They tell us of a 15 billion year old story that all the matter and energy of the universe was somehow compressed into a grapefruit sized object, perhaps even as small as a single electron, or even smaller, nothing! Somehow this thing became unstable (no one knows why) and exploded. This rapidly expanding hot mass of energy and particles gradually cooled and assembled into stars and galaxies and later planets.

By natural processes on one not so special planet, a watery, primordial soup developed. By purely natural processes, energy from the sun directed by random, chance events, produced complex chemicals. Further organization developed on its own with amazing new information arising producing simple one celled organisms. Over many millions of years, through an incredible number of random chance, mistakes and mutations, more complex creatures gradually evolved producing man. This particle to people process proceeded by purely natural processes that are still working today. Random, chance events, coupled with mistakes, natural selection, and the chief character "time," produce perfection.

This is called "Science."

We must CHALLENGE this highly imaginative view as being totally bankrupt to explain the origin of all things and certainly is not "science."

Webster defines science:

to know. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge. Systematic knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.

The well recognized "scientific method" in essence is experimentation and observation of observable facts. Reproducing, observation, and testing along with making predications which can be either falsified or proven true is the basis of the scientific method.

Although a naturalistic interpretation of origins is not a new idea to man, Charles Darwin certainly was a key figure in modern evolution concepts in his almost worshipped book, "Origin of Species..." published in 1859. Not only could Darwin not produce support for his beliefs from the fossil record, but he was unable to observe any plant or animal life progress to a higher, more complex form of life.

Evolution in this sence is NOT taking place in the present and no one has observed it happening in the past.

Since no human was around to observe how the universe came to be or has any human scientifically studied evolution taking place over millions and billions of years, we CANNOT pronounce evolution as true science (knowledge). Even considering Evolution as a scientific theory is not accurate since we are unable to use the scientific method to duplicate, observe, and test the past.

The same holds true for creation. Creation was completed in the past and is not testable in the present. What we can do is create a framework or "model" that seems to fit the facts that we now observe in the present with the least amount of secondary assumptions.

There really are fundamentally only 2 models possible. Either everything happens quite naturally or it doesn't! Either a designer and intelligence is required or it isn't. The Evolution model or the Creation model. Both models use the same facts but which fits the best.

In the anti-creationist book by D.J.Futuyma we find this frank admission:

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (Science on Trial, 1983, p. 219)

Of course human bias and an individual's world view enters into a person's decision.

The late, well known Carl Sagon, avid atheist, had a naturalistic interpretation for everything he observed since he had determined there is no God:

"The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." (Carl Sagon, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)

Later in the same book he reinforced this concept:

"We are, in the most profound sense, children of the Cosmos." (ibid. p. 242)

In contrast, there are thousands of Christian scientists with advanced degrees in their fields, interpreting the evidence in light of God's' Word, the Bible. Christians believe this is an eye witness account who was there, and claimed to personally be responsible for Creation in the beginning, and is now sustaining all things through the law of conservation.

If we are truly honest with ourselves, we should be willing to accept the truth in spite of our bias.

Unfortunately, some have been convinced into thinking that Evolution is science and creation is religion. This really is just an excuse not to think of the ramifications of what if a god really exists. If God really existed, would we still say he didn't because that's religion? Actually, Evolution is just as much religion, and Creation is just as much science.

One of Webster's definition for religion is "a belief system." Since Evolution is undoubtedly a belief system, it can certainly be considered religion.

The American Humanist Association points this out as well:

"Humanism is a philosophy, world view, or life stance based on naturalism -- the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural." (Web site of American Humanist Association, home page, January 2001)

A more abrasive voice of the religious implications of evolution was expressed in "American Atheist":

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (G.R.Bozarth, American Atheist, September 1978, p.30)

Although not all evolutionist are atheists, by definition evolution does not require a god or designer of any kind. Everything can be explained without any purpose or plan or design.

We are absolutely convinced, that the "Creation model" is far superior to the "Evolution Model" and we will present powerful evidence from the world that we live in and observe that an omnipotent designer is absolutely essential in an honest world view.

No only does science point to the creator, but we believe that he has spoken to His creation in the book called the Bible. We unashamedly proclaim it as "the Word of God" which reveals the origin of the universe and God's purpose in it.

The last book of the Bible sums up God's' purpose of His Creation:

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:11)

We are further convinced, that regardless of whether or not one wishes to serve the Creator and trust in the Savior, a day is coming when EVERYONE, both good and bad, will bend the knee and personally confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord":

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11)