The Autumn 1985 (Vol. 2, No. 5) issue of The Southern Skeptic (the official journal of the South Australian branch of the American Skeptics, whose aims are similar to American humanist groups), devoted its entire 30 pages to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religious group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the Book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science, or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."1 To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 8:12: "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." In Isaiah 2:5 we are exhorted to "walk in the light of the Lord." In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, "Cease ye from [trusting] man."

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientist was there no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.