| ELEPHANTS LOSE TUSKS “BY EVOLUTION” claim media reports. During the civil war in Mozambique (1977-1992) ivory poachers killed elephants and sold the tusks to finance their war. During this time the population of elephants declined drastically. The elephant population is now making a comeback, but with a change – more female elephants are lacking tusks. Before the war about 18.5% of females were tuskless, but 33% of females born since the war do not have tusks. A group of scientists led by Shane Campbell-Staton and Robert Pringle of Princeton University studied the elephant population of Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, using records from an elephant conservation organisation and videos taken in the park from before the war. They found tuskless mother elephants had equal numbers of daughters with and without tusks, and had twice as many daughters as sons. They then analysed genomes of the elephants in the park and found the tuskless females carried mutations in two genes named MEP1a and AMELX. The AMELX gene is on the X chromosome, and mutations of it in humans are known to cause defective tooth growth in females and are lethal to males. This pattern of inheritance, known as X-linked dominant, male-lethal, would explain the skewed sex ratio of the tuskless mother’s offspring and the number of tuskless daughters. Putting these genetic and population studies together, the research team, along with all the reports in the news sources, claim the increase in tuskless females is a case of rapid evolution. The research team entitled their research paper “Ivory poaching and the rapid evolution of tusklessness in African elephants”. They summarised their findings as: “This study provides evidence for rapid, poaching-mediated selection for the loss of a prominent anatomical trait in a keystone species”. References and Links: Science (AAAS) News 21 October 2021, Nature News 21 October 2021, ABC News 22 October 2021, and Science 22 October 2021, doi: 10.1126/science.abe7389.ED. COM. The summary is correct, but the headlines are all wrong. This is a classic case of selection, but nothing has evolved. Poachers selectively killed elephants with tusks which allowed the already existing tuskless elephants with the tuskless gene to survive, and increase in numbers. But that did not make them evolve. This is unnatural selection at work, but it is no different from legitimate farmers using selective breeding to increase the number of animals that have a desirable trait, such as hornlessness, in farm animals. However, in this case, the increased trait is a defect, since tusks help elephants to push over branches and trees and dig holes as they forage for food and minerals, so loss of them is a negative. Overall, this study is a good reminder that the world has changed, but it has not evolved. It has gone from good to bad to worse – the opposite of evolution, but exactly what the Bible tells us. |
| https://mailchi.mp/creationresearch.net/creation-research-email-update-3rd-november-2021?e=ce21bf0337 |
Evolution/Creation
All posts tagged Evolution/Creation
Isaiah 55:8-9
“‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”
‘Our Creator’s work reflects some of His incredible inventive creativity. In Matthew 6:30 Jesus reminds us how God provides for all the needs of all His creatures. Each creature is perfectly suited for its life, even if that requires special creativity from God.
Many of the creatures that live in the deepest and darkest parts of the sea are equipped with lights. One has a very bright headlamp to light its way. Others have lights on their tails, jaws or sides. The light they produce, as the light produced by the firefly, is a cold light. The light is generated when chemicals manufactured by the creatures are mixed together.
Or consider the small bird that has an “engine” powerful enough to allow it to fly for 10,000 or more miles. The construction of the bird’s heart differs from yours and mine in important ways. However, we couldn’t get by with the bird’s heart just as it couldn’t get by with ours.
While it seems strange to think of the penguin as a bird that flies under water, that’s exactly what it does. The penguin can reach speeds of 30 miles per hour underwater, as fast as the fastest marine mammal, the dolphin.
All of us would benefit from looking at the creatures around us a little more closely. If we do, we will learn a little more about the magnificent creativity of our God. As we learn about their lives and how they are provided for, we will, as one early scientist put it, learn to think God’s thoughts about the natural world after Him!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/thinking-gods-thoughts-after-him-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thinking-gods-thoughts-after-him-2&mc_cid=e895113b6c&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
1 John 4:19
“We love Him because He first loved us.”
‘Imagine a huge living creature covering about one square mile and made up of almost a third of a billion cells. Imagine each of those living cells being able to move about independently of the others.
No, it’s not the plot of a new science fiction movie. Some scientists have suggested that ant colonies may be thought of as one large living organism. They suggest this because of the way individual members within ant colonies behave. Ant colonies have many kinds of members, each with its own specific task. The soldier ants in a colony have extra large heads and heavy-duty jaws for fighting. Other ants are concerned only about finding and returning food. Still other workers do nothing but process and store food.
Within the colony another caste of ants does nothing but tend the eggs. Others prepare the food for the larvae and deliver it to other specialized ants who do nothing but feed the next generation.
If this sounds complex, imagine the largest known ant colony. This Japanese ant colony has an estimated 306 million worker ants, and more than a million queens. The colony occupies 45,000 interconnected underground nests that range over about a square mile!
There is obviously intelligent design and control behind ant society—intelligence not found in ants or in nature itself. This intelligence comes from outside nature. Here is yet another witness that no concern of any living thing is too small for God’s complete attention!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/complex-ant-society-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=complex-ant-society-2&mc_cid=045c6f42c2&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
Proverbs 30:25 The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer;
“You might think the shark is the most ravenous creature in the ocean, but this might change your mind.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-D9_sQDCh4
‘Belief in alien life is predicated upon the evolutionary concept of a big bang. But even if true, where are all the alien races? And if there was no big bang what happens to the concept of intelligent, alien life. This episode features Gary Bates and Dr Robert Carter.’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7MEzJF2s-k&t=68s
1 Corinthians 15:22
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”
‘If God created, but He did so by evolution, it means that there were many generations and billions of deaths before the first man appeared on the scene. Does Scripture say anything about this?
Indeed it does! In fact, the whole plan of salvation rests on the fact that there was no death before the first man. This truth is found throughout Scripture, but nowhere is it more clear than in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Here we read, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” This means that if death did not begin with, and because of, Adam’s sin, then by the same token no one is made alive in Christ. The way it is phrased in this passage, one depends on the other. If there were generations of death in the world before Adam, then death is not tied to Adam’s sin. And if death is not tied to Adam’s sin, then life is not tied to Christ.
In other words, if there were death before Adam and therefore generations before Adam, Christ’s work turns out to be of no effect. So you see, even evolution with God added to it questions the Bible’s message about the saving work of Christ.
The good news is that there is no fact that demands our rejection of God’s account of creation. No scientific fact has been established that forces us to reject what the Bible says about the first human beings or the origin of sin. There is no fact that has been established that rules out the Bible’s account of creation, the origin of sin, or death. These truths are fact and the foundation upon which the Gospel rests!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/death-before-adam-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=death-before-adam-2&mc_cid=50714d658e&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Is evolution compatible with Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man?” as Keller says it is?
This question relates to an article by Time Keller on the Gospel Coalition website. Tim Keller (MDiv, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; DMin, Westminster Theological Seminary) is founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, chairman of Redeemer City to City, and founder of The Gospel Coalition.
Tim Keller was asked: If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve, how can we know where sin and suffering came from?
His brief answer was: Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in a historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue.
Keller followed this statement with a detailed article, which is mainly the opinions of theologians about the style of literature in Genesis followed by Keller’s own interpretation of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15.
Keller states he believes in an historical Adam and Eve but does not explain how this is compatible with evolution, since Darwin himself described evolution as the “war of nature” and claimed that long ages of famine and death brought about “the production of higher animals”. (Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859) This is the exact opposite of God’s description of the original created world as “very good”(Genesis 1:31).
So we wonder if has ever bothered to compare such processes to what God said in Genesis 1 and 2, or if Keller really understands evolution, and the processes claimed to bring it about, so let us do that.
Modern day evolutionists use less emotive terms than Darwin, such as “selective advantage” but the process is still the same. This is a flat denial of Genesis 1, which culminates with God looking at all that He had made and declaring it to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Darwin and his successors also regard human beings as simply “higher animals,” which is another complete denial of Genesis. Human beings are unique creations made in the image of God.
Keller tries to avoid the issue by referring to various theologians who clearly do not believe Genesis 1 and 2. For example Keller refers to Bruce Waltke who claims that forming Adam from dust of the ground could mean “the author might be speaking figuratively in the same way, meaning that God brought man into being through normal biological processes.”
Keller and Waltke (and their followers) should take note: there are no normal biological processes that turn dust into people. It works the other way around, i.e. people turn to dust – it is happening all the time, but that is a destructive death process and the opposite of a creative process.
Keller spends a lot of time naming names such as C. S. Lewis and hiding behind their opinions. After meandering through the opinions of such theologians Keller summarises his section on Genesis: “In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened.” If that is what Keller really believes, he should say so straight away and affirm what the text actually states.
So let us clearly state what the Biblical text does says. The first thing we are told about the creation of human beings is they were special creations made in the image God (Genesis 1:27-28). We are then given details of how God did this in Genesis 2. Adam was made from “dust of the ground,” i.e. raw materials, not some pre-existing animal, and Eve was created from tissue taken from Adam. This is either an accurate description of what God actually did or it is a fairy tale. If it is a fairy tale it has no authority, and sceptics, liberal theologians and other unbelievers are justified in scoffing at it.
There is a theory promoted by John Stott and others that God somehow “stamped His image” on a pair of the evolving hominins that had come into being by evolutionary processes, but this cannot be reconciled with the description of the creation and man and woman in Genesis. For more a more detailed critique of this theory see the question: HUMAN EVOLUTION? Does it create any problems for Christians who believe it? Answer here.
Anyone reading Genesis 1 and 2 will straight away see that it is not compatible with the evolutionary story of how human beings arrived on the planet, and what a ‘non-good’ state the world was in if evolution was true.
Keller claims he believes in a historical Fall of Man but does not go into details concerning Genesis 3 or the chapters that follow, so let us provide them. After judging the serpent and promising a Saviour who would defeat the serpent, God sentenced Adam and Eve to death and cursed the ground. From then on the living world degenerated into violence, disease and general degradation – all things that are not good. If death, disease and struggle had already been in the world, these would not be punishments. Again, there is a clear incompatibility between Genesis and evolution.
Rather than dealing with the actual events of the Fall of Man, Keller goes straight to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and correctly states that Paul believed in a literal Adam and we should too. However, Keller reveals his own “pick and mix” attitude to the Bible when he states:
“The key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 wants us to take the “days” literally, but it is clear that Paul definitely does want readers to take Adam and Eve literally. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority.” (word “days” in inverted commas in original)
What Keller really means is that he doesn’t want to take the days of Genesis 1 literally, presumably so as not to upset those who believe in an old earth and millions of years of evolution.
If Keller wants to use the Bible as the key to interpreting itself, let’s see what it says about the days in Genesis. In Exodus we are told that God spoke and wrote down the Ten Commandments, which include this statement:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:8-11)
It is clear from the context God is speaking about real days, not some vague long periods or symbolic times. We would also remind Keller that the Creator who spoke and wrote down these words is Christ, who made all things (John 1:3).
For further details see the question: CREATION DAYS: Were the days of creation, as described in Genesis 1, real 24 hour days? Answer here.
Keller goes on to explain how we can benefit from Christ’s death. He states: “We are in covenant with him, not because we are related biologically but through faith.”
This is half-truth. Yes, we are in a covenantal relationship with Christ through faith, but it is only effective because we are biologically related, and Christ is our Kinsman Redeemer. Only a relative can be a Kinsman Redeemer. If we go back through the generations, the entire human race can be subsumed into Adam. All human beings, including Christ in His incarnate form, are descendants of Adam, so we are biologically related to both Adam and Christ, and that is why the covenant applies to us.
Keller skips over the real link between Adam, Christ and us, and completely ignores how death really came into the world. Paul makes it very clear that Adam’s sin brought death into this world, and Christ’s death and resurrection brings eternal life in the next. This is the real basis of Paul’s “one man” principle in Romans 5. One man, Adam, brought sin and death into the world; one man, Christ, paid the penalty, which made forgiveness and new life freely available for all people.
Finally, we have a challenge for Keller and all evangelical Christians who believe that Christ’s death and resurrection will bring them eternal life in a New Heaven and Earth. Think carefully about this question: What will that new world be like? If God created the first earth through a long process of struggle and death, and declared that to be “very good” can we trust Him to keep those things out of the New Heaven and Earth that Christ’s death and resurrection enables us to live in for eternity? Sadly the Gospel Coalition is increasingly characterised by such half truths concerning the gospel. Wake up guys!’https://askjohnmackay.com/tim-keller-on-evolution-adam-is-evolution-compatible-with-adam-and-eve-and-the-fall-of-man-keller-says-it-is/
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.
A person might accept that God created through evolution. But this belief would not be faithful to the physical evidences that evolutionists claim to have. Nor is it faithful to the statements we find in the Bible. Evolution does not allow the super-natural action of God. Even the Bible itself cannot be God’s Word if there is no supernatural action of God. Thankfully, the Bible is God’s revealed Word and it does offer you an intelligent alternative to evolution.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/does-evolution-allow-the-supernatural-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=does-evolution-allow-the-supernatural-2&mc_cid=2c9055c58a&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
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!”
There are no ‘facts” that demand that an educated person accept evolution as fact. The testimony of thousands of believing scientists confirms this. The instrument of God’s creation was not natural law, but His Son, who took our form upon Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ for our salvation!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/did-god-create-by-evolution-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=did-god-create-by-evolution-2&mc_cid=d9f244d1e3&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
whatyareckon 