Evolution versus Christianity: Why You Really Do Have to Choose

When atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman isn’t comparing my ministry to book banning in India (I know, right?), he’s busy misrepresenting his Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend as being representative of Christianity, so that he can say that Christian religion and molecules-to-man evolution are compatible, when it’s actually a minority of liberal churches who participate.

His most recent offering along the latter lines comes to us in the form of a HuffPo piece called “Evolution Weekend: Celebrating Fact and Faith.” The title is, of course, a reference to the unBiblical concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), popularized by the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould. NOMA was Gould’s attempt to disarm religious folk to the dangers of science chained to pure naturalism by proposing that religion and science are two separate but equal magisteria dealing with different things; specifically, science deals with fact and theory while religion deals with meaning and morality.

Near the end of his usual shtick, Zimmerman comes to one of his favorite talking points:

“Together, the thousands of clergy and the hundreds of thousands of their parishioners who celebrate Evolution Weekend, are demonstrating that the supposed war between religion and science, and even more specifically between religion and evolution, doesn’t exist. While they understand that there are some religious sects that shun the modern world, that find reason to attack the findings of science on supposedly theological rather than on scientific grounds, they also know that people holding such beliefs are outliers on the religious spectrum.

Their goal is to demonstrate that those who argue that a choice has to be made between religion and science are presenting a false dichotomy. Their actions show just how easy it can be to embrace religion while recognizing that the methodology of science provides a potent means to understand the natural world.”

I’m afraid he’s wrong on all counts and I suspect he knows it. Oh, at face value his statement that one need not make a choice between science and religion is perfectly valid; a creation scientist would affirm that one need not check our brains and lab coats at the church doors. The problem is that he conflates science with a theory within science, namely, evolution, and then compares apples to oranges by saying religion is not incompatible with evolution, when he ought to be asking whether Christianity as it is understood by most of the world is compatible with molecules-to-man evolution.

Now I can testify that a man can hold to both Christian faith and millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution for a season. This is only because men have this strange ability to hold beliefs in contradiction. When a man determines that his worldview needs to be coherent and consistent across the board, one realizes that science chained to pure naturalism and a religion based on supernatural revelation affirming a supernatural deity who at times performs supernatural acts are antithetical concepts. Zimmerman doesn’t want folks to realize that a true dichotomy exists between these two worldviews because, in his own words, “there’s good reason to believe that if people feel they must choose between the two, religion will more often come out on top.”

He might be referring to the following findings of statistical surveys cited by the Pew Forum:

“When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin’s theory.”

This underscores what I’ve been saying for years: It’s not about facts (we have the same facts, but different interpretations) and it’s not about science (creationist thinking established the sciences and creationists continue to practice science today); it’s about our ultimate authority: the word of men who’ve chained science to pure naturalism or the supernaturally revealed Word of God.

Of course, when evolutionists convince our children that facts are self-explanatory (when they’ve presented said facts as interpreted by all-natural science) and that denying evolution is anti-science, you can certainly convince them to switch worldviews. This is essentially what happened to me. I was told by a science teacher that the claims of evolution were based on empirical fact and that I only believed in special creation because my parents told me to. Since no one was giving me an interpretation to the contrary and since I was shunning the resource of wisdom found in my parents in order to “think for myself” (i.e., parrot my science teacher’s beliefs instead), I ended up rejecting the Christian faith.

I did end up returning to the fold after about a decade of being an agnostic backsliding cliché. The following excerpt from my book explains my dilemma at that point and why we really do have to choose between the authority of God’s Word and the claims of men who’ve interpreted the evidence by science chained to pure naturalism:

Begin excerpt-

“Almost immediately, I knew I would have to tackle the issue of evolution, but I put the question off, remembering where it had led last time. At that stage in my life, when my then-future wife asked me, “What about evolution?” I told her I supposed God could have used evolution. I also insisted that we allow for long ages in the days of Genesis, fearing that denying the claims of science would be a stumbling block for those hearing the Gospel. I had come back to Christendom based on the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and fulfilled prophecy, but I still had a fuzzy notion of Biblical authority.

Eventually, my intellectual integrity would no longer allow me to ignore the Origins Argument. I had by that time accepted the call to preach the Gospel. I was determined not to waste time on side issues, but as I preached and witnessed to folks, I began to notice a trend: when I told them they needed to be saved, they naturally asked why. Of course, we need to be saved because we have all sinned and the wages, or deserved earnings, of sin is death, right? The problem was that many of the people I spoke to were resistant to the Gospel because they’d been told that millions of years of evolution could account for everything, so God wasn’t necessary and the Bible was written by fallible pre-scientific men who got things very, very wrong.

How could one trust the Bible for salvation but not for what it says about why we need to be saved in the first place? Paul said that sin entered the world by one man, and death by sin [Romans 5:12]. Furthermore, “since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” [1 Corinthians 15:22]. These passages point not only to Christ but back to Genesis chapter 3, where the Fall of man and the promise of a future Redeemer is recorded [Genesis 3:15]. How could one rationally retain one’s belief in the Savior if we divorce Him from the historical fact of Genesis 3?

If Adam and Eve were not actual people, if there was no literal Fall, there are serious consequences for Christianity; if there was no literal Fall, there is no need for a Savior! At best, God would be saving us from a design flaw He allowed us to develop via chance and evolution, which He may or may not have directed – and then passed the blame onto us, making God a liar!

Many of those who embrace evolutionism as fact often go on to reject Christianity wholesale, precisely because they recognize that what is being presented as scientific truth completely contradicts what they’ve been taught as religious truth.

For example:

  • The claim that the Earth and universe are billions of years old and man’s existence represents only the tiniest tail-end of that history contradicts Christ Jesus’ affirmation that God created man, male and female, “from the beginning” [Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6] and the Bible’s clear testimony that the Earth and the universe were created in 6 calendar days [Exodus 20:11].
  • The claim that Man is the product of evolution, an endless cycle of death and mutation contradicts the Apostle Paul’s authority for he said “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” [Romans 5:12; also 1 Corinthians 15:22].
  • As noted, the claim that the account of Adam & Eve is only a teaching myth undermines the foundational basis of the Gospel, for if the literal First Adam did not literally Fall there is no need for literal sin debt to be paid by a literal Savior [1 Corinthians 15:45].
  • The claim that the Noachian Flood was local rather than global contradicts the testimony of the Apostle Peter [2 Peter 3:6] and makes God a liar since He promised never to destroy all flesh by water again [Genesis 9:12] — yet local floods abound!

Of course, there are certainly Christians who believe in millions of years of evolution who are otherwise orthodox in their beliefs. I call them extra-Biblical Creationists. In contrast to Biblical (Young Earth) Creationists who hold the Bible as the ultimate authority in all that it speaks upon, extra-Biblical Creationists [e.g., Old Earth Creationism, Day-Age beliefs, Gap Creationism, Framework Hypothesis, Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution, etc.] impose extra-Biblical ideas upon the text and hold to extra-Biblical sources as their ultimate authority where Genesis is concerned. They suppose science has established millions of years and evolution as indisputable fact, so they feel must find a way to make the Bible conform to these scientific proclamations.

As the Holy Spirit began to guide me into all truth, as the Scripture promises [John 16:13], I began to see that the revealed Word of an omnipotent, omniscient God and the word of men in lab coats was not lining up. I chose to give God the benefit of the doubt. Not so with many others I’ve known…

Some have objected that in order to take the Bible seriously, we must acknowledge the humanity of Scripture – that fallible men wrote the Scriptures under Divine Inspiration, but that God had to work within those human limitations – but this would mean that God could not overcome the limitations of His chief creation to relate His Word clearly. Such well-meaning theological doublespeak strips God of omnipotence [for He could not overcome the limitations of mere men] and/or omniscience [since He could not fathom a way to accomplish it under any circumstances]. The theological implications of the position that God cannot overcome human limitations are pretty awful in their own right. I mean, remember that the next time you pray!

Fortunately, such objections are purest bunk; an omnipotent, omniscient God such as the Bible describes is fully able to make His meaning clear, even if it means overcoming the limitations of fallible men to do so. This is a high view of Scripture that I make no apologies for.

I have also heard this hubris [oft repeated] that some claim to “take the Bible too seriously to take it literally” – and it’s doublespeak: If I take a man or text seriously at all, I take them in the context intended. Likewise, because I take Scripture seriously, I take it in the context intended, even if it comes into conflict with the claims of men who don’t affirm it and conduct science by a naturalistic philosophy that excludes God from all consideration anyway. Honestly, whatever happened to “Let God be true and every man a liar” [Romans 3:4]?

You’d be surprised how many folks never consider the full implications of rejecting the history of Genesis. They accept millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution because men in lab coats tell them to. They never stop to realize that if Christians accepted everything these guys said, they’d be forced to deny miracles, the existence of the soul, the resurrection of Christ, God Himself and anything else supernatural, for science has been chained to pure naturalism.

If we do not take God’s Word as our ultimate authority in Genesis [rather than the word of men who doubt it], how can we trust it elsewhere, except arbitrarily? The same naturalistic science that denies special Creation, a young Earth and a world-wide Flood also precludes the possibility of water changing instantly to wine, of immaculate conception, of instantaneous weather control and, especially, of men rising from the dead. If we accept miracles, fulfilled prophecy and the Resurrection in spite of the claims of men in lab coats, why do we turn around and doubt God’s Word in Genesis?

Would it surprise you to note that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, had more faith than these extra-Biblical Creationists? Here’s what he had to say on the subject:

“‘Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation1.”

Of course, Huxley only lacked the one element of faith that extra-Biblical Creationists claim to have: a belief in a Creator. Think of the irony: Huxley affirmed millions of years and evolution, but claimed that, given a Deity, he would have no trouble conceiving of Creation as the Bible describes. An agnostic [the very man who coined the term] has more faith in the abilities of a Creator he denies than an extra-Biblical Creationist has in the abilities of the Creator he affirms.

We need to be consistent in our faith; thus, we need to use the Bible as our starting point, as our ultimate authority rather than taking the word of men as our ultimate authority in some passages of the Bible except when we arbitrarily take the Bible as our starting point in other passages. Why? Because Jesus warned that no man can serve two masters. Thus, no man can serve two authorities; either God’s Word or man’s word must be our ultimate authority. Only the Biblical Creationist takes the revealed Word of God seriously enough to take it at its word, from beginning to end, no matter who disputes its truth.

That being said, if the one who disputes it is a fellow Creationist [albeit an extra-Biblical one], pray for him. I am one who can honestly and humbly say where it concerns compromise with evolution and millions of years, “There but by the grace of God go I.” Or more to the point, “Thus would I have remained but for the grace of God.”

Yet many Christians simply live with this contradiction. In doing so, they’ve effectively adopted the late Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of “non-overlapping magisteria,” better known as NOMA: the idea that religious truth deals with meaning and morality while scientific truth deals with facts and theories – and never the twain shall meet2! In other words, it follows Galileo’s dictum that Scripture’s intent is “to teach us how one goes to heaven not how heaven goes3.”

For the Bible-affirming Christian, NOMA has three distinct problems:

[1] It is built on a logical fallacy.

The problem with this concept is that it commits the fact-value distinction. Christianity makes claims [values] that are rooted in historical fact. For example, Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19, if Christ did not rise from the dead, our preaching and our faith is in vain, we are yet in our sins, those who have died believing in Christ are dead and gone, and we’re guilty of bearing false witness for saying that God raised Christ from the dead. Furthermore in verses 30-32 of that same chapter, Paul notes that if the resurrection did not occur, those who martyred themselves for the faith did so needlessly, for we would have no promise of any life beyond this one. Jesus Himself refuted the false premise behind NOMA when he said to Nicodemus:

“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” [John 3:12]

[2] NOMA contradicts itself by telling us what God can’t do based on the claims of the magisterium of science. Perhaps the most important problem with NOMA is that it refuses to allow any consideration of the supernatural. According to Gould:

“The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: ‘Thou shalt not mix the magisterium by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science4.’”

In the next breath, Gould clarifies that he means miracles aren’t allowed under non-overlapping magisteria, leaving God with nothing to do, unless he’s simply the grand clockwinder5 at the beginning of it all.

[3] The magisteria of science and religion aren’t really equal.

While Gould gives lip service to the equality of the magisteria of science and religion, in practice NOMA is really just Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science): a steady yielding of religious truth to all-natural truth claims made in the name of science. Indeed, it was Gould’s hope that NOMA would offer religious truth a means of quiet surrender by which it might “cede this disputed ground to the rightful occupants of science6.”

You see, as reasonable as NOMA sounds at first glance, it violates the principle set forth in Matthew 6:24:

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

While Jesus was specifically addressing the fact that you can’t serve God and money, the principle He invokes is that you cannot equally hold two priorities or two authorities in your life. One must needs emerge as your ultimate authority.

Of course, evolutionists realize that NOMA is bunk, but they also recognize its usefulness in disarming Christians who wish to appear reasonable7.

On May 20, 2002, Stephen Jay Gould met his Maker [Romans 14:11-12] and shed his agnosticism. Sadly, Dr. Michael Zimmerman has taken up the NOMA torch in recent years. In the fall of 2004, Zimmerman began the anti-creationist Clergy Letter Project as a reaction against the Grantsburg, Wisconsin school board’s proposal that “all theories of origins” be taught in all schools districts8. Thanks to Michael Zimmerman’s actions, which initially only garnered less than 200 signatures, Grantsburg settled for a proposal that science educators teach both evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses.” Zimmerman hailed it as a victory for science education, though he later joined with the Center for Inquiry to fight against a “strengths and weaknesses” policy being considered by the Texas Board of Education in 20099. Zimmerman and similar “science advocacy” [read: evolution enforcement] groups have one sole aim: the exclusive, uncritical indoctrination of our children in millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution through our public schools. Make no mistake: this war for our children’s minds is quite on purpose10!Atheist11 Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project, which now boasts the signatures of approximately 13,000 members of Christian clergy12, has been used since 2004 to bludgeon school districts into enforcing uncritical evolution-only science curriculums under the guise that the NOMA principle implies that there is no real conflict between evolution and religion. The signers of the Clergy Letter affirm evolution as a proven fact, that science and religion are “two very different, but complementary, forms of truth” (an espousal of NOMA), that “many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark – convey timeless truths” in the tradition of Aesop’s fables, and that “religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth” (a second affirmation of NOMA). Predictably, the vast majority of the Clergy Letter signers are almost exclusively from Catholic and liberal mainline denominations with a handful of Unitarian Universalists tossed in for good measure.

For, example, Rev. Michael Dowd, a signer of Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project, believes that the supernatural is simply a synonym for unnatural; therefore, he gives the following synopsis the Good News in the Preface of the Plume paperback edition of Thank God for Evolution (2009):

“An unnatural king who occasionally engages in unnatural acts sends his unnatural son to Earth in an unnatural way. He’s born an unnatural birth, lives an unnatural life, performs unnatural deeds, and is killed and unnaturally rises from the dead in order to redeem humanity from an unnatural curse brought about by an unnaturally talking snake. After 40 days of unnatural appearances he unnaturally zooms off to heaven to return to his unnatural father, sit on an unnatural throne, and unnaturally judge the living and the dead. If you profess to believe in all this unnatural activity, you and your fellow believers get to spend an unnaturally long time in an unnaturally boring paradise while everyone else suffers a torturous hell forever.”

First of all, whoever said heaven is boring? The Bible makes it clear that eternity will be far beyond our wildest imaginations [1 Corinthians 2:9]. Dowd, a minister of the United Church of Christ, believes that the “kick-butt good news” of evolution is far preferable to the Biblical one, but it doesn’t seem as if he comprehends what he objects to well enough to make such a comparison!

Men such as Dowd are rank apostates, but I wonder if many of the well-meaning clergymen who’ve signed Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter realize the full implications of what they are agreeing to, especially if Zimmerman’s Letter is meant to espouse the same version of NOMA which Gould described in Rocks of Ages. Gould’s NOMA arbitrarily invalidated teleological arguments for God’s existence13, God’s provenance14; and even the possibility of theistic evolution15, while giving lip service to God as a “clock-winder” at the beginning of it all in one version of NOMA16 (mere deism at best).

In fact, during his testimony during McLean v. Arkansas, Gould was asked, “Professor Gould, does evolutionary theory presuppose the absence of a creator?” His response was telling:

“Certainly not. Indeed, many of my colleagues are devoutly religious people. Evolution as a science does not talk about the existence of a creator. It is quite consistent with one or without one, so long as the creator works by natural laws.” [emphasis mine]

See how he contradicts himself? In one breath, he says that evolution doesn’t talk about God’s existence; in the next, He says that evolution is only consistent with a supernatural God who doesn’t actually do anything supernatural, except perhaps to institute those natural laws: a clock winder, but no more. This is utterly at odds with the Bible’s revelation of God.

While signers of the Clergy Letter Project are desperately attempting to convince the world that religion and molecules-to-man evolution are compatible, if you listen to the testimonies of those who’ve abandoned Christianity in adulthood, you find a common thread: amid the muddle of charges against Christendom, we find that almost all of their stories mention that once evolutionism was explained to them as a fact that they began to find fault with the Bible. They lost faith in the Beginning of the Bible, they began to echo the Serpent’s question “Did God really say?” and then they began to doubt the rest of it, until it all seemed pointless. Many of those who embraced evolutionism as fact went on to reject Christianity wholesale, recognizing that what was being presented as scientific truth completely contradicted what they’d been taught as religious truth. In other words, once they rejected the “earthly things” of the Bible, they went on to reject the “spiritual things” of the Bible as well.

This very tendency is why Eugenie Scott17 of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a notorious “science advocacy” [again read: evolution enforcement] group, recognizing that many students have been warned that microbes-to-man evolution is incompatible with traditional Christian faith, has advised teachers to defuse the religion issue by telling them to ask a clergyman whether evolution is OK or not. If the child’s religion is not one of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Christianity or Islam], then chances are their clergy will tell them that evolution is OK. Likewise, if the child’s religion is Catholic or one of the mainline Protestant denominations, they’ll likely get the response Eugenie Scott is rooting for. Yet she cautions against the idea of surveying local ministers from a community of traditional, conservative Christian ministers because such a survey would derail her primary goal of convincing students that evolution is OK. Given the dichotomy between liberal mainline and conservative evangelical Christianity, teachers who follow Eugenie Scott’s advice are guilty of promoting one religion over another, since their tactics are meant to undermine the position of conservative Protestant faith while promoting Catholic and liberal Protestant positions for the sake of their acceptance of microbes-to-man evolution. Far from being religiously neutral, the tactics the NCSE recommends are actually promoting religious faiths that teach the compatibility of theology with microbes-to-man evolution over ones that do not.

While liberal Christianity accepts evolution, much of it also rejects a good bit of Christianity’s fundamental teachings. In many cases, liberal Christianity is Christian in name only and is so far removed from apostolic teaching that it is simply the religion of secular humanism dressed up as Christianity! For example, Presbyterian pastor John Shuck, a signer of Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Christian Clergy Letter, doesn’t even believe in either the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the very existence of God18!

Does Eugenie Scott give a rip that what liberal Christianity preaches from its pulpits? No, she merely recognizes that compromising ministers have the power to sway minds toward evolution and methodological atheism. In many cases, this compromise will cause our children to doubt the very authority of the Bible and lead to actual atheism. These ministers compromise with evolution and/or millions of years because 21st century science tells them the plain meaning of God’s revealed Word must be wrong – and never once consider the fruit of evolution is the lost souls of our children and our grandchildren. A good tree cannot produce evil fruit. They should affirm the plain truth of God’s Word in Genesis and let every man who speaks otherwise be a liar!

At least Eugenie Scott, the late Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Zimmerman, being atheists and agnostics, are being consistent with their beliefs when they subvert our kids with this unbiblical concept and lead them down the road to philosophical humanism by indoctrinating them into believing evolution as fact – by any means necessary. The signers of Zimmerman’s pro-evolution, pro-NOMA Christian Clergy Letter and Christian organizations like BioLogos have no such excuse. They are guilty of considering neither the presuppositions nor the fruit of evolutionary theory. Rather than obeying the Biblical command to cast down arguments and everything that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ [2 Corinthians 10:5], Christians who ascribe to non-overlapping magisteria are progressively undermining the foundational basis of the Gospel.

End excerpt-

If your church plans on celebrating a Creation Sunday rather than an Evolution Sunday this weekend, be sure to visit CreationSundays.com and add your church to the growing list of supporters so folks can attend a Bible-affirming church in their area.

Also be sure to visit our Creation Sunday Facebook page at http://facebook.com/creationsunday

defgenbookcover3And visit http://eepurl.com/8x9XL to sign up to receive our newsletter, Creation Sunday News. For a limited time, subscribers will receive a coupon code to receive a free ebook copy of my new book, Defending Genesis: How We Got Here & Why It Matters. The ebook is available in many different formats on Smashwords. This offer expires February 28, 2015.


  1. Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 241.
  2. Stephen J. Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Ballantine Books: New York (1999), p.6. Referred to hereafter as Rocks of Ages.
  3. Galileo Galilei, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christian” (1615), from Stillman Drake, transl., Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (1957), p.186, reprinted in Science and Religious Belief 1600-1900: A Selection of Primary Sources. D.C. Goodman, editor. Open University Press (1973), p. 34.
  4. Rocks of Ages, pp. 84-85.
  5. Rocks of Ages, p. 22. See also Note 15.
  6. Rocks of Ages, p.100.
  7. Bora Zivkovic. “Why Teaching Evolution Is Dangerous.” ScienceBlogs.com. Aug. 25, 2008. Web. Retrieved May 8, 2012. http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/why_teaching_evolution_is_dang.php.
  8. Background information on the Clergy Letter can be found on the Clergy Letter’s website at http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Backgd_info.htm, an Aug. 23, 2005 article by the Beloit Daily News at http://www.beloitdailynews.com/news/clergy-weigh-in-on-evolution-design/article_9a418305-82e3-5c5c-b699-a00c16f4fe7a.html, and an interview with Jeff Nash for HumanistNetworkNews.org [Note 10].
  9. You can view more details of this joint effort by CFI and the Clergy Letter Project at their website, http://TeachThemScience.org.
  10. For an admission of this fact from the Humanist camp, see John J. Dunphy. “A Religion for a New Age.” The Humanist. (Jan-Feb 1983): 26.
  11.  “Conversations with Christian and Atheist Activists: Michael Zimmerman.” Interview with Guest Columnist Jeff Nash. HumanistNetworksNews.org. Web. Jan 3. 2007. Retrieved March 11, 2011. http://www.americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=278&article=1
  12. The text of the Clergy Letter can be found at http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm. For a line-by-line deconstruction of the Christian Clergy Letter visit http://kcsg.wordpress.com/clergy-letter.
  13. Rocks of Ages, pp .218-219.
  14. Rocks of Ages, pp.93-94; also 201-202.
  15. Rocks of Ages, p. 94.
  16. Rocks of Ages, p. 22. One assumes that in another version of NOMA even this small concession to the notion of a Creator God would be disallowed; certainly Gould provides no versions of NOMA in which God may act as more than a clock-winder.
  17. Eugenie Scott. “Dealing With Anti-Evolutionism.” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, v17 n4 p24-30 Jul-Aug 1997. NSCE.com. Reprinted at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Scott.html. Retrieved 29 Apr 2012.
  18. John Shuck. “A Church Without God.” ShuckandJive.org. Web. March 23, 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2011. http://www.shuckandjive.org/2010/03/church-without-god.html.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s