First, we commend you for confronting the official state religion. Your book is like salt and light to a world given to corruption, darkness and foolishness. Not so long ago you would be facing the punishment due to religious heretics. Now you are exposed to the more acceptable forms of persecution like assaults on your character and your religion. This is to be expected from the darwinites. They have abandoned the scientific method to win disciples in favor of intimidation and fraud.

Isaac Newton said that the eye did not originate without knowledge of the science of optics. Similarly, we can say that flying creatures did not originate without knowledge of the science of aerodynamics. It is incredible that intelligent men would think that these things happened without a designer. This tells us something significant about the darwinites. Regardless of what they say, this controversy has more to do with philosophy than with science.

We have been monitoring the reviews of your book. The liberal response was typical in its focus on one quote out of context in an attempt to discredit the author and the book. We expected the darwinites to ignore you. Perhaps your book is provoking uncomfortable inquiry, because you have provoked their unthoughtful response. We hope that many will be influenced by your book and discover for themselves the deception surrounding darwinism.

Most of the responses are predictable and can be summarized as, “She believes in God; what could she know, and why doesn’t she profess her faith privately?” These are an attempted defense of what you have exposed as fraud. It makes for some comic relief to see how men who profess to be scientists lose their rationality when it comes to defending darwinism. If darwinism is good science, then why the fraud?

For example this one gives us the classic quote, “Evolution is not a religion, and it makes no value judgments.” They are dead right about evolution being without values, but they fail to realize that a world-view with a value free ethic leads to lawlessness in all aspects of the culture.

Folly of Naturalism

Francis Schaeffer in Escape from Reason has exposed the tendency of autonomous science to disregard the things that give meaning and purpose. Science given over to naturalism will end in despair, because science can only know the things that can be measured. Presupposing that there is no God has doomed it to a hopeless and baseless quest to answer those questions that transcend mechanics. Who is man and what is his purpose? Autonomous science will never answer these questions, because they belong to the spiritual realm. In our day naturalism has led men to this nonsense.

Significantly, the darwinites now say that evolution theory does not extend to the origin of life. Up to date evolutionists have succumbed to the law of biogenesis. Life begets life. Even the darwinites had to admit that the living cell with its self-replicating DNA did not originate without design. This is a huge admission for them to make, since the only alternative is a designer; a designer that has given us a living cell.

Starting with a living cell may have given the darwinites a pass on the origin of life, but this does not get around the problem of the origin of personality and language. No one has begun to explain how the impersonal plus time plus chance will ever result in something personal with the ability to communicate ideas and to live by faith. These things cannot be explained in the realm of naturalism. The designer of the cell must be living and personal to explain the existence of man.

The darwinites have given up on the idea that evolution can explain the origin of life, but given a living cell they can explain how life evolved into all the complex life forms including man. Why would a theory that has nothing to say about the origin of the cell be credible on the evolution of the cell? Perhaps, they will succumb to the other sciences as well.

Real science is against the darwinites. The science of thermodynamics says that systems do not increase in complexity without intelligent work. Anybody that’s been to a junkyard can testify to this fact. The sun shines on those junk cars most every day and all they do is rust. There is no mechanism to convert the sun’s energy into useful work to repair those cars. The same idea holds for living things. An engine is necessary for energy conversion into a useful form to sustain life. Biochemical engines do not happen by chance.

The science of genetics says that only limited genetic variation can be expected within species and that accumulated mutations are less than beneficial. DNA is designed to copy itself. There is no mechanism to add new genetic information to the DNA strand. Genetic mutations are mistakes in the copy process. It is not reasonable to expect random copying mistakes to accumulate into changes that are beneficial to life.

Predictions and the Fossil Record

We are told that genetic mutations accumulate so that lower life forms change into more complex life forms driven only by a principle of survival of the fittest. That is, invertebrates change into vertebrates and fish change into mammals. This is called macro-evolution.

The fossil record must provide the critical evidence for or against macro-evolution, since no other scientific evidence can possibly tell us the actual history of living things. The vital question before us is whether the record of past ages, now preserved in the form of fossils, show that such changes have occurred.

On the basis of the evolution model we would predict that the most ancient strata in which fossils are found would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of leaving a fossil record. As successive younger strata were searched we would expect to see the gradual transition of these relatively simple forms of life into more and more complex forms of life. As living forms diverged into the millions of species which have existed in the past and which exist today, we would expect to find a slow and gradual transition of one form into another. We would not expect the new basic types to appear suddenly in the fossil record possessing all of the characteristics that are used to define its kind.

If fish evolved into amphibian, then we would expect to find transitional forms showing the gradual transition of fins into feet and legs. If reptiles gave rise to birds, then we would expect to find transitional forms in the fossil record showing the gradual transition of the forelimbs of the ancestral reptile into the wings of a bird, and the gradual transition of some structure on the reptile into feathers of a bird. These are the obvious transitions that would be easily traced in the fossil record.

The fossil record ought to produce thousands upon thousands of transitional or in-between forms. After 170 years of searching, a large number of obvious transitional forms would have been discovered if the predictions of evolution theory are valid. We have discovered billions of fossils of ancient invertebrates and many fossils of ancient fishes.

Evolutionists allow many millions of years for the transition of invertebrates into vertebrates. Populations are supposed to constitute the units of evolution and, of course, only successful populations survive. It seems obvious that if we find fossils of the invertebrates that were supposed to have been ancestral to fishes, and if we find fossils of the fishes, we surely ought to find the fossils of the transitional forms. [Credits to Drs. Duane Gish and the late Henry Morris at icr.org]

Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory”

The review done by mediamatters.org at mediamatters.org/items/200607070010 is what we refer to as a snow job. The method is to confuse the real issues with mountains of detail. Distract the reader into thinking you are refuting the arguments against your position and then declare your foe vanquished.

For example, they labor to make the point that Archaeopteryx is an example of a transitional life form between reptile and bird. The question of debate is not over one or a few disputed transitional fossils. The issue is over the thousands and thousands of obvious transitionals that are absent from the fossil record.

If a theory makes a prediction, then we expect to see the evidence. Based on the doctrine of common descent the number of fossils documenting the gradual change from the lower groups to the more complex groups should greatly out-number the total number of the existing fossils from the major groups. It would be difficult to identify where the transitions between the major groups were complete, because the changes would be so gradual. The expected characteristic would look more like one form blending into another rather than abrupt changes.

Is this not what is expected based on the theory? Yes, even the darwinites admit this in their Punctuated Equilibria (PE) theory. To their credit they made use of the scientific method. When predictions based on their theory were not verified in the data, they modified their theory. PE says that macro-evolution does not occur uniformly over long periods of time. Rather it happens in spurts, followed by long periods of inactivity. Therefore, the transitional forms occur so fast in terms of geologic time that they are not present in the fossil record.

This is an improper use of the scientific method because the modification made to the theory invalidates the basic tenet of the theory, namely that gradual changes can explain the fossil record. Darwinites have admitted with PE that gradual changes cannot explain the fossil record. Without the fossil record to support the theory, the darwinites have no theory. Therefore, evolution is now more about philosophy than science.

Perhaps the darwinites would understand why reasonable men have serious questions about their theory. Other intelligent men have looked at the data, and by using the scientific method they have rejected macro-evolution. The abrupt appearance of fully functioning life forms and the absence of abundant and obvious transitional fossils indicate that the fossils are saying something contrary to macro-evolution.

The evidence is more consistent with the Biblical testimony of the creation of plants and animals according to their kind and that reproduce after their kind and that perished in a global flood. The fossil record, rather than being a record of transformation, is a record of mass destruction, death, and burial by a flood event that was more catastrophic than we can imagine. [Credits to Dr. Walt Brown at creationscience.com]

Social Darwinism

Darwinites like to think that their theory is pure science. To suggest that it is vain philosophy that corrupts the way men think and live is anathema to them. They disregard the words of wisdom, “Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it come the issues of life” and again, “You shall know them by their fruits;” that is, look at their works, not their words.

In response some have disparaged Christianity by saying that Protestantism influenced Hitler’s anti-Semitism. These men are enemies of the cross. They have exalted themselves above the revelation of Jesus Christ, and as unregenerate men they glory in their foolishness. For example, the following quote is from the worldly wisdom of Ellis Weiner:

“I'm stunned. How could I have gone through twelve years of public school, and six years of Hebrew school, and four years of college, and two years of drum lessons, and still not know that the deadly career of the world-famous dictator, Adolph Hitler, is directly attributable to Jesus Christ? Because it's all there: Hitler bedazzled by the Christian Social Party. His awakening to a transformative embrace of anti-Semitism…Would there have been a Christian Social Party without Jesus? Who for centuries has been lauded as The Christ? Because isn't that where the word "Christian" comes from? As pertaining to Christ and Christianity?”

How Jesus Led to Hitler and Hitler Led to Ann Coulter
By Ellis Weiner
huffingtonpost.com/ellis-weiner/how-jesus-led-to-hitler-a_b_27856.html

Mr. Weiner thinks he is clever to mock the connection you make between Darwin and Hitler by making the leap from Christ to Hitler. If Mr. Weiner had ever read the New Testament, perhaps he would know that Hitler’s behavior could not be associated with the teachings of Jesus Christ, except by gross ignorance or religious bigotry. However, were Hitler’s actions consistent with the teachings of Darwin? Yes, his policies have been referred to as applied darwinism.

The following two quotes are from a couple of the good reviews.

“[Ms.] Coulter’s final chapter serves as a thought-provoking addendum to her searing cross-examination of evolution’s star witnesses. “The Aped Crusader” displays the devastating social consequences that have thus far attended Darwinism. From German and American eugenicists (including Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger), to Aryan racists, to the infanticidal musings of Princeton’s Peter Singer, Darwinian evolution boasts a political and philosophical heritage that could only be envied by the likes of Charles Manson. Yet it is a history ignored by liberals for whom Darwin’s theory provides what they want above all else—a creation myth that sanctifies their sexual urges, sanctions abortion, and disposes of God.”

[Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Richard Kirk, theonerepublic.com/archives/Columns/Kirk/20060710KirkGodless.html]

“It’s amazing to me that parents continue to cede religion to Darwinism in our public schools while they take their children to church on Sunday. Do we really require Darwin’s evolution theory for human societies and the study of all things? What has it produced? There is no heart, mind or soul in Darwin’s theory, only random mechanics.”

[Darwin's Evolutionary Disciples Silent by Bonnie Alba, renewamerica.us/columns/alba/060811]

The Sovereignty of God

Finally, be reminded of the sovereignty of God. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that god is sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? [Daniel 4:35] To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will. [Psalm 115:3] To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is “The Governor among the nations” [Psalm 22:28], setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is [the High King of Heaven,] the “Only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords” [I Timothy 6:15]. Such is the God of the Bible [with whom we have to do]. 

                                                                                  –Arthur Pink from the Sovereignty of God

Martin Luther stood before the combined powers of state and church in his day armed only with his Bible and the faith that had set him free. His words should be an encouragement to all men who love the truth and long for the kingdom wherein dwells righteousness.

“Did we in our own strength confide, Our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, The Man of God’s own choosing.
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he, Lord of Hosts is his Name,
From age to age the same, And he must win the battle.” 
                                                            
                                                                        –Martin Luther from A Mighty Fortress is our God