Evolution Lesson 1

Critique of TV documentary “Voyage to the Enchanted Isles”

The Christian is called upon to exercise discernment as he lives in the world. Each Christian generation faces a slightly different worldview, a slightly different set of anti-Christian ideas. Our generation, as well as the immediately preceding generation, and probably our immediately succeeding generations face a type of non-Christian idea that has permeated our entire culture from top to bottom, and that is the concept of evolution, a cultural myth of our time. By cultural myth, as will be explained later in this series, we simply mean a prevailing idea that is uncritically accepted, accepted on the basis, not of consensus, but of conformity, that even people with trained minds and trained intellects accept wholesale the concept of evolution without personally examining the line of reasoning, and without making, therefore, the wholesale acceptance of evolution an acceptance based on individual thinking producing a consensus of thought but rather an individual kowtowing to the establishment and producing conformity to a great idea.

It seems, as will be pointed out later, that every generation of man is capable of criticizing previous generations of man, but in capable of being objective about itself. The challenge that Christians face, who wish to live Biblically consistent lives, intellectually as well as all other ways, the challenge that we face is the challenge of personally examining the basis of evolution, examining the theories that have been originated by even some Christians, that evolution somehow is nothing but an amplification of what really is meant by the first couple of chapters of the book of Genesis.

This tape series was presented to a group of teenagers at Lubbock Bible Church in the spring of 1969; it was presented partly in response to the “I feel continual brainwashing” of our culture. It was the first such presentation and as such has many weak points, points which later on, in the second and third time around will be improved and updated. Nevertheless, the demand for some information on this subject is so great that we decided to go ahead and make these series of tapes that at least some information would be available. In this series of tapes we attempt to go through the entire Bible, or at least those key parts of the Bible that have direct bearing upon the evolutionary question. We then move to the scientific question, and in this second section we dwell very much upon the work and research of a group of Bible-believing Christians who are also highly trained and skilled scientists in their individual fields, members of what is now known as the Creation Research Society, which I believe is a force to be reckoned with in the coming decades. People will accuse us of being bias but all we ask is that you hear us out and hear, perhaps for the first time of your life the other side of the story of evolution.

We start the series quite abruptly with a tape actually recorded in the classroom situation in which I review a television program, The Galapagos Islands. I got the sound track and brought the sound track in on tape before the teenagers so we could discuss the various ideas that were presented on that program without being distracted by the visual picture. We then move on in our tape series to the Bible and then to science. However, the tape series I personally recorded in my office because of the fact that it was unwise to record the discussion type approach that was used in the classroom and I feel would have been even more confusing to the hearer. Some of this material may be beyond the average college student, but it is not beyond the scientifically inquisitively mind of the advanced student, whether he be in college of high school. To some adults who do not feel the tension of the younger generation, a lot of this material may seem to be superfluous. However, let me tell you that every piece of this material at one time or another in the past 5-6 years I personally have used in discussions with young people. Therefore, though I do not plead great experience I do plead the fact that although some of this material may seem superfluous to you at first hearing, please remember that in open discussion, free discussion, not in church but in the home, on the campus with young people these things have come up and therefore we’ve tried to kill many birds with one stone and pile all the material we could into this series of tapes. Admittedly the material could have been better organized and better and more clearly presented. However, given the working situation and given time limitations this was the best possible thing we could do at the present time. Later it is hoped that we will smooth up our approach; it is also hoped that the Creation Research Society’s forthcoming high school biology text will also provide adequate and scholarly reading material for our young people.

Now we will move to the television critique of the program, The Galapagos Islands. Listen carefully because we want to discuss what this man is saying: [sound track very hard to hear]

Announcer: When Darwin stepped ashore from the Beagle he was immediately struck by the fact that almost every creature on the island was quite different from his nearest relative anywhere else in the world. He made careful notes on all he saw.

Narrator: The marine iguana is extremely common on all the islands throughout the group and lives exclusively on the rocky sea beaches, being never found, at least I never saw one, even ten yards from shore. The aquatic species is remarkable because it’s the only existing lizard which lives on the real vegetable production.

Announcer: Darwin’s observations on the sea going habits of the marine iguana could hardly be improved upon by a modern naturalist with underwater cameras.

Narrator: The nature of this lizard’s food, the wonderful structure of its tail that sweeps absolutely proves its aquatic habits. This lizard swings with perfect ease and quickness, by a serpentine movement of its body like a flattened tail—the legs being motionless and closely collapsed on its side. I do not recollect having observed this sea weed on which it feeds of any quantity on tidal rocks; I have reason to believe it grows at the bottom of the sea at some little distance from the coast.

Announcer: Darwin was absolutely right; he also noted correctly that the iguanas made for shore whenever danger threatened. [Sounds of a sea lion in background] In fact, the sea lion is only playing with the iguana but the portraiture is hardly of that. Although the iguana was in no danger from the sea lion, its instinct to head to make for the shore may have been conditioned by thousands of years of persecution by sharks and other big fish. Darwin observed that once on land these reptiles seem to have no enemies of any sort but here for once he was not quite right on his facts.

Announcer: The non-poisonous Galapagos snake is very partial to baby iguanas. During his shot visit Darwin didn’t see the snake action; the surprising thing is how much Darwin did manage to see. The iguanas themselves gave him a valuable clue to his later theories about evolution. He noted that the sea going type, which swarmed on the shores, had plainly come from the same stock as the land iguana, who lives well away from the shore line and follows a different way of life.

Narrator: Some of these lizards inhabit the high and damp parts of the island. It would appear as if it had been created in the center of the Archipelago and thence dispersed only to a certain distance. They are ugly animals, of a yellowish orange beneath and of a brownish red color above. From their low facial angle they have a singularly stupid appearance. In their movements they are lazy and half [can’t understand word]. When not frightened they slowly crawl along with their tales and bellies dragging on the ground. If this lizard is held and plagued with a stick it will bite it rather severely, but I caught many by the tail and they never tried to bite me. If two are close together on the ground they will fight, and fight each other until blood is drawn.

Announcer: But their fight is never to the death; it’s simply to establish who is boss of a particular piece of territory. In the end, the loser always backs down and runs for it. But the main contributor to Darwin’s theories was a quite different set of creatures. Surprisingly, they weren’t weird monsters like this but something you’d least expect. Darwin’s finches provided a major clue to his theory of evolution.

Narrator: The remaining land-bird formed a most singular group of finches; all are peculiar to this archipelago.

Clough: Listen to this very carefully now, this is Darwin’s main evidence, the finches, the so-called ground finches. I’ll show pictures of these in a moment but I want you to see this, listen to what’s said, because later on we’re going to critique the reasoning that was built. This is solid information now; no, we’re not quarreling with his observation, we quarrel with the interpretation given to us.

Narrator: …all are peculiar to this archipelago, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds, one species had been taken and modified for different ends. The most curious fact is the perfect gradation of the beaks.

Announcer: Since their common ancestor arrived they have developed different shaped beaks for different means of getting their food, enormously heavy beaks for sea tracking, slightly lighter beaks for probing and cracking. At first, like other biologists of his day, Darwin didn’t fully appreciate the significance of his finches but he had grasped the essential proof, they were of American origin and had been modified to meet global conditions. What shattered the Victorian world when he at last came out with his theories of evolution was that up until then, even the scientists had believed that species were divinely created and had never changed since Genesis. Turning this belief upside down was in Darwin’s own words “like confessing to a murder.” When it comes to finding food Darwin’s finches are much more versatile than even he suspected. The small ground finch, only the males of all species are dark, by the way, specializes in pecking for food at the base of the…

Clough: Well, we’ll discuss some of this now; I think you’ve got the general idea of the program, its scope, what it was trying to show. I’ll say this, that the data that was presented was excellent, it was an excellent piece of work, but what I want to give to you now is a little discussion critique of this program so you’ll appreciate the issues involved. I don’t think just listening to the program, if you didn’t know the background, the Galapagos evidence, you wouldn’t catch what the TV was telling you. You’ve got to understand, what is the issue here, was there really an issue presented there that you didn’t see. Yes there was, and here it is.

Let’s start first with Darwin’s work at the Galapagos Islands. This will be the first part of our critique and then we’ll evaluate his reasoning. The first part of the discussion will be his work at the Galapagos Islands. He made these findings on the island some years and years and years before he wrote his book, Origin of Species. Now the work done was his famous journey around the world on the H.M.S. Beagle, and this was done back when he was a relatively young man, in fact, he was in an apostate divinity school when he did this; he was not a naturalist, he was a theological student. And he went around the world and made thousands and millions of observations, excellent work that he did. And he meditated upon these for years and years and eventually, in 1859 he came to write this book, Origin of Species. In chapter 13 is where he begins to discuss the Galapagos evidences and I want to show you, give you a feeling for how he uses this in his book. Now this is his final presentation; what you heard the narrator saying and that voice that was supposed to be Darwin’s was not quoting from this; it was quoting from Darwin’s notes that he had made while he there, that’s something else. That’s unanalyzed raw material. This represents his final product. This represents years of reflection upon this material.

In chapter 13, he’s discussing inhabitants of oceanic islands, and on page 370 in my edition he says: “In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere question of dispersal, but shall consider some other cases bearing on the truth of the two theories: (1) of independent creation, and (2) of descent with modification.”

I want you to see catch this carefully; he using this material of the Galapagos islands to discuss two theories which he feels are the alternatives, the two theories. Now watch his argument: The first theory is what he calls the theory of independent creation. Remember the announcer said on the sound track that up until that time scientists had believed that immutable from Genesis onward. In other words, God created them and they’d never changed all down through time. We’ll challenge that statement too but nevertheless, this was Darwin’s view of independent creation, which he felt the Bible taught. He felt the Bible taught this. Now watch this carefully. Those of you who are in debating class have probably heard the concept of a straw man, you set up a straw man for your opponent, tear down the straw man, it looks like you’ve shattered your opponent when you haven’t shattered him at all, all you’ve done is shatter your own man-made image of what you think he said.

So Darwin thought the Bible said this, independent creation, and so he waged his attack against this, in the name of his other theory called “descent with modification.” These are the two theories that are competing in Darwin’s book at this point, independent creation versus descent with modification. He’s not talking about the general theory of evolution yet, he’s simply trying to say look, I come to these islands and I see all these different finches running around; I see them, really odd kind, that are totally unlike any other kind on the continent and yet at the same time these finches have peculiarities that relate them. In other words, he can tell that these finches came from the continent, from South America, from the Americas, and yet somehow they have been modified. And this is a correct observation, he was right in this.

Now let’s look at these two theories just a moment to define what we’re talking about. The first theory, independent creation, says, and this is the way Darwin concedes it, I got this not from my own study, just from reading through his statements. I was appalled to think that Darwin taught this, frankly, I never really realized what a poor picture he had of the Bible. For example, he says, “on the theory of creation they should not have been created there.” And what Darwin is apparently saying is that he believed the Bible taught two things in this theory of independent creation; he felt that first of all that the species, every kind was immutable, in other words they never change, there was absolutely no change through time. And the second thing he taught which seems to be totally absurd is that God created in the geographical distribution in which they are now found. In other words, these birds, these peculiar characteristics, God actually created on the Galapagos Islands like this. That’s what he said the creationists were saying. Do you see?

He was saying that the geographical distribution has also remained unchanged since creation. You see two things now, the species had remained unchanged and the geographical distribution had remained unchanged. Now this is sad, how an educated man of the 19^th century could have said something like this, this is beyond me. This is what I want to discuss, two theories now. We’re talking about Darwin’s work at the Galapagos Islands, I’ve introduced you to his two theories and how this data tried to pertain to these two theories.

Now I want to comment a bit about his view of creation here. I think this represents a tremendous error in Darwin’s thinking, and an error which, unfortunately, has colored discussions since that time, and that is, what do we really mean by creationism? What are we talking about here? Darwin believed in these two things, the immutability of species and that these species, if God made that bird right there that bird’s great, great, great, great, great, great ancestor was made right there, the bird never flew out from that area. That’s what he said the Bible was saying. Now Darwin isn’t to be totally blamed for this. This was taught at Cambridge University. See, Darwin was a theology student. Remember this, he was not a biology student, he was a theology student and he had been taught at Cambridge University this concept, a screwball idea of creation.

To show you, I want to show you that this was unnecessary in his day; an educated man did not have to say this, and could still believe in the Bible. I cite two evidences; I’m trying to show you that Darwin had a false idea of creationism and he didn’t have to have this. In other words, educated men of his day who believed in a literal Genesis held to an opposite view. I want to give you two evidences of this.

The first one is the nature of the flood of Genesis. If a man believed in a universal flood of Genesis 6-9, could you please tell me how you possibly could defend the immutability of geographical distribution? If there was a flood, how could you defend the immutability of geographical distribution? If there was a flood that destroyed all life so that on this side of the flood all life has come from Noah’s ark, of air-breathing type, how could you possibly, how could a literal Bible-believer possible hold to such an absurdity of saying that God created these birds in the Galapagos Islands right there in the Galapagos Islands. Of course not, couldn’t have. If you believed in a literal flood you had to say that their ancestors came from Noah’s ark. So therefore it seems to me quite obvious that Darwin had never even considered Genesis 6-9, which indicates the man was kind of sloppy in his scholarship; excellent biologist but sadly, sadly lacking in Biblical background. He didn’t think through the implications of the flood. You see, the minute you toss the flood in there, what happens to your geographical distribution? It gets kind of washed out. So to me this is one great flaw and if I were around at that time I would have challenged Darwin on this point; Darwin, what’s the matter with you, did you take Genesis 6-9 out of your Bible or something, what’s going on.

The second thing is that’s even more significant is that this was an absurd position of Cambridge University and Carolus Linnaeus, those of you studying biology should have remembered this man’s name; anybody know what this man was famous for? [Someone answers: classifying] Yes, did you know he was a Bible-believing Christian and believed in the immutability of certain kinds but he did not hold to these two things Darwin said; he did not hold to the immutability of species and he did not hold to the geographical distribution and yet he fully accepted the Genesis record. We can be proud of Linnaeus because he was on our side. Most science teachers are so poor in their background of this that they don’t recognize this; it’s a convenient thing that’s dropped out of the discussion. But Linnaeus was a very ardent Biblical Christian, and in fact, this is what set him off. Genesis 1 was the thing that historically set him off in classifying and setting up those systems, because he was trying to find out what the word “kind” meant in Genesis 1. Have you ever heard that in biology class? I doubt it, but if you study Linnaeus’ work and go back to the original material you see that. But this isn’t brought out in the classroom today; it’s unfashionable to do that.

So this is Linnaeus and I want to show you that educated people of Darwin’s day fully accepted this, they could fully accept creationism but not the kind of creationism that Darwin held to. Because our time is getting short I want to take you back to the statement, and I’m going to quote this statement that you heard on the sound track. Listen carefully! In view of what I have just told you about this, listen to the statement the announcer slipped in. “What shattered the Victorian world was that then even the scientists believed that species were divinely created and had never changed since Genesis. Turning this belief upside down was in Darwin’s words like confessing to a murder.” I checked that statement out, those words, “like confessing to a murder” came from a letter he wrote in 1844 which was halfway between the time of his observations and the time he wrote his book. So I did trace that statement back to where he originally made it. And you see, he didn’t shatter the Biblical belief; he shattered the belief that was held at Cambridge University at his day, when he was a student; that’s all he shattered.

Now let’s go on to an evaluation of Darwin’s reasoning. We’ve seen that Darwin proceeded off a false base; he proceeded off a false base because he never really understood what the Christians were saying in the first place. And now let’s evaluate his reasoning from the scientific aspect of his work here, of the Galapagos Islands. Let’s take his finches; he makes a big issue out of the very beaks of these finches. These beaks are modified to an amazing degree. The finches, many of these finches, the pictures I’m showing you, come from a collection at the California Academy of Science, they have 3700 of these stuffed finches for study and this man did a work in which he studied these finches. These are some of the different kind of beaks. He has superimposed these various beaks through dotted lines and so on to show you the variation of these. Here are actually what some of these finches looked like, so you get an idea of what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a mass of birds related somehow but clearly talked about.

In other words, we have these finches here and we have a whole body of these birds, and how do you sort them up into classes. These men sorted these birds up into classes and called these classes species. Well, Dr. Lamar [sp?] who was a geneticist by profession and a Bible Christian decided that he’d heard enough of this story about Galapagos and went to the California Academy of Science to study these, and his report, you want background material, is in Creation Research Society Annual of 1966. His conclusions were these, after he examined 37 trays of these species. In other words, he tried to go through, he measured all the beaks, and then he lined them up on a piece of paper and he said…he’s asking the question, are Darwin’s protases really right in noting these different kind of beaks and then saying that just because the bird has a different kind of beak that makes him a different species. Is that a really true statement?

And his conclusion was this: (quote) “If one were to remove all the species labels from the tray and arrange the Darwin finches from the largest to the smallest in body and build size, complete intergradations would be found. The same is true of bill lengths and widths.” In other words, to say that there’s something a species you’d expect that would be defined categories, with gaps between. In other words, there’d be large birds, small birds, and tiny birds of something, but there wouldn’t be intergradation, you wouldn’t have a continuous spectrum. So some birds would be large, some small, some smaller, smaller. In other words, there was no clear cut boundaries. When you go to examine the data there isn’t any clear cut boundaries. So he said there’s a complete intergredation of plumage coloration, and then he quotes this, and I think this man is really right when he says this: “If species are to be erected on such minute norm, then indeed we will have an infinite number of species.”

Do you see the point? In other words, we’re arbitrarily being picayune at this point. And then he makes this statement which is a positive evaluation of it, he says: “It seems much more in line with reality to consider these birds as all one species, broken up into various island forms as a result of chance arrangement of their original variability potential.” And what he’s simply saying is that probably what these represent is just one great area and that they have diversified. And this goes back to two words that I told you to be careful of, and what were those two words. We had three words for evolution: cosmic, macro and micro. What do you think we’re talking about here? Cosmic evolution, macro evolution or micro evolution? Micro, in other words, what we’re seeing in the Galapagos Islands is micro evolution and as I said before no Biblical Christian has any objections to microevolution. In fact, and remember this is very crucial, to support the concept of the universal flood we have to have micro evolution, because otherwise Noah could never have gotten all the animals in his ark. We have to have micro evolution. So we’re gung ho for this and we should simply say yes, rah-rah, you’ve proved us right.

But now here’s the point and here’s where I want to bring out the Galapagos Islands because I want you to see what happens here. This is characteristic of all the thinking on this. We go from a valid set of observations here, and this is a big lesson to learn, we go from a valid set of observations with a man truly has a beautiful case of micro evolution, a beautiful case of this, I think this work is fantastic, I think really a Christian who’s interested in science should re-study the Galapagos evidence because I think it’s beautiful, that’s what we need; we need that evidence to show our case. So I’m really excited about it in the opposite sense of the word; I’m not trying to suppress it. But what happens? You prove this and then all of a sudden you hypothesize that this went on on a larger scale and you call it macro evolution.

Do you see what I mean? Do you see what’s happened here? In other words, you say these birds vary but it doesn’t require a genius to see that they’re still birds. They haven’t become ants, they haven’t become some other category. They’re still birds; they vary but they vary within limits. And this is the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution and just to see this, I was curious as I read through Origin of Species, I’ve read through it years ago but I wanted to check it out and I was interested, well, how did Darwin move from his Galapagos evidence up over here to macro evolution? In other words, when you read through his book does he ever say why he moves over to this position? And I found the spot and it’s in the back part of his book, and he says, I move by analogy; he said this happens within the bird kingdom, this happened in this class of birds and so by analogy it must have happened in larger classes. Do you see the argument? It breaks down. It’s an argument founded only on analogy…only on analogy.

And this is where we draw the line. As Christians I can accept any piece of scientific evidence, give creed to it, because you can’t tell me any evidence for macro evolution. And this was illustrated very clearly by Dr. Marsh who is a biologist, also working with the Creation Research Society and he wrote a paper in this journal, which by the way, some of you who are interested in science ought to serious consider the Creation Research Society, and they [can’t understand words] papers on research done by men in the various fields on these questions, and Dr. Marsh in the 1964 edition of this wrote this paper: The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. I just want to show you some excepts so you won’t think it’s just Charlie Clough up here but Dr. Marsh is a reputed Christian biologist, great reputation, very careful student. I’ve read his material and checked out a lot of it and I feel this man does a thorough job. He’s an older man and he’s had many, many years of research, and let me read some of his statements.

(Quote), “What Darwin failed to observe on Galapagos was that variation is not without bounds.” Carefully note that statement. Another one, and I think this is really crucial too: “Genesis, in its assertion that plants and animals were created in their kinds does teach a fixating in the living world. However, many scores of years of careful biological research has shown that this fixity is higher than the individual level. In all their wishful endeavors and scientific studies, even evolutionists will admit that not one instance of basic type, like a cat, producing a new basic type, like a dog, is known. We have kinds of cats, but the fixity of Genesis is at the higher level of the cat kind and not at the lover level of the kind of cat.” In other words, he’s saying that the word “kind,” created things after their kind in Genesis, is talking about large category. Show me evidences that cats have become dogs; no. Where’s the evidence? There’s no evidence. There’s evidences of cats adapting to surrounding areas, coat color changes, size changes and so on. And these are perfectly allowable in Scripture.

I think he concludes with two very interesting statements I want to say. “Variation does occur abundantly within kind, but no coercive compulsive evidence can be produced to show the production of even one new basic kind. The very most that Darwin could discover on Galapagos was that new variety of tortoises,” and this is another evidence at the end of the program, I didn’t have time for the sound track of this, “the very most that Darwin could discover was that new varieties of tortoises had apparently developed on the various islands of the Galapagos group, and apparently new varieties and even new species of finches. But he failed to recognize the tremendously obvious fact that tortoises were still tortoises, finches were still finches, field evidence which helps us to understand the true fixity that exists in the world of science.” Do you see the point, the finches did have different beaks but they’re still finches. That’s the point.

I think in conclusion I just want to label a statement here where he discusses the evidence; we’ll get into this in much more detail when we discuss Genesis 1 and so on, but he concludes with this. “The testimony of living nature with regard to the extent of fixity indicated in Genesis is all about us in intriguing form. The processes of variation furnish us with many interesting breeds of plants and animals. Individuals often vary considerably within some groups; we have over five hundred variations of the sweetly scented sweet pea and over two hundred breeds of dogs. One author has divided human beings into as many as one hundred and sixty breeds. Evolutionists love to call our attention to all this variation that is going on,” now watch this, “Evolutionists love to call our attention to all this variation that is going on and to insist that here is evolution before our eyes.” Think of the evidence you’ve heard in the classroom, it’s always of micro evolution. They love to parade this and say see, evolution.

“But we all observe that variation does occur, but evolutionists fail to perceive that after all the process of variation can accomplish has been accomplished, we still have sweet peas, dogs and men. The sort of change that the theory of evolution requires is not this variation. The kind of change that is necessary for macro evolution is massive changes of new entirely different basic types. But every additional case of variation that is studied, be it among fossils or living forms, merely brings additional evidence that there is a law in nature which declares that every organism can produce only individuals which are unquestionably are of the same basic type as the parent.”

Do you see what they’re saying? I want you to see this because this is so crucial that we understand these things. The Galapagos evidences are very important, and if my field were in biology and it wasn’t physics, but if it were in biology I think I would be very interested in the Galapagos evidence; in fact, I think a Christian can make a very solid case studying this evidence. You see, we need to present the world, to show the world, and this is something that you’ve got to do in your life, you have got to do this in the life and generation in which you’re going to be living in, and that is to show the unbeliever that you have a Biblical framework and you can take every piece of evidence that you encounter in your experience, that you encounter in the classroom, and you say yes, I have a place for it, it’s right here, it’s right here, it’s right here, it’s right here, I can interpret my evidence within a total rational, perfect, and totally comprehensive view as well as you can. In fact, we would say better.

Now when you analyze something like this and you come to a TV program like this, I think one thing that you should do and I want conclude our class with this, some hints on what to do when you encounter this kind of a thing. If you encounter a documentary like this, go back to the original source material. For example, I went back in researching this program to Darwin’s original works; don’t read what someone else says about Darwin, you get in trouble that way. Read Darwin’s original work and test his logic. And then secondly, read around what the Christians have been saying. You know, Christians haven’t put their brains in the closet; a lot of people laugh at this but that’s not true. These men have done research, considered the Galapagos Islands far before this documentary.

So I think the lesson to learn is that we have to constantly challenge human viewpoint. Remember 2 Corinthians 10:5, “Casting down vain imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Now Puritanical censorship; that’s not what it is. It’s simply being very logical about the way you live; it’s being logical. If Christianity is true then it should work. As a thinking Christian if I come across the Galapagos Islands and I’m convinced that my faith is true, that evidence demands that I come to it and say well now, how do you explain this Mr. Clough, how do you explain this material and I should be willing to try to explain it but willing to explain it within the Biblical framework.