Psalm 14:1 “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.”
‘Let’s be honest. If you believe God created, but that He used evolution to do so, you have to answer a difficult question. Does evolution allow the supernatural to take place?
What is the difference between the scientific evidence needed to accept that evolution occurred without God and that needed to accept theistic evolution? Practically speaking, the physical evidence for both positions should be identical.
Evolution is built on the principle that natural laws determine what happens in the physical world. Evolution rules it out of bounds for God to get involved in the workings of a reptile egg to produce the first mammal-like creature. Evolution says there is no need for supernatural intervention to modify some ape-like creatures into the first human being. As far as evolution is concerned, God’s supernatural intervention could not happen.
There is no physical evidence to support the idea that God periodically intervened in evolutionary development. Nor does the Bible talk about this kind of activity.
John 1:3 “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
‘Nearly 50% of the people in the United States, including many Christians, believe that God did indeed create all things. Unfortunately, they believe He used evolution as His instrument of creation.
Christians often adopt this idea because they are unaware that there are thousands of scientists who believe God created the entire universe supernaturally in six days. Many are unaware that good scientific reasons exist to accept God’s work of creating just as it is described in the Bible. While it doesn’t get much media attention, the work being done by these creation scientists is challenging evolutionism. The work of creationists has appeared in scientific journals. Scientists who believe the truth of the Bible’s account of creation are involved in the professional scientific dialogue that continually goes on among science professionals.
At seminars conducted by these scientists, I have heard smiling, joyful people telling everyone they saw, “I didn’t know that the Bible offered an intelligent alternative to evolution. I didn’t know there were so many well-educated scientists who were creationists! What I have heard today shows me that I can be a more faithful follower of my Lord Jesus Christ and give up belief in evolution!”
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
How old is the universe? Evolutionary scientists talk about how radiometric dating methods prove the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Let’s look at all the methods scientists could use. There are well over 100 methods available! There are thousands of scientists who prefer other methods that offer younger ages for our world and universe.
Those few methods—out of over 100—that evolutionists prefer are not very exact. Sometimes evolutionists will actually get a negative age for something using one of their preferred methods. In other words, the same method that shows that some object is a billion years old may show that some other object doesn’t even exist yet!
The fact is, more dating methods prove, just as scientifically, that the world is less than 500 years old than prove it is more than a billion years old. Of over 100 methods we know of— giving results of anywhere from 100 years to billions of years— 15% of all methods give a date of between 6,000 and 10,000 years for the age of the universe. That is a very powerful statistical argument for a young creation!
Acts 17:29 “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.”
Nearly everyone just “knows” that if enough monkeys were allowed to pound away at typewriters for enough time, they would eventually produce all the great works of literature. But there are some fundamental laws of science and some very simple commonsense facts that show this claim to be nonsense.
Perhaps after a day or two some monkey might type the word “to” with spaces before and after it. Eventually another monkey might type the word “be.” Given sufficient time and monkeys, we might end up with “To be or not to be.” By this simple, mindless chance typing of letters we could eventually get all the great works of literature.
The truth is, time works against our fearless troupe of innumerable monkeys. If they are going to get their work done, they have to get their job done in a hurry. Neither monkeys nor typewriters last forever. Then there is the problem of paper. Someone has calculated that even if monkeys and typewriters lasted forever and there was an unlimited supply of paper, the worthless trash our monkeys would produce would fill the entire universe before they could get out one Shakespeare play—not to mention War and Peace!
Genesis 1:14 “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”
An explosion causes material to be distributed randomly, and, on average, fairly evenly in all directions. But deep-time astrophysicists have a problem because their alleged Big Bang would appear to have produced a universe with a considerable amount of order.
Now it is important to be fair on secular astrophysicists. Although the dichotomy that I have set up is the impression of the Big Bang held by the average person, with only High School scientific training, we should remember that serious astrophysicists view things differently. They do not believe in an explosion that filled up space with matter; they believe in a rapid expansion, from nothing, of space itself, as well as the material in it. But the general accusation still holds. The Big Bang theory cannot account for the structure of the universe.
The universe is highly structured. Stars are grouped into galaxies. The galaxies themselves are not uniformly distributed but arranged into clusters of galaxies.
Of the many models suggested to overcome this problem, most involve material in the universe cooling, so that gravity could draw clumps of material together that would eventually begin the nuclear fusion required to form stars.
2 Samuel 17:29 “And honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat: for they said, The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.”
‘As a child, I often pondered this deep question that has the most profound historical and cultural ramifications. Who first looked at the solid substance on the surface of a vessel of milk that had gone off and said, “That would be tasty, eaten with a cream cracker”? But the answer to the question would not have stopped me doing likewise. I have always loved cheese. I love hard English cheeses, soft French cheeses, and I love blue cheeses, especially that king among cheeses – Blue Stilton.
It was a surprise to find that cheese is mentioned in the Bible. The reference in Job 10:10 is not particularly flattering to the product, as Job complains that his treatment by God is like the process of milk going off. But in 2 Samuel 17:29, we find cheese on a list of good foods provided to David and his followers.
Cheese essentially preserves many of the important nutrients from milk, but in a much more concentrated form and with a longer shelf life. Its importance can therefore be seen, particularly in a world before the development of refrigeration. Preservation is achieved by the conversion of milk sugars into lactic acid. This is achieved by the addition of rennet – a material from the stomachs of ruminants which is rich in enzymes.
I attended a public high school and thank the Lord I had a biology teacher that spent only one hour in seeking to explain evolution. However, I do remember when she was sick for several days and we had students from the University of Iowa substitute and they sought to push the evolutionary theory during those few days. Now, I wasn’t a real knowledgeable student in creation science or the Bible back then but I did ask questions which made the substitute teachers just a little upset. Anyway, as I grew in my faith and researched things I became more and more convinced that in the beginning God….
Genesis 7:2 “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.”
‘Christians and non-Christians alike sometimes assume that natural selection is an inevitable part of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and that if we reject Darwinism, then we need to reject natural selection also. This is not so – natural selection, correctly understood, is a friend of creationism and is actually incompatible with evolutionary ideas.
All living things contain genetic information, leading to a wide variety of possible traits. Consider mammals, which have white fur (which is actually usually transparent fur without pigmentation, but which looks white from a distance). Such species may well be acclimatized to cold, snowy environments. For example, the Arctic Fox and the Red Fox have developed from a common ancestor. This is NOT evolution. Foxes – which are part of the dog-wolf kind, or baramin – contain information to produce different levels of fur pigmentation. Foxes with little or no fur pigmentation would not easily be seen, either by predators or prey, on a snowy background. Those foxes were more likely to survive there, so we say that those genes were naturally selected from a large range of existing genetic information. But this is not evolution because no new genetic information appeared.