Back The Lie: Evolution
Chapters (18)
  1. Cover
  2. Foreword
  3. Introduction
  4. Chapter One - Christianity Is Under Attack
  5. Chapter Two - Evolution Is Religion
  6. Chapter Three - Creation Is Religion
  7. Chapter Four - The Root of the Problem
  8. Chapter Five - Crumbling Foundations
  9. Chapter Six - Genesis Does Matter
  10. Chapter Seven - Death: A Curse and a Blessing
  11. Chapter Eight - The Evils of Evolution
  12. Chapter Nine - Evangelism is a Pagan World
  13. Chapter Ten - Wake Up, Shepherds!
  14. Chapter Eleven - Creation, Flood, and Coming Fire
  15. Appendix 1 - 20 Reasons Why Genesis and Evolution Don't Mix
  16. Appendix 2 - Why Did God Take Six Days?
  17. Endnotes
  18. Resources

At one church, a scientist (in a very vocal manner) stood and told the congregation not to believe what I had said. He informed them that, as a scientist, he could show them that what had been said concerning Noahs flood and creation was wrong. Science, in his words, had proven the Bible to be wrong. Since he had stated publicly that he was a Christian, I asked him if he believed there was a person in history called Noah. He said that he did believe this. I asked him why. He told me that it was because he had read it in the Bible. I asked him if he believed that there had been a worldwide flood. His answer was no. I asked him why he did not believe there was a worldwide flood. He then went on to say it was obvious from science that there could not have been a worldwide flood that science had proven the Bible wrong. I asked him how he could trust the Bible when it talked about Noah if he could not trust the Bible when it actually talked about Noahs flood. I also suggested that the particular evidence he was using to say there could not have been a worldwide flood might be interpreted in other ways. That is, because we do not have all the evidence or know all the assumptions involved in many of the techniques used for dating the earth, etc., was it not possible that his interpretations could be wrong and the Bible could be right after all?

He admitted that he did not know everything and it was possible there were assumptions behind some of the scientific methods to which he was referring. This additional information could totally change his conclusions. He admitted this was a possibility, but then he went on to say that he could not believe the Bible in all areas (e.g., Noahs flood) until science had proven it. Again, there was a problem in understanding what science is all about and the fact that science cannot prove anything in relation to the past. I accepted the Bible as the Word of God and therefore interpreted the evidence on that basis. He was accepting the Bible as containing the Word of God but subject to proof by science. Of course, if you hold to the latter approach, as scientists make new discoveries and their theories change, your attitude towards the Bible must also continually change you can never be sure of anything.