To successfully destroy a structure, all one need do is dig away at the foundation. Eventually the entire structure, no matter how sturdily it was originally built, will come crashing down. God’s Word, the Holy Bible, is the foundational doctrine of Christianity. Through His Word, God has laid out His whole plan for our lives, both in this temporal world, and on into eternity. For the Christian, this divine and wonderful book is the foundation of our belief. If one were able to undermine the Bible and its teachings, then one could cause serious harm to the Christian belief structure, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (NKJ: Psalm 11:3). It is true that Jesus Christ is the foundation of Christianity, “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (NKJ: I Corinthians 3:11). But our knowledge of who He is, and of His will for our lives, is wholly contained in the Bible. To bring down the foundations of the Bible would be to put in question our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ , and what His will is for our lives. Furthermore, the divine absolutes in the Bible concerning right and wrong could be brought into question, that is, are they really absolutes ordained by God, the creator of the universe, or are they just mere suggestions with the same relevance as any other published work?
This leads us into our study of the debate over creation versus evolution. Some may ask the question, “Why would a discussion on creation versus evolution be included as a Bible study on foundational Christian doctrines?” That would be a good question, and there is a very good answer to that question. To begin with, one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity is that God created everything, including us:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (NKJ: Genesis 1:1)
“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;..” (NKJ: Isaiah 44:24)
In the creation account in Genesis chapter 1, God created all things in six days. He was the master designer, bringing organization to where there was previously none. He created energy and matter, and then organized it into the complex life forms we have today--intelligent design from an intelligent designer.
However, we are increasingly being taught that there was no intelligence in the creation of the universe, but that everything happened by “accident” through random events. Life supposedly accidentally sprung up from non-living elements, and randomly organized itself into the complex living organisms we have today. This teaching is known as evolution. Simply put, evolution states that the first living organisms sprang from non-living elements (where these elements came from is unanswered, they were just there). These simple organisms, through mutation and natural selection, “evolved” into the complex living species we have today.
The theory of “natural selection”, which is one of the theories contained within the overall theory of evolution, states that the natural environment will filter out those living organisms with inferior attributes. For example, in Africa, the slower zebras are the first to be killed off by predators, thus, the genetic code possessed by the slower-running zebras is not passed on to future generations. The theory of natural selection goes on to say that as species randomly generate changes or mutations throughout generations, those attributes that are beneficial will be passed on to future generations; whereas, those attributes that are inferior will not be passed on. The assumption is that those attributes that are beneficial will make the possessing living organism more likely to survive other predators and the environment versus living organisms not possessing these favorable attributes. In other words, those living creatures with more favorable and stronger attributes will have a higher probability of surviving and passing forward their favorable genetic code than those that possess inferior and weaker attributes. Thus, individual species will/may improve genetically over time. The theory of natural selection is a valid and proven theory within individual species, that is, intra-species changes over time. This type of change within a species would more properly be termed adaptation where a species will improve itself based on environmental effects.
However, a key element in the theory of natural selection is that this process works within the various species, and does not create new species. Said another way, the theory of natural selection may develop a stronger species of a horse, but will not have a horse evolve into an elephant, and this is where the overall theory of evolution takes a drastically-wrong turn. The theory of evolution has as its foundational belief that one species can change into or evolve into a completely different species. This belief or theory is not only unproven, but completely contradicts scientific fact. Such contradictions are voluminous, and would fill volumes of books.
The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the foundational doctrine of creation first laid out in the book of Genesis. If evolution were ever to be generally accepted by the Christian community, it would successfully destroy the foundational biblical column of creation, and would truly put into question the rest of the Holy Scriptures. However, the problem is actually much deeper. Evolution, in its deepest roots, has its basic assumption that there is no God. Most evolutionists are atheists. Those evolutionists that are Christians generally are either uninformed concerning the ramifications of their belief, or are afraid to admit the truth in the face of ridicule from their peers.
We are warned in the Bible of attacks, such as the theory of evolution, that will come upon God’s Word, “…knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (NKJ: II Peter 3:3-7) People will willfully turn from the truths in the Bible, and will be turned aside to false teachings. Their primary motivation will be to turn away from God, and to live their lives according to their own desires, contrary to the will of God. We can summarize the thought process behind these two theories, creation and evolution, as follows:
Creation => Bible True => There is a God => We were created by God => There are absolute rights and wrongs => We are accountable for our actions and to God => We should not live our lives based on our own lusts and desires, but according to God’s Word.
Evolution => Bible is not True => Is there really a God? => We were not created, but are the result of random mutations => There are no absolute rights and wrongs => We are only accountable to ourselves => We can live our lives any way that is pleasing to ourselves.
Evolutionary theory points to the book of Genesis and its account of how the universe, and everything contained therein, was formed as an allegory, that is, just a story. It follows then that if Genesis is just an allegory, and is not the correct account of the way things actually happened, then what about the integrity of the rest of the Bible? The rejection of creation in favor of evolution would bring into question the validity of all the rest of the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament. Inevitably, the authority of the Bible in the life of a Christian would be significantly lessened if not completely eliminated. Further, without the authority of the Bible, we no longer have a basis for right and wrong. Without the Bible, everyone can make up their own rules. Hence, we have the doctrinal importance of creation. Biblical creation is a foundational doctrine on which all the other doctrines rest. Pull down this foundational doctrinal column, and the entire structure may fall with it.
This study will seek to show a sampling of the contradictions to the laws of science contained within the theory of evolution, and to provide to the reader an understanding of how the theory of evolution has no basis in science. Furthermore, in contrast to the theory of evolution, this study will also show that the biblical creation theory is supported by, and is in complete agreement with, the laws of science.
Let us first take a brief look at the theory of evolution, which was made popular by Charles Darwin back in the late 1800’s. Darwinists define science from a philosophical doctrine known as naturalism. Simply stated, “naturalism” assumes that our universe is a closed system that cannot be influenced by forces outside our universe, in particular, God. The theory of evolution states that life began from non-living elements. This resulting non-intelligent simple life form then, through chance mutation, organized itself and evolved into successively more complex life forms. This evolutionary process through mutation was supposedly aided by a process referred to as “natural selection” that, as we previously discussed, theorized that those mutations that produce favorable attributes would have a better chance of surviving than those of the original pre-mutated form. Evolution then theorizes that this process eventually yielded the ultra-complex life forms that we have on earth today.
The above definition should sound familiar to most of us since for over a past half century this has been the only definition taught in schools regarding how we all came to be. But how does this evolutionary theory hold up when compared to scientific fact?
The following is an analysis of some of the many errors found in the theory of evolution. I have grouped these errors into the following categories for discussion purposes:
Physics
Anatomy
Archeology
Historical
Mathematical
Scientific proof from the molecular aspect
PHYSICS
First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
In the field of science there are what are called “laws.” These laws are scientific absolutes that have been determined based on experiment and general observation, and are foundational principles generally accepted by all of the scientific community as being without exception. In Physics we have what are called the laws of Thermodynamics, which deals with the relationship of heat and mechanical energy and the conversion of one into the other. In simple terms, the first two of these laws are as follows:
First Law:
Conservation of matter/energy, that is, matter and its energy equivalent, can neither be created or destroyed.
Second Law:
- Matter always goes from a state of order to disorder as time progresses.
- Energy decreases as time progresses. Energy goes from a state of high energy to low energy, but never from low energy to high energy.
Looking at the first law, we see that, based on science, matter/energy cannot be created by natural sources. Therefore, the universe could not have created itself from nothing. Since evolutionary theory holds that our universe is a closed system, that is, there is nothing outside of our universe impacting or controlling it, then a significant question arises, “From where did all the matter and energy in the universe come?” In the creation account in the book of Genesis, we have God creating the heavens and earth. In fact, the Hebrew word translated as “created” in verse 1:1, means to create something from nothing, as opposed to creating something by forming it from already existing material. Evolutionary theory has no answer for this question, and basically maintains that the matter/energy used to create our current universe just always existed from eternity past (note: we will address the scientific invalid concept of eternity past in the “mathematical” section of this study). Evolutionary theory cannot answer the question on the source and beginning of matter and energy, and every attempt by evolutionists to explain this question, e.g. the “big bang” theory, is in complete contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics; whereas, the creation theory is consistent with this law.
Next, we have the second law of thermodynamics. Energy decreases based on the second law, but for the universe to have created itself at one point in time, it would have had to increase energy, thus, contradicting the second law. Furthermore, looking at the second law, we see that matter goes from a state of order to disorder as time progresses. However, the theory of evolution states just the opposite, that is, the universe ordered itself, i.e. increased order, through chance with no intelligent intervention, thus, completely contradicting this second law of thermodynamics. The theory of creation is consistent with this second law with God, existing outside of this universe, creating the universe, and then energizing and organizing it.
As an illustration, an analogy can be drawn between the universe and a clock. To say that the universe created and ordered itself would be like a clock creating itself from nothing, and then winding itself up with no external assistance. Obviously, it takes more faith to believe that a clock can make itself and then wind itself up than to believe that a divine power created the clock and then wound it up.
Apart from the second law of thermodynamics, we intuitively understand the concept that matter/energy does not order itself. If we are walking along the shore and come across a watch lying in the sand, we do not pick up the watch and marvel at the wonderful creation of nature that has evolved throughout billions of years. That would be absurd. We look at the craftsmanship and design, and instantly know that this mechanical device was intelligently designed, and was made by human hands. It is the same with our wonderfully designed universe. One has to only look around at the world, and up into the heavens, to realize the masterful design of this world and the universe. The Bible even tells us that the world around us is evidence enough to realize that there is a God, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…” (NKJ: Romans 1:20) The witness of the creation is so strong that it will cause those who reject God and His Son to be without excuse when they stand before God in judgment.
Anthropic Principle
This principle refers to the required balance of our ecosystem to support life. To study the delicate balance of all the thousands or even millions of physical conditions that must exist to support life, must bring one to see the awesomeness of design in our world and in the universe. Some examples of these conditions are:
- All the different chemical balances such as oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide (of which there are thousands).
- All of the different gravitational forces such as the earth, moon, and sun.
- The exact distances of the sun and moon to create sustainable orbit.
- The correct amount of water in the oceans in synchronization with the moon’s gravitational forces to have the proper tidal effects.
- The proper distance of the sun to provide just the right amount of sustaining thermal effects.
- Amount of ozone in the earth’s atmosphere
The list is endless, and to believe that all this happened by chance must be the greatest leap of faith the world has ever seen.
Anatomy
Irreducibly Complex
Evolution states that each part of our body evolved from a single cell through mutation and natural selection. However, just looking at the human body, this would not be possible since many of the human body parts are what is referred to as “irreducibly complex,” that is, they are only useful in their current complete state, and would not have been of any beneficial use at all in any lesser form. Take for example the human eye. Evolutionary theory would say that the eye evolved over millions of years based on natural selection of mutations. However, the eye could not have evolved, since any one of its intermediate states would have been of no beneficial use; therefore, the natural selection process, on which evolution depends, would not have selected any of these intermediate states to pass on to future generations. The human eye is not functional, and at best, is of no use unless all of its different parts are fully formed and working properly. This is the same with many of the other organs of the human body, that is, they could not have evolved since their intermediate forms would not have provided any beneficial value to have them naturally selected and passed on to future generations.
We can also see this exemplified in the insect kingdom. One example would be the Bombardier Beetle. The Bombardier Beetle has a natural defense mechanism that shoots out an acid-like fluid at a temperature of 212 degrees. This defense mechanism is made possible by two internal chambers within the beetle’s body. Each chamber contains separate chemicals that alone are harmless, but brought together create a heated explosion. The beetle has twin tail tubes to vent the explosive reaction when the chemicals are brought together. Furthermore, the explosion is released in a quick series of bursts, versus one large burst that would launch the tiny bug like a rocket ship. This beetle’s defense mechanism could not have “evolved”, since for the mechanism to be of benefit, it must be fully functional. To have the correct chemicals without being properly separated and/or properly expelled would cause the beetle to literally blow itself up, hence, no intermediate stage to carry forward to future generations. To have an intermediate state of the beetle with the chemicals not precisely correct would not yield the proper explosive defense mechanism; therefore, it would not yield any beneficial attributes, thus, not having the mutation selected by natural selection to be carried forward. Evolutionists are extremely puzzled by this beetle that is unlike any other creature, and defies the principle of natural selection and evolution.
The Bombardier Beetle is only one example in the animal kingdom where we have many species that defy the evolutionary theory, as well as in the plant kingdom. All throughout the plant, insect, and animal worlds we have thousands of examples of living organisms that completely contradict the theory of evolution through natural selection.
Error in Natural Selection Through Mutation
One of the precepts of natural selection, defined through evolutionary theory, is that mutations will occur over time that will be beneficial to a species. The natural selection process will retain this favorable mutation since the possessor will have a better chance of survival than its counterparts due to this beneficial mutation. Based on scientific research, this is an incorrect assumption. The gene, containing genetic code, in a living organism is the means by which mutations are passed on to future generations. In the genetic code, which instructs the cells of the body how to form the body, a mutation can occur that can produce a new or altered physical attribute in a species. The assumption is that some of the mutations will produce favorable or beneficial changes in the host, and will then, through natural selection, be passed or inherited by future generations. However, mutations rarely, if ever, produce beneficial or favorable attributes based on scientific findings, and furthermore, they never add new information, but just alter or delete existing information. The following are quotes from respected scientific researchers and scholars regarding these mutations found in genetic code
“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information….All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.” (Lee Spetner, “Not By Chance!:Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution [Brooklyn, N.YH.: Judaica Press, 1997], 131,138.)
“Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider, 1984), 68)
“If water is poured onto a text written in ink, this text will thus be modified or partly smudged; but never is fundamentally new information added to the text in this manner. The chemistry of mutations in the genetic code information has an effect similar to that of water on our text. Mutations modify or destroy already existing genetic information, but they never create new information. They never create, for example, an entirely new biological organ such as an eye or ear. Herein lies an error of Neo-darwinism, which teaches that fundamentally new information is created by mutations.” (A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Costa Mesa, CA: T.W.F.T. Publishers, 1981), 46-47)
Furthermore, natural selection would be in contradiction with intermediate forms. Natural selection, based on its scientific definition, would not allow many supposed evolution cycles to occur for various species due to the fact that the intermediate forms would have possessed debilitating attributes. For examples:
1) Reptiles evolving into Birds: Evolutionary doctrine states that birds evolved from reptiles. Let’s take a look at two body parts that would have needed to evolve. First there are the legs of the reptiles that would have evolved into wings. Reptile legs have solid bones and muscles to enable it to run fast. For the leg to evolve into a wing, the bones would have to become successively lighter and hollower. In this transitional stage, the reptile would become much slower than the other reptiles and much more susceptible to predators. Natural selection would have eliminated any of these intermediate forms. Likewise, the reptile has protective scales used to defend itself when attacked. These scales would need to evolve into feathers, which means that the scales would gradually loose their protective nature. Again, natural selection would have eliminated these intermediate forms.
2) Fish Evolving into Land Creatures: Evolutionary doctrine states that fish evolved legs and then began to walk on land. Obviously, legs did not just pop out one day, but they would have had to evolve over millions of years. These intermediate forms of fish with evolving legs would have no beneficial attributes that would cause it to be selected over the other non-mutated fish. Therefore, while these intermediate forms would not be eliminated by natural selection, they also would not be selected. Hence, there would be no reason for this attribute to be continually passed on through generations, and to have it out-survive its non-mutated counterparts.
It needs to be noted that a mutation only alters a species, and does not create a new species. Natural selection does occur in nature, but its purpose is to keep the species strong and to stabilize the species. It does not create something new. The key distinguishing word here is “selection.” Natural selection is a selection process, not a creation process.
I once came across an interesting analogy relating to the natural-selection process. The analogy used a comparison between the natural-selection process in nature and a quality control function similar to the process we have in modern factories, case in point here an automobile manufacturer. At the end of the assembly line of an automobile manufacturing plant is the quality control department. Their job is to test the cars coming off the manufacturing line to assure that they function correctly. They will take a car on a test drive, check all the various components, such as the windshield wipers and turn signals, to make sure they are operating properly. If they find a car that is not functioning properly, they pull the car and send it back for repair of the malfunctioning part(s). In this process, the quality control function is making sure that no defective cars leave the plant, thus, maintaining the integrity of their car model. However, at no time does anything but cars come out of the factory. The quality control department never changes a car into a plane. Yes, the quality control function may recommend some changes to improve the functioning of the car such as a larger engine, new colors, or even a different body style, but always the end product is a car. The same is with natural selection. Its purpose is to maintain the integrity of a species. The weaker and slower members of a species will be eliminated, thus assuring that only the stronger attributes are passed on to future generations. But at no time does natural selection produce a different species.
ARCHEOLOGY
Lack of Transitional Forms
Transitional forms refer to fossils representing intermediate states of a yet to be fully evolved species. For example, evolutionary theory states that birds evolved from reptiles. We would then expect to see in the fossil record many transitional fossils showing each stage of this evolution in which the reptiles legs are slowly transforming into wings, and their scales are slowly transforming into feathers. Since this evolutionary process would take millions and millions of years to occur, we would expect to find a plethora of such transitional forms. Unfortunately for the evolutionist, this is not the case. Except for a few very questionable finds, the fossil record is conspicuously absent of these necessary transitional forms. In fact, one would not only expect there to be a significant number of these transitional forms, but would expect there to probably be more transitional forms than final-state forms. Darwin himself said that without the presence of transitional forms the theory of evolution is worthless. As he wrote, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, pg. 413) Darwin’s hope was that over time these necessary transitional forms would be found in the fossil record. However, this has definitely not been the case.
Even today, evolutionists themselves point to this as a problem:
The renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (S.J. Gould, Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, pg. 1982))
Dr. Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History wrote a book , “Evolution.” The following is a reply to a question asked of him regarding why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms:
“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them….I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument” (Darwin’s Enigma, 4th ed. 1988, pg. 89)
Though we read a lot about transitional forms in textbooks and journals, and hear lecturers tout these fossil finds as proof of evolution, in fact, they do not exist. But why do we still read and hear so much about them? The answer to this question is simple in that by acknowledging that transitional forms don’t exist, the evolutionist would place a large nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory.
Geological Column
The geological column refers to the different layers in the earth’s surface. Each of us remembers the charts from our school days explaining the age of each layer in millions of years with each layer having its own scientific-sounding name. Whereas it is true that the earth’s surface does have various layers, it is not a correct assumption that these layers were laid down over millions of years as evolutionary theory would suggest. All evidence points to a cataclysmic event occurring over a relatively short period of time as the cause of these layers. The following are several of the many reasons why the geologic column was not formed over millions of years as per evolutionary theory:
- Lack of erosion in layers of geological column: In the Grand Canyon, we can see perfectly the layers of the geological column. Each layer is perfectly parallel with no signs of erosion. If these layers were laid down over millions of years, we would be able to observe significant signs of erosion between the layers. This lack of erosion is evidence for the layers being laid down successively over a short period of time, for example, from a great flood.
- Single fossils spanning multiple layers of geologic column: All over the world, fossils are found which span multiple layers of the geologic column (polystraic). If the geological column was formed over a long period of time, this would be impossible. Only with a catastrophic event over a short period of time, such as a world-wide flood, could this have happened. Petrified trees have been found spanning numerous geological layers, each layer supposedly representing millions of years based on evolutional theory. A dead tree will quickly rote unless it is protected from air which would require the tree to be completely immersed in the layers of the earth. Obvious fact, but needs to be stated, that a tree does not petrify a section at a time over millions of years as geological layers are formed.
- Enormous amount of fossils: Only a global flood can explain the enormous amount of fossils found in the geological column. In a natural setting, animals and fish die and deteriorate relatively rapidly avoiding fossilization. Only by a significant sudden worldwide cataclysmic event, such as a worldwide flood, could enormous amounts of animals be buried quickly enabling them to be fossilized.
- Fossils not consistent within layers of geologic column: Evolutionary theory states that living creatures evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and each layer in the geologic column relate to and span millions of years of earth history. The evolutionist argues that we find smaller simpler life forms in the lower layers, and the larger more complex life forms in the upper layers of the column providing proof of the evolutionary chain. For this theory to be correct, each layer would require 100% consistency of the fossils found within each layer, that is, there should not be a mix of simpler life forms and more complex life forms within the same layer. Each successive layer would naturally contain higher and higher evolved life forms. Unfortunately for the evolutionist, this is not the case, for we do find mixtures within each layer of both lower and higher life forms, which completely invalidates the use of the geologic column as proof of evolution. But, how do we explain this mixture of life forms within each layer of the geologic column. Well, there is a very simple answer to this. The creation view points to the Biblical flood model as the cause for these layers. This model would have less mobile animals in the bottom layers, and more mobile animals in the top layers. Smaller life forms would not be able to travel as fast as larger life forms, and would be consumed by the flood at lower levels; whereas, the higher and more mobile life forms would escape to higher ground. In this scenario, there would also be exceptions, that is, some more mobile life forms could be trapped early in the flood, thus being fossilized at a lower level, and some less mobile animals would already have been at higher levels of ground before the flood, thus being fossilized at the higher levels. These exceptions in the fossil record are another puzzlement for the evolutionist, since these exceptions would be impossible based on their theory.
- Geologic column layers not consistent worldwide: Evolutionary theory states that the geologic column layers are consistent throughout the world, which must be the case for the evolutionist’s theory on the geologic column layers to be valid. However, this is not the case. As geologist Steven A. Austin notes, “The notion that the earth’s curst has an ‘onion skin’ structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth’s surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more(70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth’s surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland)….The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!” (Steven A. Austin, “Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column,” Impact 137 (November 1984): 2.)
Based on the above selected examples, it is readily apparent that the evolutionary theory on the geologic column layers supporting evolution is a myth, and, in fact, the geologic column layers represent a complete contradiction to evolutionary theory.
Methodology for Dating Fossils and Layers of the Earth
Evolutionary theory looks towards archeology to prove many of its claims. One area of high reliance placed on archeology by evolutionists is in the dating of both the layers of the earth and of the fossils. However, when we study the methodology used to determine the ages of the earth’s layers, and of the fossils contained therein, we find a significant problem. The methodology employed by archeology used to date both the layers and the fossils contains circular reasoning or logic. This circular reasoning is illustrated as follows:
Methodology for Aging of Fossils Methodology for Aging of Earths Layers
1) Find fossil. 1) Determine fossils found in layer of earth.
2) Determine in which layer of earth 2) Determine age of fossils.
fossil was found.
3) Determine age of fossil by age of 3) Determine age of layer of earth based on
earth’s layer in which fossil was age of fossils found in the layer.
found.
Note how each methodology is dependant on the other. The fossil is dated by the earth’s layer in which it is found, and the layer of earth is dated based on the fossils found in that layer. This is circular reasoning, and has absolutely no scientific basis. The following are some comments made by noted evolutionary scientists regarding the methodology used in the dating of the earth’s layers and of fossils:
R.H. Rastall, Lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms that they contain.” (R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1956), vol. 10, 168, quoted in “The Revised Quote Book,” page 25.)
J.E. O’Rourke in the American Journal of Science: “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results.” (J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science 276 (January 1976): pg. 47)
Based on the foregoing, we can see that this methodology used for the dating of the earth’s layers and the fossils contained therein has absolutely no scientific basis, and is completely false.
Radiometric Dating
In archeology, a significantly used method for dating fossils, in addition to the previously discussed methodology focusing on the layer of earth in which the fossil is found, is called radiometric dating. This methodology does not date bones, but dates the rock or other materials attached to the bone. The assumption used is that the Uranium lead #235 found in rocks will decay into coal. In this process, the following assumptions are used:
It is assumed that the rock surrounding a fossil was originally 100% Uranium. However, it has been determined that rocks are not always 100% pure at inception; therefore, this assumption is not valid.
It is assumed that the rate of decay of the Uranium occurs at a steady rate over time. This is definitely not true in cases where the rock is exposed to extremes of heat or pressure in which the rate of decay is accelerated. Fossils buried deep under layers of earth could experience both extremes of heat and pressure.
It is assumed that nothing happened over time to take out, or leach out, Uranium from the rock. However, huge catastrophes, such as floods, could leach out uranium, e.g. water percolating through rock.
Based on the foregoing, we can see that the assumptions used in this dating process contain some significant problems that would potentially cause extreme errors in the dating process.
One of the most significant problems with this dating process is the inherent bias associated with determining the correct date of a fossil. When this dating process is used, it is the general case that multiple tests of the same rock will yield differing ages varying significantly, with age differences of hundreds of millions of years. Dates in the “correct ball park” are published, but dates outside of acceptable ranges are ignored and not published due to “assumed” error. Simply put, the tester determines what age range is acceptable for the fossil, and then performs a series of radiometric dating tests until the desired age is achieved. I believe the reader can see the inherent problem with this dating process.
Here are several examples illustrating the extreme inaccuracy of radiometric dating:
Using radiometric dating, samples of the same rock came up with dates with variances of hundreds of millions of years.
Dating using the radiometric dating method, along with several other prominent methods, resulted in ages ranging from 8,000 years to 100 million years.
Dating, using radiometric dating, of known dated material, e.g. buildings and animals came up with significant known differences, e.g. mortar from 800-year-old castle dated as 7300, and seal skins, right after they were killed, were dated 1,300 years.
The above are only a few examples of many that prove that radiometric dating, one of the primary dating process of fossils, is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. Evolutionary Chain of Ape to Human We can travel back to our days of youth, sitting in our classrooms. We glance over at one of the walls of our classroom to see a very familiar chart. It is the evolutionary chain of humans. On the far left side of the chart we have a monkey, then, step by step, we see the stages of evolution bringing us to our present form. And we also remember that there was one blank space on the chart labeled as “The Missing Link,” which was that elusive fossil that showed the intermediate state between ape and man. Since these charts were so prevalent to be on almost every wall of every classroom, and without exception in every science book, they must be based on solid and indisputable scientific fact, right? Wrong! These charts that were held out to every school-aged child as fact were based on incorrect and false data. The reason that there was and always will be a “Missing Link” is that there is no link between ape and man. Furthermore, the stages of the evolution of man on the evolutionary chain from the point of the missing link to modern man have all been proven to be false. Why then is this evolutionary chain from monkey to ape to man still taught in the classroom, and is still universally contained in school textbooks? It is because the scientific community is not ready to admit to their error until they have an alternative theory to replace evolutionary theory, since to admit to their error would, by default, point to creationism as the genesis of mankind. The following are some examples of the errors in the evolutionary chain of mankind: Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) This link was formed from a single tooth found in 1922. From this one tooth, a picture was published of an ape-like man and woman along with their tools (amazing, just from one tooth). A few years later, the associated skull was discovered, and it was found that the tooth fit perfectly into the socket. Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, it was a pig’s tooth. Piltdown Man For over 40 years this find, a human skull along with an ape-like jaw with human-like teeth, was heralded by evolutionists as the missing link proving Darwin’s theory that man evolved from ape. This find was shown to be a hoax in 1953 when it was discovered that the jaw was that of an orangutan with the teeth filed to look more like human teeth, and the skull had been chemically treated to make it appear much older. It should be noted that fourteen years after the hoax was uncovered by the evolutionary scientific committee, Harvard University Press was still writing about this hoax as a possible missing link. Neanderthal Man Now proven to be just like a modern man with a little heavier bone structure. It has also now been proven that Neanderthals made and played musical instruments, and meticulously buried their own dead. They were definitely not a lower form, or different category/species, of modern mankind. Java Man (first of the Homo erectus category) Consisted of a skull cap and a leg-bone. Its discoverer later recanted his theory when he determined that the leg bone belonged to a Homo sapien, i.e. a man, and the skull cap belonged to a giant ape. Heidelberg Man Constructed based on the jaw bone of a Homo sapien, i.e. one of us, but the finder of this fossil decided to put this fossil in a separate species – Homo erectus. A whole new species based on a Homo sapien jawbone. Here we have an arbitrary, unscientific, and false decision being made, and this decision is then held out to the world as a scientific fact. “Lucy” Featured on the cover of National Geographic as the illusive missing link, this fossil find was heralded by the evolutionary community as the indisputable proof that man evolved from ape. Again, unfortunately for the evolutionist, this find was later proven not to be an intermediate form of man. The following are several of the various reasons: 1. The knee bone was found over a mile away from the rest of the bones used for Lucy, not to mention being found in a different layer of the earth. Thus, associating the knee joint with the other bones was a completely incorrect assumption. The knee joint is one of their pivotal arguments for “Lucy” walking upright and being a transitional form of man; therefore, the foundational assumption is proven to be incorrect. 2. The 3 ½ foot tall frame matches that of some monkeys today, not man. 3. “Lucy” was said to walk upright, thus proving that she was linked to man. However, today we have a species of monkey in Africa that spends a lot of its time walking in an upright position. Therefore, the assumption of walking upright proving that a monkey like creature is a transitional form of man is invalid. It should also be noted that the archeologist credited with the discovery of “Lucy” was a very short time away from running out of his grant money, and desperately needed to come up with some kind of find else his work would come to an abrupt end. Lucky for him that “Lucy” just happened to pop up?? Even though “Lucy” has been found not to be a credible find, she is still being heralded by the evolutionary community as such. In November of 2003 I found myself watching a special on the Discovery channel hosted by Alec Baldwin on “Lucy.” The special not only pointed to “Lucy” as a legitimate part of the evolutionary chain, but spent about a half hour telling us all about her life, and the life of her communal group. To many, the assumption would have been that this special was all supported by scientific fact, when, in reality, it was complete fiction and contrary to scientific facts. The above illustrations are just a quick sampling of the errors found in the evolutionist’s evolutionary chain of man, and one will be able to find similar problems with each and every step in the purported evolutionary chain. Differences Between Man and Primates not Explainable by Evolution In studying the anatomy of man compared to primates, there are found basic differences between man and primates that cannot be explained by evolution, and, in actuality are completely contrary to evolution. The following are three such differences: The Big Toe Man has a big toe which is aligned with his other four toes; whereas, with primates, this digit is located towards the rear of the foot and somewhat to the outside. More interesting is the functionality of the primate’s fifth digit that functions more like a thumb, enabling these animals to grasp and hang by their feet. The evolutionary chain is absent of any species that have this fifth digit in an intermediate state between the aligned positioning of man, and the in-the-rear-and-to-the-outside position of primates. Furthermore, such transitional stages would have been, based on evolutionary theory and natural selection, filtered out by evolution and natural selection since an intermediate state of this fifth digit would make primates less functional and mobile; thus, would make them more susceptible to predators. Head Placement The head of a man is positioned at the top of the spinal column to facilitate walking upward; whereas, the head of a primate is hinged in front of the spinal column for ease of functioning on all fours. Again, there are no species with their head in an intermediate stage of positioning between being hinged in front of the spinal column and being on top of the spinal column. Additionally, such an intermediate state would be an unfavorable change in that a head positioned half way between hinged in the front of the spinal column and on top of the spinal column would be dysfunctional for both a species that walked on all fours and for a species that walked upright. Again, evolution and natural selection would eliminate any such intermediate change. Baby Humans Are Helpless Evolution appears to be working backwards in the situation of the helplessness of human babies at their time of birth. The human baby is completely helpless at birth and for months afterwards. It is completely dependent on its parents for all of its needs. However, we find the complete opposite with primate babies, which are ready to run to safety or climb onto their mother’s back soon after birth. This is a very favorable attribute possessed by primate babies, as compared to human babies, and would definitely give primate babies a significantly higher survival probability than that of human babies out in the wilds of nature. Based on evolutionary theory, natural selection would never have allowed this attribute of defenselessness now possessed by human babies to ever have been carried forward in the evolutionary process. So again, we have yet another absolute contradiction to the theory of evolution and natural selection. An emphasis needs to be made on the fact that over the span of recorded history, in the fossil record, and in real life today, what we have are distinct species of plants, animals, and humans, with no intermediate forms. Intermediate forms are the foundation of evolution, natural selection, and Darwinism. Without such intermediate forms, evolution is dead. Biblical Case for “Cavemen” From a biblical perspective, what we refer to as “cavemen” or prehistoric men, may not be the case. Take for instance this quote from Job: “But now they mock at me, men younger than I, whose fathers I disdained to put with the dogs of my flock. Indeed, what profit is the strength of their hands to me? Their vigor has perished. They are gaunt from want and famine, fleeing late to the wilderness, desolate and waste, who pluck mallow by the bushes, and broom tree roots for their food. They were driven out from among men, they shouted at them as at a thief. They had to live in the clefts of the valleys, in caves of the earth and the rocks. Among the bushes they brayed, under the nettles they nestled. They were sons of fools, yes, sons of vile men; they were scourged from the land.” (NKJ: Job 30:1-8) This would indicate that possibly these cave dwellers were castoffs from society, men with reprobate minds and very sinful. However, for whatever reason these people had separated from the rest of society, the Scriptures tell us that they were not ancestors of man, but lived at the same time. Coexistence of Man and Dinosaur Evolutionary theory points to the fossil record found within the different layers of the earth’s surface, and claims that since the dinosaur fossils are found in lower layers than man, that man did not coexist with the dinosaur. Furthermore, based on the evolutionary chain, man would not yet have evolved from apes during the time of the dinosaurs. However, archeological findings show that man and dinosaur did coexist, contrary to evolutionary theory. Two proofs are as follows: 1) The fossil record shows human footprints alongside, and sometimes within, the footprints of dinosaurs. 2) Cave drawings show pictures of Dinosaurs. How would the drawers have known about Dinosaurs if they did not exist during the time of the drawer? Again, we have a huge discrepancy between actual archeological findings and the theory of evolution. The Formation of the Fossil Record The evolutionary theory for the formation of the fossil record within the layers of the earth’s surface states that it was formed slowly over billions of years. However, we have seen from our prior discussion, for various reasons, that this could not have been the case. Then, if the evolutionary theory is not correct, how were the fossil layers formed? Based on archeological evidence, the fossil records show a lot of evidence of a catastrophic event. Furthermore, the biblical worldwide flood in Genesis fits perfectly as a candidate for this event. The following are some of the reasons why a cataclysmic event would explain the fossil record, and why a worldwide flood would fit as that event: 1) Fossils are found in all positions: sleeping, eating, giving birth. This would suggest a sudden event that would catch living creatures by surprise. 2) To be fossilized, bones must be buried quickly with mud and sediment. To have such an abundant supply of fossils would have to suggest a sudden cataclysmic event that would engulf many living creatures quickly. In a natural setting, animals and fish die and deteriorate relatively rapidly, and there is not enough time for a creature that has died to be adequately buried before they decompose. Only by a significant catastrophe, such as a flood, could enormous amounts of animals be buried quickly enabling them to become fossilized. 3) All over the world, fossils are found which span multiple layers of the geologic column (polystraic). This is impossible if each layer is millions of years old. Only with a sudden event, in which the layers are formed relatively quickly, could these polystraic events occur. Furthermore, it would appear that only a great flood could be responsible for laying such layers over a short period of time. 4) Mass burial sites of fossilized animals have been located all around the world. Fossilization theory holds that one animal is fossilized at a time sporadically over time; whereas, a worldwide flood would yield large quantities of animals buried together. 5) Fossils are found out of place in the geological layers. Fossils of living animals are found in incorrect layers. That is, those animals theorized by evolutionists to be more recent are found in older layers where only lower forms of life should be found, and vice versa. This is impossible within evolutionary theory, but is not only possible, but expected with creationism. In the creation model we would have less mobile animals in the bottom layers, and more mobile animals in the top layers. Smaller life forms would not be able to travel as fast as larger life forms, and would be consumed by the flood at lower levels. In addition, there would also be exceptions of finding some more mobile life forms trapped early in the flood, thus being fossilized at a lower level, and some less mobile animals having already have been at higher levels of ground before the flood, being fossilized at the higher levels. And this is just what we find in the geologic layers of the earth. As can be seen from the following examples, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution, but is contrary to this theory. On the other hand, the Genesis account of the flood is in complete harmony with the fossil record. Fossil Record Attribute Predictions of Evolution and Creation Theories In relation to the fossil record, we find that evolutionary theory and creation theory predict two completely different pictures of what we would expect to find. The following is a summary of these predictions: Evolution Predictions 1) Gradual appearances and gradual change 2) No out of place fossils (simplest life forms found only at lowest levels and complex life forms only found at higher levels of earth’s surface layers) 3) Billions of transitional forms 4) No polystraic fossils (carcasses spanning more than one layer) 5) Some missing links within the inter-species evolutionary fossil record, but not all Creation Predictions 1) Sudden appearances and no changes 2) Many out of place fossils 3) No transitional forms 4) Polystraic fossils 5) Many gaps (missing links) between different species with no clear inter-species evolutionary fossil record When we review the fossil record found within the earth’s surface, which of the above predictions do we find match reality? What we find, based on our previous discussions on archeology, is that, without exception, the creation scenario is right on the money; whereas, the evolutionist’s predictions are completely contrary to actual findings. HISTORICAL Other Cultures Speak of a World-Wide Flood As we have been discussing, the theory of evolution states that we evolved over billions of years, and that the fossil layers were slowly laid down over that period. The creation model has life being created by God at one point in time, and then a worldwide flood occurred that over a very short period of time destroyed all living land creatures except for eight people, and the pairs of animals they brought along with them on their ark. In this brief time span, approximately one year, the earth was covered with water, and then the water receded to create the continents we have today. Furthermore, this worldwide flood captured many living creatures in layers of sediment that became fossilized throughout the various layers. One would expect that such a worldwide event would be handed down from generation to generation. It is interesting that we find over two hundred other cultures that have legends that refer to a great world-wide flood. Here are a couple of examples: Hawaiian Tradition: “Long after the death of Kuniuhonna, the first man, the world became a wicked, terrible place to live. There was one good man left; his name was Nu-u. He had a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. The waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people. Only Nu-u and his family were saved.” (Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design (Green Forest, Ark.: Master books, 1992), pg. 74) Chinese Legend: Ancient Chinese writings refer to a violent catastrophe that happened to the Earth. They report that the entire land was flooded. The water went up to the highest mountains and completely covered all the foothills. It left the country in desolate condition for years after. One ancient Chinese classic called the “Hihking” tells the story of Fuhi, whom the Chinese consider to be the father of their civilization. This history records that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and the three daughters escaped a great flood. He and his family were the only people left alive on earth. After the great flood they repopulated the world. An ancient temple in China has a wall painting that shows Fuhi’s boat in the raging waters. Dolphins are swimming around the boat and a dove with an olive branch in its beak is flying toward it.” (Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design (Green Forest, Ark.: Master books, 1992), pg. 74) Here we have worldwide historical accounts of a worldwide flood, thus supporting the biblical account in the book of Genesis regarding a world-wide flood. MATHEMATICAL Mathematical Time Anomaly I have always had a love of mathematics, and in college, though majoring in Business, I minored in mathematics just for the fun of it. When I was presented with the following mathematical example it immediately captured my attention. With biblical creation, we have God creating everything at a point in time, that is, there was a definite beginning of time, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (NKJ: Genesis 1:1) From that point of beginning, there has been a finite expanse of time to arrive at our present day. From the biblical perspective, God is eternal, but the universe in which we exist is not. The evolutionary model, though, does not have a beginning point. Evolution theorizes that the existence of matter/energy is infinite. Based on evolutionary theory, which views our universe as a closed system with no existing external divine forces, this theory of infinite existence would be the only option. However, an infinite existence poses a problem from a mathematical viewpoint. Simply put, if time is infinite going back into history, then today is impossible since infinity does not have an end, and “today” would be the end of an infinite time line. This can be illustrated as follows: Infinite History ---------------------------------------------------------à“Today” Infinite amount of time Put in another way, there would be an infinite amount of time between the past and today; therefore, theoretically, we would never arrive at today. One very provable fact is that we are definitely here today; therefore, the obvious conclusion is that there is not an infinite amount of historical time, and that there must have definitely been a beginning point of time. If there was a definite beginning point in time, then there must have been an external force outside of our universe that set time in motion. Evolutionary theory has no answer to this question, but creationism does: God. SCIENTIFIC PROOF FROM THE MOLECULAR ASPECT In this study, I have attempted to present scientific proof of creation using those examples that scientific laymen, such as myself, could easily comprehend, and that could easily be shared with others when defending biblical creation. I believe that such a presentation, in itself, is immensely adequate to fully prove the scientific reality of creationism, and to completely dispel the unscientific theory of evolution. However, when the debate over creationism versus evolution is taken down to the molecular level and beyond, the scientific proof for creationism is so overwhelming that if, after reviewing the scientific facts, one would still choose to believe in any form of evolution over creationism, then they would have to admit that their belief in evolution has no foundation in science, but is purely based on faith. For life to have evolved from non-living elements, there are many stages of design that must occur before a living organism can exist. An example would be the human cell that consists mostly of proteins, and proteins are made up of chains of amino acids. Each of these steps, that is, the formation of one amino acid, the formation of specific amino acids to form a protein, and the formation of specific proteins to form a cell, have been proven to be scientifically impossible. When we study the design structure of DNA, any notion of chance formation by evolutionary theory is dashed to pieces. Evolutionary theory was first thrust onto the scientific community in a time when the sciences did not possess an understanding of molecular science; thus, evolution was able to gain a foothold in the scientific community based on speculation on unknown facts. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries the sciences have gained tremendous knowledge far beyond even the molecular level. This new-found knowledge, subsequent to the theory of evolution, now shows, without a doubt, that the origin of living organisms could only have come about through intelligent design and not by evolutionary chance. The scientific community, that is, those that are at least truthful about the evidence, now confess that evolution is not possible. However, in the next breath, they will tell you that they cannot yet throw out this false theory because to do so would be to admit that there was a divine designer. Such a declaration is not an option to the general scientific community; therefore, before they can reject evolution, they must first find another alternative that does not include divine design. Let no one argue otherwise, to believe in evolution takes faith--a much stronger faith than that of the Christian faith. For the Christian faith is based on the evidence of the Bible proven by 100% accuracy in thousands of prophetic passages as well as its complete harmony with the sciences; whereas, the belief, or faith, in evolution has no foundation whatsoever in either the sciences or any other tangible or intangible source. At the end of this study, I have listed several books as resources for further study into the debate on creation versus evolution. These books contain chapters that very simply and eloquently discuss the scientific impossibility of evolution at the molecular level and beyond. I would do a great disservice to the reader if I were to try and properly summarize some of these scientific proofs, and, therefore, would rather steer the reader directly to the source. FINAL COMMENTS As we have seen, the theory of evolution is a theory with no scientific support. Yet it is still being taught in our educational institutions as the only theory regarding the origin of mankind. The idea of mankind being created by a divine hand is looked upon by the scientific community as a non-option, even when all scientific evidence points in that direction. True scientific study is unbiased and weighs all the evidence to find the truth, no matter where it leads. To rule out any option even before looking at the evidence renders any such research invalid, but what we have in our scientific community is just that, invalid research. For the option of a divine creator has been ruled out even before the scientific data has been examined. To illustrate this point, the following are some quotes from noted evolutionists in various fields of science: “One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe , of spontaneous generation.” (George Walk, “The Origin of Life”, Scientific American 191:48 (May 1954)) “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved over a hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!” (George Walk, “The Origin of Life”, Scientific American 191:48 (May 1954)) “…we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31) “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Kansas State University immunologist Scott C. Todd, September issue of “Nature”) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” (Sir Arthur Keith who wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species in 1959) As can be seen from the quotes above, science will not accept any results that point to a divine hand. The scientific community would rather cling on to a disproven and ridiculous theory, rather than to follow the empirical evidence and believe in God. We read in the Bible, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” (NKJ: Romans 1:20-22) The creation proves that there is a creator. Those that deny God and His creation will become foolish in their thoughts, which is exemplified in the quotes above. The absence of God in our universe is the starting point for Darwinism and evolution. The father of evolution, Charles Darwin, realized this. In speaking of supporting evolutionary theory purported by a fellow evolutionist, Darwin stated, “Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise…I have read lately Morley’s Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks.” (Gertrued Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Sarwinian Revolution [Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1967), pg. 387) Let not the Christian be deceived regarding the primary hidden agenda of the evolutionist, that is, to undermine the foundation of Christianity, and, thus, rid the world of God. We, as Christians, need to strive to change the way of thinking of our society back to the Bible, and the authority of the Word of God. We must teach this generation that the Bible is the true and inerrant Word of God. Let us not repeat the errors of the past. In the book of Judges we read, “When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the LORD nor the work which He had done for Israel. Then the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served the Baals; and they forsook the LORD God of their fathers…” (NKJ: Judges 2:10-12) Joshua’s generation faithfully served and worshipped God, but the following generations turned from God and served the god’s of the world, thus falling into sin. What happened to this next generation? Their parents did not teach them in the ways of the Lord, leaving them susceptible to the teachings of the world. We are exhorted by God in His Word to teach our children about Him, “Give ear, O my people, to my law; incline your ears to the words of my mouth…. Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.” (NKJ: Psalm 78:1,3-4) We are to equip our children through the Word of God before they go out into the world, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NKJ: II Timothy 3:16-17) The foisting of Evolution on each new generation of children must not be ignored. Not only is it a lie, but it undermines the very foundations of our Holy Bible in that it denies the truth that there is a God, and that our God created us. To allow this lie to be perpetuated throughout our generations is to allow the truthfulness of our Bible to be placed into question. And once this door has been opened, the entire foundation of the Christian faith will be in jeopardy. In the book of Acts, Paul made the statement, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” (NKJ: Acts 20:26-27) May each of us, after we pass from this world, be able to stand before God and say these very words. Let us not fall short in this battle, and may we preach to this generation, and each generation to follow the whole counsel of God, which begins with God’s creation. God Bless RECOMMENDED READINGS For the Non-Science Minded The Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin (Biblical Discipleship Publishers, Rockwall, Texas) Tornado in a Junkyard-The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff (Refuge Books, Burlington, Massachusetts) For the Science Minded The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution by A.E. Wilder-Smith (T.W.F.T. Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA) The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory by A.E. Wilder-Smith (The Word for the Day Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA) Creation Websites Drdino.com (This website actually offers a challenge that if anyone can give any empirical evidence supporting evolution, that they will pay $250,000. This offer started in 1990 for $10,000, and the amount has grown. As yet, no one has been able to collect on the offer.) AnswersinGenesis.org
Opmerkingen