When the new Church of Scientology of Pasadena opens its doors in the city’s historical core this summer, it will not only enable the Church to expand its service to the community, it will give back some of its cultural history. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the character of what was once a turn-of-the-century bicycle factory has been transformed into a unique blend of old and new, its four-story atrium and original façade still intact. With attention also given to 21st century detail, the restored building will also be LEED certified (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).

The Church of Scientology International has been working for the past six years on a program to acquire new buildings for its regional Churches around the world. Launched in 2004 by Scientology ecclesiastical leader Mr. David Miscavige, the aim of the program is to establish each Church in premises ideally suited for its many and varied religious services as well as its community outreach activities. So far, 19 such ideal Churches have opened, eight of them in unique historic buildings, with more on the horizon.

“These Churches have already been in their cities for many years and their buildings need to be large enough to accommodate all their activities including a chapel, rooms for the study of our theology and introductory courses for new people and individual spiritual counseling rooms,” said Church of Scientology International spokesman, Tommy Davis.

Far from a Sunday-only meeting place, Churches of Scientology hum with activity seven days a week. In addition to common congregational services such as weddings, funerals, naming ceremonies for newborn children and Sunday service, parishioners can study days and evenings as well as receive the religion’s unique form of one-on-one religious counseling, participate in the Scientology Purification Program (a precise and closely supervised religious regimen that addresses barriers to spiritual gain) and take part in community betterment planning and activities, sponsored and initiated by the Church.

In May the Nashville, Tennessee Church of Scientology historic building took top honors in the city’s 35th Annual Preservation Awards for meeting all safety standards while preserving the beauty and grace of the 1898 building, which opened last year. Built just two years after the famous Grand Ole Opry in a similar style, its features include red brick walls, original doors and hardwood floors, 14-foot ceilings and an unusual three-floor atrium crowned with a glass cupola.

Last January, the Church opened the Belgium branch of the Churches of Scientology of Europe, an 88,000 square-foot early 20th century historic structure in the heart of Brussels. In October 2009, the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, DC completed renovation of its seven-story, 49,000-square-foot historic building by architect Appleton P. Clark, Jr., half a mile from the White House. And another historic Church property fully restored in 2009 is the 1926 Mediterranean Revival-style Fort Harrison building in Clearwater, Florida.

Other cities with historic buildings now home to Scientology Churches include: San Francisco, California; London, England; Tampa, Florida; and Buffalo, New York. The Church has also acquired historic buildings that are in pre-construction stages in Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon; Montreal, Canada; and Manchester, England.

“We take a lot of pride and care in adapting and rehabilitating our historic buildings,” said Davis. “The result is truly unique as these new Churches exemplify our religion and are dynamically practical and aesthetic, and enable us to practice the full range of Scientology services as laid out by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Golden Key Associates) June 4, 2010: Orlando, Fl

Six years after Ida Muorie started the first sports show on Voice America Internet Radio Network, Ida auditions for Oprah’s OWN TV. In 2004, Ida started the first sports talk show on Voice America in a landscape that was dominated by men. According to Campbell Soup Team Mom (mother of Max Starks of Pittsburgh Steelers), Eleanor Starks, “Ida brought a Fresh Spin on Issues Facing Athletes and their Families on the Sportsmavericks Show. The information that Ida’s guest shared was not available to parents on the radio, television or in printed material. Ida helped many parents to bridged the generation gap between their student athelete, while balancing the pursuit of academic excellence and sports participation. The show entertained, educated and motivated parents to participate fully in the academic and athletic life of their student athlete. The show really created a resource on-line for parents and athletes world-wide, and it continues to educated sports professionals and fans about the real lives of our children.”

Pioneering the popularity of Sportsmavericks weekly on the internet, through her upfront style and “ten key principles of courage, determination, teamwork, ambition, persistence, integrity, discipline, community, academic excellence and fairness,” Ida was able to create an audience participation of 100,000 weekly that eventually grew to 500,000 weekly for the network. Among her accomplishments with the Network, Ida became a catalyst to create a new Sports Channel on Voice America talk radio network in 2007. After 2007, Ida expanded her coverage to handle issues of athletes and entertainers, and Ida key focus was to break down the stereotypes. The show launched a global awareness campaign to make the distinction between the issues that elite athletes and professional entertainers share, and to expose those challenges that each share alone in their career pursuits.

To help her global audience better understand the real distinction, Ida sought a diverse group of expert guests, who could share real experiences, and offer workable solutions for parents. To her credit, Ida created a niche market of parents of 16-32 years old athletes and entertainers, that coveted the brand clothing, electronics, automotive, music, jewelry, books, DVD, Ipods and movie markets. For the OWN network, this should lead to many licensing brand opportunities, as Ida brings the only original TV content that targets parents of athletes and entertainers.

The material is positive, stimulating and unscripted. Ida provides cutting edge subject matters that challenge parents to get involoved fully in their child’s academic and celebrity lifestyles. Ida carefully introduces integrity and fairness into the process, when she challenges parents, coaches, academic advisors, agents and talent professionals to worked together to mold a role model. None of the guests answers are trivalized, nor demeaned. Each guest was chosen by Ida personally for their unique expertise, and their ability to recommend realistic solutions to her audience.

Today, the Voice America Sports Channel has grown to over 500,000 weekly guest, and 30 new talk show host from the Who’s Who of Sports and Entertainment. Ida continues to be the featured Host, as she has created over 150 hours of Content. Ida’s shows is featured every Tuesday, Saturday and Monday at 5pm Pacific. Sportsmavericks is broadcast on a 24/7 rotation basis for timezones like Asia, Europe and Russia. Ida’s popularity has expanded to 80 countries.

“On June 26, 2010, Ida’s role model Oprah, will get a chance to critique a ‘Pro’ that brings the real deal to Oprah’s OWN TV network, says Bianca Strauss, a long term Oprah follower, stylist and former model.” ” Ida is a writer, producer, terrific host, that is a triple threat for any nework,” says Sandra Milliner, Actress, Director and member of the Director’s Guild in Hollywood. “It has been Ida’s dream since 2004, to simultaneously broadcast her talk show on television, internet radio and traditional radio, this is very strategic marketing, and an idea whose time has come. Ida feels that the issues facing athletes and entertainers desperately need a bigger stage,” concludes Sandra.

WHAT IDA MUORIE SAYS ABOUT HER NEW SHOW ON OWN NETWORK – Ida Talks

“”We will provide a fresh spin to sports and entertainment, when we take the personal issues that athletes and entertainers face into America’s living rooms for a real dialogue by experts. We will redefine the images of elite athlete and entertainers, and bridge the gap between parents, athletes, entertainers and their lifestyles. Our show will provide the only original TV content that targets parents of athletes and entertainers. The audience will be engaged in straight talk that is spontaneous, interactive and unscripted by experts. The show’s format will explore the challenges of pursuing a careers in sports and entertainment. Our objective is to help families of athletes and entertainers navigate the transition from high school, college to a professional career.”

To see Ida’s Audition tape go to Oprah.com. Browse and Vote. Key Word Ida Muorie. “Do it for the kids?”More information can be found online at the folwoing link. http://myown.oprah.com/audition/index.html?request=video_details&response_id=2855&promo_id

Let us take a look at the types of spiritual jewelry. There are various kinds of jewelry pieces available in the market. So while jewelry shopping look out things that are of interest to you like the bangles, bracelets, pendants, chains and rings. The designs and the finish are commonly based on the prominent religious deities, and the fluid form of many Indian Gods and age old holy pictures. They are also inspired by symbols and signs from various religious scripts and holy text. The OM, Swastika, Cross etc are popular symbols used in the designs of spiritual jewelry. But the most popular of them all is the OM based jewelry that is being liked and accepted worldwide.

Even the designs inspired from the other religions like the Chinese, Egyptian, and Buddhist, Nepalese and the Tibetan text and symbols are used extensively and are fast becoming the favorites among the jewelry shoppers.

This spiritual jewellery are made from many materials like the stones, beads and crystals that are known for healing properties and protect us from the negative effects of the planets. These stones and metals give them the divinity in believing themselves, improving their behavior and the lifestyles of the individual. It is believed to send positive vibes and bring about a balance and heal the wearer.

Rudraksha is another popular stone, which is used in spiritual bracelets, chains and necklace. You will find the silver and gold jewelry with carvings of the oxidized and antique metal finish. There is a huge market now available for spiritual jewelry. Online shopping is more convenient and affordable as you do not have to visit many stores to find the one you want. Online shopping of spiritual jewelry will also enable you to see many varieties in all sorts of jewelry and you can make it yours for life. There are many popular sites on the internet where you will find spiritual jewelry to choose from.

About the Author:-

Devika Rajpali is a well known author and has written articles on Jewellery or silver jewellery, fashion jewellery, gemstone jewellery, and many other subjects.

Each design carries a spiritual belief and is thus worn by those who follow those to fit the feeling of the message that is sketched on. These religious messages are intended to keep a person spiritually linked to their belief systems and those who appreciate this kind of jewelry.

One can see the popular spiritual quotations like ‘Be the change you’d like to see in the world’ that is liked by the people who belong to distinct age groups, religious backgrounds and cultures. The spiritual jewellery looks more charming than the gold jewellery and the messages quoted on the designs are universal and plea to a wide audience that are scattered across the globe.

They are known to be fitting conversational pieces and surpass the charm of gold jewellery. The presentation made by this type of jewellery is into bringing people together of all walks. It adds of morals, and leads them to the spiritual tracks in their lives.

In the first look, the spiritual jewelry may appear to be another alluring show piece that is crafted having it emphasis on the design to suit a beautiful garment just like any other diamond jewellery or gold jewellery. But, the usual case in entirely different. These pieces come in many types and forms such as bracelets, pendants, rings, necklaces and earrings.

People, who opt to wear spiritual ornaments, wear inspirational piece and look like having an extension of being just persons. This type of jewelry has a dual purpose to serve the encourage peacefulness and cheer others to get inspired by this type of jewellery by presenting itself in a better way.

Crystals and various other stones are carved out from the natural aging process of the earth and are thus considered to be extremely sacred in many parts of the world. As additional qualities, these gemstones are there to promote revival from addiction, health issues and various other specific ailments.

The spiritual jewellery in total bound to be impressive and stand well-liked with the kind of people who value the spiritual sayings. This kind of jewellery has become quite popular among those who value spiritual rhymes and sayings.

About the Author:-

Devika Rajpali is a well known author and has written articles on Jewellery and jewellery accessories, silver jewellery, spiritual jewellery, online shop and many other subjects.

Based on author L. Ron Hubbard’s researches into the mind and human behavior prior to 1950, the release of Dianetics release brought on the spontaneous formation of 750 Dianetics groups around the U.S. and establishment of the Hubbard Dianetics Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Mr. Hubbard lectured, instructed and otherwise met a staggering demand, while continuing research into the fundamental nature of man culminating in the founding of the Scientology religion in 1952.

Today, Dianetics remains a key substudy of the greater body of Scientology Scripture, its perennial popularity sustained by its workability. Before Dianetics, prevailing scientific thought held that Man’s mind was his brain, nothing more than a collection of cells and neurons, and IQ and personality were considered fixed and unchanging. With Dianetics, IQ and personality improved, its effectiveness documented in a multitude of case histories over more than half a century of application.

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is published by Bridge Publications and is available in 125,000 libraries in over 180 countries as well as public bookstores and Churches of Scientology. Dianetics Anniversary celebrations are open to the public.

LOS ANGELES—Mr. David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center and ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion, officiated at the ceremony dedicating the new Church April 24, 2010, joined by parishioners and Los Angeles-area officials.

The ceremony marked the conclusion of the fullscale redesign and construction of the Church’s 64,571-square-foot property at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and L. Ron Hubbard Way, now fully reconfigured as an ideal Church of Scientology which also serves as a training center for Church executives and staff from around the world.

Describing the significance of the occasion, Mr. Miscavige said: “Today marks a milestone step in our planetary crusade to bring on our help on a truly global scale—so that one day there is no crime, no war, no insanity, a world in which Man is free to rise to greater heights.”

In describing the significance of the city of Los Angeles to Scientologists, Mr. Miscavige said: “It’s the city where the Church of Scientology was first incorporated in 1954. While even more than that, it’s the city with the largest concentration of Scientologists on Earth.”

Also commemorating the occasion was Ms. Karen Bass, Speaker Emeritus of the California State Assembly: “As a public servant, I try to do everything in my power to give a voice to the voiceless, and to guarantee that no one goes unheard. But through human rights education, we empower everyone to lift their voice and to be heard. The Church of Scientology I know has made a difference, because your Creed is a universal creed and one that speaks to all people everywhere.”

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca acknowledged the actions of the Church and its members: “You have been consistently reliable in helping me to achieve my goal for a safer Los Angeles County. In particular, your drug education means everything to the safety of our schools and neighborhoods. That is why we trained a corps of our own deputies in the use of your unbeatable program, so I want to thank each and every one of you for everything you do in helping me do my job—because today, crime in Los Angeles is at its lowest in 40 years.”

Los Angeles City Council member Paul Koretz spoke of the Church’s place in the rebirth of Hollywood: “Those of us in the City long had a dream for Hollywood. It was for a Phoenix to rise from the ashes, after decades of decline. We needed to transform Hollywood with a cultural revitalization, one that would then ripple out across all of LA. What we are witnessing here is the essence of that Hollywood transformation. Because if ever today there is an example of making this the city of our dreams, it is the Church of Scientology.”

“This striking Church and the complex extending south behind us were once the imposing Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, crafted 80 years ago in the height of the Art Deco period of American architecture. In renovating this landmark, you have gone beyond all of our expectations for what the new Hollywood can be.”

Drawing from those Art Deco roots of 1920s Los Angeles, the fully reconstructed Church evokes the architectural revolution that contributed to putting the home city of the first Church of Scientology on the planetary cultural map.

In addition to an expansive Chapel are many unique elements including an extensive public information area of 20 multimedia displays, a library, seminar rooms, film rooms, volunteer workspaces for its many social and community programs and projects, as well as course rooms that seat over 480, with 35 rooms especially appointed for the religion’s one-on-one spiritual counseling.

Formerly a functional building annexed to the 1928 Art Deco Cedars of Lebanon Hospital buildings designed by Claud Beelman, the massive reconstruction began in November 2009 and encompasses new walls, all new ceilings and finishes, as well as furniture constructed in-house at the Church’s state-of-the-art custom mill with imported wood and marble from Italy.

The Church of Scientology of Los Angeles was incorporated in 1954 as the first Scientology Church in the world. The Greater Los Angeles area is the seat of the religion’s Mother Church, Church of Scientology International, and Bridge Publications who publish and disseminate Mr. Hubbard’s books and recorded lectures for all of North America. Worldwide, there are more than 8,500 Scientology Churches, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries.

Los Angeles is the fourth new Church of Scientology opened in 2010 and the ninth in the past year. The Brussels branch of Churches of Scientology for Europe was opened January 23. The Church of Scientology of Quebec was dedicated January 30, the first new major Church to open in Canada, and the Church of Scientology & Celebrity Centre of Las Vegas opened February 6. In October 2009, two major Churches were opened: the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, DC, and the Church of Scientology of Rome. In April 2009, Scientology Churches in Nashville, Dallas, and Malmo, Sweden, were opened.

These Churches join the roster of new Churches of Scientology in the world’s cultural capitals, including the National Church of Scientology of Spain in Madrid’s Neighborhood of Letters; the Church of Scientology of New York, just off Times Square; the Church of Scientology of San Francisco in the original historic Transamerica Building; the Church of Scientology of London, located in the epicenter of the city; and the Church of Scientology of Berlin, near the Brandenburg Gate. Another 10 new Churches of Scientology are scheduled for completion before the end of 2010.

Canned biscuits work great.
When considering outreach opportunities, you don’t need to start from scratch. Put ideas you already have for outreach ministry into action on a Sunday morning. Some possibilities include:

1. Hold a backyard Bible camp in your community. Consider targeting apartment complexes where many children live. Ask permission from the manager to set up in a central area such as a courtyard. Think of it as a one-day vacation Bible school with a Bible story, an activity, a snack and crafts. By the way, the site of balloons and a helium tank will draw kids in faster than green grass through a goose! Reach children who don’t go to church by having it on a Sunday morning!

2. Host a free car wash in a public area such as a fast-food restaurant or a supermarket. Those who come by on a Sunday morning are people who aren’t in church! Build awareness for your church while you serve the community.

3. Sponsor a picnic for military personnel, law enforcement officers and firefighters to show your appreciation for their service. Have plenty of volunteers available to visit and acquaint participants with your congregation.

4. Provide free oil changes for residents and staff at a domestic violence or other shelter that relies on community support. Be the lamp of Jesus through a filter and a few quarts of oil.

Tap into the skills you already have in your congregation. If you have members with carpentry, electrical or plumbing talent and experience, use that as an outreach opportunity.

Scouts honor!
Be prepared when you go out into the community. Be sure to have literature about your church to share with those you are helping. Have a variety of handouts with information tailored to the specific audience whose needs you are addressing. Provide information for times of ministries, such as church van pickup for those needing a ride to church, children’s programs, alternative worship services and more. Remember, one handout does not fit all!

Change the World
United Methodist churches globally are joining to change the world and change lives! Rethink Church invites your congregation to do an outreach project April 24-25.

Rockaway (N.J.) UMC will support The United Methodist Church’s “Imagine No Malaria” efforts by asking the community for loose change. They’re also hosting a “Lend a Hand” session, where participants assemble health and sewing kits to provide hygiene and clothing in times of crisis. A clothes drive will help the homeless. Those are just three of the 10 events the congregation has scheduled.

In Washington, D.C., Foundry UMC members will do park cleanup, prepare and serve meals, stock food banks and participate in many other activities in partnership with more than 10 area organizations!

In Africa, where malaria is a local issue, the Zimbabwe East Annual Conference is informing the community about how to prevent malaria while raising funds.

You will find sermon starters and worship resources online at www.rethinkchurch.org/changetheworld. Don’t forget to add your church’s outreach project on Google Earth and see what other congregations are doing.  With many events already registered, you’ll see there truly is power and strength in numbers!

Plan a “Don’t go to Church Sunday” for your congregation and witness the positive impact on your community. This is an incredible opportunity to minister to the community—and who knows?—you may find a new mission field in your own backyard. In addition, since food – even canned biscuits – brings in the masses, hold a church potluck the evening of your outreach day to share about your congregation’s experience of ditching their “Sunday best” for sneakers and a helpful heart.

–Tracy Wood, product marketing manager, TechShop, United Methodist Communications. At the mention of Shoney’s Breakfast Bar, Tracy begins salivating like Pavlov’s dog.

MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book In “The Beginning ” points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria. One thing for sure is that life requires intelligent creation and doesn’t come by chance. NASA knows all this but looking for life on other planets is a powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty salaries at stake.

All the scientific evidence only supports the possibility of life coming from previously existing life. It is not scientific to believe that life can arise from non-living matter, at least not spontaneously (by chance). It was once thought by evolutionists that life arose spontaneously from garbage until it was shown that the reason for this is because of insects having previously laid their eggs in the garbage. Thus, the belief that life arose by chance (spontaneously) from chemicals in garbage was successfully refuted. But, evolutionists didn’t give up. They just got more sophisticated.

Stanley Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they’re not in the right sequence the protein molecules won’t work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

Also, what many don’t realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller’s experiment.

In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won’t function. There won’t be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

In the midst of all the arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn’t help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Even in the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don’t actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is just another form of genetic engineering. But God was the first genetic engineer. Remember that always!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

The cell seems to be irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They’re all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how did life come about naturally when there was no directing mechanism in nature.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Many think that natu

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The “Nebraska Man” was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the “missing” link was found.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins…part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There’s nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e. “missing” links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different species as a basis for claiming a transitional (“missing”) link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent. The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won’t go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!

In many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or “missing”) link, but these are not true “missing” or transitional links so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classify them as belonging to the same creature (even when there’s no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case “Lucy” is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones. Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they’re not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that “Lucy” is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don’t observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn’t fully evolved yet?

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book “In The Beginning”, makes this point by saying “All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.”

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can’t run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!

Some evolutionists cite the fossil of an ancient bird known to have claws as an example of a transitional link. However, there are two species of birds living today in South America that have claws on their wings, but even evolutionists today do not claim that these birds are transitional links from a reptilian ancestry. These claws are complete, as everything else on the birds.

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called “missing link” and “transitional” form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appearance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn’t be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

The recent news about a footprint found to be 1.5 millions years as evidence for human evolution is based on circular reasoning. First, many don’t realize the evolutionary assumptions involved in dating fossil layers, but that is another story. Readers who wish to pursue the subject may find the Pravda article “Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?” of interest. Many have wrongly believed that evolutionists use infallible scientific dating methods. Concerning the recent discovery of a 1.5 million year footprint, it is assumed that because humans did not exist 1.5 million years ago that this footprint, which evidence shows belongs to a creature who walked erect, must have belonged to a simian being that was in the process of evolving into a human. This conclusion, actually, is based on a whole series of assumptions.

Evolutionists claim that genetic and biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation. Another interpretation is that comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first Genetic Engineer!

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or reasons for why this is so.

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find billions of clear and indisputable transitional forms (“missing” links) in the fossil record (i.e. fossils of fish with part fins, part feet). Instead we find only a few very disputable “transitional” forms that even all evolutionists cannot agree upon.

The MSM (Main Stream Media) is very good at only reporting the opinions and analysis of those scientists who believe a fossil find supports macro-evolution. The MSM suppresses information and news of scientists who disagree that a particular fossil supports macro-evolution. There are many scientists who don’t agree with Darwinian macro-evolution.

The Creation Research Society (www.creationresearch.org), for example, has a membership of thousands of scientists with a Master’s or Ph.D in the natural sciences who all reject Darwinian macro-evolution. Many such scientists have suffered losing grants for research and even their very jobs because of they reject Darwinian macro-evolution. These scientists do believe that micro-evolution (variations within biological kinds such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) occurs in nature but not macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds).

Again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don’t see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced “instantaneous” changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce any biological traits or variations.

The term “Natural Selection” is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved (“selected”) and be passed on to future offspring. That’s what scientists mean by the term “natural selection”. Since natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible, the real question to ask is what biological variations are naturally possible. Natural selection is just another way of saying “Survival of the Fittest”. But, this is exactly the problem for the Darwinian theory of macro-evolution.

How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for micro-evolution (or horizontal) evolution within biological “kinds” such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not macro-evolution (or vertical) evolution which would involve variations across biological “kinds”), especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes. Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

Even if a new species develops but there are no new genes or new traits then there still is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the new species would remain within the same biological “kind” even though, for whatever biological reasons, it no longer has the ability to breed with the original type.

Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible.

Although the chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in all varieties of plant and animal kinds, the DNA or genetic program that exists in each plant or animal kind will only direct those chemicals into making more of the same genes or variations of the same genes but not entirely new genes.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called “tailbone” is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Abortion clinics have been known to console their patients by telling them that what they’re terminating isn’t really a human being yet but is only a guppy or tadpole!

But, didn’t we all start off from a single cell in our mother’s womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had all of the genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoeba, from which evolutionists say we and all other forms of life had evolved don’t have the genetic information to develop into humans or other species.

There is no scientific evidence that random mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will increase genetic information and complexity which is what ultimately would be necessary to turn amoebas into humans. In fact, the law of entropy in nature would prevent random mutations from being able to accomplish such a feat!

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code produced by random environmental forces such as radiation, over time, will produce entirely new genetic sequences or genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon resulting in entirely new biological kinds or forms of life . Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations occur because of new combinations of already existing genes – not because of mutations.

Mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won’t change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that’s no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity’s first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity’s first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

Science cannot prove we’re here by creation, but neither can science prove we’re here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life’s origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is “A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

The author’s article “Textbook Biology’s Origin of Life Deception” may be accessed at: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/opinion-textbook-biologys-origin-life-deception.

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, “transitional” links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth’s past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah’s Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at www.ChristianAnswers.net.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity’s first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity’s first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race – the human race – within which exists myriad variations and permutations.

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological “kind” such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological “kinds”, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

We have varieties of dogs today that we didn’t have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won’t change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.

Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or chance mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon or preserve.

However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic engineering!

Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don’t do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don’t do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

Most biological variations within a biological kind (i.e. varieties of humans, dogs, cats, horses, mice, etc.) are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations.

For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call “genes” are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one.

Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random forces of nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming for entirely new traits. Again, mutations only have the ability to produce variations of already existing traits. It would require intelligent manipulation of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a human being. The random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic engineering!

If the environment doesn’t possess the ability to perform genetic engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common design in planning the varied architecture of buildings!

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don’t understand is that natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations.

Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved (“selected”) and be passed on to offspring. That is called “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. But, neither “natural selection” nor “survival of the fittest” has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations.

The term “natural selection” is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic code.

Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature? As we have seen all biological variation or evolution is limited to within plant and animal kinds.

Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species – not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn’t fully evolved yet?

Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book “In The Beginning”, makes this point by saying, “All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.”

Usually what is meant by the term “biological kind” is a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological “kind” to another biological “kind” entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or recombination of already existing genes. If, for example, offspring are produced which cannot be crossed back with the original stock then there is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits developed then there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the two distinct species would continue to belong to the same “kind”.

Science cannot prove we’re here by creation, but neither can science prove we’re here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life’s origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is “A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, so-called transitional links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the Earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth’s past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah’s Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at http://www.ChristianAnswers.net.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article “The Natural Limits of Evolution” at my website http://www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.