The Apple Of God's Eye

August 11, 2009

The Origin of Life: Why Complex Life Forms In "Lowest" Fossil Strata?

pigeonchess.com

pigeonchess.com

Can Evolutionists explain the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the “lowest” fossil strata?

Five Rejected Theories

Evolutionists claim their record is destroyed. Yet, true men of science among them have inadvertently given us the following facts. They list five theories for the lack of preservation of the life which they believe existed in the pre-Cambrian—then they take each in its turn and disprove it.

The question: Why are there no fossils in the pre-Cambrian rocks? They  answer with a theory and then give objections
which disprove the theory. Here are their theories and their objections.

Theory no. 1: All life was destroyed by the metamorphism of the rocks in which they occurred.

Objection: 90% of pre-Cambrian rocks are schists, gneiss and marble, distorted by heat and pressure, but the remaining 10% are not. The remaining 10% should contain fossils if evolution were true.

Theory no. 2 Life oniy existed in those areas which were metamorphosed.

Objection: This would be very fortunate for the theory of evolution but is most improbable due to the widespread occurrence of the unmetamorphosed areas which were certainly accessible to ocean life and thus ought to contain fossils.

Theory no. 3: The oceans were too acid for calcium to be used for shells and thus no trace of the animal was preserved.

Objection: The oceans were more likely fresh to begin with. Also, siliceous and chitinous skeletons could have been formed and preserved apart from the calcium requirement. Such types are found in the Cambrian rocks.

Theory no. 4:  There wasn’t enough calcium in the ocean for the animals to have shells.

Objection: Limestone layers 50,000 feet (?) thick were deposited in this early strata showing an abundance of calcium.

Theory no. 5: Life forms lived only in the upper zones of the ocean at first and had no hard parts.

Objection: Either they became lazy, grew hard parts, and being heavier settled to the bottom, or else they found the ocean bottom first, then became lazy in their new environment and grew hard parts. Thus the sudden appearance of fossils. Objections: For life to spend many millions of years in the uppermosr portions of the ocean without finding shore, shallow water or ocean bottom is nothing short of ridiculous. Even after accepting such an idea the problem remains as to why suddenly many forms of life should take on complete skeletons with no intermediate “evolutionary steps.” No transitional forms are found. Each species thus learned to develop its hard shell suddenly!

A great number of species occur together with hard shells in the lower Cambrian. All must have “learned” the secret of hard shell development simultaneously. Thus this fifth theory is also completely lacking in facts, logic and piain good judgment.

Why Men Can’t See

Thus at present scientists have left themselves without an explanation for the complex, numerous “advanced” life forms of the Cambrian rocks and the complete absence of life in the layer usually beneath it. In rejecting the Scriptural account ( Genesis 1 ) as evidence they find themselves without any explanation.

The correct conclusion you ought to have drawn from the evidence presented is that in the beginning life forms were created complex as we find them; then at a later date they were buried in the rocks by catastrophic upheavals of earth and water. They did not evolve to that complex stage as the evolutionary theory demands.

Since the days of Darwin, men have clung tenaciously to the theory he published but never proved, even to himself. Why? Because to believe otherwise would in the end lead to the acknowledgement of the Creator revealed in the Bible.

To acknowledge this Creator would be to consenr that certain obligations might be due Him. It would also put these educated men in the rather uncomfortable place of having a rival whose knowledge was as far superior to theirs as wisdom is to foolishness. Intellectual pride would have to vanish.

Man’s mind, the carnal mind he is born with, is enmity against God (Romans 8:7). It will not think rationally when faced with the Biblical facts proving the existence of a Creator who has revealed Himself to man through the scriptures.

Do you know the mystery of this little creature? Here is evidence that each creature produces after its own kind—that it doesn’t become a different, more advanced kind.

Sir Archibald Geikie, F.R.S., ardent evolutionist admits that though “Brachipod species of the genera Lingula are the oldest known molluscs . . . [they] are still represented by living species ¡n the ocean. They have persisted with but little change.during the whole of geological time, from the early Paleiozoic periods downwards, for the living shells do not appear to indicate any marked divergence from the earliest forms.” (From Geology by Geiki)

It is quite possible that had no Bible ever been written proclaiming the existence of our Creator, that the efforts of scientists in every field would have quickly discovered the facts of creation. Had no floods ever been described in the Scriptures, historians and archeologists alike would have discovered the evidence, reasoned correctly with it and arrived at the correct historical account of the earth. Geologists would have studied the fossil strata and held forth the truth to the world with fervor equal to that with which they now propagate the godless doctrine of evolution.

But the human mind is rebellious against God; it will not willingly subject itself to the law of God; neither will it acknowledge that a revealed history of the earth and life forms is correct. Evolution thus becomes the opiate of the atheist to distort his vision and keep him from seeing his God.

The carnal mind cannot accept God. It must cling to this “favorite belief” that life came into being by some slow natural process.

Where Is the Evolutionary Tree?

The roots from the tree of evolution disappear in our search for the evolution of life from dead matter. The stump vanishes when we ask for those “few, simple, primitive” life forms. The thirteen great branches, the 13 phyla into which all animals are classified, fade away when we find all represented in the earliest fossil strata. Even the smaller branches vanish when we see this Cambrian life “already evolved” into classes, orders, genera, and species.

It’s about time to ask where is the tree? The roots, ttunk and branches are gone. Only the twigs remain. Blood relation between individuals and many so called species of the Cambrian strata is certain. Further speculation is in the realm of philosophy, not true science. This tree of evolution is thus shown to be but a dream in the minds of men and like a dream it will disappear for them when their eyes are opened.

August 9, 2009

Questions On Evolution: Scientific Fact Or Science Fiction?

The origin of life is the least understood biological problem.

While acknowledging this fact, evolutionists go on to believe as an article of faith that life came into existence on this planet spontaneously from nonliving matter by chemical processes. They further accept as an article of faith that life progressively evolved by blind chance into the vast array of living things we see today. This belief is claimed to be “fact.” Those who do not accept this “fact” are ridiculed as ignorant and unscientific.

Is evolution scientific fact, or is it science fiction? The odds are fantastic against even very “simple” constituents of living organisms occurring by chance. And there is an even greater improbability of such constituents producing living organisms by chance.

In particular consider a protein consisting of a chain of about 100 amino acids. If all the known stars in the universe had 10 earths, and if all the earths had oceans of “amino acid soup,” and if all the amino acids linked up in chains 100 acids long every second for the entire estimated history of the universe, even then the chance occurrence of a given very simple protein would be extremely improbable.  As such, below you will find answered a number of the more common evolutionary counterarguments, as well as additional queries:

  • There may be many combinations of amino acids that would work. So the probability of their forming by chance would be much greater than that of a specific combination.

No scientific experimentation has shown that a different combination of amino acids could be substituted for a given protein and still perform exactly the same way. The marvelous complexity of the specific functions performed by the combination that does work in nature demands the correct sequence of amino acids to be present in each case. (We are aware, of course, that various proteins may be consumed and reassembled into other proteins by an existing living organism.)

A given life form requires specific combinations of specific molecules. Just any arbitrary random combination will not work. It is much like a combination lock. If you do not know the combination, you can spin numbers at random to try to open the lock. You may spin perfectly good numbers. They might even work on some other lock at some other time and in some other place. But if they do not open the given lock — the one you are trying to open — it does not do you a bit of good.

Now if you would calculate the probability of finding the right combination by random spinning, the probability depends only on the available numbers for the given lock. The probability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not some other combinations may open some other locks.

  • If you do not specify which protein, we are therefore only dealing in possibilities not probabilities.

You should use the standard mathematical definition of probability as applicable to the problem under discussion. The probability of a given protein of 100 amino acids occurring by chance is 10-130. The fact that that a specific one was not identified is irrelevant. If it were a more technical article, a  specified complicated protein like hemoglobin, would be pointed out, and there would be used essentially the same line of reasoning. The point is that even the supposedly simplest components found in living things are actually very complex. Their existence cannot be explained on the basis of blind chance.

  • The experiments of Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s showed that the “primeval soup” of the sea would contain surprisingly large quantities of the building blocks of life: amino acids, nucleotides, etc.

Whether or not this is the case does not matter. In fact, we can be even more generous than Mr. Miller by giving each star in the universe 10 “earths” and each “earth” an ocean of “primeval soup” mixed to the evolutionists’ recipe. Nevertheless, it did not make the evolution of even one “simple” protein probable.

  • The fundamental building molecules are not proteins but DNA.

The attempt to use DNA in the synthesis of proteins only makes the situation worse for evolution. DNA is even more unlikely to come into existence by chance than protein is. It would be like someone claiming that a table of logarithms came into existence by being generated by a computer that, in turn, came into existence by chance.

  • Smaller self-replicating chains could form and progress in small steps to produce longer and longer chains.

There are a number of difficulties with such a model. First of all, scientists have not found any evidence of such occurring in nature. Second, even if it could occur, the probabilities of ending up with the right sequence, after all the small steps, would still be immeasurably small by essentially the same reasoning given in the article. Third, what would be the role or purpose of such intermediate chains? Why and how would they survive to produce more complicated chains? Certainly, there is no evidence of the existence of intermediate chains being somehow related to intermediate species.

  • Natural selection is an established theory. The hypothesis of Darwin has been confirmed by experimental work.

There is not necessarily a disagreement with this — up to a point. But natural selection can only explain the survival of the fittest. It does not explain the arrival of the fittest. 

  • Natural selection is adequate to explain the variety of living things we see today.

Even evolutionists do not make this claim. They require spontaneous generation and mutations (at the very least) in addition to natural selection.

  • But this does not rule out mutation as a mechanism for improvement when combined with natural selection. For example, a chess player might be competing against many opponents whose starting position is on occasion changed — slightly, randomly. Then it might be supposed that those opponents with the better starting positions are more likely to win. Suppose the losers drop out and the winners play many further games (dropping out only if they lose all games from the previous starting position, the chance of a random change continuing). Then might it not be reasoned that after much time, the starting positions in use might improve?

The analogy regarding starting positions in a chess game is interesting. The reasoning applied, however, is fallacious on several grounds. Even if the starting positions are being changed slightly, but randomly, there is no guarantee that an improved starting position that results in a winner one time will result in an improved starting position the next game. Quite the contrary, a small modification of an excellent starting position could conceivably be a disastrous starting position.

Moreover, the chess players are presumably intelligent beings. They perform at varying skill levels. So it makes no sense to attribute their characteristics to that of a blind chance mechanism of mutations and natural selection.

The theory of probability applies only to chance phenomena and not to deterministic phenomena. For example, it would be nonsense to ask the question: “What is the probability I will paint my house green?” There is no answer. If I want to paint it green, I will. If I don’t, I won’t. Similarly, the theory of probability cannot be applied to deterministic games such as chess or checkers.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that living forms came into existence from nonliving matter by chance. It is amazingly improbable that even the simplest constituents of living things come into existence by chance. This is a valid application of probability.

  • Mutations are like errors in the genetic code. It is this random error-making in the genetic machinery that furnishes evolution with the stuff of creative change.

No one is saying that mutations could not account for some changes in the structure or appearance of organisms. But mutations cannot produce genuinely new forms of life. While minor variations in appearance or structure might be produced by mutations, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations produce the kind of quantum leaps required by the theory of evolution.

  • The fossil record clearly shows evolution has taken place.

The fossil record provides considerable evidence that evolution did not occur. Consider the facts. Evolution would require a fossil record that shows the gradual changing of one species to another with numerous transitional forms. But instead the fossil record shows broad gaps between fossil species for which there are no intermediate forms.

Note this startling admission of an evolutionist:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid” (Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process, Steven M. Stanley, page 39).

  • Scientists have created life. They made a simple organism that could eat oil spills in the ocean and then die out for lack of food.

Actually, these organisms were not created from nonliving matter. They were developed from existing living organisms through genetics. These genetic engineers have no more claim to creating life than a dog breeder does.

  • You are presenting to your readers the fallacy that science is a finished product and that whatever is speculative in science is therefore wrong.

You have probably all heard someone at one time or another say something like, “Science tells us that…”  and then they make some claim or other.  But science doesn’t tell us anything because it is a mechanism, a method, a tool.  Science doesn’t provide conclusions; humans do.  Those conclusions can be arrived at logically, honestly and accurately  or  irrationally, dishonestly and carelessly—that depends on the scientist.  The Scientific Method involves five steps:

  1. Observation – collecting data
  2. Hypothesis – forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data;
  3. Testing – test the hypothesis by collecting more data, using a control
  4. Results – interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected.  The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.
  5. Conclusion – stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others using this same method.

After years of scrutiny, certain observed phenomena  (such as gravity)  become established as law.  The problem occurs when scientists usurp the name of science to make authoritative statements of philosophy.  Unfortunately, scientists are not always very clear as to when they are engaging in science, and when they are engaging in philosophy.  Philosophy  can be both reasonable and rational, but it is not scientific, by definition,  because it is not an observable phenomenon  in the physical world.

Many scientists cheerfully admit that they are speculating. We have no complaint with scientific speculation as long as such is truthfully identified as speculation. Evolutionists however do not admit that the theory of evolution is speculative. Instead, they palm off speculation as fact. In the March 23, 1981, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Rolf M. Sinclair, a physicist at the U.S. National Science Foundation, is quoted as follows:

“The fact of evolution is as incontrovertible as the fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat.”

The author and biochemist Isaac Asimov stated:

“Scientists have no choice but to consider evolution a fact” (“The Genesis War,” Science Digest, October, 1981, page 85).

“Having the fact of evolution before us … ” (ibid., page 85).

“Evolution is a fact … ” (ibid., page 87).

Honestly, does that sound like speculation to you?

  • Your acceptance of God’s existence is not based on rational thinking. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines faith or belief in God as a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

A dictionary is not an arbiter of truth. Actually, dictionaries give several definitions of faith. Not every dictionary definition of faith demands the exclusion of logic, reasoning or material evidence. True faith, the kind of faith spoken of in the Bible, is not a blind, superstitious, illogical faith. It is a faith based on “evidence of things not seen” and is in harmony with logic, reason and the factual world.

  • Where did God come from? Since the creator of the universe would have to be more “complicated” than the universe itself, the probability of God coming into existence by chance would be less than the probability of the universe coming into existence by chance.

This is a popular argument. It has two fundamental flaws.

First of all, an Eternal Being does not need to come into existence, since he has always existed. It makes no sense to ask: “What is the probability that a Being, who always existed, came into existence?” The question is inherently contradictory.

Second, eternal existence is not a chance phenomenon. Someone or something either always existed or did not always exist. No probability is involved. For this reason we cannot apply probability to questions such as, “Does God exist?” or “Has the universe always existed?” 

  • Why could not God have chosen to use evolution to produce life forms we see in the world?

Where does a 500-pound gorilla sit? Wherever he wants. How did an Eternal God create life? Obviously, however he wanted! Would a superintelligent, superpowerful Divine Being use a chaotic, random, haphazard process such as evolution to create life?  Here is a quote the eminent scientist Sir Fred Hoyle:

“The thought occurred to me one day that the human chemical industry doesn’t chance on its products by throwing chemicals at random into a stewpot. To suggest to the research department [of a chemical corporation] that it should proceed in such a fashion would be thought ridiculous” (Engineering and Science, November, 1981, page 12).

This leading scientist, who would have liked to believe in evolution and who was seeking the origin of life in the blind forces of nature, finally had to conclude:

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (ibid., page 12).

What about you? Do you believe that “simple” life forms came into existence by blind chance in a cosmic chemical stewpot? Do you further believe that such simple living things gradually developed such marvelously intricate structures as hearts, lungs, eyes and brains through “random errors in the genetic code”?

The physical evidence from the factual world leads to only one conclusion — living things had to be planned, designed and created by a Supreme Being!

  • Could A Simple Protein Not Form By Chance?

Proteins are essential molecules for the existence of physical life. Protein molecules consist of chains of chemical compounds called amino acids. A relatively simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 amino acids.

Suppose we have a “soup” full of amino acids. We want these acids to link up at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there?

There are on earth 20 different types of amino acids available to form proteins. If we wanted a chain of two such acids, there would be 20 possibilities for the first acid and 20 for the second — or 20 x 20 =400 possibilities. If we wanted a chain of three such acids, there would be20 x 20 x 20 = 8,000 possibilities.

For a protein consisting of a chain of 100 acids, therefore, we have 20 x 20 x. … x 20 = 20100 possibilities. But 20100 is approximately equal to 10130, that is, 1 followed by 130 zeros. So we have 10130 possibilities, but only one combination is the right one for a given protein.

Is it reasonable to believe that such a protein could have formed by chance during the history of the universe? The odds against such an event are beyond astronomical.

Source: The Plain Truth, 1983

Eye Opening Proof: Evolution Did Not Occur!

“That…eye…the human eye,”complained one science writer while attempting to justify the theory of evolution. How can anything so intricate and complex as the human eye, he asked, have evolved? He posed the question, but he could give no adequate answer. The best he could do for his readers was to make a hazy suggestion as to how he thought evolution “could have”occurred.

Charles Darwin himself struggled with the eye problem. He wrote in a private letter of a time when “the thought of the eye made me cold all over”(Letter to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860).

In his work, “The Origin Of Species,”Darwin conceded: “To suppose the eye with all its imitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Absurd indeed! There is no way to account for the existence of such an engineering marvel as the human eye by a slow process of chance natural selections. All of the vital parts of the eye have to be present and functioning if sight is to be possible. Nowhere in nature can there be found developing non-working eyes. Even the so called primitive eyes of lower life forms are complete and able to perform exactly as designed. Their intricacy varies from that of their human counterparts only by degree.

Consider for a moment, how marvelously made are the masterpieces through which you are now reading this. The part of the eye that is visible is only a portion of a gel-filled globe set in a protective socket of the skull. Enclosing the gel are three major layers of tissue. The tough fibrous outer layer is the sclera. What is seen in front as the white of the eye is part of this layer. Also part of the sclera is transparent covering (cornea) over the opening or pupil of the eye.

Just inside the sclera is a layer of blood-vessel rich tissue. And within that is the layer known as the retina, upon which images are formed much as they are formed on film in a camera.

Light enters by way of the pupil and passes through an adjustable lens that focuses the light rays onto the retina. The human retina contains some1.3 million light-sensitive cells – the rods and cones, so named because of their shapes. Different ones of these cells react to different luminous intensities and colours. These cells pick up the light stimulus and translate it by a photo-chemical process into nerve impulses that travel to the brain. The impulses become vivid, colourful, moving, three dimensional mental images capable even of being stored for future recollections.

The eye is an incredibly intricate mechanism. Just how complex can be realized by checking a reference work such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, where in the 15th edition, a discussion of the eye and sight fills more than 34 pages. The highly diversified and specialized parts of the eye – the muscles, ligaments, tissues, fluids, canals, nerves, pigments, blood vessels – all work together to produce sight. This complex organ could not have developed gradually to fill a creative need.

If the entire eye were present except for the lens, the eye would not work. If it were all there but the retina, there would be no sight. All the vital parts have to be in place or the eye is useless. This is a real problem for evolutionists, since the theory of natural selection holds that creatures evolve only what is of immediate benefit.

In other words, evolutionists themselves must admit that animal life forms cannot blindly look two generations, three generations or more into the future, contemplate needs, establish goals and work towards them. Evolution cannot plan ahead. It lacks the foresight.

The arrangement of creatures in the so-called evolutionary tree simply does not show a long, slow development of the eye, with splendidly working mechanisms, interspersed with transitional-phase, non-functioning, defective eyes. Each creature has been given eyes which perfectly satisfy its needs.

An oyster doesn’t have to be able to watch TV in order to survive, but it does need to be able to detect passing shadows. So it has been given small, sensitive spots which can detect changes in the intensity of light. They may be called “simple,”but the oyster’s sensitive spots are complete. They work and fulfill the oyster’s needs as is proved by the fact that oysters are a thriving species.

Nor can all eyes in smaller lifeforms be called “simple.” According to the evolutionary concept, one would not expect a small tropical minnow like anableps, for example, to have the uniquely complicated eyes it has. it actually has what amounts to four eyes, because each of its two apparant eyes has two separate corneas and two separate retines. As the anableps swims along the surface of the water, one section of each eye looks up with a special flattened lens suitable for viewing in the air, while the other section peers down into the water with an oval lens such as other fish have. A true engineering marvel.

It is impossible to account for the eyes of any creature great or small by a process of Darwinian evolution. It is equally impossible to explain them by blind, random mutations, quantum leaps or any other humanly devised theory. It took the great creator God to skillfully design and make the eye.

As the scripture says: “…he that formed the eye, shall he not see?…he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man (like the evolutionary theory), that they are vanity”(Ps. 94:9-11).

The marvelous human eye is God’s workmanship. The evidence is obvious and there for all to look at. But, as has often been said, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Source: The Plain Truth, August 1983

June 24, 2009

Evolutionists Versus Creationists: Who Has The Truth?

2Evolutionists and creationists are at it again! Each claims to have the answer to the puzzle of creation. But does either represent true science or true religion?

Evolutionary doctrine is deeply ensconced in today’s schools as a legitimate part of most science classes. It is no longer presented as an unproven idea or theory. It is presented as fact. When children go to school they are usually taught the theory of evolution as the only intelligent answer to existence. Virtually all science teachers speak about it as dogmatically as though they saw evolution happen. Class instruction is done so effectively that students generally are embarrassed to admit before their peers that they still believe in a Creator God.

But what if creation were taught in schools? Which version would be taught? Could creationists agree on the exact version to include in the school curriculum?

Liberals, calling themselves theistic evolutionists, consider the Genesis account symbolic or allegorical. They would insist that God brought about the creation through the process of evolution.

Fundamentalist groups, often called scientific creationists, are in the forefront of a crusade to free school children from the evolutionists’ firm grasp. They would teach that all creation, including the sun, moon and stars, took place very recently — hardly more than six or seven thousand years ago. They seek scientific evidence to show that the fossil beds and fossil bearing strata were nearly all laid down during a Flood in the historic past. They contend that life forms were separated and arranged into sequential layers by the water’s turbulent action.

The real beginning

However, the Bible teaches that creation took place anciently — “in the beginning.” That when the creation first appeared the angels were so enthralled with its magnificence they “sang together and … shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). That God placed an archangel on earth to administer God’s government in love and concern. He rebelled (Ezek. 28:15-16). Destruction came to the earth. Then God’s Spirit moved upon the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2) and God began to recreate today’s realm. This time he gave mankind (rather than the angels) dominion over the physical creation.

It is obvious that no single version of creation will satisfy this world’s differing religious groups. So, even if creationists were given equal forum with evolutionists, what version would be taught? Even if a compromise could be worked out, who could be trusted to teach it convincingly enough to compete successfully with evolutionary teachings?

Roles Reversed

The problem that we face in education today is just the reverse of that which men faced a few centuries ago. At that time the church sat above the government in matters of education. Few dared to teach anything contrary to the religious dogma because of its backing from the civil government! When discovery or experimentation uncovered facts that were contrary to traditional teachings, the church not uncommonly vigorously repressed them.

When men were finally freed from that oppression in the pursuit of truth, the liberated world assured itself that it would not again come under such bondage. Educational institutions that were once part of the church became a part of the state. It is under state control that most schools now carry out the mandate of teaching future generations what the adult society considers the ideals of life.

The doctrine of evolution, timidly suggested by Charles Darwin, came just at the right time. It was seized upon and promoted beyond Darwin’s wildest dreams. It became instantly popular and has continued to grow in influence simply because it was the nearest thing to a plausible explanation of creation without a creator.

Interpreting the will of the adult generation to be the desire to be free of hindrance from doing what they want to do, educators feel safe only in taking the evolutionary approach. By denying God’s role in creation, freedom to do as one pleases seemed complete. But, there remains a problem. How can one explain the evidence of God’s creation without the Creator?

This is why not all scientists are evolutionists. A significant number of scientists now acknowledge that the magnificent, intricate universe is so extremely well organized and complex that it requires a supreme designer and sustainer in order to exist. Some freely admit that the God of the Bible is the only intelligent answer. A few even worship him in truth.

The question then becomes, not whether to include religious views of creation in the classrooms, but whether evolution should continue to be taught as a scientific theory of origins. Evolutionists know that the question of origins lies outside of the scope of natural science.

You Must Choose!

If you believe evolution, you must believe that man has no ultimate purpose in the universe. But if you believe in creation, you have a unique choice. You can believe you were created to spend eternity in idleness and ease in heaven, or that you were created for a grand purpose — of becoming a son of God (Heb. 1:1-5, 2:6-10, Rom. 8:29). Most creationists thoughtlessly assume the former view. They do not know we humans were born to become sons of God and that our creation is not yet complete!

We are created in the form and shape of God, but out of matter. We are not yet spirit. Before God will complete our creation and give us eternal, spiritual LIFE from his very own person, we must develop godly CHARACTER. Or we would not be fit to be his sons. This is what human life is all about! Evolution knows nothing of it. Most creationists are blinded by their false ideas of Christ and his message and have not understood it.

God cannot create righteous, godly character by fiat. This has been demonstrated by the creation of angels. God created angels as perfect spiritual beings, but some turned sour and chose to do evil (Ezek. 28:14-16, Rev. 12:3-4). Chief among them was the archangel Lucifer.

We humans were created as fleshly beings and given TEMPORARY physical life so that if we turn sour we will not live forever as evil beings. This physical life was made to ebb away and our bodies to grow old and die.

It is in this physical state of existence that God works in a chosen few, now, to build the type of character that is required of sons of God. We have our part, choosing God’s ways and his laws, striving against temptation and resisting the devil and the practices of this world. This, if you please, is the tree of life of Genesis 2:9 and 3:22 that Adam and Eve rejected.

Only those whom God now calls and works with can enter the process of further creation. When God calls us he sets before us the same choice as he set before Adam and Eve. He says to us just as clearly as he said to ancient Israel: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deut. 30:19).

You cannot create righteous character within yourself by yourself. God must do that in and through you by his Spirit, which is his very nature. You must become willingly and wholeheartedly oriented toward God, like clay in the hand of the Master Potter (Isa. 64:8, Jer. 18:1-6, Rom. 9:20-21). You must TRUST him to shape you into what he decides. You cannot start until the Potter singles you out and begins to deal with you.

Only then, if you become soft and pliable through the addition of God’s Holy Spirit, can you begin to be shaped into the CHARACTER of God. If you turn away, to remain lumpy and hard, he will cast you aside and work with other clay.
The ways of God are outlined broadly by the Ten Commandments and are enlarged upon throughout the rest of the Bible. The example of how to live by them successfully and perfectly was first demonstrated by Jesus Christ (I John 2:6), who blazed the trail for all who henceforth will live God’s spiritual way.

When This Truth Will Prevail

One day truth will be taught in all schools. It will be God’s truth as recorded in the Bible. Not false religions of men. It will be truly scientific. It will acknowledge not only the Creator but his laws and his authority. It will teach us all that there is to know about the creation around us; how and why it was put here, and what our role shall be according to God’s exciting plan and purpose.

In that day enlightenment will be so complete that it will make today’s knowledge explosion seem like the popping of corn by comparison! Here’s how it will be brought about:

When Christ returns to the earth to bring the whole world peace, he will come to set up the kingdom of God. It will be a world-ruling empire and Christ will be its “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:6, 16; 20:4). When forced to think about God’s perfect laws of love and happiness, people will become more enthralled with life than they have ever imagined that they could be.

Stubborn evolutionists, confused creationists — and all men alike — will be ashamed that they strove so hard to deny God’s way while they clung to their own folly. What a wonderful day that will be!

Source: The Plain Truth, February 1983

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.