"THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS" The Earthly Sanctuary (9:1-10) by Mark Copeland


The Earthly Sanctuary (9:1-10)


1. The main points in the "The Epistle To The Hebrews" are rather 
   a. The superiority of Christ - He 1:1-7:28
   b. The superiority of the New Covenant - He 8:7-10:18

2. In the "transition passage" of He 8:1-6, we find...
   a. The first point summarized - He 8:1
   b. The second point introduced - He 8:2-6

3. In demonstrating the superiority of the New Covenant, three points
   are made...
   a. The New Covenant is based upon "better promises"
   b. The New Covenant pertains to a "better sanctuary"
   c. The New Covenant provides a "better sacrifice"

4. In He 8:7-13 we read of the "better promises"...
   a. Foretold through the prophet Jeremiah - cf. Jer 31:31-34
   b. In which God promised a closer relationship with His people, made
      possible by the forgiveness of sin

5. In chapter nine, our attention is now drawn to the matter of the 
   "better sanctuary" provided by the New Covenant...
   a. To appreciate the author's argument, we must be acquainted with 
      the sanctuary of the first covenant
   b. Therefore we find a brief discussion concerning "The Earthly 
      Sanctuary" - He 9:1-10

[We could turn back to the books of Exodus and Leviticus to read about
the earthly sanctuary, but in our text we find a helpful and concise 
summary.  Beginning with...]


      1. This was the first part of the tabernacle, in which the 
         priests entered daily
      2. Inside of it were...
         a. The lampstand - cf. Exo 25:31-40; 26:35
            1) Placed next to the south wall of the tabernacle
            2) Made of gold and had seven lamps for burning olive oil
            3) It was never allowed to go out
         b. The table and the showbread - Exo 25:23-30; 26:35; Lev 24:
            1) A table overlaid with gold
            2) On which were kept twelve loaves of bread, in two rows
               of six
            3) Fresh loaves were brought in each Sabbath, and the old
               were eaten by the priests - cf. 1Sa 21:3-6; Mt 12:3,4

      1. This was the part of the tabernacle behind the veil, also
         called "The Most Holy" - Exo 26:31-33
      2. This innermost room of the tabernacle, the holiest place in
         the worship of Israel, had...
         a. The golden altar of incense (golden censor, KJV)
            1) The golden altar of incense was actually in the Holy 
               Place, just on the other side of the veil separating the
               two rooms - Exo 30:1-10
               a) On this altar sweet spices were continually burned
                  with fire taken from the brazen altar (which was
                  outside the tabernacle)
               b) The morning and evening services were begun by the
                  high priest offering incense on this altar
               c) Once a year, the High Priest would take a censer of
                  burning coals from this altar along with incense into
                  the The Most Holy Place - Lev 16:12
            2) It is appropriate to say the The Most Holy Place "had"
               the golden altar...
               a) For the smoke of the daily incense would permeate 
                  through the veil, and as such be "a perpetual incense
                  before the LORD" - Exo 30:8
               b) The annual ceremony on the Day of Atonement connected
                  in a tangible way the altar of incense with The Most
                  Holy Place - Lev 16:12
         b. The ark of the covenant
            1) A chest made of acacia wood, about four feet long by two
               and half feet high and wide - Exo 25:10-16
            2) Covered with gold, it was the most sacred thing in the
            3) In it contained...
               a) The golden pot that had the manna - Exo 16:32-34
               b) Aaron's rod that budded - Num 17:1-11
               c) The tablets of the covenant - Deut 10:1-5
            4) Covering the ark was the mercy seat - Exo 25:17-22
               a) This lid, covered with gold, was topped with two 
                  cherubim (with wings stretched upward, and their 
                  faces "toward each other and toward the mercy seat.")
               b) The Lord was said to appear in a cloud above the 
                  mercy seat - Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 2Ki 19:5

[As stated by the author himself, "of these things we cannot now speak
in detail". But a little more is now said regarding the ritual of the
earthly sanctuary...]


      1. Every morning and evening, the priests would go into The Holy
         Place "performing the services"...
         a. They would trim the lamps on the lampstand - Exo 27:20-21
         b. They would offer incense on the altar of incense - Exo 30:
      2. On the Sabbath, the priests would replace the Showbread - Lev
      -- But none went into The Most Holy Place during these daily

      1. Once a year, only the high priest entered The Most Holy Place 
         - Lev 16:2
         a. On the Day of Atonement
         b. The tenth day of the seventh month - Lev 16:29
      2. The high priest would do three things:
         a. Offer the incense to cloud the mercy seat - Lev 16:12-13
         b. Sprinkle the mercy seat with the blood of a bull, as a sin
            offering for himself and his family - Lev 16:11,14
         c. Sprinkle the mercy seat with the blood of a goat, as a sin
            offering for the people - Lev 16:15
      3. In this way he offered blood for his own sins and those of the
         people committed in ignorance - He 9:7

[With this summary of the ritual of the earthly sanctuary, we are 
reminded of the sort of services rendered under the first covenant. But
what was the true purpose of such service?  And did the sacrifices 
provide complete redemption?  These questions are addressed in the next
three verses...]

      1. As already stated, the tabernacle and its service was "a copy
         and shadow of the heavenly things" - He 8:4-5; cf. He 10:1a;
         Col 2:16-17
      2. Thus it was "symbolic for the present time" - He 9:9
         a. Symbolizing what eventually would occur when Christ came
         b. Symbolizing what Christ has now done in reality when He 
            entered heaven - cf. He 9:11-12,24-26
      3. The Holy Spirit was thus indicating that "the way into heaven
         itself was not yet made manifest" - He 9:8

      1. The gifts and sacrifices could not make one perfect in regard
         to the conscience - He 9:9; cf. He 9:14; 10:1-4
      2. The ceremonies involved "fleshly ordinances imposed until the
         time of reformation" - He 9:10
         a. Just as the sanctuary was "earthly", the ordinances were 
            1) In contrast to that which is heavenly, spiritual
            2) Indeed, all of the ritual was designed to impact the 
               physical side of man
               a) I.e., his senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch)
               b) E.g., the burning of incense, the blowing of 
                  trumpets, the vestments
         b. Such ordinances were designed to be temporary
            1) Until "the time of reformation", when changes in worship
               would be made
            2) Indeed, now God expects "spiritual" worship - cf. Jn 4:
               a) Worship that is more in keeping with God's true 
                  nature (Spirit)
               b) Worship that focuses on the inner man
                  1/ E.g., singing, where the emphasis is on melody 
                     made in the heart - Ep 5:19; Col 3:16
                  2/ Even in the Lord's Supper, which has physical
                     elements, the emphasis is on the communion we
                     share in the body of and blood of Jesus as we
                     commemorate His death - 1Co 11:23-26; 10:16-17
         -- Therefore we should not be surprised to learn that the
            early church did not simply institute the fleshly
            ordinances of the first covenant into their worship


1. The earthly sanctuary and its fleshly ordinances served God's
   purpose well...
   a. It revealed the terrible nature and high price of sin
   b. It revealed the need for the shedding of blood to provide the 
      remission of sin
   c. It prepared people for the coming of the ultimate sacrifice and 
      complete redemption

2. But as useful as it was, it was temporary and symbolic...
   a. A copy and shadow of what was to come
   b. Designed to vanish away when what it represented came to pass

3. As we shall see more fully in our next study...
   a. Christ has come and entered into "the greater and more perfect 
   b. He has "obtained eternal redemption"
   c. He has made it possible to "purge your conscience from dead 
      works to serve the living God"

Why would one ever wish to go back to the earthly sanctuary and its 
fleshly ordinances?  Why do some people wish to introduce Old Testament
practices into the worship of the Lord's church?

It can only be a failure to appreciate what we now have in Christ, and
the kind of worshippers God now desires.  As Jesus told the Samaritan
woman at the well...

   "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will
   worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking
   such to worship Him.  God is Spirit, and those who worship Him
   must worship in spirit and truth." (Jn 4:23-24)

Are we worshipping God the way He desires?  Or whatever way that
appeals to our fleshly senses and personal desires?

Brethren, think on these things...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

All Clocks Have a Clockmaker by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


All Clocks Have a Clockmaker

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In 1802, William Paley published his famous book Natural Theology, in which he presented the watchmaker analogy. He explained that if a person were to stumble across a well-designed watch in the middle of the woods, the complexity of the watch would be evidence that an intelligent designer made the machine. His analogy is an extension of the more formal teleological argument, which simply states that if there is design in nature, that design demands the existence of a designer. The Hebrews writer used the same line of reasoning when he wrote: “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (3:4).
Cutting-edge biological research has added some fresh insight to this ancient wisdom. Malcolm Ritter recently reported on work done by Akhilesh Reddy of Cambridge University and Joseph Bass of Northwestern University (2011). Their research, published in Nature centers on the built-in clocks that are housed in the cells of the human body. Ritter wrote, “even the cells throughout our body have their own 24-hour clocks to coordinate activities at the cellular level. Now new research suggests these internal timepieces may be more complicated than scientists thought” (2011).
How interesting! Our body is filled with trillions of cells that contain complicated clocks. Man-made clocks are complex and effective. If a person found such a device in the middle of the forest, he would be forced to conclude it was intelligently designed. The same is true of the biological clocks found in the body.


Ritter, Malcom (2011), “Study of Cell ‘Clocks’ Looks at What Makes Us Tick,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_sc/us_sci_body_clocks/print.

According to Atheist Sam Harris, Atheism is a Preposterous Belief by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


According to Atheist Sam Harris, Atheism is a Preposterous Belief

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Sam Harris wrote a caustic book against all religious faith that he titled, The End of Faith. As with most of the modern atheistic writers, Harris related numerous atrocities committed in the name of religion as evidence that religious faith is inherently flawed. To press his point, he stated:
Whenever you hear that people have begun killing noncombatants intentionally and indiscriminately, ask yourself what dogma stands at their backs. What do these freshly minted killers believe. You will find that it is always—always—preposterous (2004, p. 106, ital. in orig.).
While Harris is wrong to categorize New Testament Christianity with other faiths (see Butt, 2007), he is right to conclude that people today who indiscriminately kill noncombatants are deluded by some type of preposterous belief. Unfortunately, Harris fails to see that by making this statement, he has condemned atheism as a preposterous belief.
The term “noncombatant” is not difficult to understand. It simply means any person who is not actively engaged in a war, riot, or combat situation. Generally speaking, this term describes innocent women and children. For instance, Harris listed several examples of situations in which men, women, and children were killed simply because they belonged to a certain ethnic group. If we were to ask what category of human beings could best be described as “noncombatants,” we would be forced to conclude that babies necessarily fit the category. Thus, any modern belief system that advocates the killing of innocent babies must be backed by a preposterous belief—according to Harris.
When we look into Harris’ writings, we discover that his atheistic philosophy completely justifies the indiscriminant killing of unborn humans. Harris, like his atheistic cohorts, supports abortion. How could Harris miss the connection between his pro-abortion stance and the indiscriminant killing about which he rages? The answer is clear from his own writings, because he posed a very similar question:
How is it, after all, that a Nazi guard could return each day from his labors at the crematoria and be a loving father to his children? The answer is surprisingly straightforward; the Jews he spent the day torturing and killing were not objects of his moral concern. Not only were they outside his moral community; they were antithetical to it. His beliefs about Jews inured him to the natural human sympathies that might have other wise prevented such behavior (2004, p. 176).
Harris correctly concluded that the Nazi soldiers justified their villainous deeds by claiming that Jews were less than human and not worthy to be in the same moral community as the Nazis. Of course, Harris does not believe the Nazis had the right to hold this belief. And he believes that they were guilty of real moral wrong. Yet, shockingly, only one page later he implies that his brand of atheism is in the same position as the Nazi soldier’s belief. He states:
Incidentally, here is where a rational answer to the abortion debate is lurking. Many of us consider human fetuses in the first trimester to be more or less like rabbits: having imputed to them a range of happiness and suffering that does not grant them full status in our moral community. At present, this seems rather reasonable. Only future scientific insights could refute this intuition (p. 177, emp. added).
The Nazi soldier killed Jews all day and justified it by saying they were outside his moral community. The atheistic popularizers like Sam Harris support the indiscriminant slaughter of innocent, unborn children, and justify their belief by concluding that unborn babies do not have “full status in our moral community.”
According to Harris, we must look to see what preposterous dogma undergirds the atheistic community’s support for abortion. When we do, we find the irrational idea that humans are natural organisms that have evolved from lower life forms over billions of years. This outrageous belief strips humanity of the dignity that comes only with belief in a divine Creator. Furthermore, the atheistic assertion establishes humans as the final authority that determines which people should be granted full status in our moral community.
If atheism is true, it would be morally acceptable to redefine humanity’s moral community to include animals, or exclude certain categories of humans. Furthermore, it would be morally justifiable to indiscriminately kill noncombatants based on arbitrarily chosen criteria like age, mental capacity, or physical ability. But Harris has correctly stated that any belief system that allows such actions “is always—always—preposterous.” According to Harris, then, we must conclude that atheism is preposterous.


Butt, Kyle (2007), “All Religion is Bad Because Some Is?” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3546.
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

A Visitor to Our Web Site Whose Life was Changed Forever by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


A Visitor to Our Web Site Whose Life was Changed Forever

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Our mission at Apologetics Press is to spread the truth so that those who hear with an open and honest heart will be free (John 8:32). Periodically we receive correspondence from those who have been helped by our materials that fill our hearts with gratitude to God for the way He is using our ministry. We received the following letter some time ago from one of our Web site visitors that we think epitomizes what we are trying to do. We think you will agree that this is what Apologetics Press is all about. [We have changed some of the names in the letter for privacy purposes, and minor editing has been done to make it more reader friendly]
I am writing this email to express my thanks to your writers for all of the help that you have given me in my journey to faith. I grew up in California and was raised without any religion at all. I had conservative parents but there was no religion in the household. I went to UCLA for college and studied psychobiology and of course, was inundated with evolution and naturalistic philosophies every single day. I had nothing to contrast those thoughts against nor did the professors present any material that was, in their mind[s] “questionable.” So I guess I learned from them how the world came into being and how it currently functions.
After I graduated college, I met Julie. She had come out to California to go to a law school. She was from Indiana and went to Faulkner for college and attended [a church of Christ in Montgomery, Alabama] while she was in college. She had been a member of the church her whole life.
Soon after we met, we began speaking about her faith because I was interested and she, of course, wanted to spread the Gospel message. The main problem for me was how to align my science background with the apologetic side of her faith. I wanted to know what her answers were to “where did all the dinosaurs go?,” “how can you believe in a young earth when it is widely believed to be billions of years old?” and “how can you possibly not believe in evolution?” Basically I wanted to see “evidence.” She didn’t have a science background and pointed me immediately to your Web site. She praised your writers and the depth of knowledge they have. 
I spent many, many hours reading articles, and then I went back to read my evolutionary thought articles. As I was learning more about Christ, I was also slowly beginning to see that, to my surprise, the Christian worldview actually takes a lot less “faith” [quotation marks added] than an atheist worldview. There are just too many questions that the scientists can’t answer and will not ever be able to answer. Christianity has the answers to all of life[’s] “big questions.”
My mother and I were baptized about 10 months after I started going to church. Julie and I got married. My brother began coming to church and I had the privilege of baptizing him into Christ a few months ago. My wife and I are now working on the faith of my two sisters, my other brother and my father.
Well, I really just wanted to express my deep appreciation to the website you have put together that has provided answers to the questions that I had....
Keep up the good work!
To God be the glory for everything that He is doing through Apologetics Press. Do you have friends whose lives could be changed by the resources on our site? Why not help them find the answers they are seeking by putting them in contact with our materials? Together, we can make an eternal difference in the lives of millions of people.

A Review of the PBS NOVA Television Documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial by Jerry Fausz, Ph.D. Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.


A Review of the PBS NOVA Television Documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

by Jerry Fausz, Ph.D.
Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by two A.P. staff scientists: Dr. Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center; Dr. Fausz holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech and serves as Engineering Project Manager in the Space Systems Development Division of a subsidiary of SAIC.]
On September 26, 2005, a trial began in the federal court of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in which 11 parents charged the Dover Area School District with violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, thus infringing on their civil rights. Partly at issue was a resolution, passed by the Dover Area School board by a 6-3 vote, that stated:
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught (Jones, 2005, p. 1).
The board passed this resolution on October 18, 2004. Also mentioned in the suit was the board’s vote on November 19, 2004, to require that the following statement be read to all 9th-grade students in the Dover Area School District, beginning in January, 2005:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments (Jones, 2005, pp. 1-2).
On December 20, 2005, United States District Judge John E. Jones III delivered a 139-page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. Not only did the judge give the plaintiffs the declarative relief (stating that the establishment clause of the First Amendment was violated) and injunctive relief (forbidding the Dover Area School District from maintaining their ID [Intelligent Design] policy) that they asked for, he also stated in his ruling the monumental conclusion that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
Almost two years after the conclusion of these federal proceedings, the PBS science series NOVAdevoted an episode to a discussion of this landmark case, originally broadcast on November 13, 2007. The program may occasionally be re-run on PBS and other networks, but is also viewable in its entirety on the NOVA Web site (NOVA, 2007b). This article will examine the reasons given by the NOVA executive producer as to why she saw fit to draw attention to this anecdote in U.S.history, discuss the impact of the Dover decision on society and education, as related in the NOVAepisode, and critique the substance of the program, which NOVA has titled Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.


On the same Web site where Judgment Day can be viewed (in 12 parts), there is a “Q&A” mock interview with Paula S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer of NOVA. This Q&A provides a fortuitous opportunity, before viewing the program, to understand what motivated its production. The first question to which Ms. Apsell responded was, “This program tackles a contentious issue for many people, particularly for many devout Christians. Why did NOVA and Paul Allen’s Vulcan Productions, your coproducer, take it on?” Ms. Apsell stated:
I think the real reason that we made that decision is because evolution is the foundation of the biological sciences. As Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great biologists of the 20thcentury, once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (NOVA, 2007a).
Ms. Apsell also responded to the question, “Why is this topic—and the teaching of evolution—so important?” Her full response to this question was:
Recent polls tells us that 48 percent—almost half of all Americans—still question evolution and still believe that some kind of alternative should be taught in the public schools. What happens when half of the population doesn’t accept one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the sciences? Evolution is the absolute bedrock of the biological sciences. It’s essential to medical science, agriculture, biotechnology. And it’s critical to understanding the natural world around us.
We’re a country built on our command of the sciences and technology. But we now face a crisis in science literacy that could threaten our progress in these areas and ultimately threaten our quality of life. So, at NOVA and at Vulcan, we feel that understanding the importance of evolution, and enhancing science literacy in general, are more crucial than ever (2007a).
Understanding what motivates someone to exercise their creative energy can be very useful in deciphering elements of their product that may be otherwise difficult to analyze. This is especially true when considering a controversial subject like ID. Ms. Apsell’s comments indicate a strong bias towards evolution (i.e., against ID), which will prompt us to look for that bias in the program content. Correspondingly, this review will be equally blatant in responding to both the motivation and content of the NOVA program.
For example, Ms. Apsell quotes one of Theodore Dobzhansky’s statements, which is actually the title of one of his papers (Dobzhansky, 1973). The quote does faithfully represent Dobzhansky’s view, as evidenced by the following excerpt from that paper:
The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way (3:127).
In the first place, the idea that creation was either by “caprice” or by evolution is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of a “bifurcation” or “binary argument.” By creating the image of a capricious God as the only alternative to evolution, Dobzhansky thereby makes the godless theory of evolution appear more attractive. The idea that God would have created the Universe impulsively and without purpose (as implied by “caprice”) is completely foreign to the minds of most creationists, who believe that He created deliberately and with full design intent (purpose)—a third option Dobzhansky ignored. In addition, Dobzhansky does not appear to be sure whether evolution is God’s method, or “Nature’s.” Should we conclude from his statement that nature is, in fact, Dobzhansky’s god? One paragraph prior to this quote, he also states: “Only a creative but blind process could produce...the tremendous biologic success that is the human species....” On the one hand, he infers purpose and direction, calling evolution a “method” of God (or nature?); then, on the other hand, he states that it could only be a “blind” process. These statements suggest that Dobzhansky may have been highly confused, indeed.
Dobzhansky’s mental confusion notwithstanding, there are many who we believe would take great issue with Dobzhansky’s philosophy, as well as Ms. Apsell’s proclamation that “evolution is the foundation of the biological sciences.” For one, Louis Pasteur would certainly disagree. Pasteur formulated and thoroughly tested the germ theory of disease, invented inoculations, as well as the cure for rabies, and developed the process of pasteurization. Did Pasteur give credit to “the light of evolution” for his overwhelming scientific contributions to the welfare of mankind, as Dobzhansky implies that he must? On the contrary, Pasteur stated, “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator” (as quoted in Tiner, 1990, p. 75).
Pasteur also empirically established, to the dismay of naturalists, the Law of Biogenesis, which states that life in the natural world only comes from life. With regard to this accomplishment, Pasteur stated: “Never again shall the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow that this one simple experiment has dealt it” (1864), and it has not “recovered” to this day. Pasteur further confounded the spontaneous generation crowd, now called chemical evolutionists, with a discovery involving the phenomenon of chirality. This is the observation that certain organic molecules exhibit asymmetry, dubbed right- and left-handedness, and are mirror images of each other. With respect to this asymmetry, Pasteur discovered that all molecules associated with living things are single-handed, instead of a 50/50 mix of both types, as with most substances. Pasteur identified this as a defining characteristic of life, a characteristic that remains an enigma to scientists (evolutionary scientists, anyway). This discovery rendered the idea of life emerging from non-life, as hypothesized by the chemical evolutionists, statistically impossible.
It is also interesting that Ms. Apsell equates a lack of belief in evolution with “a crisis in science literacy that could threaten our progress in these areas and ultimately threaten our quality of life.” We have already mentioned Louis Pasteur, a “science illiterate” by Ms. Apsell’s definition, who has contributed overwhelmingly to “our quality of life.” Other “science illiterates” (a.k.a. creationists) who have significantly benefited mankind in their work include Francis Bacon, who first postulated the scientific method utilized by all scientists today, Carolus Linnaeus, developer of the classification system used by all biologists today, Johannes Kepler, who formulated the laws of planetary motion and confirmed the heliocentrism of our solar system, James Clerk Maxwell, father of the modern science of electrodynamics, and Isaac Newton, who formulated the law of universal gravity and formalized the field of dynamics with his laws of motion. The list of “science illiterates” who have contributed substantially to “our quality of life” is neither short, nor cloaked in obscurity. Thus, the motivation behind this NOVA production reveals either the naiveté or deceitfulness of those who blindly accept the philosophical premises of evolution, and eagerly embrace the movement to establish Darwinian evolution as the dogma of science education.


With their agenda firmly set, the makers of Judgment Day proceeded to cast the judicial proceedings that culminated in Judge Jones’ December 2005 decision as a conflict between the gallant forces of (scientific) truth and the wily imposter of creationism, deceitfully clothed in the disguise of “Intelligent Design.”
Chapter 1 of the on-line version of Judgment Day begins with the narrator stating: “In October 2004, a war broke out in the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania” (NOVA, 2007d). Following a few innocuous statements by ID proponents, the narrator further states:
But many Dover residents and an overwhelming number of scientists throughout the country were outraged. They say intelligent design is nothing but religion in disguise, the latest front in the war on evolution (2007d).
Shortly thereafter, Judge Jones appears, stating, “It was like a civil war within the community, there’s no question.” The word “war” is used three times within the first 10 minutes of the program. In addition, the word “battle” is used four times in this same segment.
Not unexpectedly, the producers of the program do not leave us in the dark as to who they think the “good guys” are in this “war.” Consider the following sequence of statements from the program transcript, also posted on the NOVA Web site:
BILL BUCKINGHAM (Dover School Board Member): To just talk about Darwin to the exclusion of anything else perpetrates a fraud.
NARRATOR: But many say intelligent design is the fraud.
KENNETH R. MILLER (Brown University): Intelligent design is a science stopper.
KEVIN PADIAN (University of California, Berkeley): It makes people stupid.
NARRATOR: Eleven Dover residents sued their school board to keep intelligent design out of the classroom. And almost overnight, Dover was catapulted to the front pages of the nation’s newspapers and the front lines in the war on evolution (NOVA, 2007c).
Note that the statement of Bill Buckingham, one of the Dover School Board members in favor of ID, is countered by three statements, including one by the narrator himself, while the outrageous statement, “It [ID] makes people stupid,” is not even challenged. In fact, every statement by an ID proponent in the introductory segment is countered, while statements by evolutionists are more numerous and simply left to stand at face value. Though in her Q&A, Ms. Apsell insists that “it [ID] gets a fair shake in this program,” the introductory segment alone casts significant doubt on the veracity of this claim.
The characterization of ID as an enemy in the “war on evolution” worsens, however. Chapter 3 of the on-line version of the program, titled “Introduction to Intelligent Design,” begins with the story of Lauri Lebo, a journalist covering the trial:
NARRATOR: Lebo began reporting on the controversy. But her interest in the issue was not just professional, it was also personal. Lauri’s father had been the owner of a local radio station, but the oldies format wasn’t paying the bills, and the electric company was about to put him off the air.
LAURI LEBO: The next day a gentleman came in who belonged to a local church...wanted to lease programming on the radio station and offered to pay a decent sum of money. And overnight the radio station became a Christian radio station. My father became born again (NOVA, 2007f).
Later in the program, this story is revisited with the following:
NARRATOR: As the legal teams battled it out in court, the clash between intelligent design and evolution was taking a toll on Dover.
Local newspaper reporter Lauri Lebo sat through every day of testimony, and the conflict began to drive a wedge between Lauri and her father.
LAURI LEBO: He believed that God really should be in science class. He did not believe in science, and he was all worried about me and...because I believed in evolution. And he said, you know, “Well, do you really believe that we came from monkeys?” At that point, I was pretty burned out from the trial, and I didn’t really have the patience that I probably should have had with him, and I just said yeah, I mean, you know? “Yeah, I do believe in evolution, Dad,” you know? And so we’d fight every morning.
If you believe in heaven and hell, and you believe you have to be saved, nothing else could possibly matter. Not the First Amendment, not science, not rational debate. All that matters is that you’re going to be rejoined with the people you love most on this Earth (NOVA, 2007i).
The narrator’s leading statement that the “clash” was “taking its toll on Dover” makes the reason for including this anecdote more than clear. Not only ID, but Christianity as well, was portrayed as a subversive element—a plague spreading through Dover, driving “a wedge” in Lauri Lebo’s family and in the Dover School Board. According to the program producers, the enemy in the “war on evolution” is apparently not just ID, but also the Christian faith that drives it. It should come as no surprise that one of the final comments in the program, made by ACLU lawyer Witold “Vic” Walczak, is: “The issue is certainly not over. One of the things that we’ve learned is that the opponents of evolution are persistent and resilient. And they’re still out there” (NOVA, 2007j). Ominous words, indeed!


A core issue in this conflict, as well as in the trial itself, is the question of what constitutes “science.” Clearly, evolution is portrayed as being scientific, while ID is not, according to the program producers and Judge Jones’ decision. The judge’s ruling explicitly stated that ID is not a scientific theory; but is that really the issue? Since Darwinian evolution holds a monopoly with regard to the study of the origins of life within most of our classrooms, perhaps the more relevant question is whether evolution is truly science, or, as Judge Jones described ID, religion in disguise.
For example, a fundamental premise of evolution is that life spontaneously arose from non-life. This premise goes against every related fact we know about biology, especially the Law of Biogenesis, empirically and brilliantly established by Louis Pasteur. This point and others demonstrate that evolution, far from being “one of the fundamental underpinnings of the sciences,”is, in fact, a complete affront to science. Unfortunately, our society has become so willing to sacrifice anything (including science) on the altar of atheism that we now teach as scientific “fact” an atheistic theory that we knowdoes not fit the facts.
The simplest life is far more complex than anything man has ever created. Would we allow our schools to teach as scientific “fact” that space shuttles randomly assemble and launch themselves? As absurd as that may sound, it would be more logical than teaching as scientific “fact” that life spontaneously arose from non-life. With great effort and expense, people assemble and launch space shuttles. However, with even greater effort and expense people have been unable to create anything close to what is considered “simple” life.
Ironically, NOVA and other pro-evolution organizations that claim to be “scientific” typically do not even mention this obvious problem. This fact is glaring when Judgment Day features three different segments designed to overwhelm us with the alleged evidence in favor of Darwinism: Chapter 2, “What is Evolution?” (2007e), Chapter 5, “The Fossil Record” (2007g), and Chapter 6, “A Very Successful Theory” (2007h). Yet, not one of these chapters mentions the fact that Darwinism requires spontaneous generation, nor discusses how it could have happened in spite of infinitely impossible odds. Evolutionists’ strong desire to suppress evidence and discussion, evident in their vigorous opposition to the decisions of the Dover School Board, is yet another indicator that their belief system has little to do with science, and is merely another false religion.
When dealing with evolutionists, it may be more useful to point out that the theory of evolution is notscientific, rather than trying to convince them that biblical Creationism is scientific. No theory of origins is observable, testable, and repeatable, which places the theories outside the realm of operational science, as the NOVA program and Judge Jones claim regarding Intelligent Design. Even though the evidence strongly favors biblical Creationism, as defined, we cannot claim that it is operational science.
It is also interesting to note that most of the arguments currently put forth by evolutionists and the media are completely irrelevant to the debate. The most prevalent example is the use of natural selection as supposed evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. Both biblical Creationists and evolutionists rely on natural selection, so the process is not a discriminator between the two worldviews.


The crux of the legal case in the Dover trial was the accusation that the Dover School Board had violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—at least, the recent “separation of church and state” interpretation of that clause. It is outside the scope of this review to delve deeply into questions of constitutional interpretation (see Miller, 2006; Miller, 2008). Nevertheless, the Framers of our Constitution never intended for this amendment to impact the decisions of popular government at the Dover, PA (state or city) level. In any case, we will consider the issue of violation of the establishment clause within the context of the liberal First Amendment interpretation that is prevalent today.
The most remarkable statement in the NOVA program was in Judge Jones’ ruling:
Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general (NOVA, 2007j).
It may be within the scope of the judge’s authority to make a determination that ID is not science, and that the Dover School Board members who introduced the issue were motivated by religious purpose, but to make a statement regarding fundamental religious and theistic belief goes far beyond any semblance of judicial prudence. It is crucial for every American to understand the full implications of this statement. According to the judge’s statement, now law, the idea that evolution could be considered antithetical (an opposing theory) to religion “in general” is “a bedrock assumption which is utterly false.” This is absolutely stunning—and frightening.
The Founders of our nation believed that religion is essential to the survival of popular government (see Miller, 2008). The recent liberal interpretation of the First Amendment seeks to remove this influence from government—to the detriment of our society. Judge Jones takes this one step further, however, asserting that the authority of judicial review (government) should have influence over religious thought in telling literal Genesis creationists, who reject evolution, that the bedrock foundation of their religious belief is false. Realizing that religion has been made impotent to challenge liberal constitutional interpretation, the legal ramifications of the ruling are positively alarming, as the ruling turns the intent of the Founders regarding freedom of religion on its head. It is no wonder that Judge Jones predicted that he would probably be labeled an activist judge because of the ruling.
Shortly after reading the statement above, Judge Jones made another statement in the program:
In an era where we’re trying to cure cancer, where we’re trying to prevent pandemics, where were [sic] trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me. You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn’t benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries (NOVA, 2007j).
Clearly, Judge Jones has strong feelings that impacted the scope and language of his ruling, and may have even influenced the decision itself. Richard Thompson, a Thomas Moore Law Center attorney and representative of the Dover School Board in the case, commented:
I think, first of all, you have to say we had a fair trial. I’m just disturbed about the extent of his opinion, that it went way beyond what, what [sic] he should have gone into deciding matters of science (NOVA, 2007j).
This observation is an understatement. And we should not be less concerned about the extent of the ruling regarding matters of science, than we are about its precedent for judicial interference in matters of religion. Judge Jones stated in his ruling, “Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge” (2005, p. 137). We mark it as such because the facts presented above justify that claim.


Judge Jones not only believes that evolutionary theory is consistent with belief in God and “religion in general,” but also sees no problem with establishing his belief via the federal judiciary. How did we get so turned around in our society that religion is not allowed to have any influence on government, or public life for that matter, but a judge can dictate what creationists should believe (or not believe)? Consider the following statement from the Q&A with Ms. Apsell (NOVA, 2007a):
Q: Is evolution inherently anti-religious?
Apsell: Not at all. The view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false. Evolution tells us that the diversity of life on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. But for many people of various faiths, this is perfectly compatible with their belief in God as the creator of all nature. I personally believe that the beauty of evolution can enhance your belief in a creator and God.
By definition science cannot address the realm of the divine or supernatural. This doesn’t mean that science is anti-religious.
And our program, Judgment Day, doesn’t promote either a religious or an anti-religious viewpoint. It accurately covers a trial. And the trial itself did not have an anti-religious viewpoint. I think it’s worth noting that both the judge and the majority of witnesses—including scientists on the plaintiff side—are people of faith (NOVA, 2007a).
Notice that Ms. Apsell does not claim any personal religious belief. In fact, when she says, “this is perfectly compatible with their belief in God,” and “I personally believe that the beauty of evolution can enhance your belief in a creator and God” (emp. added), she leaves the impression that she shares neither of those beliefs. Notwithstanding, she feels perfectly justified in prescribing religious belief to others: “The view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false.” And with respect to the program not promoting “an anti-religious viewpoint,” significant evidence to the contrary has been given above.
Now consider the following excerpt from the first chapter of the on-line version of the program:
ALAN BONSELL: I personally don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. I’m a creationist. I make no bones about that.
NARRATOR: Creationists like Bonsell reject much of modern science in favor [of] a literal reading of the Bible. They believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that God created everything fully-formed, including humans, in just six days.
Although most mainstream religions made peace with evolution decades ago, many creationists still see evolution as incompatible with their faith (NOVA, 2007d).
Notice how the narrator claims that “Creationists...reject much of modern science” (emp. added) and “most mainstream religions made peace with evolution decades ago.” Unjustifiable, unsubstantiated generalizations such as these are often used to marginalize specific groups—in this instance, Bible-believing creationists. We are told that we are outside the “mainstream” and that we reject “much of modern science.”
No doubt, some religious evolutionists truly believe that there is no conflict between creationism and evolution. Perhaps though, there are some who hold no religious views, yet see no conflict between evolution and creation, because they desire a non-confrontational, subtle method of subjugating religious belief to modern scientific thought. Judgment Day wraps this viewpoint in a blanket of anti-Christian sentiment.
Those who first compromised biblical creationism with evolution have, without a doubt, opened a Pandora’s box of anti-religious abuse. Indeed, they have catalyzed the very process that has flipped our society on its head, giving place to scientists, judges, TV producers, and even atheists, who desire to dictate to devout people what their view of creation ought to be. We are paying a severe price for their compromise of the simple truths of God’s Word. And what we have witnessed until now is certainly only the beginning.


The conflict between evolution and creation is a very real clash of worldviews that has highly tangible implications for society, the church, and the very survival of our form of government. The NOVAprogram Judgment Day explores this conflict from the perspective of an evolutionist worldview. This fact is clear from the statements of Paula Apsell in the Q&A segment on the NOVA Web site. In light of her bias, we should not expect the program to be fair to Intelligent Design, much less to a creationist worldview, even though it alleges objectivity. The program’s lack of fairness to ID, creationism, and even Christianity, has been documented in this article by examples from the program’s own transcripts.
This leads to the conclusion that the purpose behind the making of Judgment Day was to build on the momentum of the Dover Trial to gain further ground in promoting Darwinian evolution in opposition to biblical creationism. This intent is evident in Ms. Apsell’s lament that so many people still reject Darwinian evolution in spite of its domination of public education for decades. In the spirit of true Orwellian doublespeak, she refers to this rejection of evolution as “scientific illiteracy.”
In support of its purpose, Judgment Day goes to great lengths to marginalize those who dare to question Darwinian evolution and those who choose to believe in biblical creation. Momentum for this purpose is derived from the presiding judge of the Dover Trial, Judge Jones, who stated that the creationist views of the Dover School Board members who supported ID were “utterly false” because those beliefs are based on the “assumption” that evolution is “antithetical” to a belief in a supreme being, or religion itself. By establishing a judicial view of “religion” as defined by that which is not antithetical to evolution (“establishment” in First-Amendment verbiage), NOVA is empowered in their pursuit to further marginalize those who disagree with them by the full authority of the U.S.government.
It cannot be overstated that a major contributing factor in the ability of evolutionists to marginalize creationists is that many creationists have marginalized themselves by accepting evolutionist views, in spite of empirical and biblical evidence to the contrary. NOVA capitalizes on these compromises as primary means to promote its agenda through the Judgment Day program. The most important thing Christian creationists can do, while engaged in this clash of worldviews, is accept God at His word, and esteem His Word above “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20)—and to encourage others to do the same.


Dobzhansky, Theodore (1973), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher, 3:125-129, March.
Jones, III, John E. (2005), “Tammy Kitzmiller, et al., v. Dover Area School District: Memorandum Opinion,” [On-line], URL: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.
Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line], URL: /articles/2942.
Miller, Dave (2008), “Christianity is in the Constitution,” [On-line], URL: /articles/3800..
NOVA (2007a), “Intelligent Design on Trial/Senior Executive Producer’s Story,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/ID/apsell.html.
NOVA (2007b), “Intelligent Design on Trial/Watch the Program,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/ID/program.html.
NOVA (2007c), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID.html.
NOVA (2007d), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 1,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_01.html.
NOVA (2007e), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 2,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_02.html.
NOVA (2007f), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 3,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_03.html.
NOVA (2007g), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 5,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_05.html.
NOVA (2007h), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 6,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_06.html.
NOVA (2007i), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 9,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_09.html.
NOVA (2007j), “Transcripts/Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 12,” [On-line], URL:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_12.html.
Pasteur, Louis (1864), “An address delivered by Louis Pasteur at the ‘Sobonne Scientific Soiree’ of April 7, 1864,” [On-line], URL: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~alevine/pasteur.pdf.
Tiner, J. H. (1990), Louis Pasteur—Founder of Modern Medicine (Milford, MI: Mott Media).