The public school system gives a great deal of authority to the realm of science. What is now known as "scientific" appears to be the sole means for determining approximate truth about reality. Science assumes the universe is only natural and material and, consequently, proposes naturalistic and materialistic explanations for explaining the world.

Alternative explanations for understanding the universe are thought to be outside the realm of science. Science invariably leaves these possible explanations to other disciplines (e.g., philosophy). For instance, when other explanations result from philosophical inquiry as to the nature of the universe, they are not considered scientific and therefore less trustworthy. In fact, other "non-scientific" explanations are placed in the camp of conjecture and aren’t given serious consideration by those who practice science.

Nowhere has this polarization between science and philosophy been more evident than in the discussion of origins. While evolutionists assert that creationists are merely seeking a way of imposing religion upon society in the name of science, creationists charge that evolutionists espouse their own form of religion (viz., humanism).

This paper will defend biblical creationism against secular evolution. The scientific gridwork of several high school science texts will be challenged by showing the philosophical assumptions behind the conclusions drawn in these texts. Origins of life will be the exclusive emphasis. I will also show that it is impossible for one to practice science without simultaneously practicing philosophy as well.

Finally, an appeal will be made for science teachers to seriously look at what’s behind their own scientific models – the very structure of their paradigms. Teachers will be encouraged to help their students investigate assumptions that scientists hold and, in doing so, work toward a more coherent Christian worldview. Educational alternatives for how science is done in the classroom will also be introduced.

The first principle of the Humanist Manifesto I states: "The religious humanists regards [sic] the universe as self-existing and not created."1 This is the fundamental canon of evolution, viz., the eternality of the universe. However, the universe is either self-existing or it was created. According to the law of non-contradiction, matter cannot be both eternal and have a beginning. One proposition necessarily refutes the possibility of the other. Since the universe is self-existing, according to the evolutionary scheme, there is no need for a Creator God. Hence, evolution can be thought of as an elaborate means of promoting atheism. This being true, evolution is fundamentally religious in nature.

Popular science denies that evolution has anything to do with religion. It contends that only the hard, physical facts are being looked at. The sum of these facts point to an evolutionary model according to science. This can only be true insofar as certain assumptions are held regarding what constitutes the practice of good science. First, one must be committed to naturalistic explanations, such as material and efficient causality, and eliminate supernatural explanations for how life began. Second, chance, rather than an intelligent Creator, is the sovereign force behind the universe, leaving no possibility for an apparent teleological design. The result is that there is no ultimate purpose for anything.2 All of life is nothing more than the product of blind, random processes.

Certain other presuppositions must be embraced before evolutionary explanations (or all of science for that matter) can be true. Several examples: one must believe that nature is intelligible and that it is consistent in the past and future (uniformitarianism); nature must be explainable (nothing is lost in the process from interpretation to explication); the laws of logic are true (e.g., law of non-contradiction); and one’s memory and senses are trustworthy to give an accurate correspondence between what is observed and what is really "out there."3 On this last point an illustration from Thomas Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is appropriate:

An investigator. . .asked a distinguished physicist and an eminent chemist whether a single atom of helium was or was not a molecule. Both answered without hesitation, but their answers were not the same. For the chemist the atom of helium was a molecule because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases. For the physicist. . .the helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum. Presumably both. . .were talking of the same particle. . .but they did not, in this case, tell. . .the same thing.4

The significant point of this illustration is that what corresponds between reality and one’s understanding of it is primarily based upon the structure of the existing paradigm. If the evolutionary model is accepted as true, then one only needs to look for evidence to support that model. No other assumptions are considered (e.g., the existence of a Creator God), so no evidence will be discovered to test the viability of that assumption.

Public education has decided that evolution is true. This is evident in some of the most popular publishers of school text books today. Among them are Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, Merrill and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. In spite of the difficulties of classic Darwinism, it is still maintained as the only truth regarding the origins of life.

After a brief treatment of what spontaneous generation is and why it is no longer accepted as a possible explanation of origins, each text reviewed offers the only other possible explanation for how life came into existence: evolution.

In a chapter entitled "Change With Time," one text presents the theory of evolution. Beginning with the fossil record, this explanation says that:

Studies of fossils also indicate that older organisms (found in lower layers) are generally less complex than newer ones (found in upper layers). Thus, biologists have concluded that simpler forms of life existed first. These simpler forms of life were gradually added to or replaced by more complex forms.5

If this were true then the fossil record would also indicate intermediate life forms. These would include fish-to-amphibian, amphibian-to-reptile, reptile-to-bird and reptile-to-mammal fossils. But these transitional fossils are completely absent. One text admits that "Fossils of many intermediate forms of life have not been found."6 Yet the word "many" suggests that some have been found. This is simply not true. In the very next sentence, the same text says, "However, sufficient evidence gathered from fossils has convinced scientists that evolution has taken place."7 One has to wonder what constitutes "sufficient evidence," because the text provides absolutely none – at least concerning transitional forms!

Nevertheless, two possible evidences for transitional forms are offered by the traditional evolutionary model. One is the reptile-to-mammal transition. Some fossils indicate a jaw joint having characteristics of both reptile and mammal. This is scant evidence, since the jaw joint is one of the quickest parts of the skeleton to adapt to dietary or environmental changes. Hence, this could be nothing more than an animal adapting to a unique diet rather than a new species evolving.

Second, the reptile-to-bird transition is supposedly found in the Archaeopteryx, a fossil with feathers and teeth. But there is evidence of substances that could not be part of the original fossil, suggesting that it has been tampered with.8

This leaves the fossil record seriously wanting of any "evidence" that lends substantial support to simpler life forms gradually developing into more complex life forms. In fact, there is a sense in which the fossil record works against evolution as Phillip E. Johnson has observed: ". . .if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."9

Related to the fossil record is the radiometric dating method. In each text book reviewed I found this not just the only reliable (?) dating method, but it was, in most cases, the only dating method. After briefly explaining the mechanics of it, the texts went on to assume the validity of radiometric dating. But behind this is an underlying uniformitarian view of the universe. The physical laws that work today also apply to the world in the past. There are no hidden variables (such as supernatural interventions), and we live in a deterministic universe where constants in the math of physics are truly constant.

One text makes this clear. After introducing the concept of uniformitarianism, the text goes on to say:

only by observing the processes occurring around us today have we been able to unlock the mysteries of our past. As you read the next chapter, you will see how observing life on Earth today has allowed us to understand how organisms have evolved through time.10

Is this necessarily true? In spite of the biblical implications against uniformitarianism (II Pt. 3:3-7), one should question the logic of such a view. It is anachronistic to assume the (alleged) constants of the universe have always been true. Any change in a(n) (alleged) physical constant of the universe could significantly alter existing scientific claims.

There have been some studies done to suggest that the velocity of light has decreased by approximately 0.3% over the past 300 years. Verified by at least four mathematicians, Australian astronomer Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman have proposed this possibility. From this, one can infer that other physical constants could increase or decrease with time. In the scheme of the material universe, if just one physical constant turns out to be variant then other processes are proportional to it.

For example, radioactive decay rates would have to be adjusted to be in proportion to the velocity of light. Radioactive half-lives would be affected by a change in the velocity of light. This means serious recalibration would have to be done with all radiometric dating methods. At the atomic and cosmic levels, ". . .some physical processes would be slowed down or speeded up in the past. Processes of geology such as plate tectonics or mountain building could have occurred rapidly during the early history of earth."11

All of this is very significant as it relates to dating fossils and needs to be considered by science. The assumptions of science should be viewed as just that – assumptions. They are not infallible nor constant but only exist to provide the structure and framework from which to understand and explain the world from an empirical and naturalistic view. But the natural-material universe is not necessarily all there is to observe or explain. Ontologically speaking, there has to be something behind the empirical world to explain its existence and function. The only other option is to assume matter is eternal – and that requires far more faith (more appropriately naiveté) than believing in a Creator God.

More evidence for evolution comes from concluding that similarities in species are a result of common ancestry. When two species are being compared and biological and/or phenotypical (appearance or other discernible characteristics of an organism) likenesses between them are discovered then, it is maintained, there must be parental kinship between those two species (examples include comparing reptiles and primates with humans). Studies in embryology supposedly bear this out. As one text puts it: "By studying the similarities between the embryos of different species, we have discovered clues about which species are most closely related. Those species with similar embryo development probably [italics mine] shared a common ancestor. . ."12 The text confidently asserts:

The embryos of each of these animals [viz., human and reptile] have tails and gill pouches during periods in their development. In fact, at some point during their growth, both of these embryos develop many features that are found in adult fish. Why are fishlike features present in the embryos of reptiles, mammals, and birds? Because reptiles, mammals, and birds evolved from early fish, they go through the same basic development as fish.13

An obvious problem with this line of reasoning is the blatant tautology. In other words, r, m and b have f features because of parental kinship, and r, m and b have parental kinship because of f features. Its inherent explaining power is impotent! It appears that tautology is common in the evolutionary arena.

Another problem with this "evidence" is that humans don’t develop tails or gills. The "gill pouches" don’t serve the function of oxygen exchange as they do for fish. The apparent "gills" actually become important facilitators for the development of the larynx in human embryos.

One other difficulty with embryology is the selective pick of embryonic evidence. The development of the butterfly is significantly different from its other insect relatives. No one would believe that the butterfly ". . .represents an evolutionary stage in the development of insects!"14

In spite of his evolutionary bent, Colin Patterson seems to support the fact that comparative studies in embryology don’t necessarily support evolution. He writes:

. . .close similarity between two organisms is no guarantee that they have the same genes – the same phenotype, or external appearance, can be the end-product of different genotypes. This emphasizes once again that the phenotype is not the expression of a series of individual genes, but a co-operative effort, the result of interaction between genes.15

In other words, the appearance of an organism having similarities with another organism of a different species does not support a common ancestry based upon genetic constitution. This statement also indicates the complexity of variables that interact with one another – all of which have not been discovered, much less understood – that contribute to the gene pool (and hence, the phenotype) of any given organism. It’s a bold pronouncement, indeed, to say that similar traits result from common ancestry!

More evidence for evolution comes from comparing different structures of organisms. One of three structures used in the case for evolution are the vestigial structures. These structures (or organs, as they are called) have been reduced in size in the organism and serve no apparent function. Examples of these would be the human appendix and tonsils. It is assumed that these structures (or organs) were once functional in the ancestor but, "there is no adaptive advantage in the evolution of a useless organ"16 and therefore, became inoperative over time.

But the obvious question that this argument begs is "has everything regarding the function of an organ or body part been discovered and exhaustively understood?" To postulate that an organ is useless is tantamount to saying "all there is to know regarding that organ and its potential impact upon the entire organism has been discovered." This is certainly not the case. For example, it is now a well-established fact that the appendix and tonsils are linked to the immune system.17 Granted this has not always been known, but that is the nature of science, discovery!

An excellent example of this scientific piety regarding knowledge and understanding comes from a renown evolutionist. Douglas Futuyma offers an apologetic for evolutionists in the appendix of his book Science on Trial. In it he counters the assertion by creationists that vestigial structures are truly functional by saying:

There is not the slightest reason to think that many vestigial structures, which violate rational [?] design, have any function. The pelvic bones of pythons and the rudimentary wings of many insects have no known [italics mine] function, and related species of snakes and insects lack them altogether.18

Simply because the function of a vestigial structure is not known does not mean there is no function. It would be more accurate to say the function of the vestigial structure has yet to be discovered. Time has already done amazing things both for and against science.

The argument for evolution based upon vestigial structures has some serious epistemological difficulties that go far beyond the evidence. New discoveries can have an impact on an entire model of science, and it is the responsibility of teachers to strive to be ‘in the know’ regarding new discoveries that could radically revolutionize the way science is done in the classroom. While a new discovery can, and often does, invalidate a previously held view, the value of introducing new discoveries comes in showing students just how volatile science is for determining truth. History reveals that science is, by nature, cumulative and does not have the corner on reality or truth (the Copernican, Newtonian and Einsteinium revolutions are prime examples).

Even if/when science discovers approximate truth about the universe, the basis for its authority is probability rather than divine revelation from a Creator God. Science can never have a trustworthy epistemological system whereby it can validate truth. The best secular science can do is point out that things are; not how or why; this is the business of philosophy and theology. Apart from the help of these other disciplines, science is floundering about as though life truly has meaning. What sort of meaning is there to life when it spontaneously arose from random natural processes? Even if, under the design of evolution, some ultimate meaning for life exists and objective values were discovered as being worthy of belief, who would trust them? The best evolution could offer is that meaning in life and objective values are a product of the blind process of natural selection.

Much has been said against evolution. The most that could be maintained is that the evidence for evolution is lacking and therefore the system should be questioned. What will be the new theory to replace evolution? This is not to say that modified theories have not emerged and sought to clarify the evolutionary schema. Punctuated equilibrianism is one that has certainly gained some ground.19 However, other non-creationist theories are nothing more than elaborate means of trying to support the basic assumption that matter (in some form or another) is eternal.

The only other reasonable and internally consistent theory is creationism. Of course, there are conceptual problems with the creation model too. These have not gone unnoticed by the scientific and philosophical community.20

The case for creationism is essentially philosophical just as the case for evolution is. On the one hand, the starting point for evolution is an autonomous reality that is eternal, and when proper reason and physical laws are applied to it that reality can be understood. On the other hand, the starting point for creationism is that the universe is a dependent system whereby its beginnings are developed, implemented and sustained by an intelligent being who gives purpose and order to it. Any interpretation of the universe is correct only insofar as it conforms to the Creator’s interpretation.21 Hence, creationism extends beyond the realm of science in that no form of empirical testing can substitute for how the universe came into existence.

The basic argument for creationism starts with an uncomplicated syllogism. It must be said that even though this flows from logical reasoning, it has been demonstrated that science depends upon the skills of reason and straight-thinking. No discipline could survive without these skills. The argument succinctly states:

— Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
— The universe began to exist.
— Therefore, the universe has a cause.22

The first premise is evident. It is intelligible, plausible and quite reasonable. A negative way of stating it is "something cannot come from nothing." If there was nothing before the existence of the universe, then how do we explain its existence? Does ‘stuff’ really just happen? This could only be true if there were no cause and effect relationships in the universe. David Hume himself understood the causal principle to be intact as he wrote to an acquaintance, "I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. . ."23 The first premise naturally excludes God since he has no beginning and is, by definition, eternal and immutable or, as Aristotle puts it, the Uncaused Cause.

The second premise is where science enters. The assumption of the second premise is some kind of creatorial theism or first cause. If matter is not eternal then it must, of necessity, have a beginning. If there is a beginning to the universe then the conclusion follows that the universe must have a cause.

One exception to this is the Big Bang theory. This model holds that the universe is expanding the same in all directions, much the same way an inner tube expands when air is pumped into it. The implication of this is that the universe was, at some point in the past, contracted down to a single point of infinite density.

The Big Bang theory in se has little explanatory power without God behind it. First, the nature of ‘infinite density’ is equivalent to ‘nothing at all.’ So the big bang model requires that the universe had a beginning and that it resulted from nothing. This line of reasoning only works if God authored the universe ex nihilo. Otherwise, we have a universe banged into existence from nothing and no ultimate cause behind it. It simply happened!

Second, while it may be admitted that the universe is expanding, there is the possibility that the ‘expansion rate’ is discontinuous rather than uniform. It is likely that the expansion rate of the universe could have been altered by some cataclysmic event (such as a universal flood or a meteor colliding with the earth) whereby the first and second laws of thermodynamics and, other known physical laws, were significantly altered by a catastrophe. Without God, the classic Big Bang theory has left few options for science to draw from.

Another model has been erected that is a modified version of the traditional Big Bang theory. It proposes that the universe is expanding and collapsing in an endless cyclical fashion. Numerous difficulties arise in this theory as well. First, if there is an indefinite amount of times that the universe expands and contracts and there also exists a fixed amount of energy in the universe (this is assumed to be true based upon the second law of thermodynamics), then there would be no more matter to bang. If the bangs are cyclical or infinite, then there would be no universe, since it already ‘banged’ itself out of existence.

Second, what known model of physics is there that can illustrate the universe bouncing back from a collapse? How in the world does order and design result from a black hole or void based upon the current laws of physics? The nature of a black hole is essentially an uneven distribution of matter. No scientific paradigm exists to account for an infinite number of ‘bangs.’24

This leaves science with the only other model available to explain the existence of the universe, viz., creation. Simply put, creation maintains that an uncaused, necessary, immutable and omnipotent being brought the universe into existence ex nihilo. Genesis 1:1 affirms, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The Genesis account says that he created it; not how, or by what means. He is the source, the ultimate cause for its existence.

The apostle Paul echoes the doctrine of creation: "For by Him [Christ] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible. . ." (Col. 1:16). John says the same of Christ, the Word Incarnate, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (Jn. 1:3). The author of Hebrews writes,
". . .the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Heb. 11:3).

The creation is said to be intentional, expressive of God's character and purposive.25 Intentional means there is nothing concealed or impetuous about creation. At the moment of creation, or "in the beginning," God did not create first and then step back to see what resulted. As an omniscient being, God sees every detail of creation and sovereignly superintends its existence.

Romans 1:20 says that God has disclosed himself in the creation in such a way that the creation, to some extent, reflects something of the character of its creator. The ability to perceive God in creation is universal because the flow of Paul’s argument demands that "Those who perceive the attributes of God in creation must be the same as those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. . ."26 (cf. 1:18). The difficulty with this knowledge of God is that it is limited and distorted into a complete aberration of the truth (cf., Romans 1:21ff). Naturalistic, evolutionary science piously maintains that there is no need for revelation about the universe; mankind’s own knowledge and understanding is sufficient for explaining origins.

Finally, the creation is said to be purposive. That is, "it is directed toward some goal perceived to be of some value."27 Evolutionists would not argue that the universe is moving toward some goal; the goal is the survival of the fittest and natural selection is the means. However, there is an underlying value system at work here which implies that it is a worthy and valuable goal to be fit and survive. But how would nature know this goal to be of value? Who or what determined ‘survival of the fittest’ to be the highest goal? It cannot be nature, since it is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent. Does nature have some type of moral consciousness whereby it can determine the direction of species and select, through natural means, the strongest biologically?

Even if Darwinism was true and nature was moving toward the strongest biological organism, not all goal-oriented behavior is efficacious toward some meaningful end. The moral and ethical ramifications of evolution would be disastrous if held to consistently. The whole of existence would be nothing more than matter + chance + time = life; and then you die! All meaning and significance assigned to life would be only a fabrication of the mind and hold no genuine authority. If evolution was true then my writing this paper is simply an erroneous scheme and your seeking to understand it is not only senseless but futile!

Having said a great deal about evolution and its difficulties both scientifically and philosophically, what are some alternatives concerning public education? Should parents assume the church will provide the theological instruction to counter secular science?

The answers to these questions are not easy, and the involvement of parents and teachers will vary in and among the Christian community. Nevertheless, some viable options are available to get the ball rolling to combat the current pseudo-scientific evolutionary worldview.

First, political involvement in the form of lobbying against evolution being taught as an authoritarian position on origins could bring some change in classroom curricula. There is no question that much of this has already taken place and with no substantial movement toward equal time being given to creationism. But this approach should include a provision for creationists to refuse funding with their tax dollars a portion of the public school systems that perpetuate the doctrine of evolution as the only "scientific" explanation of origins.

Second, independent schooling of children (home or private) has taken on a great deal of momentum over the last ten years and does eliminate the influence of public schools. If the law allows tax credits for supporting an alternative system, then parents would have the choice of where to send their children for schooling. The potential political and social repercussions aren’t promising though. Allegations of partiality and segregation would, no doubt, be leveled against the government forcing new legislation prohibiting all private education. Also, neighbor grievances may result from a lower public school budget for those who wish to allow their children to remain in the public system.

Third, working in and through the present system could result in a better understanding of both evolution and creation. This assumes that parents have a working knowledge of the issues on both sides and are able to defend their own positions. Unfortunately, most don’t and, chances are, the teachers may not have a handle on the issues!

This leaves one other option. Serious study in both scientific and philosophical inquiry should be the hallmark of a society who takes pride in ‘knowing.’ The philosophy of education and what constitutes good, quality education is a concept that must receive more attention in secondary and college level classrooms. Synthesis, rather than analysis, should be emphasized to promote an integrative understanding of how it is that other disciplines correlate with one another. Questions such as "What constitutes the scientific method? How can we justify knowing anything? What is the nature of reality? What interpretive schemes are available for historical research? What moral and ethical implication does this or that discovery have upon myself/society?"

The plain truth is that there are no such things as brute, raw facts to observe and interpret. "Facts do not exist in a vacuum – they exist in a worldview."28 One’s worldview or framework will contribute to the ultimate meaning assigned to that data. It is the business of education (especially in a pluralistic society) to introduce varying worldviews so the individual can develop his/her own paradigm of reality.

This is not to say that educated people are happier or better off in any way. Educated people are simply informed. It is a product of Western pride to believe that society is more orderly as a result of information (sorry, Plato). The point is that evolution is maintained as the only truth about origins; this is simply not the case. Creationism is a viable option and should be given equal time, in the name of education! One may go away unconvinced of creationism, but they will at least be challenged to look at the world from a different (and equally scientific) point of view.

In conclusion, it has been shown that current high school science texts are presenting evolution as the only viable explanation on the origin of the universe. Several scientific and philosophical objections have been raised against this. Creationism was offered as an explanation for the origin of the universe.

Alternatives were offered for how to improve upon existing curricula/theories on origin science. An appeal for an integrative approach to education was made showing how necessary philosophical principles are in unifying various disciplines showing relationships both to each other and the world.

—ENDNOTES—

1. John Dewey, The Humanists Manifesto I and II, (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1973), 8.
2. J. P. Moreland, Christianity and the Nature of Science, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 216-217.
3. Taken from Mr. Alan Myatt’s lecture, April 7, 1992, Denver Seminary. In all fairness, these presuppositions are equally necessary for a creation model, given certain qualifications.
4. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 50-51.
5. Raymond F. Oram, Biology, 4th edition (Columbus: Merrill, 1983), 179ff.
6. Alton Biggs, Donald Emmeluth, Chris Gentry, Rachel Hays, Linda Lundgren, Francesca Mollura, Biology, (Columbus: Merrill, 1991), 201.
7. Ibid.
8. Both of these refutations were taken from an article published by Dr. Maria Boccia entitled Creation and Evolution: Opposing Worldviews, Spring 1988.
9. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 50.
10. Ralph M. Feather, Jr., Dale T. Hesser, Susan Leach Snyder, Earth Science, (Westerville: Merrill, 1993), 439.
11. Lambert T. Dolphin, "New Possibilities: Changing Physical Constants," LodeStar Review (January, 1989): 5. For more information regarding this see his Jesus, Lord of Time and Space (New Leaf Press: Green Forest, 1988).
12. Feather, Hesser, Snyder, Earth Science, 451.
13. Ibid., 451.
14. Boccia, Creation and Evolution, 12.
15. Colin Patterson, Evolution, (Trustees of the British Museum: England, 1978), 99.
16. Biggs, Emmeluth, Gentry, Hays, Lundgren, Mollura, Biology, 202.
17. Boccia, Creation and Evolution, 12.
18. Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, (Pantheon: New York, 1982), 225.
19. This theory maintains a rapid evolutionary change in organisms that results in extended periods of stasis (the total absence of morphological change in a species) where species remain essentially and functionally the same.
20. For instance Anthony Flew, Douglas Futuyma, Colin Patterson and Carl Sagan.
21. Myatt, Denver Seminary, April 7, 1992.
22. William Lane Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction, (Moody: Chicago, 1984), 74. Much of the following is dependent on Craig.
23. Quoted in Craig, 75, from The Letters of David Hume, 1:187.
24. For more scientific and mathematical evidence against an infinite series of big bangs see Craig, ibid., 84-90.
25. Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 143-144.
26. Douglas Moo, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, Romans 1-8, ed., Kenneth Barker, (Moody: Chicago, 1991), 101.
27. Morris, Our Idea, 144.
28. Myatt, classroom, May 12, 1992.