Headlines

Viewpoints

Media
& Culture

Health
& Wellness

Career
& Workplace

Apologetics

EXTRA!

VBS

Adults

Students

Childhood

Pastor

Staff

Music
& Worship

Ministries

Technology

Singles

Marriage
and Family

Parenting

Students

Senior
Adults

Homeschool

Find
Products - Online Catalog

Order on LifeWay
Account

How
To Order Online

LifeWay Stores

Southern
Baptist Purchasing Alliance

Track Orders

Check
Account History

Request
Catalogs

Customer
Service

Enrichment

Leadership

Living
Proof Live with Beth Moore

FAITH

Centrifuge

About
International

Español

International
Events

Church
Leader Helps

Products
and Resources

Volunteer
Missions

Study the Bible

Downloads

Newsletters

Curriculum
Guide

Ministry
Insights

Find a Job

Build A Church Web
Site

Fit 4
Tools

24-Hr.
Counselor

Christian Growth
Study Plan

Streaming
Audio and Video

Welcome

Glorieta

Ridgecrest

Events

Email
Updates

Contact
Us

Donations

Newsroom

About
LifeWay

Advertise
With Us

Careers
with LifeWay

Contact
Us

Legal

Headlines
|  Viewpoints
|  Media
& Culture  |  Health
& Wellness  |  Career
& Workplace  |  Apologetics

Log
In | Register

Science
|  Philosophy
|  Biblical
|  Religions
& Cults  |  Social
Issues  |  Tactics

Repeatable Evolution
or Repeated Creation?

Fazale Rana

Any casual observer of nature recognizes that
many creatures bear some resemblance to one
another. Many species of frogs, lizards, fish,
and other animals and plants from different
parts of the world appear to be nearly
identical. This similarity has been the pattern
throughout life’s history. Recent biological
studies have shed light on the nature of this
physical resemblance and carry significant
apologetic implications. Many species that look
identical are, in fact, genetically different,
and therefore unrelated. In accounting for these
unexpected differences, evolutionary biologists
have proffered inadequate explanations. This
article will discuss a few of the many recent
discoveries that continue to buttress the case
for a biblical creator while continuing to erode
the foundation for the evolutionary
paradigm.

LifeWay
Recommends

Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution

From
within the highest ranks of the scientific
community comes a startling new theory of
creation that not only contradicts Darwinian
orthodoxy but opens the door to theological
arguments biologists have dismissed and
ridiculed for more than a century. 'Charmingly
convey(s) a sense of biochemistry's hidden
beauty'.--'The New York Times Book Review'. Line
art.

According to evolutionary theory, organisms
that possess identical morphologies (forms or
structures) must share a common ancestry.
Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have
employed morphological systematics––the
study of the relationships among organisms
according to physical characteristics––when
classifying species, and thus have concluded
that similar groups share common ancestry.
However, with the advent and widespread
application of molecular systematics, in
which DNA sequences are used instead of
morphologies to determine biological
relationships, science now is beginning to
identify an increasing number of challenges to
the evolutionary classification. Biologists are
uncovering numerous examples of organisms that
cluster together morphologically
(structurally), and yet are
genetically distinct. Frogs, lizards, or
herbs that appear to be identical are actually
different at the genetic level. An evolutionary
interpretation of this data, then, demands that
the morphologically identical organisms must
have evolved independently of one another in
a “repeatable” fashion.

The Contingent Nature of the Evolutionary
Process

The evolutionary paradigm
cannot accommodate “repeatable” evolution. When
evolutionists observe a tree frog ideally suited
for its environment, they assert that natural
selection––environmental, predatory, and
competitive pressures repeatedly operating on
random inheritable variations for long periods
of time––has led to this relationship. Chance
governs the evolutionary process at its most
fundamental level. Because of this, it is
expected that repeated evolutionary events will
result in dramatically different outcomes.
The concept of Historical Contingency embodies
this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould’s
Wonderful Life:

“…No finale can be specified at the
start, none would ever occur a second time in
the same way, because any pathway proceeds
through thousands of improbable stages. Alter
any early event, ever so slightly, and without
apparent importance at the time, and evolution
cascades into a radically different channel.”{1}

Gould’s metaphor of “replaying life’s tape”
asserts that if one were to push the rewind
button, erase life’s history, and let the tape
run again, the results would be completely
different.{2}
The very essence of the evolutionary process
renders evolutionary outcomes as nonreproducible
(or nonrepeatable). Therefore, “repeatable”
evolution is inconsistent with the mechanism
available to bring about biological change.

A Test for Evolution, A Test for
Creation

The idea of Historical Contingency suggests
that one powerful way to discriminate between
the “appearance of design” that results from the
evolutionary process and Intelligent Design is
to determine if contingency is operating in the
biological realm.{3}
If life is exclusively the result of
evolutionary processes, then biologists should
expect to see few, if any, cases in which
evolution has “repeated” itself. This is simply
not the case. During the last six years numerous
examples of “repeatable” evolution have come to
light as molecular data has been increasingly
used in biological systematics. These findings
demonstrate that the evolutionary paradigm fails
the test of contingency. The discovery of
morphologically identical, yet genetically
unrelated organisms does, however, offer
powerful support for biblical creation. These
examples of “repeatable” evolution include
anolis lizards, ranid frogs, cichlids,
sticklebacks, mangabeys, river dolphins, and
Pericallis, an island plant.

Anolis Lizards

Anolis lizard species found on the
islands of the Greater Antilles (Cuba,
Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico) are
perfectly adapted to fit into six distinctive
ecological niches.{4}
A species that is perfectly suited for a
particular ecological niche is termed an
ecomorph. Two examples of Anolis lizard
ecomorphs found on the Greater Antilles are
small lizards with short legs that live on
fragile twigs, and large lizards with large toe
pads that occupy the crowns of trees.
Morphological analysis of the Anolis
lizards that populate the Greater Antilles
reveals objectively recognizable groups of
ecomorphs.{5}
Based on their morphological features (or close
resemblance), members of the same ecomorph
grouping from the different islands were found
to be more closely related to one another than
lizards from the same island.

Given the contingent nature of the
evolutionary process, therefore, it would be
expected that each ecomorph evolved a single
time from an ancestral species. Each ecomorph
produced by a single evolutionary sequence of
events would have then dispersed among the
islands of the Greater Antilles. However, when
this model was tested by comparing mitochondrial
DNA sequences of the different Anolis species,
it was discovered that lizards in the same
ecomorph class were not related to one
another.{6}
This study concluded that it would have taken at
least 17-19 separate evolutionary pathways to
produce all the Anolis ecomorphs, if natural
process evolution was the explanatory agent.
Commenting on this work, biologists P.H. Harvey
and L. Partridge, state, “It seems that as the
tape of life has been replayed in separate
islands, there has been a remarkable amount of
convergent evolution.”{7}

Ranid Frogs

Ranid frogs–– comprised of over 1000
species––are common throughout the world. These
frogs have adapted to a wide range of lifestyles
and habitats.  Two of the Ranid
subfamilies, Rhacophorinae (tree frogs)
and Tomopterninal (burrowing frogs) are
found both in Madagascar and on the Indian
sub-continent of Asia.  They are nearly
indistinguishable in their morphological,
physiological and developmental characteristics
and form two groups of ecomorphs.

Frogs, specifically, and amphibians, in
general, cannot migrate through salty
environments. Therefore, it has long been held,
from an evolutionary standpoint, that the tree
frogs and burrowing frogs evolved prior to the
separation of the Madagascar-Seychelles-Indian
tectonic plate from Gondwanaland (the earth’s
one land mass prior to tectonic separation). It
is believed that this tectonic plate drifted
away from Gondwanaland about 130 million years
ago, separated to form Madagascar, and finally
attached onto Eurasia to form the Indian
sub-continent. Some tree and burrowing frogs
were passively carried along and became isolated
from one another.

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analyses of
Madagascar and Indian Ranid frogs demonstrate,
however, that the evolutionary explanation is
untenable.{8}
DNA sequence analysis clusters these ecomorphs
based on geography not morphological
features.  In other words, from an
evolutionary perspective, burrowing frogs and
tree frogs in Madagascar and India must
have evolved independently. This same study
has also identified examples of “repeated”
evolution for Ranid ecomorphs located in Sri
Lanka and India.{9}
Even more amazing, researchers conclude from the
DNA sequence analysis that the larval
characteristics of several Madagascar and Indian
ecomorphs are also identical. This means that
the complex developmental pathways and larval
lifestyles must have evolved
independently on several occasions to produce
the same result––if the data is viewed
from an evolutionary perspective.{10}

Cichlids

Cichlids––freshwater fish that are widely
diverse in form, color and habits––are scattered
throughout the Southern Hemisphere. {11}
Numerous examples of cichlid ecomorphs have been
recognized in lakes Victoria, Malawi and
Tanganyika of East Africa. An evolutionary
explanation would postulate that each of the
ecomorphs evolved a single time and then was
independently isolated in each lake after water
levels subsided, causing a single lake to split
into three geographically separated lakes.{12}

Sequence analysis of mitochondrial DNA,
however, indicates that the ecomorphs found in
the three East African lakes must have evolved
independently, multiple times, assuming an
evolutionary explanation.{13},{14},{15},{16},{17}
Also, researchers have noted the independent
emergence of ecomorphs for cichlids in two lakes
in Cameroon.{18}
Even more striking is the recent recognition
that multiple independent origins occurred for
ecomorphs within different regions of a single
lake, Tanganyika.{19}
That is, from an evolutionary perspective, some
cichlid species in Lake Tanganyika are viewed as
separate, morphologically indistinguishable
species that “evolved” in exactly the same way
multiple times.

Like the cichlids, scientists believe the
sticklebacks species found in British Columbia
evolved several times independently to produce
the same ecomorphs. The same two stickleback
species, bulky benthic (bottom-dwelling) feeders
and streamline open-water feeders, live in
isolated lakes near the Pacific coast of British
Columbia. The standard evolutionary explanation
maintains that these two species evolved from
one marine stickleback species, became trapped
and isolated in the lakes after sea levels
changed, and then independently populated the
lakes.{20}
Mitochondrial DNA analysis provides results
contrary to the most plausible evolutionary
explanations.{21}
These results indicate that the stickleback
species from the same lake have a greater degree
of genetic similarity than do morphologically
identical species from different lakes. From an
evolutionary viewpoint, therefore, stickleback
ecomorphs in the isolated lakes must be
the product of “reproducible” evolutionary
events.

A recent breeding experiment affirms the
previous conclusion.{22}
In a laboratory environment, researchers
discovered that corresponding ecomorphs from
different lakes attempt to interbreed with one
another, while eschewing the different ecomorphs
that share their lakes. This result is
interesting in light of the biological
definition of a species.  Biologically, a
species is considered to be an interbreeding
population of individuals. The willingness of
the same ecomorphs from different lakes to
interbreed points to just how profound the
similarity is among the stickleback
ecomorphs––both morphologically and
behaviorally.

Mangabeys

Mangabeys are large Old World monkeys found
in Africa. Morphological similarity has
traditionally led biologists to place all the
mangabey species into a single genus,
Cercocebus. Baboons, drills, mandrills,
and geladas are closely related to mangabeys.
Earlier molecular studies and mitochondrial DNA
sequence analysis challenged the morphologically
based classification that places mangabeys into
a single group.{23},{24}
These studies indicated that the single mangabey
genus should have been separated into two
groups, and that the nearly identical mangabey
morphologies must have evolved independently two
times. Recent nuclear DNA analyses have
confirmed that mangabey morphology “evolved” on
two separate occasions, when viewed from the
evolutionary paradigm.{25}

These results not only support two
morphologically indistinguishable genera,
Cercocebus and Lophocebus, but also indicate
that the strong morphological similarities of
drills, mandrills and baboons must have evolved
independently as well. Nuclear DNA sequence
analysis aligns drills and mandrills with the
mangabey genus, Cercocebus, and baboons and
geladas with the mangabey genus, Lophocebus.{26}
Inspired by the results of the molecular
studies, two biologists have recently recognized
subtle morphological differences in dental
features and in the arm and leg bones of the
Cercocebus and Lophocebus mangabeys.{27}
However, these skeletal and dental differences
are so slight that without the supporting DNA
sequence data it is questionable if these
differences would have been recognized at all,
let alone accepted as significant.

River Dolphins

Unlike other marine mammals (whales,
porpoises, and dolphins), river dolphins live in
freshwater, river environments. There are four
extant river dolphin species. Three of these
species live exclusively in freshwater and one
(the La Plata dolphin) lives both in estuaries
and coastal waters. The freshwater dolphins
inhabit the Ganges and Brahmaptura Rivers of
India, the Yangtze River of China, and the
Amazon River.

River dolphins share similar and
characteristic morphologies. The most
commonplace view among biologists is that the
river dolphins emerged from a single
evolutionary pathway. Mitochondrial and nuclear
DNA sequence analysis now demonstrates
otherwise.{28}
In other words, if the DNA sequence data
is interpreted within an evolutionary context,
the four river dolphin species must have evolved
the same characteristic features independently
and repeatedly.

Pericallis

Pericallis, a genus of plants related
to sunflowers, are found in the Macaronesian
archipelago (Azores, Canary Islands, Cape Verde,
Madeira and Selvagens) off the west coast of
Africa.{29}
Of the Pericallis species found in the
Macaronesian islands, six are woody and nine are
herbaceous. This is not surprising, since many
island plants are woody variants of mainland
herbs or soft-bodied plants.

The most reasonable evolutionary explanation
for the origin of Pericallis woodiness is that
it evolved on the mainland and found its way to
the Macaronesian islands. However, nuclear DNA
sequence analysis betrays this explanation by
revealing no genetic similarity. When examined
employing evolutionary assumptions, therefore,
the data indicates that Pericallis woodiness
musthave evolved on at least two separate
occasions.{30}

Evolutionary Attempts to Account for
Repeatable Evolution

In isolation, each case of “repeatable”
evolution can be viewed as an oddity and poses
no real threat to the “truth” of biological
evolution. However, the many cases of
“repeatable” evolution––in which entire
organisms seem to evolve independently and
reproducibly––simply doesn’t follow, given the
nature of the mechanism available to drive the
evolutionary process, chance. Biologists who
embrace methodological naturalism––the notion
that only natural explanations can be used to
account for phenomena in the physical and
material world––do indeed regard the occurrences
of “repeatable” evolution as unexpected and
remarkable. However, their philosophical
predisposition does not allow them to be open to
the possibility that a Creator is responsible
for the repeated occurrences of ecomorphs found
in nature.  These morphologically
indistinguishable, yet genetically distinct
ecomorphs can be properly considered as one of
the many fingerprints that the Creator has left
on His creation. In fact, if a single Creator
was responsible for life, one could anticipate
seeing repeated examples of the same blueprint
throughout the biological realm. One would
expect that a single Creator would reuse
successful designs over and over again.

Given the examples cited previously,
evolutionary biologists cannot seem to account
for “repeatable” evolution. One attempt at
explaining this phenomenon is to attribute
“special” capability to the forces of natural
selection.{31}
Since organisms are perfectly suited for their
ecological milieu, and therefore more likely to
survive to reproductive age, it is thought that
the forces of natural selection––competitive,
predatory, and environmental
influences––repeatedly “channel” the
evolutionary process down the same pathway to
produce the same organisms. This explanation for
recurrent evolution neglects the fact that
selective forces are nothing more than a blind
filter. Natural selection can only operate on
traits made available by random changes in the
population’s genetic makeup. It is not likely
that these changes would be repeatable, given
the complexity of genomes, nor that they would
occur in the same historical sequence.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the factors
that made up an organism’s ecology would be
identical throughout time. Changes to the
ecological environment in Madagascar, for
example, would not be identical to the changes
in the ecological environment in India. The
components of natural selection are influenced
by chance and by history. Therefore, natural
selection would not be expected to guide
separate evolutionary sequences and then produce
morphological traits in an organism that somehow
remarkably converge.

One well-known experiment with bacteria has
led evolutionary biologists to conclude that
natural selection can direct the convergence of
features in the evolutionary process.{32}
These experiments demonstrated that bacterial
populations subjected to identical environments
achieved similar fitness (a measure of the
ability of an organism to survive) regardless of
chance, mutational events, and history. However,
the conclusion drawn from these experiments does
not support such a directive role for natural
selection for two reasons.

First, fitness is different from
morphological characteristics. Fitness describes
the capability to survive independent of the
organism’s features. It is not surprising that
natural selection converges on optimal fitness
in mathematical modeling or when characterizing
the response of bacteria to environmental
stress. Yet, it does not follow that convergence
to optimal fitness explains the improbable
convergence of morphological features. Second,
what is true for bacterial communities (single
cell organisms that are morphologically
nondescript, comprised of large population
sizes, and short generation times) is not
necessarily true for the advanced multi-cellular
organisms that have been shown to display
“repeatable” evolution.{33}
The population and reproductive characteristics
of these advanced, complex organisms preclude
their capability to evolve.

Another attempt to account for “repeatable”
evolution within the evolutionary paradigm is
based on inherent biological and developmental
constraints.{34}
The idea is that these constraints only allow
certain variations to occur in the evolutionary
process.  When evolution occurs, then, it
can only produce a limited number of ecomorphs,
therefore the same ecomorphs result repeatedly.
This explanation falls short. Developmental and
inherent biological constraints would have no
“knowledge” of the environmental, predatory, or
competitive pressures facing the organism.
Therefore, one would not expect there to be
ecomorphs. In the face of this explanation one
must ask, “Why do we see organisms that are
perfectly suited to their ecological niche?” The
universal occurrence of perfect adaptation is
inconsistent with any limitations on biological
variation.

Conclusion

Prior to the influence of Charles Darwin
(Origin of Species was first published in
1859) scientists viewed the nature of the
similarities among organisms as due to the
variation of a fundamental design or
archetype.{35}
This “blueprint” for life was acknowledged as
having come directly from the mind of God.
Organisms classified within a particular
grouping were viewed as variations of the design
provided by the Creator.

When the tide began to shift toward Darwinian
evolution, however, biologists came to
understand the relationships among organisms as
reflecting descent with modification from a
common ancestor. The ancestral species that gave
rise to a group of related organisms replaced
the archetype, and natural selection operating
on random biological variation replaced the
creative hand of God.

As both evolutionists and creationists seek
to account for the features found in the
biological realms, different predictions flow
consequentially from these explanations. Chance
and a historical sequence of events control
biological evolution, at its essence. One would
expect therefore, few, if any, instances in
which the evolutionary process would repeat
itself. On the other hand, if a single Creator
were responsible for life on earth, one would
expect to see recurrent design throughout
nature.

The widespread availability of molecular
systematics now allows scientists to test these
two interpretations of nature. As molecular
systematics is used increasingly to characterize
the relationship among organisms––both living
and extinct––numerous examples of
morphologically identical and genetically
distinct groups are being uncovered. The
widespread occurrence of repeatable evolution
cannot be accommodated within the evolutionary
paradigm. Any attempt to account for this
phenomenon from a naturalistic standpoint
violates the very nature of the evolutionary
process or has implications that are
inconsistent with what biologists observe in
nature.

The evolutionary paradigm fails in the face
of the discovery of “repeatable” evolution while
biblical creation gains support from this
phenomenon. What is interpreted as “repeatable”
evolution––morphologically indistinct and
genetically unique organisms––is what one would
expect if a single Creator has generated life
throughout earth’s history. As time goes on,
scientists expect to see more examples of
“repeatable” evolution. Each new discovery of
this phenomenon weakens the evolutionary
paradigm and strengthens the case for
creation.

References

Stephen J. Gould,
Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the
Nature of History (New York, NY: W.W. Norton
& Company, 1989), 51.

Gould, 48.

John Cafferky,
Evolution’s Hand: Searching for the Creator
in Contemporary Science (Toronto, Canada:
East End Books, 1997,) 66-69.

Jonathan B. Losos and
Kevin de Querioz, “Darwin’s Lizards,” Natural
History, December /January, (1997/1998):
34-37.

Jonathan B. Losos, et
al., “Contingency and Determinism in Replicated
Adaptive Radiations of Island Lizards,”
Science 279 (1998): 2115-2118.

Losos, et al.,
2115-2118.

Paul H. Harvey and
Linda Partridge, “Different Routes to Similar
Ends,” Nature 392 (1998): 552-553.

Frankly Bossuyt and
Michel C. Milinkovitch, “Convergent Adaptive
Radiations in Madagascar and Asian Ranid Frogs
Reveal Co-Variation Between Larval and Adult
Frogs,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 6585-6590.

Bossuyt and
Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.

Bossuyt and
Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.

Melanie L.J.
Stiassny and Axel Meyer, “Cichlids of the Rift
Lakes,” Scientific American, February
(1999): 64-69.

Erik Verhegen et.
al., “Mitochondrial Phylogeography of
Rock-Dwelling Cichlid Fishes Reveals
Evolutionary Influence of Historical Lake Level
Fluctuations of Lake Tanganyika, Africa,”
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B 351 (1996): 797-805.

Stiassny and Meyer,
64-69.

Verheyen et al.,
797-805.

Axel Meyer et. al.,
“Monophyletic Origin of Lake Victoria Cichlid
Fishes Suggested by Mitochondrial DNA
Sequences,” Nature 347 (1990):
550-553.

John C. Arise,
“Flocks of African Fishes,” Nature 347
(1990): 512-513.

Axel Meyer,
“Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolutionary
Processes in East African Cichlid Fishes,”
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8 (1993):
279-284.

Ulrich K.
Schliewen, et. al., “Sympatric Speciation
Suggested by Monophyly of Crater Lake Cichlids,”
Nature 368 (1994): 629-632.

Lukos Ruber et.
al., “Replicated Evolution of Trophic
Specializations in an Endemic Cichlid Fish
Lineage from Lake Tanganyika,” Proceedings of
the Natural Academy of Sciences, USA 96
(1999): 10230-10235.

Elizabeth Pennisi,
“Nature Steers a Predictable Course,”
Science 287 (2000): 207-208.

Eric B. Taylor and
J.D. McPhail, “Evolutionary History of an
Adaptive Radiation in Species Pairs of
Threespine Sticklebacks (Gasterosteus):
Insights from Mitochondrial DNA,” Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society 66 (1999):
271-291.

Howard D. Randle,
et. al., “Natural Selection and Parallel
Speciation in Sympatric Sticklebacks,”
Science 287 (2000): 306-308.

John E. Cronin and
Vincent M. Sarich, “Molecular Evidence for Dual
Origins of Mangabeys Among Old World Monkeys,”
Nature 260 (1976): 700-702.

Todd R. Disotell,
et. al., “Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeny of the Old
World Monkey Tribe Papionini,” Molecular
Biology and Evolution 9 (1992): 1-13.

Eugene E. Harris
and Todd R. Disotell, “Nuclear Gene Trees and
the Phylogenetic Relationships of Mangabeys
(Primates: Papionini),” Molecular Biology and
Evolution 15 (1998): 892-900.

Harris and
Disotell, 892-900.

John G. Heagle and
W. Scott McGraw, “Skeletal and Dental Morphology
Supports Diphyletic Origins of Baboons and
Mandrills,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 1157-1161.

Insa Cassens et.
al., “Independent Adaptation to Riverine
Habitats Allowed Survival of Ancient Cetacean
Lineages,” Proceedings of the National Academies
of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 11343-11347.

Kathryn S. Brown,
“Why Woodiness?,” Natural History,
December/January (1999/2000): 74-77.

Jose L. Panero, et.
al., “Molecular Evidence for Multiple Origins of
Woodiness and a New World Biogeographic
Connection of the Macroneasian Island Endemic
Pericallis (Asteraceae: Senecimeae)” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96
(1999): 13886-13891.

Losos, et. al.,
2115-2118.

Michael Travisano
et. al. “Experimental Test of the Roles of
Adaptation, Chance and History in Evolution,”
Science 276 (1995): 87-90.

Hugh Ross, “How
Speciation “Rules” Rule Out Darwinism,” Facts
for Faith 1, no. 2 (2000): 56-57.

David B. Wake,
“Homoplasy: The Result of Natural Selection, or
Evidence of Design Limitations?,” American
Naturalist 138 (1991): 543-567.

Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD:
Adler & Adler, 1985,) 93-117.

About the
Author

Dr. Fazale “Fuz”
Rana is the vice president of science
apologetics at Reasons To
Believe, an international,
interdenominational ministry established to
communicate the uniquely factual basis for
belief in the Bible as the wholly true Word of
God and for personal faith in Jesus
Christ.

© Reasons To Believe 2003

© 2001-2003   LifeWay
Christian Resources

Articles   |   Products

Advanced
Search

Have questions relating to
apologetics? Ask our
staff!

Suggested
Resources

Scientific
Apologetics Resources

·

Darwin
on Trial

·

The
Creator and the Cosmos

·

Darwin's
Black Box

·

Designer
Universe: Intelligent Design and the Existence
of God

·

Icons
of Evolution: Science or Myth?

·

Fingerprint
of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the
Unmistakable Identity of the
Creator

·

Science
and Faith: An Evangelical Dialogue

·

The
Soul of Science : Christian Faith and Natural
Philosophy

·

The
Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the
Accuracy of Genesis

·

More
Products...

Living

·

Homeschool
- Hosted by Zan Tyler

·

Sportsman's
Bible

·

Soldier's
New Testament

·

Living
Beyond Yourself Online
Study

NEW Holman Christian Standard
Bible

·

Sportsman's
Bible

·

Fireman's
Bible

·

Pew
Bible - Black

·

Pocket
Size Bible

·

Student
New Testament (48 Pack)

·

Holman
Bible Dictionary

·

Policeman's
Bible

·

Marine's
New Testament

·

View
All HCSB Bibles
>>>

Advertisers

Visit These
Sites

·

Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary

·

A safe and fun place for kids
online.

·

Send an inspirational postcard to
family and friends!

·

Christian Travel for your Church
or Group!

·

Rent Unlimited Edited DVDs For As
Little As $12.95 Per
Month.

Headlines
| Viewpoints
| Media
& Culture | Health
& Wellness | Career
& Workplace | Apologetics

Home | Today
| Ministry
| Living
| Shopping
| Events
| International
| Tools
| Conference
Centers | Corporate

Search  | © 2001-2003
LifeWay
Christian Resources