Was Charles Darwin Wrong?
Evolution: Fact or Fallacy
No one can deny that our complex universe is an astounding, majestic marvel. But how did it get here? Where did we come from? Does it really matter? Can it be, as so many contend, that this all just "happened" by some fortuitous cosmic accident? Or did it come about as the result of the careful design of an infinite God? Here are the facts you need to know!
Evolution: Fact or Fallacy
No one can deny that our complex universe is an astounding, majestic marvel. But how did it get here? Where did we come from? Does it really matter? Can it be, as so many contend, that this all just "happened" by some fortuitous cosmic accident? Or did it come about as the result of the careful design of an infinite God? Here are the facts you need to know!
Part 1: What the Experts Say
Evolution and Creation: the Contrast
What an age we live in! Ours is an age in which godless evolution is taken for granted and taught to our children as though it were scientific fact. The Bible, on the other hand, is regarded by many as though it were myth, theory, and conjecture. Nothing could be further from the truth. The public is being bombarded daily from nearly every avenue with the notion that the universe began with a cosmic accident-sometimes referred to as "the big bang"-and slowly evolved into the universe we see today including all life in it. The current standard operating assumption of naturalism is that nature is "all there is." Is this a scientific fact, as some would have us believe, or is it a gigantic theoretical hoax? It is time we looked at the theory of evolution from a commonsense-and from a biblical-perspective instead of gullibly believing everything that is neatly packaged and delivered to us by those with an antisupernaturalistic bias.
Those who view science as the new Messiah often look down upon those who believe in the Bible account of creation and portray them as being naive, uneducated, and unenlightened. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible, it seems, must be reinterpreted whenever and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview. It is often alleged that Bible-believing Christians have nothing but blind faith to hold onto. Is this the case? Come, let us reason together. Would it be fair to ask evolutionists what they have to hang onto? Is it true that non-living elements were able to endue themselves with life and, once bringing themselves into being, to change themselves from one genesis kind to another, all the while climbing up an evolutionary ladder? By what observable laws of science have they done so? Have earth's myriad life forms-plants, insects, birds, animals, and mankind-all evolved from one common ancestor? Is there evidence to support this notion? Or is our generation being taken in by the greatest hoax of all time-the theory of evolution?
No realistic person can deny that life on planet earth exists. But where did it come from and how did it get here? Everything had a beginning. There are only three ways to explain life on this planet: 1) Life has always existed. 2) Life came from non-life by some "natural" process. 3) Life was suddenly created by a higher power.
The first law of thermodynamics informs us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed and that energy or matter cannot be naturally created from nothing. It may be changed from one form to another, but never created nor destroyed. Yet, the evolutionary premise demands the initial creation of matter and energy from nothing.
The second law of thermodynamics, stated quite simply, is that spontaneity causes degradation-the tendency to run down. In other words, the universe runs just one way: it is like a great watch that is running down, not evolving to a higher state. The second law of thermodynamics describes a universal law of decay and disintegration over time. This is the diametric opposite of the evolutionary concept. Material things are not eternal. Nothing stays as fresh as it is the day one buys it; material items ultimately rot, rust, and return to dust. Everything ages and wears out. The effects of the second law of thermodynamics are all around us, touching everything in the universe. This second law of thermodynamics is, in fact, one of the major reasons many evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of creationism. The logic is inescapable.
The second law of thermodynamics attests to the inevitable heat death of the universe and proves that there has been no past eternity of matter. Since this degradation of matter can be measured, we know that not enough time has gone by for all matter to run down since it was created. Thus, we can eliminate the hypothesis that all matter has always existed. This means that matter had to begin to exist, and what begins to exist was necessarily caused to exist. Thus, there had to have been a First Cause!
The theory of biological evolution begins with an existing universe. It teaches, in effect, that all life forms resulted from mechanistic, naturalistic processes without the intervention of any outside agency. Natural selection and mutations, its proponents claim, can explain everything.
By contrast, the Holy Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth by divine fiat. Although some attempt to meld both claims together as one, they are truly irreconcilable if one takes the Bible literally. Huxley, the noted evolutionist, once admitted, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the Bible."
What Is the Theory of Evolution?
Evolution is essentially a philosophical theory designed to explain how life came from non-life by some peculiar intrinsic process. More specifically, it maintains that there is a gradual process in which things change from one genesis kind to another genesis kind by the unseen hand of "resident forces." In the field of biology, it is the theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, resident forces, mutations, and profound "leaps" so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. Where, we ask, is the proof of such an affirmation? What are these mysterious "resident forces" and where did they come from and what makes them work? Are they still working today and, if so, where is the evidence?
Going further, common usage of the word "evolution" conveys the idea that living things in our world have come into being through a long unguided naturalistic process starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation over a period of approximately 1520 billion years (give or take a few billion depending upon your authority). If evolution be true, the burden of proof is on its proponents, not creationists. In truth, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the creation without a Creator.
A more precise understanding of the evolutionary theory divides the act of conveying "atoms to people" into four categories: 1) cosmology, 2) abiogenesis, 3) micro-evolution, and 4) macro-evolution.
Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe. The belief that the atoms of a "big bang" eventually produced people all by themselves (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven second law of thermodynamics, which demonstrates that the universe is known to be "running down." Yet evolution postulates it is "building up and changing through time." While many try to push beginnings back into the undiscoverable past, we must still ask the fundamental questions of where these first atoms come from, and to what laws did they conform, and where did these laws come from? Something cannot come from nothing either g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y or suddenly.
By analogy, if you were to cup your hands together and peek through your fingers-imaging that the space between your hands was a total vacuum (no matter!)-how long would you have to wait until "something" appeared out of "nothing"? Answer: an eternity. How much longer would we have to wait until all the matter in all the vast universe appeared in a materialless universe? When put into such simple terms, one wonders how one's mind can seriously entertain the idea.
Abiogenesis refers to first life-the production of living organisms from non-living matter. "Atoms-to-people" evolution resembles a religious belief more than scientific fact. With all his technological skills today-even after "cracking" the gene code-man cannot create a single living cell-not a worm or a mosquito-let alone demonstrate the premise of evolution. Whether conscious of the fact or not, many today harbor an anti-supernaturalistic bias which prevents them from believing that God literally created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis. We will see that there is really no sound reason not to believe in a literal creation just as the Bible presents it, while the mind reels at the evolutionary concept.
Microevolution (small adaptations): No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "microevolution"- which is variation within a type of organism caused by natural selection-occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. This is not real evolution and yet nearly all touted evidences for evolution are of this category. Actually, "microevolution" is a misnomer because it implies that "a little" evolution is continually taking place and that, over eons of time, these add up to big changes. In actuality, no evolution is taking place at all because there is no increase in complexity, such as the development of a new organ or species, but merely the accentuation of some already present feature over others. A change in eye or hair color, for example, is not an evolutionary change, but merely a variation within the same genesis kind.
A classic example of natural selection is the peppered moth changing its predominant color in response to recent environmental pollution in an industrial area in Britain. Before pollution darkened the landscape, it is claimed, both light and dark moths were equally present. It is claimed that within the past one hundred years the moth has been "evolving" from a light color to a dark color. This darker coloring, it is claimed, provides protective camouflage from predatory birds and other enemies because it now blends in with pollution-darkened surroundings. Such clever reasoning has deceived many. This adaptation is not, however a change in kind or species where one life forms develops into another kind or species. Regardless which variety survives best in a given environment, they do not change into a different kind or family of organism. A moth is still a moth and nothing "new" is formed. Adaptation has limits beyond which no more change is possible. A horse and a donkey can produce a hybrid mule, for example, but the mule is sterile. It has reached the limits of its "kind."
Macroevolution (giant leaps), or general evolution, refers to the progression from simple to more and more complex forms of life. Though much debated, the popular explanations for microevolution are via "mutation" and "natural selection." Large-scale change from one type of organism into another, or so-called "macroevolution," is far beyond the ability of mutation or natural selection to produce. Most evolutionists dodge this issue by acknowledging this is still a "research question." Even non-creation scientists such as Denton and Behe have written books documenting why this is impossible. The "geologic column," or layers of strata, which has been cited as proof of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood as described in the Bible. Virtually all evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record consists of already fully formed creatures that abruptly appear. There are no "half-formed" or transitional fossils of any kind.
Mutations ("blunders" and happenstance) are suggested to have altered or provided new genetic material used for reproduction. Some suggest that exposure to radiation altered isolated life forms into other, more advanced, life forms. Since this theory was first introduced it has been demonstrated that naturally occurring mutations are very rare, and that all known mutations are harmful. Various arguments supporting evolution are just as irrational and illogical. Two-headed frogs or snakes do not evolve into a new species of reptile or warm-blooded animal.
Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new! Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment such as being camouflaged, more fierce, or a faster runner are more likely to leave behind more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations. This may be true, but it does not cause any biological changes in the genesis kind and is not evolution.
Upon examination, we see that two of the most obvious weaknesses of the theory of evolution are:
- There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.
- The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
When we examine the fossil record, which is the only alleged support of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, we find that it lacks any transitional forms. All animals, birds, reptiles, and fish appear suddenly, already fully formed and fully functional when first present, just as they are today. If evolution was a fact, there should be billions upon billions of transitional evidence-half-formed mammals that did not evolve far enough to "make it" and therefore reproduce. Our museums should contain more half- or partially formed fossils than fully formed ones. To repeat: there are no such transitional fossils on the face of the earth today. Not one. The law of "each after his kind" proves itself day-by-day to be in full force and effect. The evidence that "pre-men" existed is speculation based upon unproved speculation at best. So called pre-man fossils have turned out in every case to be those of wholly man, contemporary or extinct apes, or historical frauds. The patriarch Job spoke of base men driven by want and famine into the caves and rocks of the earth (Job 30:36), but these were coexisting men, not half-man, half-beast. True science has never yet produced the so-called "missing link" between species.
It may come as a surprise to some that there is no single view of evolution. There are nearly as many views as there are evolutionists to expound them. The majority of hardcore evolutionists, however, still concurs that, "somehow," all life must have evolved through billions of years in all its complexity of its own accord. God is left totally out of the picture because such beliefs are not deemed by some as "scientific." Coached in impressive pedantic terminology and illustrated in breath-taking step-by-step art forms, the theory of evolution is dropped into our children's minds as though it were fact. Once the seed idea is planted it is difficult to dislodge. It has been said that it is ten times harder to unlearn error than to learn new truth. We need to get to the crux of the matter. Nothing can be more important.
Contrary to what many would have us believe, the Bible is not "against" true science. The very word "science" is from the Latin word scientia, meaning "to know." The biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth in Genesis 1:28 requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. We are cautioned, however, in 1 Timothy 6:20 to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." The implication is that there is true science and there is pseudo-science, just as there is true religion and false religion. "Creation science" is simply the admission of science coupled with the acknowledgement that there is a Creator God. Let us go on to prove all things and hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
What the Experts Say
Many media-driven television programs would have us believe that nearly all scientists, paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, zoologists, geneticists, and physicians are in near complete harmony and agreement about the theory of evolution. The truth is just the opposite. Behind closed doors heated debates take place between scientists as to the mechanisms of the various proposed theories. Shortly, we shall list a few eye-opening quotations by some of the most prominent thinkers of our time concerning some of the various aspects of evolution. They are worthy of our consideration. Though many more quotations could be given, lest we exhaust the reader, the ones listed should be enough to convince any open-minded truth-seeker that all is not well in the realm of evolutionary hypotheses. Those listed below will suffice to show why hundreds of scientists are distancing themselves from the theory of evolution every year.
Cosmology: What the Experts Say Concerning the 'Big Bang' Theory
Cosmology is the theory concerning the origin, structure, and development of the material universe.
Let us all agree upon one thing: we exist. (For anyone who denies that this world is real and that we exist, it is recommended that he resort to the old "hatpin test." He will soon suspect that we do exist!) We live in a material universe consisting of the basic ninety-two natural elements. Matter is defined as physical substance that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more of our five senses; something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, or gas; a physical body. Truly, matter does exist, but the question arises, where did matter come from? The universe as a whole is composed of matter, but how did it permeate the universe in the form of planets, stars, and galaxies? Where did the complicated and delicately balanced solar systems and heavenly bodies come from? What keeps them in balance? And how did the laws that govern matter originate?
Science has repeatedly demonstrated that there has been no past eternity of matter. It had to have a beginning. It came from somewhere. For millennia, philosophers and scientists have set forth their best theories and reasonings to explain creation without a Creator. The result has been a hopeless hodgepodge of conflicting hypotheses, conjecture, assumptions, and guesses.
It is relatively easy for the would-be evolutionary protagonist to speculate that this or that might have occurred if.and then go on to orchestrate a visionary scenario as to how he thinks these things could have "accidentally happened." We would like to point out that those who dismiss "beginnings" can be likened to those who would come into the middle of a movie, as it were, and wish to move aside the former director, producers, and performers to direct and alter the happenings as they see fit. How convenient to begin with an already created, fully-functioning, law-abiding universe! It is as intellectually dishonest to dismiss true beginnings and interject one's own interpretation somewhere in the middle as it is to lift a scripture out of context to "prove" one's own slanted point of view. Beware of such skullduggery!
The "Big Bang" Theory
It is only logical that before evolutionists can even tackle the issue of the transmigration of species, they must first explain how matter and the universe came to exist in the first place.
As a substitute for divine revelation, evolutionists have devised a framework of theories in the 1920s through the 1940s which they call cosmology, to explain how matter in general, and stars in particular, could have come into existence. An extraordinary theory was invented called the "big bang" theory, which declares that, since there has been no past eternity of matter, in the beginning there was nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nothing. The logic is that when much of this "nothingness" gathered itself into one place it became so greatly compressed that it exploded and blew itself into hydrogen gas from which the entire universe evolved. Then somehow during this fantastic explosion, we are led to believe, the laws of thermodynamics invented themselves and caused the gas to congeal into "clumps." So, the theory continues, as indeterminable periods of time elapsed, these clumps of gas billowed outward and congealed themselves into stars. From there all the
stars began exploding themselves into supernovas, but instead of these explosions destroying as they do today, these explosions "created." Laws of physics, energy, light, gravitation, momentum, action and reaction, and so forth, are said to have manifested themselves and acted upon the matter, forcing it into far-flung galaxies and the vast universe we see today. Clothed in pedantic scientific rhetoric and impressive mathematical formulas, the theory was later christened "scientific." Those who believed in it were called "enlightened." It is reasoned that if enough time passes anything can happen. And so, in order to adapt the theory and make it seem plausible, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 1520 billion years (give or take a few billion), when the big bang is said to have occurred.
Science Versus the Big Bang
True science and common sense, however, refute the fallacy that "something" can explode out of nothing and organize itself into an intricate, law-abiding universe. If such a hypothesis were accepted, consider the following logical fallacies:
- At the risk of sounding trite, we must ask the question: Which came first, the laws of physics, or the physical matter that they operate upon? If there had been "nothing" in the beginning, there would have been nothing for such laws to act upon. If "something" grew gradually-or even "instantly"-out of nothing, where did the laws come from and what caused them to act upon matter? Law demands a lawgiver and is a proof of God.
- "Nothingness" is not squeezable or compressible. All the "nothingness" in the pre-universe could not pack itself together into "something." It is an observable fact that the gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than any fog on earth. Can you imagine trying to pack a valley of fog into a ball? Yet, by mere chance, according to some, such a metamorphosis is supposed to have accomplished this magic billions of times on an unimaginable scale throughout the universe!
- If there were no laws of physics, there was no way to compress free hydrogen gas-assuming it came into existence by itself in the first place-into a solid or semisolid form. There would be no action or reaction.
- Assuming that such a solidification of nothingness could have occurred anyway, there would be no mechanism to congeal it into a single point, and then stop it there.
- Assuming further that a universe-filling pre-atom did assemble itself, either once or-according to the "oscillating universe" theory-billions of times, out of nothingness and compact itself, there would have been nothing to explode it. Atoms do not just explode. There would be no combustion, no fire to ignite the nothingness-assuming that it was combustible-that had just assembled itself. Even a match will not ignite in a vacuum.
- Without the laws of physics there would have been no way to cause such a hypothetically compacted and ignited ball of matter to expand. There would be no way to propel this congealed nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.
- Once set into motion, even if the expanding nothingness could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow it down in frictionless space.
- There would be no way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to pack itself together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas disperses from high density to low density-not the other way around-with no way to produce heavier, more complex atoms and elements.
- There would be no way to produce stars because there would be no gravity. There is no way by which gas could form itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed can it hold itself together by the law of gravity.
- There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a universe of more than 20 billion light-years, and then convert itself into billions of stars, before the theoretical explosions were supposed to have stopped.
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything" (G.K. Chesterton in The Quotable Chesterton).
In Isaiah 1:18, the God of the Bible says, "Come, let us reason together." Think for a moment: Do highly ordered systems emerge from disorder automatically? Do explosions in print shops produce encyclopedias? If you were to throw a mass of metal and glass into the air enough times, would it fall to earth as a fully assembled, perfect time-keeping wristwatch? No, random explosions do not produce encyclopediasor intricate planetary orbits. And haphazard explosions in the neither regions of space could never produce gravity, stellar rotations, or intricate orbits.
Scientists Speak Out
Theories come and theories go. Numerous scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not, occur. Scientists have illustrated why the theory is unworkable in many professional books and journals; yet, because of media hype, news coverage, and "nature programs" often aired on TV, the public is largely unaware that scientists disagree sharply upon their diverse speculations. For every theory advanced by man, someone else has advanced facts to prove that theory wrong. Let us look briefly at what some of the scientists themselves say about the big bang theory.
"The French Mathematician, Lecompte de Nouy, examined the laws of probability that a single molecule of high dissymmetry could be formed by the action of chance. De Nouy found that, on an average, the time needed to form one such molecule of our terrestrial globe would be about 10 to the 253 power billions of years. "But," continued de Nouy, ironically, "let us admit that no matter how small the chance it could happen, one molecule could be created by such astronomical odds of chance. However, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. Thus we either admit the miracle or doubt the absolute truth of science" (Quoted in "Is Science Moving Toward Belief in God?" by Paul A. Fisher, The Wanderer, Nov. 7, 1985; cited in Kingdoms In Conflict, C. Colson, p. 66).
"Probably the strongest argument against a 'big bang' is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little" (G. Burbidge, Was There Really A Big Bang in Nature?, 233:3640).
"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target-a building for example-that anything happens... But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead" (Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92, 1981, pp. 521, 523).
"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point. The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, 'is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. 'If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms" (Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, 1984, p. 415).
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed" (W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297).
Still MORE Quotes Concerning Cosmology-Origins of the Universe
"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool" (Voltaire).
"The choice is simple: one chooses either a self-existent God or a self-existent universe-and the universe is not behaving as if it is self-existent" (A.J. Hoover).
"The statements of people who do not believe do not outweigh the circumstantial evidence that suggests the universe was the intelligent design of a Creator" (Russell DeLong).
"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory" (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, mathematician, and evolutionist, Cambridge University).
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence" (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University).
"When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them" (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General).
"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove" (Dr. Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist).
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge" (Dr. A. Fleishmann, zoologist, Erlangen University).
"It is good to keep in mindthat nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted" (Prof. R Goldschmidt Ph.D., DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution, Yale Univ. Press).
"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency" (Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History).
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible" (Dr. Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought).
"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words" (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p. 267).
"It is possible and, given the Flood, probable that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years" (Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist).
"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists" (Edmund Ambrose, evolutionist).
"The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony science" (Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist).
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution" (Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist).
"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test" (Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p. 89).
"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond anything produced by the intelligence of man?" (Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985 p. 342).
"Modern apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humansis, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter" (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., evolutionist).
"Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioral complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity. Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form" (James A. Shipiro, "Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms," Scientific America, Vol. 258, No. 6, June 1988).
"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even three geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods" (John Woodmorappe, geologist).
"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organization as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates' retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order" (H. S. Hamilton MD, The Retina of the Eye-An Evolutionary Road Block).
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed" (N. H. Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist).
"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another" (Luther Sunderland, science researcher).
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal-ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man" (John Reader, "Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, Vol. 89, No. 12446, March 26, 1981, pp. 802805).
"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before" (Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.).
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation" (Niles Eldridge, Ph.D.., paleontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist campmoreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully" (Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician).
"As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated" (John Adler with John Carey: "Is Man a Subtle Accident," Newsweek, Vol. 96, No. 18, November 3, 1980, p. 95).
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, Ph.D., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, Sep. 1974, p. 467).
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory" (Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th Edition, Santee, California: Master Books, 1988, pp. 7,8).
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds" (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist).
"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" (S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, London: Croom Helm, p. 422).
"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze" (Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p. 174).
"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge or even a new enzyme" (Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp. 34, 38).
"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature" (George Simpson, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"Evolution is unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (Sir Arthur Keith, evolutionist).
What the Experts Say Concerning Fossils
Three of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are: 1) There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. 2) The alleged process cannot be duplicated even with the best minds under the strictest laboratory conditions. 3) Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully formed when first present. If the theory of evolution were true, we would expect to find many more transitional forms of life than fully formed ones, and yet we never find "half-formed" hands, feet, flippers, fins, eyes, ears, noses, or feathers. The hypothesis that "pre-men" existed is an ambiguous conjecture at best. Upon investigation, virtually all so-called "missing links" turn out to be bones of apes, men, or historical frauds.
"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"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 bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"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 the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
What the Experts Say Concerning DNA
Science has recently unraveled one of the most amazing facts of all concerning heredity. DNA, a shortened name for deoxyribonucleic acid, has been found to be the carrier of the inheritance code in all living things. It constitutes a built-in memory, blueprint, or biogenetic law that keeps all forms of life within their basic kinds. Your personal DNA is scattered throughout your body in over 60 thousand billion specks and determines everything from your eye color and height to your fingerprints. The DNA barrier insures that neither mutations nor natural "selection" nor any other factor proposed by advocates of evolution could result in the forming of a different kind of life from a previous kind.
"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first-the DNA which is essential for the synthesis of proteins or the protein enzyme DNA-polymerase without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'" (George Howe, expert in biology sciences).
"The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long" (Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication," Scientific America, Vol. 259, No. 2, August 1988, pp. 4046).
"DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism-a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet" (Paul S. Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, p. 23).
"Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court" (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space).
"An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence" (Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Robert L. Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories, New York Philosophical Library, 1984, pp. 211, 212).
"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA. All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threateningif mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilized egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion" (Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication...," Scientific America, Vol. 299, No 2, August 1988, pp. 4044, p. 24).
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection-quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology" (Arthur Koestler, author).
"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life" (David A. Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainesville).
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflecthigher intelligenceseven to the limit of Godsuch a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist).
"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, p. 358).
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice-between logic and emotion-between fact and fiction.In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail-no matter what the final result is-no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end-no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution and amended thereafter is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science" (I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong-A Study in Probabilities, PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., pp. 68, 209210, 214215.
I. L. Cohen is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
"The notion thatthe operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order" (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, evolutionist).
"The theory of Evolutionwill be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has" (Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher).
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes'" (K. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich).
"Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies" (Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 127).
"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology-professors and textbook writers included-have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it.College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit [of] knowledge. Education becomes a fraud" (George Kocan, "Evolution Isn't Faith But Theory," Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 21, 1980).
"Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact" (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist).
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Dr. Louise Bounoure, director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, director of the Zoological Museum, and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg).
"I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don't find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man-so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos-all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself.Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the One who did called Himself The Logos. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything-'for Him and by Him'. Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well" (Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D., D.Sc., Dr. es. Sc., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Santee, California: Master Books, p. 154).
Charles Darwin's Own Admission
Finally, let us notice what Charles Darwin himself admitted about his own the theory of evolution.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, New York University Press, 6th ed., 1988, p. l54).
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable 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" (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter: "Difficulties").
"Not one change of species into another is on record. we cannot prove that a single species has been changed" (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters).
Two Antithetic Views
In review, basically there are only two antithetic views of the origin of the universe. There are no others. Either Almighty God created all matter, the physical laws of the universe, and life itself in all its myriad forms, or there is no God in the universe, no supernatural Being, and all matter, laws, and life came into existence out of nothing of their own accord.
Either there is a Creator or there isn't. It's as simple as that. Millions have settled for the first option-special creation. Sadly, special creation is rarely taught in the schools and institutions today. Millions have opted for the second option-evolution-where it is taught in most colleges and classrooms as though it were fact.
The theory of evolution remains unproved and unprovable. Though special creation also cannot be proved in a laboratory, the lack of evidence in the fossil records and the DNA code of living creatures should lead the unbiased mind to the inevitable conclusion that of the two possibilities, special creation is the more rational.
Which viewpoint society bases its faith upon eventually determines the behavior of that society. If the youth are taught that they came from apes, then the "law of the jungle"-the survival of the fittest-will predominate and no one should be surprised at the moral collapse of society, particularly amongst the youth. They are merely living out the "law of the jungle" as taught to them by their elders.
If, on the other hand, we were made after the God kind, "in His own image," then we are accountable to Him for our actions. We cannot-yea we dare not-live as we please. The God of your Bible declares that there is coming a Day of Judgment when He will judge the world in general-and you in particular. On that awesome Day every man, woman, and child will have to give account of his thoughts, words, and deeds.
An author prints his name on his book. An artist writes his name upon his painting. A musician copyrights his song. If God made the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them, it is only natural that He would reveal something of Himself. Let us look briefly at some Bible passages that speak of God's revelation of Himself.
Part 2: What the Bible Says
Either the unproven and unprovable theory of evolution is false, or the Bible is in gross error and there is no God. "Theistic evolution" is not a viable alternative, as it asserts that God "jump-started" creation by creating all matter, laws, and primitive life, and then stepped back and let it evolve as the proponents of evolution affirm.
Let us begin at the beginning, since that is where God starts. The first four words in the Bible state, plainly and simply, "In the beginning God" and the remainder of the sentence tells what God did in the beginning: "created the heavens and the earth." Nothing alluding to a gradual evolution of matter and animals is even hinted at. Creation is the proof that God exists! It is His signature, His copyright, His lawful claim of ownership.
The Bible is clear. The teaching that everything made itself and is accountable only to itself instills doubt, corrupts morals, devastates lives, and separates people and nations from the true God.
Evolution is the "eyeglasses" through which many scientists-and even "theistic evolutionists"-view things. Everything they see in nature is either consciously or unconsciously interpreted as having "evolved." One philosopher once commented with tongue-in-cheek, "Evolution is the descent of man from monkey, which some people forgot to make."
The Everlasting Gospel
One of the last messages to be preached to mankind is the glad tidings that the everlasting Kingdom of God is about to appear. The book of Revelation describes this message as the everlasting gospel. It is everlasting simply because the truth it encompasses will never cease to be relevant.
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, 'Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters'" (Revelation 14:6,7).
The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant "the story concerning God." In the New Testament the Greek word euaggelion, translated "gospel," means the "good news" or glad tidings of deliverance from sin, the setting up of the Kingdom of God, and the record of the life of Jesus Christ embracing all His teachings (Mark 1:1,14). The "everlasting" gospel is not a new or different gospel, but a perpetual gospel, without beginning or end.
This above mentioned angel's call to repentance is not merely a call to "fear God" but is also a call to "worship the Creator of the mighty universe, the One who made the heavens, the earth the sea and the fountains of waters." In other words, the everlasting gospel, as preached in these last days by a mighty angel, is calling upon mankind to jettison the popular notion of evolution and to accept the fact that the Almighty made the universe in six literal days as the Bible teaches. The
doctrine of special creation is a foundational teaching of Scripture which true science will always verify. The first two chapters of Genesis and the last two chapters of Revelation are about the Almighty's creative powers, and the everlasting gospel is a call to humanity to accept what the Bible says about it and to reject the false ideologies of man.
It is important that we acknowledge the truth that acceptance of the everlasting gospel is directly linked to faith in a Creator God. Multiple millions of people today refuse to accept the gospel call to faith and obedience because their minds are steeped in the fallacious theory of evolution that casts doubt upon the plain Bible statement that God created the world in six literal (24-hour) days. Many deliberately hide their eyes to the precious truths presented here. The unspoken reason? If God did not create all He said He did-if God does not exist-there is no incentive to obey Him.
Yet, God's Word thunders that ignorance is no excuse. "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" (Romans 1:20).
Those who accept that God created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and the many life forms that inhabit planet Earth will worship Him gladly by keeping the day that He divinely appointed as a memorial or reminder that He is the Creator God--the seventh-day Sabbath. The Sabbath identifies who God is--the Creator.
God's Word commands, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:8-11).
The everlasting gospel is a call to repentance, faith, and obedience. This includes obedience of the seventh-day Sabbath command that testifies that He is the Creator God. It is so important to God that He used it as a sign between Him and His people (Exodus 31:13,17). "And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God" (Ezekiel 20:12,20). One of the very first things Jesus Christ will do upon His return to earth is to reinstitute His Sabbath and holy days which point to Him as Creator, and His plan of salvation for all mankind (Isaiah 66:23; Zechariah 14:16). Be sure to send for our free brochure, Sunday, Saturday-What Difference Does It Make?
Creation: A Basic Bible Doctrine
The sum and substance of the raging "creation versus evolution" issue revolves around one thing and one thing only: whether or not the God of the Bible is the Creator and Sustainer of life and the universe. Let us see what the Bible clearly claims:
"Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isaiah 45:11,12).
This is a remarkable claim to say the least. It is either true or it is a colossal falsehood. God either created the heavens and the earth and their entire host or He didn't. These scriptures demand that we treat the matter of the creation as the foundational doctrine in the Bible. All other scriptural doctrines, laws, prophecies, and instructions hang on this single fact that the entire universe came into being by the Word of the Almighty God. We repeat: The Lord's claim is that He created the universe is either true or it is a monumental lie. There is no other conclusion one can arrive at.
The Bible pulls no punches. It informs us straight out that Satan has the whole world deceived (Revelation 12:9). Almost daily we are blitzed by brilliantly produced TV documentaries-coming in the name of "science"-claiming "Mother Nature," of her own accord, by some inexplicable, innate power, produced our grand universe and all its myriad life forms. Millions are duped by it. The Bible forewarns us of such deception: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Timothy 6:20,21). True science and biblical revelation exposes the theory of evolution for what it really is-a fantastic fallacy, a fallacy that is now being rejected by thousands of scientists and other intellectuals as well as believers in the Word of God. The Psalmist came to the same conclusion many centuries ago when he wrote, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
Was the Psalmist right? Is there a God or isn't there? These are vital questions and the answers you arrive at will not only govern your current behavior, but also will determine whether you will ultimately be in the Kingdom of God or perish in a lake of fire. Yes, it is just that important.
Faith Is Needed
Since it is not possible to scientifically demonstrate either evolution or special creation, faith is required to accept either teaching. But faith in the right thing is not wrong. The Bible says, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). A British wit once described "evil lution" as "the substance of links hoped for, the evidence of fossils not seen." How right he was!
Broadly speaking, people fall into one of three categories:
Creationists: Those who believe that a supernatural Being (God) made the universe as recorded in Genesis chapter one. The Church of God International, along with millions of Bible-believing Christians and Jews, falls into this category.
Evolutionists: Those who believe that the universe came into existence billions of years ago and that life on earth evolved of its own accord by some inexplicable power. One does not have far to look to find many who hold this view.
Theistic Evolutionists: The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines. However, the doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists believe that God was involved in the creation, but that He took thousands-perhaps millions or billions (do we hear "trillions"?)-of years to do so. Although many hold this view today, such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no biblical support for theistic evolution.
Does It Really Matter What One Believes Concerning the Origin of the Universe?
It matters a great deal what we believe concerning the origins of the universe and of life itself because if the universe and life on earth evolved over billions of years, then:
The Genesis account of creation and the hundreds of Bible verses that refer to the creation are pure fiction. In other words the so-called Holy Bible is, itself, riddled with the very thing it strictly forbids: lies, suppositions, and superstitions.
Virtually all the Old and New Testament writers were deluded-because they all believed in the creation. This would include all the prophets of old, all the apostles, and even Jesus Christ Himself.
If life on earth evolved of its own accord, it would mean that man is not accountable for his actions to a supernatural Being, and that we could make or break so-called "moral laws" with impunity. After all, "if there is no God, there cannot be a Judgment Day. So why bother about moral behavior: let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."
In the final analysis, if evolution is true and the Bible is false, there would be no sin, since there would be no God, no Lawmaker, and no laws to break. It follows that, if there were no laws to break-and the Bible defines sin as "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4)-there would be no sin. If there is no sin, we would not need a Savior to redeem us from the penalty of breaking those laws (Romans 6:23) and Christ would have died in vain. In short, evolution is a complete denial of everything the Bible stands for.
These are the inevitable conclusions that will flow in the wake of a society that rejects the basic teaching that God created the universe. The matter of origins is very important because society's behavior and destination depend upon it. In his book, Evolution or Creation? (page 2), Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., confirms this point. He writes:
"Each person needs, more than anything, a sense of his own identity and personal goals, and this is impossible without some sense of his origin. What a person comes to believe about his origin will inevitably condition what he believes about his destiny."
Lenin is quoted as saying that religion is the opiate of the people, but the truth is that evolution is the opiate of the atheist!
What Does the Bible Teach Concerning Creation?
Before we answer this question let us review a few facts about the universe we live in.
Our earth is a tiny planet, about 8,100 miles (13,000 km) in diameter, which circles the sun, an average-sized star some 93,000,000 miles away.
The sun is about 870,000 miles in diameter. It forms part of a medium-sized spiral galaxy called the Milky Way that contains some 200 billion stars. Nearly all of the 6,000 stars we are able to see with the naked eye are part of the Milky Way. Some scientists speculate there may be literally trillions.
A light year is the time light, traveling at over 186,000 miles per second, takes to travel in one year.
"The nearest galaxy to the Milky Way is approximately 200,000 light years away, which is a distance of 1,175,722 trillion, 568 billion, 640 miles. And there are approximately 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billions stars! Does your head spin with these numbers? Can your mind comprehend such figures? Is not our God an awesome God?" (When Day and Night Cease,
p. 34, published by Shikinah Books Ltd., Box 846, Keno, OR 97627 USA).
Now let us examine some basic Bible texts that affirm divine creation. The prophets, psalmists, apostles, and God Himself all testify to the fact that the universe was created.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1; read the entire chapter).
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:13).
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4).
"Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee" (Nehemiah 9:6).
Proverbs 3:19 tells us, "The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens."
Psalm 86:9 says, "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name."
Isaiah 40:26 encourages, "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number."
Isaiah 41:20 says, "That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it."
Isaiah 42:5 repeats, "Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein."
Isaiah 45:8 says, "Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it."
Isaiah 45:12 quotes God as saying, "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
John 1:13 describes, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."
Mark 10:5,6 affirms, "And Jesus answered and said unto themBut from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Acts 4:24 testifies, "And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is."
Acts 14:15 repeats, "unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein."
Acts 17:24 goes on, "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands."
In Ephesians 3:9 Paul prays, "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."
Colossians 1:16 affirms, "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him."
Revelation 10:6 foretells, "And sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer."
Christians must either accept these Bible passages as fact or they should not classify themselves as true believers! The Bible is either God's Word or it isn't. God is either telling the truth or He is telling lies. There really is no other logical conclusion one can arrive at.
Why Was the Universe Created?
But why did God create mankind and the mighty universe in the first place? While man spends billions on examining the universe in an attempt to find out if there is life "out there" somewhere, the Bible provides the answer! "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:18). No idols or man-made gods can equal Him and His creative powers.
"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him" (Isaiah 43:7).
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
In summary, the vast universe was created to be inhabited by beings who will glorify God and bring Him pleasure. Furthermore, God's plan of salvation involves adding sons and daughters to His divine family. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14,15). Be sure to send for our free booklet, Man's Awesome Destiny, for deeper understanding on this subject.
The New Universe
The Bible tells us that new heavens and a new earth that will endure forever will soon replace this old universe. Here is a prophecy of this coming event:
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:10-13).
The Almighty's power to create will then be demonstrated before our very eyes, and as previously, He will not need billions of years to complete His work then, just as He did not need billions of years to create it in the first place. He will create a new universe just as He did the present one-by His Word. He will once again speak creation into existence: and the new universe will come into being.
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord" (Isaiah 66:22,23).
"I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.' And He that sat upon the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.' And He said unto me, 'Write: for these words are true and faithful.' And He said unto me, 'It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son'" (Revelation 21:17).
Where Do We Fit Into This Picture?
The Bible makes it perfectly clear that all who accept God's offer of mercy and salvation through His Son Jesus Christ will inherit and inhabit the new universe for His pleasure, glory, and the expansion of His Divine Family. We shall be kings and priests ruling under Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:6; 5:10). How awesome! Are you willing to accept that fact? It is speculated by some that the entire universe will one day teem with life and the redeemed of the Lord will inhabit it.
"And He that sat upon the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.' And He said unto me, 'Write: for these words are true and faithful.' And He said unto me, 'It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son'" (Revelation 21:57).
The God of your Bible is known by many names, titles, and descriptions-such as Lord, the Almighty, I Am, the Most High, Everlasting God, Mighty God, Lord of hosts, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the Holy One of Israel, and numerous others, according to the function He is fulfilling at the time. It is noteworthy that He also refers to Himself as the Creator of the mighty universe. Isaiah 45:11,12 tells us, "Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, 'Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.'"
Creation is a basic Bible doctrine. The credibility of all the prophets of old, the apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself depends on whether the creation account in Genesis is true because they all taught and wrote of it. Indeed, the Bible is either God's Word or a monumental array of lies.
The evidences pointing to special creation are legion. The amazing wonders of the natural world and the wonders of the heavens all tell of the glory and power of a Creator.
"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 uncorruptible 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 dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen" (Romans 1:20-25).
It matters a great deal what we believe because all our subsequent actions are influenced by our beliefs. If there is no God, then moral standards mean very little in a "dog-eats-dog world." But if we must all one day stand before the Judgment Seat of a Creator God, then how we live our lives matters a great deal!
The Bible contains scores of texts concerning the creation. Nearly every Bible writer refers directly or indirectly to the creation.
The Almighty Creator God created the universe to be ultimately inhabited by humankind who will finally be born-resurrected by metabolic change-into His Family at Christ's Second Coming and will be His companions for all eternity. Can your mind fully grasp the significance and excellence of this fact?
The gospel of Jesus Christ, the ageless message commissioned to be proclaimed to all the world in the last days, calls upon all men and nations to: "Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Those who accept this end-time message will begin to turn their lives around and to keep God's commandments, including the Fourth, which is to revere the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) as an act of faith and worship of our Creator.
The Lord has committed Himself to make new heavens and a new earth. Only then will we fully appreciate His creative powers. We now "see through a glass darkly," but then face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12). In that coming paradise there will be no more pain, suffering, sickness, or death. All are invited to be there. This booklet may well be part of that invitation to you! Think about it.
As the Master so truly said in Matthew 16:26, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul [life]? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" That is a question that every person must answer for him- or herself. No issue is more important than your personal salvation. Where do we fit into this picture? We are admonished in Philippians
2:12 to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
We affirm not only belief in God the Father and in Jesus Christ as Creator, Designer, and Lifegiver, but in the Holy Bible as the inspired revelation of Almighty God (Psalm 12:6,7; 119:89; 2 Timothy 3:16). You must now choose whom you will believe and obey: the speculations, ideas, and theories of menor the inspired Word of God. Our earnest prayer is that the Lord God of Israel, the Almighty Creator of the infinite universe, will grant you wisdom to make the correct decision and the faith to believe and obey His Word.