This essay explicitly reveals the distain in which Christians who accept
evolution are held by this group. It also is unfortunately the attitude
expressed by many who were and are active in opposing evolution in the
It is this attitude, which is highly destructive to the Christian church,
which must be exposed, refuted, and condemned. However, the local churches
are virtually silent on this matter. The ICR has had a steady stream of
conferences, debates, and lectures in Kansas praising the board's decision.
Many ID proponents have also visited, and to my knowledge no effort has
been made to dispel the idea that evolution and the Christian faith are
utterly incompatible. Phil Johnson also made an appearance in which the
board's actions were highly praised. At his lecture Phil was introduced by
Jack Cashill, who holds the view expressed below, and with whom he has
since collaborated in the production of a video.
Here is a quote from one of Cashill's editorials:
>Regardless of what Americans believe, "No divine intervention" is what their
>kids have been learning in public schools. As late as 1995, before yielding
>to anti-Darwinian pressure, the National Association of Biology Teachers
>(NABT) made this clear when it described evolution as "impersonal,
>unsupervised, unpredictable." "Unsupervised" means no one's running the
>show. This point the fundamentalists in Kansas understood better than did
>their opposition. The few pro-evolution, self-identified "mainstream"
>Protestants at the hearing argued that Darwin and God were easily
>In fact, they are really not reconcilable at all.
>When famed evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson noted that "Man is the result
>of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind," he was
>quite clearly denying the existence of a creator.
>So was reigning Darwinian Julian Huxley on the occasion of the Darwin
>Centennial in 1959 when he boldly claimed that "in the evolutionary pattern
>of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The
>earth was not created. It evolved."
>As the anti-evolutionists understand, the Darwinian position has grown even
>more materialistic since the centennial. Says Richard Dawkins, the most
>influential, if the least romantic, of contemporary evolutionary biologists,
>"We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the
>selfish molecules known as genes."
>At the state board meeting, no evolution proponent acknowledged the
>inescapably atheistic thrust of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, the presumed
>"blindness" in man's programming,. This was the most prominent of many
>deceits. (What bothered the Catholics most, me included, was the educators'
>flagrant and repeated distortion of the Pope's thoughts on the subject). The
>six Kansas university presidents who submitted their own protest argued
>preposterously that, if encoded into standards, the very idea that science
>and religion were not compatible would "set Kansas back a century."
I am deeply troubled by the inability of the evangelical church to condemn
such outright dismissal of the faith of fellow brothers and sisters in
Christ. It seems that anything can be sacrificed (Christian love and
charity, grace, historical truth) if it furthers the cause of
BTW: The "engineering professor" mentioned below is my wife, Ruth. She
feels personally libelled by Willis' essay.
Your brother Keith
>"I'm a Christian Too"
>The Greatest "Proof" of Evolution
>by Tom Willis
>A few years ago while in the opening minutes of my address to the Mensa*
>Convention, I was interrupted by a fellow who came to the front of the
>room, stood before the audience of several hundred and announced
>(paraphrase) "I'm a Christian too, but I believe in evolution, so you can
>be a Christian and believe in evolution. You don't have to believe what he
>is saying to be a Christian." Satisfied he had accomplished his important
>mission, he then sat down.
>I have the typical "absent-minded professor" memory, but I typically
>remember what I say in this type of encounter. However, in this case, I
>always draw a blank. I probably said something like, "You can sit in a
>garage and call yourself a car, but that doesn't make either what you call
>yourself or what you believe about cars true."
>At the first public hearing on the Kansas Science Standards, a key member
>of the State Committee who had drafted the proposed science standards,
>privately, but in the hearing of others, informed a School Board member
>that he was offended by the testimony against evolution, because "I'm a
>An engineering professor informed the State School Board members that she
>was "an Evangelical Christian" who accepted evolution.
>I've heard this assertion so often, I call it the "I'm a Christian Too
>Proof" of evolution. Let's examine it briefly:
>The fact that someone claims to be a Christian does not prove his/her
>ideas are sound. In short, even if a Christian does believe in evolution,
>that is not an argument for the truth of evolution. It proves only that
>the person claims to be a Christian, and claims to believe in evolution.
>Evolution must stand or fall in science on the basis of evidence. Their
>Christianity must stand or fall on the basis of the criteria Jesus
>established. The claim is irrelevant.
>Nor does such a claim tell you anything about the true compatibility of
>Christianity and evolution. First, the claim that the person is, in fact,
>a Christian must be weighed. You can sit in a garage all day and claim you
>are a car, but regardless of how fervently you claim it, your status as a
>non-car will not change. Furthermore, only Jesus can define what a
>Christian is and he said, "Ye must be born again." Only those who are born
>again by the Spirit of God are Christians in any meaningful sense.
>There are many other evidences that not all who claim to be Christians
>are. Jesus said that: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather
>grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? - MAT 7:16 Wherefore by their
>fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
>shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
>Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
>have we not prophesied in thy name? ... and in thy name done many
>wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:
>depart from me ... - Matt 7:20-23 He also said: "By this shall ye know
>them, that they love one another." But the most extensive passage is in
>the prayer of Jesus for unity among believers. Central to this prayer is
>the passage: "Holy Father ... Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is
>truth." Jesus makes it clear that his prayer applies to all followers
>through all time, and that Jesus wants all his followers to be sanctified
>(set apart) by God's Word. But, virtually no "Christian evolutionist"
>defends his position from God's word, simply because it cannot be done.
>Therefore, you can be certain that anyone claiming to be a Christian
>evolutionist is either immature in his walk, or a liar.
>Mutations are clearly consistent with the "curse" the Bible says God
>placed on the entire creation. Paul calls it "the bondage to decay," which
>he says applies to the entire universe. Regarding adaptation, even man
>routinely builds automatic adaptation devices like the thermostat in your
>house and the Electronic Fuel Injection in your car. Thus, God who says
>His ways are much higher than ours can design automatic adaptation
>devices. Thus, mutations and adaptation are not only acceptable to
>Christianity, but are predicted by it. However, nowhere in God's Word can
>you find a hint of what some call Macro Evolution. There isn't one
>"Christian" evolutionist that can defend his stance for evolution on the
>basis of God's Word. They all do so on the basis of what they claim is
>science. It is my position that a "Christian" who believes in "progressive
>creation" or "macro evolution" does so in spite of the evidence of the
>Bible, and the evidence of science.
>An even more powerful passage is Revelation 17 in which the behavior,
>nature and destruction of the "harlot, Mystery Babylon" are discussed in
>detail. There are some differences of opinion about who this refers to,
>but nearly every commentator agrees that it refers to the false church and
>that this group will attack (throughout modern history) the true church. A
>more accurate description of "Christian evolutionists" is hard to find.
>They love to call Christians names like "fundamentalists," "extreme
>Biblical literalists," etc. And, wherever evolutionists have taken over
>"evolutionist Christians" have joined Hitler, Stalin, etc., in killing
>Christians. "Drunk with the blood of the saints," and rich from
>compromising ("fornicating") with governments, exactly as the Bible
>describes "Mystery Babylon." Finally, it clearly states that Christ's real
>enemies cooperate with this false church, but truly hate it, and
>eventually destroy it. I have ministered to atheist evolutionists for
>years. They are quite comfortable inviting a "Christian Theologian" to
>debate against creation, but they go to coffee with me. It is clear they
>fear me, but they respect me, and despise my opponent, because they know
>he is a traitor to his professed belief. This is clearly prophesied in
>Revelation 17 to anyone who has eyes to see.
>People who announce "I'm a Christian too" in Creation/Evolution
>discussions may be telling you something about their religion, but are
>telling you nothing about Christianity or the issue of whether evolution
>is good science.
>* Mensa - a fraternity of supposedly the top 2% of the World's most
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506