Is the evidence that ‘proves’ evolution, based on pure science? I think in the minds of many it probably is. Nevertheless what would happen if the evolutionists were not too sure of their ‘science’ or the facts, could they still be trusted? Can a Christian believe what Jesus said and at the same time believe what evolutionists says.
Do you think that those who believe in evolution are these nice guys who are just committed scientists and actually regards your view of the Bible? Let us see.
The view of evolutionist ‘science’
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have prior 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 (derived by logic, without observed facts) adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and 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 that we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin “Billions and billions of demons” The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31 As quoted by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. Refuting Evolution, Answers In Genesis, 1999
“Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it.”
Darwinism and Theism Phillip Johnson (b. 1940) Professor of Law at Berkeley
“Even if all data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”
S.C. Todd, Correspondence to Nature 410(6752): 423, 30 September 1999: As quoted by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. Refuting Evolution, Answers In Genesis, 1999
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it."
H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution". "Physics Bulletin," vol. 31, 1980, p. 138: As quoted by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. Refuting Evolution, Answers In Genesis, 1999
“God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us (all creatures great and small) and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight-that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether.” Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995) p.18 Daniel Dennett (b. 1942) Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University
I do not want you to get the idea that I want to put science and what the Bible says at odds with one another. The reason for the quotations is to show you what those who believe in evolution, scientists and others alike believe and said. There is a wealth of credible Bible believing scientists out there, which is proof that the Bible and science are not at odds with one another and in the next article you can read about some of them. However, what a sly doctrine this evolution idea is, gallivanting under the guise of science when it is non other than a new type of religion with its own philosophies.
Just for the record, evolutionists cannot prove their claims, their transitional forms in the fossil record are still missing and so are their missing link to connect man to apes. Notwithstanding the fact that they cannot tell you how dead things ‘became’ alive to form the very first life forms. Philip Mauro said in his book Evolution at the Bar “The original Evolution, which evolved living creatures out of inanimate matter, no longer exists. It has gone entirely out of business, and has ceased to exist from the time, whenever it was, that the world of living creatures was separated, by an impassable barrier, from the not-living. It would follow that Evolution is not what it once was. Having once crossed the line which separates the living from the not-living it has lost the power to do so again.”
EVOLUTION AT THE BAR by Philip Mauro REINER PUBLICATIONS Swengel, Pa. 17880 1976
However, how can I say that Jesus taught against evolution? We quoted what some evolutionists said and we will also look at what evolutionists believe. Then we will compare that to what Jesus said although He did not speak in response to any questions on evolution, He did speak on origins of the species, as it were and His comments definitely contradict what evolutionists believe.
So, where do we start? With a Bible quote:
Romans 1:20-25 KJV “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator”
What did Jesus say?
Mark 10:6-9 KJV “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”.
From this quotation we are going to discus three aspects Jesus is touching on.
As we all know there is a beginning to anything, except God of course, however, some religions like Jainism believe time and space and so forth is eternal and uncreated, but we know if a thing is dying, it must have started sometime in the past.
Jesus agrees and says that there was a beginning of all creation; this creation includes man. Therefore man existed right from the beginning of creation. We can also deduce that everything that we can experience in creation was created within the same timeframe as everything else and that there was nothing that was created way in advance or very late afterwards.
The Bible of course agrees with Jesus’ interpretation and teaches that everything was made in six literal days as we experience days today. This means that everything was made within days of each other and that would be within days of the beginning of time. This is taught in Genesis chapter one and two. The Bible also by deduction teaches that the world is about 6000 years old. Therefore creation, meaning space, planets, stars, moons and all living things were created about 6000 years ago.
What evolutionists believe:
Evolutionists have the sense to conclude that everything had a beginning, but their beginning is slightly different to what Jesus taught. According to evolutionists time began between 10-20 billion years ago. Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago and modern humans a mere 135 000-250 000 years ago. There is definitely a clash of opinions here, at least from the evolutionists’ side, because I never read Jesus giving His opinion, what He said was like emphatic declarations when He spoke. However the evolutionist scientists are doing mostly guesswork and then adjust their guesswork.
Therefore if we talk beginnings and origins, Jesus and the evolutionists disagree, whom are you going to believe? Remembering the statements we started with.
There was creation:
Jesus is on record as saying, “But from the beginning of the creation”, and therefore He is implying there was no evolution of anything to speak of and states creation is a fact and therefore makes no excuses for the fact that all things came about by the will of God. Today we get what is called theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists, these are those who want to believe that God used evolution as an means to create or God used millions of years to get what He wanted.
I cannot believe God who is the ultimate wisdom and knowledge source needs millions of years to create anything. We who are creative ourselves did we need millions of years to create the things we wanted? No, and God is infinitely more capable than us.
The Bible says of Jesus John 1:3-4 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life”. Note the amount of times the writer used the word made the word is ‘ginomai’ in the Greek with the thought of things coming into being, rather than just manufactured. It is obvious that creation took place and no need exists for theistic evolution or progressive creation to fill the gaps in our faith.
People say that Christians have a blind faith in the Bible that is not even Biblical. The Bible does not ask a believer to believe blindly without ever seeing any truth of what is claimed. Everyone from Adam, to Noah, Abraham, Nebuchadnezzer, Daniel, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Caesar, to Jesus Christ was real godly and ungodly men who really lived and were spoken of in the Bible, no blind faith is needed when you know these people existed in the Bible and in secular history. Evidence for the flood of Noah is seen all over the world by the amount of dead things that was trapped suddenly in water and mud not to mention the vast amounts of folklore stories from around the world of a worldwide flood. Scientists found fossils of sea creatures in all places including the summit of Mount Everest; the world was under water was it not? The Island Arc 14 (4), : Find article on the Internet about fossils on Mount Everest.
Jesus took the Word of God as absolute truth, because He extensively quoted from the Old Testament.
Therefore He saw creation as the only way everything was made, and by the way the New Testament says, He actually made everything. Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are One after all.
What evolutionists believe about the first creatures: Abiogenesis
It seems in the 4.6 billion years of the supposed earth history that chemical to life form evolution just happened once or was it twice maybe three times? What are the chances? No mathematical one I can assure you.
Atheistic scientists have a field day when you say Jesus rose from the dead, but they have even more faith than those we possess if they believe that lifeless chemicals became living things (abiogenesis). At least Jesus was alive before He died then was made living by the Spirit of God again, but what about lifeless chemicals, which was never alive? Let me explain what I mean by lifeless chemicals. Evolutionists believe that life began in the primordial sea or in small pools with inorganic chemicals like these; I quote “The basic inorganic chemicals from which life was formed are methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and phosphate (PO43-). As of 2004, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components, which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.”
Based on the “Origin of organic molecules: Miller, Eigen and Wächtershäuser's theories” From Wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia: article.
There you go, the recipe for creating your own life form, but the problem is these scientists, which try to prove evolution this way could not actually ‘create’ life or even something approaching it and the life we are talking about is only a single living cell, let alone complex self replicating ones. They started in the fifties with the above quoted recipe. They then went on to create left-handed and right-handed amino acids with their experiments, which was exactly not what they wanted because proteins can not be formed that way and in any case these results was soon eliminated by the very methods used to create them, i.e. the electric sparks used to create amino acids by sending it through a chemical soup of gasses as in the Miller method, will also destroy them. Notwithstanding the fact that they left oxygen out of their experiments because it will also destroy the molecules they are trying to create. You can read up on the methods if you want to, but let us just say in this field of study things are more assumed to have happened than they being able to prove it because they cannot even get the building blocks for a single cell cast and in order as it were.
Is there any fossil proof of this chemical soup to life form evolution? Read this quote, “If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like; or in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth”
According to Brooks and Shaw (1973) From Wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia: article.
“To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non- biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement?
Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon... In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.
Fred Hoyle (1915 - 2001) Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University The Intelligent Universe (1983) pp.20-21, 23
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'.
"Hoyle on Evolution” Nature November 12, 1981 p.105
We will look at some more anti evolution quotations later but that people actually believe the evolution hypothesis is becoming more and more fantastic to me. I am not trying to take on all the points of dispute in this article, but if you want to find out more about the scientific objections to evolution where there is division on what is believed because evolutionists are by no means united as such, they are only united in their belief that evolution took place, but go to www.answersingenesis.org or www.icr.org or www.creationministries.org and see how ‘solid’ the ground is on which evolutionists stand. There are more than one hypothesis about chemical to life evolution, that is excluding what is called ‘panspermia’ which is aliens ‘planted’ as it were the stuff for life on earth and they actually kick started life on earth. That’s not a joke, but some ‘scientists’, even one Nobel Prize winner (Francis Crick for discovering DNA structure) actually believe that.
This is what a believer in evolution realized after years of following the hypothesis.
“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.” "Evolutionism and Creationism" Colin Patterson (1933 - 1998) Senior Paleontologist at British Museum of Natural History
We will look at the last point, The Creator next time. I hope you see by all we quoted that there cannot be any type of agreement between evolution which discounts God as creator and faith in Jesus Christ, which quoted the Bible saying God was the Creator. People who believe the two can be joined, fool themselves into thinking the Bible is in trouble by the statements it makes and that evolution and the big bang theory is right. Neither evolution nor the big bang theory is proven to have happened until this day, it is all assumed and it is all part of modern materialist folklore that evolution is true we should all remember that.