6 notes at 3.0% and 3.5% $6,911.42Trust Fund Assets $8,440.31TOTAL ASSETS $11,662.96

31

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

LSI Journal Circulation

Individuals (print+pdf) Church/School (print) Conferences (print) Total

0

100

200

300

400

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

LSI Membership

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (budget)

LSI Expenses

32

Luth

eran

Sci

ence

Inst

itute

, inc

.13

390

W. E

dgew

ood

Ave

New

Ber

lin W

I 531

51

addr

ess s

ervic

e re

ques

ted

Evol

utio

nEv

olut

ion

a Lu

ther

an R

espo

nse

a Lu

ther

an R

espo

nse

Documents

Danger Polite Evolutionists from NSTA · section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code as a subordinate organiza-tion of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Vol. 34, no. 2 (spring 2020)