I challenge you all to read "The Battle for the Beginning: The Bible on Creation and the Fall of Adam" by John MacArthur. It is a great book. I firmly believe in the creation. I find no other explanation for our existence. I tell you that as i look at all the sin and depravity in the world right now it is obvious that most people seem to believe in evolution leaving us as little more than animals. We determine what is right or wrong. We do what is right in our own minds. Think before you accept such foolishness.

The starting point for Christianity is not Matthew 1:1, but Genesis 1:1. Tamper with the Book of Genesis and you undermine the very foundation of Christianity. You cannot treat Genesis 1 as a fable or a mere poetic saga without severe implications to the rest of Scripture. The creation account is where God starts His account of history. It is impossible to alter the beginning without impacting the rest of the story—not to mention the ending. If Genesis 1 is not accurate, then there’s no way to be certain that the rest of Scripture tells the truth. If the starting point is wrong, then the Bible itself is built on a foundation of falsehood.

In other words, if you reject the creation account in Genesis, you have no basis for believing the Bible at all. If you doubt or explain away the Bible’s account of the six days of creation, where do you put the reins on your skepticism? Do you start with Genesis 3, which explains the origin of sin, and believe everything from chapter 3 on? Or maybe you don’t sign on until sometime after chapter 6, because the Flood is invariably questioned by scientists, too. Or perhaps you find the Tower of Babel too hard to reconcile with the linguists’ theories about how languages originated and evolved. So maybe you start taking the Bible as literal history beginning with the life of Abraham. But when you get to Moses’ plagues against Egypt, will you deny those, too? What about the miracles of the New Testament? Is there any reason to regard any of the supernatural elements of biblical history as anything other than poetic symbolism?

After all, the notion that the universe is billions of years old is based on naturalistic presuppositions that (if held consistently) would rule out all miracles. If we’re worried about appearing “unscientific” in the eyes of naturalists, we’re going to have to reject a lot more than Genesis 1–3.

Once rationalism sets in and you start adapting the Word of God to fit scientific theories based on naturalistic beliefs, there is no end to the process. If you have qualms about the historicity of the creation account, you are on the road to utter Sadduceeism—skepticism and outright unbelief about all the supernatural elements of Scripture. Why should we doubt the literal sense of Genesis 1–3 unless we are also prepared to deny that Elisha made an ax–head float or that Peter walked on water or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? And what about the greatest miracle of all—the resurrection of Christ? If we’re going to shape Scripture to fit the beliefs of naturalistic scientists, why stop at all? Why is one miracle any more difficult to accept than another?

 John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning: The Bible on Creation and the Fall of Adam (Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group, 2001), 44.