"... if precision and dependability be the marks of an exact science, surely naturalistic New Testament textual criticism fails to meet the test. It leaves the major phenomena of the New Testament text unexplained, especially the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. This deficiency readily becomes apparent when we consider the vain efforts of naturalistic textual critics to account for this Traditional text".1 The reader should note that when this author mentions "scientific" methods, he is not referring to "science falsely so called"2 like the thoroughly pagan philosophical speculations such as the "Big Bang" or "Steady State" cosmogonies. Neither does he mean other nature myths that likewise deal with origins such as the hypothesis of evolution (any version - being incapable of falsification, organic evolution fails to meet the technical requirements to merit theory status) nor many of the pantheistic fancies of relativist, all of which have been erected based upon a few actual facts of science but whose support pillars are merely philosophy. All of these are no more that fairy stories for adults, full of metaphysical self-defeating contradictions into which unbelieving scientists have fallen because they have rejected and/or ignored God's revelation of Himself.3

Real Science is based upon what you see. Indeed, the first premise in the scientific method states that we begin with an "observed" phenomenon. Thus, if that which is under investigation is not observable to the eye, it may or may not be true but, by definition, it is not science. It will be immediately noted that as no one alive today has actually physically seen God, the scientific method places God beyond and exterior to the realm of science. However it also places many supposed scientific hypotheses and theories outside the same realm for no mortal "observed" the origin of the universe or the solar system. Neither has anyone "seen" any organic evolution occur. Hence it must be recognized and acknowledged that the advocates of these views are not practicing real science; they, like the adherents of the opposing side, are engaged in a philosophic belief system. Such practices of faith have long been defined by a well known term - and that appellation is "religion". Thus both sides are going through life practicing their beliefs and in so doing are being "religious". One side honestly admits this; the other is self-deceived and does not so concede.

Regarding organic evolution, we are not referring to genetic variation within the dog kind (whereby c.120 different varieties ranging from dachshund to Great Dane may be produced by selective breeding), varieties of mosquitoes adapting to DDT, or population changes occurring between the dark and light varieties of peppered moths. Such are only "horizontal" changes (micro-evolution) revealing the inherent ability to adapt which is built into the DNA code of living creatures that allows them to survive limited changes in the environment so as not to readily become extinct. Such occurrences, though often cited as examples of evolution, have nothing whatsoever to do with macro-evolution (which is, after all, what evolution - neo-Darwinian or punctuated equilibrium - is really all about) whereby organisms progress upward over time toward more complexity and higher degrees of order - for in the cited examples neither of these prerequisites takes place.

That is, we are referring to the alleged type of change in which the dog kind and cat kind originated from a common ancestor. All the dog varieties produced by the aforementioned selective breeding are still "Canis familiaris" and, being the genus Canis, are interfertile (although size differences can produce physical difficulties) and can produce fertile offspring (the scientific prerequisites for determining Genera). Moreover, the mosquitoes remain the same variety and can still reproduce with others like it was before the adaptation took place and the dark and light forms of the moths

1 Hills, Believing Bible Study, op. cit., pp. 89-91.

2 King James Bible, I Timothy 6:20.

3 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 240-241. Here Dr. Hills exhibits excellent yet rare insight with regard to the problems inherent with modern godless science. Although this author does not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, brother Hills grasped the situation and true scientific fundamentals better than nearly all of today's Christ-professing scientists.

109


continued...