The column by George Will {op-ed, June 25} concerning the Supreme Court decision against creationism was as arrogant as it was insulting. In the real world, tales about fishes turning into frogs and then into men are found only in children's fairy tales; they have no place in books purporting to be scientific. When a beast is transformed into a man in a moment by the wave of a wand, it is called magic. When the beast becomes a man over a few million years, it is called evolution, and time has become the fairy's magic wand.

Will's first mistake is in assuming that the government, in this decision, was properly avoiding the endorsement of religion. That is absurd: it rejected Biblical theism and so, by the nature of that rejection, endorsed atheism. The court simply denied one religion in favor of another.

The burden of his article was that while "creation science" is a misnomer, evolution is a scientifically established fact. It seems that Will has been made privy to information unknown to even the evolutionary scientists themselves. For instance, Dr. D.M.S. Watson, professor of zoology at London University, admits that evolution is accepted not because it can be proved but because the only alternative, special creation, is unacceptable. Science?

Sir Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Scientific fact?

Dr. W. Scott Morrow, professor of biochemistry at Wofford College in Spartanburg, S.C., who testified for the evolutionists in the widely publicized McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education case in 1981, maintained that creationists actually look at more data than do evolutionists. Which, then, is more scientific?

Evolutionists speak of spontaneous generation -- life arising out of nonlife. This has long ago been scientifically proven to be absolutely impossible; with that no scientist will disagree. Yet without spontaneous generation, there is no evolution, so the "scientists" tell us that although it is impossible, it happened. Science?

Evolutionists love to speak of the fossil record, but it is embarrassing to them to find none of their supposed "missing links" in it (in fact, it is a missing chain!). The evidence of the fossil record points to creation. Their answer: "the change occurred too fast." So we are taught by intelligent men that evolution is unobservable today because it occurs too slowly, but no evidence exists because it occurred too fast! Science?

Will challenges us to put aside faith for fact, despite the consequences. That is fine, and those of us who believe the Scriptures are not afraid of fact or true science. Let us only be sure we are indeed faced with fact!

Evolution would perhaps more properly fall into the philosophy classroom. More than dealing with scientific data, it seeks to establish itself on a series of propositions, beginning with the total denial of supernaturalism. It is founded on unproved and unprovable assumptions, assumptions that contradict the evidence. In fact, the evolutionary theory rests completely on the assumption of clear scientific impossibilities (such as spontaneous generation and progressive change).

A man is either a hypocrite or unthinking and deceived who believes in evolution and still goes to church. If God did not create us, then we are not responsible or accountable to Him, nor need we worship Him, and to do so would be a farce. If God is not our Creator, then we do not have to obey His laws; hence, the amorality today. If God is not our Creator, then man, so far from being the crown of creation and set over nature, is merely a highly developed animal, set under nature as a product of it; taught this, man will act accordingly.

Evolution is not merely a question of origins, it is a question of identity; Is man really the image of God? If he is not, then all of religion crumbles, and all of society will come tumbling after. -- Fred G. Zaspel The writer is pastor of the Word of Life Baptist Church in Orwigsburg, Pa.