One of the results of this new situation is that if one wishes to be thought of as “scientifically astute” or ‘educated” one must bow before the orthodox idol of materialistic thought, primarily expressed in its greatest child, the theory of evolution. If one dares to ask the freedom to fit the facts of scientific research into any other theory than that of evolution, one is automatically the target of ad hominem attacks and slanderous abuse. All is fair in the defense of the orthodox religion. No level of abject lying or misrepresentation is prohibited from the faithful Darwinite. Surely no Roman Catholic inquisitor was more dutiful than the modem defenders of naturalistic materialism.

But, we are told, there is no possible way that any other view could be true! Really? Well, let’s take some of the facts of science and demonstrate that what we know to be true fits far better within a theistic/creationist viewpoint than an atheistic/materialistic one. We shall first look at the function of natural selection and ask the question, "which theory best explains and even predicts the existence of natural selection in species today?”

If, in any instance, it is found that the information better fits into the creation model than the evolution model, then surely simple honesty demands the granting of freedom for further examination. Only an incredibly deep prejudice, from a commitment to the religion of materialism, can possibly provide a basis for a denial of such freedom.

The genetic make-up of animal and vegetable species includes a mechanism that allows a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions that, without the existence of this mechanism, would result in the extinction of the species. This process or mechanism is known as natural selection. How does it work? Basically, the forces of predatory or environmental selection work upon the inherent ability of the genetic mechanisms to change and adapt to allow the species to survive and adapt.

Natural selection is the process whereby the spectrum of phenotypic manifestations of the genetic make-up is “taken advantage of” by the selection pressures of the environment. Stasis could be described as a time when there is no specific or directional pressures being exerted upon a species, either by predation or environment. For example, those individuals with genetic makeup “g” predominate in the gene-pool of the species. These individuals, then, have more viable offspring that pass on their genotype than an individual with, say, genotype “i”. Since “i" is not as well adapted to the environment as "g" then “i” will not, as long as environmental conditions remain the same, replace “g” as the center-point of the genotypic spectrum of this species.

Now, let’s say that a shift takes place in some environmental factor. The classic Illustration is predation. A new predator enters the environment and begins to exert more pressure upon the individuals with the “g" genotype than the “i” genotype (which was, till this time, a minority in the gene-pool). The practical result of this is that those with the “i” genotype begin to have more viable offspring in the second generation than those with the “g” genotype. The effect over time, of course, is a shift of the center of the gene-pool.

Now, it is important to differentiate between natural selection and micro-mutational evolution as proposed in the neo-Darwinian model. Natural selection, as described above, is not dependent upon, nor driven by, any mutation in the genetic code of the individuals within the species. As we saw, the above genotypes in our example both existed together in the gene-pool; the environmental pressures did not “create” anything new, but the ability of the species to adapt was derived from the pre-existing range of genetic possibilities. Now, it is clear, why the neo-Darwinian synthesis must place such a huge emphasis and weight upon the existence of mutation to provide “new” genetic material upon which, over great expanses of time, natural selection can then work to bring about the incredible complexity and variation of life as we see today.

Now, in light of all this, let’s ask some simple questions. First, which of the two models would predict such a mechanism as natural selection? Well, natural selection is primarily a mechanism of conservation. It is not the “engine" of change that is so often claimed for it. Which model would predict a mechanism that would allow for the conservation of a species? If a Creator did indeed produce a purposeful creation, would not such a mechanism be expected? And how shall the evolutionist explain the origination of the process of natural selection? Clearly the model does not predict it at all, and neither can it provide a logical explanation for how it came about.

The point is that the whole spectrum of scientific evidence relative to natural selection fits perfectly and without contradiction into the creationist model. The evolutionist must emphasize the exceptional circumstance, rather than the norm. In the exceptional he must deny the fundamental precept that the function of the DNA/RNA system is to copy itself and repair copy errors. Mutation leads to extinction, not increased complexity and new function. Natural selection of existing genetic potential leads to the conservation of life as from a wise Creator.

We see from this brief examination of the scientific evidence that it can successfully be fit into the creationist model. In fact, it fits with better consistency and accuracy than in the evolutionary model. This alone is sufficient to demonstrate the sad religious bigotry that predominates in scientific circles today that would eliminate the freedom to think in any way other than the “orthodox” way of naturalistic materialism. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and bigots.