As Dr. Sanford demonstrates, taken together, all of this evidence indicates that every man and woman on earth today is a direct descendant of one man—“Y Chromosome Adam”—and one woman—“Mitochondrial Eve”—who were created in a state of genetic perfection, less than ten thousand years ago, just as God revealed in the sacred history of Genesis.

Part I
(LifeSiteNews) — A recent article in the journal Scientific American by Allison Hopper entitled “Denial of Evolution is a Form of ‘White Supremacy’,” managed to pack an enormous amount of scientific, historical and theological misinformation into a brief attempt to convince her readers that an acceptance of the “science” of human evolution would destroy the traditional Christian reading of Genesis which, she alleges, is and has been used to promote “white supremacy” for hundreds of years. In this series of articles, we will show that the pseudo-scientific molecules-to-man evolutionary hypothesis has actually been used and continues to be used to justify racism and to destroy faith in the only firm foundation for a culture of universal brotherhood: The Catholic doctrine of creation and the traditional Catholic reading of the sacred history of Genesis.
Genesis and the Myth of White Supremacy
Hopper begins her article by alleging that the Mosaic account of the creation of Adam and Eve and history of their descendants Cain and Abel has long been used to justify “white supremacy.” Without citing any evidence from the Bible or from Church Tradition, Hopper claims that Genesis has led Christians to believe that Adam and Eve were white-skinned and that “dark skin” was a consequence of the curse that befell Cain after murdering his brother. According to Hopper, recognition of the “fact” that the first humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees in Africa would redound to the glory of dark-skinned people in Africa and throughout the world and help to dissolve the myth of “white supremacy” that the Christian reading of Genesis has promoted for so many centuries.
It is a sad testimony to the extent to which contemporary western intellectuals receive indoctrination rather than education that a contributor to Scientific American was allowed to publish libels against the Mosaic account in Genesis without any serious “fact-checking” by her editors. Where, we would like to know, do the Scriptures or the Fathers of the Church, tell us that Adam and Eve were “white-skinned”? Where does the Bible or the Tradition of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church teach that Cain acquired dark skin as a consequence of murdering his brother Abel?
These falsehoods may have been bandied about by some anti-Catholic members of the KKK, but they have no basis in the Word of God as understood in God’s Church from the beginning. The mere fact that a writer for Scientific American would publish this libel, with the full permission of the journal’s editors, shows that the first prejudice that all of them need to overcome is the myth of molecule-to-man evolution’s “supremacy” over the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation as a coherent account of the origins of man and the universe that fosters universal brotherhood.
Genetics, Paleoanthropology and the End of the Evolutionary Hypothesis
In recent decades several excellent books have been written refuting the alleged evidence for human evolution. In a short article like this, we can only summarize the most important evidence against the hypothesis of human evolution and refer our readers to the sources of that evidence.
Read More

The book was an apologetic exercise in harmonizing the position that creation occurred several thousand years ago with the presence of geologic structures that seemingly suggested a longer timeframe. Although the book is quite long, the central premise is easy to describe. Gosse’s observations led him to believe that the mature forms of all natural objects are dependent upon immature forms for their structures.

In 1857, Philip Gosse, a respected naturalist, released a book entitled “Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot.” The book was an apologetic exercise in harmonizing the position that creation occurred several thousand years ago with the presence of geologic structures that seemingly suggested a longer timeframe. Although the book is quite long, the central premise is easy to describe. Gosse’s observations led him to believe that the mature forms of all natural objects are dependent upon immature forms for their structures. He concluded that an instantaneous creation must come into existence with a type of backstory. That is, an earth only a few minutes old would possess things like multiple geologic layers and fossils and such.
The near-universal response to Gosse’s proposal has been scorn. The late Steven Jay Gould appraised the book as “spectacular nonsense”, “illogical”, and “it smacks of plain old unfairness.” This reaction interests me almost as much as the idea that prompted it. Why is the response so strong?
Gould objects that Gosse’s proposal would mean God has deceived us, or that nature is simply a joke. Neither complaint strikes me as having much weight. In regards to potential deception on God’s part, well, if the Lord tells us how old creation is (which was indeed Gosse’s position) then it’s difficult to see how any deception could be in play. But, even if there was, Gould fails to recognize that Scripture does indeed present several examples of the Lord deceiving those who reject His word (1 Kings 22:11, Ezekiel 14:6-11, 2 Thess. 2:9-12). Gould may dislike the idea that God would make a fool of him, but such is the Lord’s prerogative.
Is nature then a joke? The question points towards Gould’s underlying concern. Near the end of his review of the book, the notion that logic or reason is driving his objection begins to fade:
But what is so desperately wrong with Omphalos? Only this really (and perhaps paradoxically): that we can devise no way to find out whether it is wrong – or, for that matter, right. Omphalos is the classical example of an utterly untestable notion, for the world will look exactly the same in all its intricate detail whether fossils and strata are prochronic or products of an extended history. When we realize that Omphalos must be reject for this methodological absurdity, not for any demonstrated factual inaccuracy, then we will understand science as a way of knowing, and Omphalos will serve its purpose as an intellectual foil or prod. Science is a procedure for testing and rejecting hypotheses, not a compendium for certain knowledge.
So here is the real reason Gould dislikes Gosse. He feels the foundations of his knowledge starting to shake. If Gosse is right then we are revealed to not be in control of our world. Our methods are exposed as hollow. And if we are not firmly at the wheel, then everything must be a joke.
But what a wonderful joke it is. The Lord has used the weak things of the world to shame the wise. All our best attempts pale in the light of His glory and wisdom. Like Job we must say “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
Gould finishes his review with a picture of Gosse as a broken man, rejected by the worldly wise. He spends his evenings in gloom, entertaining discussions of murder-cases with his young son. The great traitor to Science has been brought low. Let me end with a different picture. It is the Judgement, and the Lord has set a table before Gosse in the presence of Gould. Gosse stands to toast the One whose plans are formed in inscrutable beauty. Gould stands as well, and from him comes an admission that reveals which of the men is the true traitor.
Sean McGinty is a member of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Scottsdale AZ.
Related Posts:

I will be returning to this book’s early chapters for material on biblical foundations for prayer and thinking hard about how to overcome obstacles for helping God’s people pray. Foremost, Miller’s case rings true that a prayerful church starts with prayerful leadership. He is on the mark to remind us that nothing about the church should rest on the foundation of merely a good plan but should be planted and watered in the soils of prayer.

Paul E. Miller, A Praying Church: Becoming a People of Hope in a Discouraging World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023). paperback. 304 pp. $21.99.
Prayer is one of the pillars holding up the Christian life. As the Heidelberg Catechism 116 says, prayer is necessary for Christians, “Because it is the chief part of thankfulness which God requires of us: and also, because God will give his grace and Holy Spirit to those only, who with sincere desires continually ask them of him, and are thankful for them.” Our thankfulness before the Lord and our hope to receive his grace channel foremost into our life of prayer.
Paul Miller has written a book exhorting the church to return to this basic Christian practice, specifically focusing on the church’s corporate prayer. The argument is that the church as such needs to rediscover the riches of seeking the Lord in prayer together, not only because it is one of the best ways of loving and serving our fellow believers but also because it is one of the ways seeing the Lord at work in our midst as he noticeably responds to our spoken needs.
In chapters 1–8, Miller outlines rich and nourishing biblical and practical insights about prayer in the context of the church. His biblical arguments remind us how the church is not a merely earthly institution but is the interface between our earthly lives and the supernatural. We are not meant to solve our problems only by expected means but to rely on the Lord to provide for us. He also gives an account of the decline of the church’s corporate prayer meeting, prompting us to consider how our churches might reengage with the use of prayer meetings.
Throughout the book, Miller gives additional insights about how prayer meetings prove faulty. We become too fixated on enumerating medical issues. Of course, we should pray for genuine medical concerns. Miller is right, however, that opportunities to mention prayer needs becomes more about listing ailments that greatly vary in their true seriousness. Further, Miller notes how prayer meetings can gravitate toward religiosity, becoming “syrupy” in the style of prayers that we implement, rather than serious in seeking God’s help for the full gamut of spiritual and earthly needs among our church.
Although the strengths named above provide thoughtful recalibration for churches to double down on their commitment to prayer, much of the book sadly misfires. Primarily, Miller wrote a book about the church at prayer but is decidedly non-churchly in his outlook. His stories about his father’s pastoral work are clearly set in the context of the work of the local church. Even those stories, however, seem to be more nostalgic about dear old dad than driven by providing wisdom for prayer in the church. In this respect, they themselves have a syrupy feel that Miller himself says is not helpful.
Further, Miller’s primary focus is rarely the church as he writes in the context of a parachurch organization. Often he snubs his nose at churches that he finds to be too minded for the elite and not attentive enough to ordinary people. Yet, Miller regularly writes about the prayer meetings that he leads for his staff. For those of us working in churches, we are not attempting to promote prayer among people whom we employ but people whom we pastor. Certainly, I could drum up support and attendance if I pay my employs. My interest, however, is on encouraging a life of prayer among people who need to see the volunteered value and need for seeking the Lord in prayer.
The book has further tensions. Miller regularly notes his own prayer life – although at the end says that we should be quiet about our practices of private prayer and fasting – while also stating that he imagines most of his readers’ churches are relatively prayerless. He further criticizes churches for ignoring the (metaphorically speaking) janitors and people who prefer to shop at thrift stores, instead favoring the (again metaphorically) corporate directors. Now, I was a student intern for a year at New Life Glenside, where Miller’s father used to be pastor. Terry Traylor, who went to be with the Lord too early from the human perspective, was the pastor when I was there and gave me lots of wisdom in the year that I had with him. Terry was a brilliant pastor whom I look forward to seeing again one day. I understand that the culture at New Life was press toward a casual, low-level atmosphere that was proud of bringing in those who felt uncomfortable in other church environments. The problem is not that New Life was good at promoting this atmosphere for their own congregation, but that Miller gives the impression that he thinks that approach is the only way to bring in people from all parts of society. Many churches, including my own, are composed of blue and white collar workers, those with various types of and view on pedigree. Miller at times comes across as condescending by discounting churches that look differently from that which makes him most comfortable as likely unprayerful and focused on professional polish rather seeking the Lord.
These issues are again routed in the issue of the church. Miller seems to have a very loose view of the institutional church. He seems to count the call to corporate church prayer as applying to families and people who happen to meet up. These instances of prayer are necessary, good, and valuable but are not part of a guide for a praying church. Undoubtedly, part of problem here relates to Miller’s explicit embrace of pietism (pg. 155–60). Miller’s view of recovering churchly prayer seems to revolve around this sort of view of the church with fluid boundaries rather than members of congregations being recommitted to the means of grace, which includes prayer. Miller laments that “A whole generation of our youth finds syrupy spirituality cringeworthy.” (pg. 157) I personally fear that many will see much of Miller’s case to fall afoul of his own lament. His admirable commitment to expand prayer to include all who would pray and to penetrate to every aspect and person of our churches falters when he gives the impression that his sort of concerns are the only ones that drive “authentic” and “real” prayer, which he has not clearly related to the church’s formal means of grace ministry. A balance must be kept, which I think Miller has missed.
I will be returning to this book’s early chapters for material on biblical foundations for prayer and thinking hard about how to overcome obstacles for helping God’s people pray. Foremost, Miller’s case rings true that a prayerful church starts with prayerful leadership. He is on the mark to remind us that nothing about the church should rest on the foundation of merely a good plan but should be planted and watered in the soils of prayer.
Dr. Harrison Perkins is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor at Oakland Hills Community Church (OPC) in Farmington Hills, Mich. He is also a visiting lecturer in systematic theology at Edinburgh Theological Seminary and online faculty in church history for Westminster Theological Seminary.
Related Posts: