Is Evolution a fact or fiction? Does it really matter?

You see, many Christians feel that evolution is real, that the story of creation in the Bible is just that a story. If you do feel that way, then you have a huge problem. In fact, you have many problems.

First of all, if there was no Adam and Eve then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin then why do we need a Savior? If we don’t need a Savior then why did Jesus come? Furthermore, if this story of creation found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not real, then how in the world do we know what to believe in the Bible and what not to believe? You see, if you deny creation you have opened up a can of worms.

            Before we get to our text in Romans chapter 1 this morning, let me share this testimony of Bob the atheist. We are told:

My name is Bob I came from a blob, of chemicals mixed just so,

Or was it a dot, compressed a lot? I don’t think we’ll ever know.

Time gave me a body, It’s not too shoddy, two arms, two legs and a chest.

Time gave me a head, two lips that are red. And two eyes that are nicely recessed.

Chance gave me a nose, with two little holes, two ears that shift when I smile.

Chance gave me a voice, a throat that is moist, And some hair I can comb and style.

Luck gave me a rump, to sit on a stump, or anything hard with some ease.

Luck gave me a waist, a tongue that can taste, And a neck that turns when I sneeze.

Did I mention my brain? And all of my veins, and my heart that beats on its own?

Did I mention my skin, my lungs and my chin, And my frame that is made of hard bone?

I credit mutation for my creation, fate and good fortune helped too.

My tail is now gone, a new day has dawned.

It’s good to get out of the zoo!

                                    - Pastor Peter Grenier Danforth Baptist Church, Maine

 

            Now as funny as that is, I am sad to say that many believe it. With that said, let’s begin reading in Romans chapter 1, starting in verse 18 and see what the Lord has for us as we look at how creation testifies that there is a God!

 

ROMANS 1:18-32

            It is not that there is no evidence for creation, there is plenty. The problem comes because man suppresses the truth, holds it down, steers away from it to believe that there is no God and in doing so, man is saying no to God! And isn’t it interesting that man, who rejects God, ends up worshiping the creature rather than the Creator!  That is exactly what we see out there! And professing to be wise, they have become fools, morons is the correct translation!  And they are without excuse because creation says there is a God!

            I do realize it is hard for many to believe that scientists have suppressed the truth to sway people away from God, but that is exactly what they are doing and we will see that this morning. Listen carefully to what one French Mathematician said in regards to life coming from non-life, the probability of this. He wrote:

The French Mathematician, Lecompte de Nouy, examined the laws of probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to 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?” Paul A. Fisher, The Wanderer, (Nov 7, 1985)

 

            I must admit that I was a strong advocate of the Theory of Evolution.  I believed that these men of science were searching for the truth of where life began.  Many spent their entire lives searching and analyzing the data they found.

            But as I began to search and study the Theory of Evolution, I found many fallacies with the information they were telling to the world and to me.  In this study we will look at the facts, on both sides of this issue, and you can decide for yourself.  We will look not only at quotes from Creationists, because that would be biased, but also from evolutionists who are seeing their theories crumble before their eyes.  And remember, it is only a theory and not a very good one!

            According to the evolutionists, the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 billion years old.  During those 5 billion years, life appeared from non-life.  That is, non-life evolved into a single cell organism that evolved into modern man today.  When I was at school I learned of the fairy tale of a frog that turned into a prince.  But now evolutionists are telling us, all you need is millions of years and that same frog will turn into a prince.  No longer is it a fairy tale but a fact that is believed and taught by evolutionists.

            This idea of non-life to life is called spontaneous generation, which had its roots back to the time of Aristotle (384322 B.C.) who was a famous teacher, scientist and Greek philosopher.  Then in the seventeenth century, Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, believed that maggots generated spontaneously from rotting meat.

            A big problem with believing in spontaneous generation today is that in the nineteenth century a biologist from France, Louis Pasture, put this idea to rest.  He proved this by using gooseneck flasks with Scurved necks and placing yeast, sugar and water in the container and boiling them.  What he demonstrated was that the Scurved gooseneck flasks trapped the spores of microorganisms, thus keeping the solution from containing any life forms.  Life does not come from non-life but from life itself.  But in the twenty-first century we are moving backwards, towards the belief of spontaneous generation.

            Listen to what Carl Sagan, who is not a creationist, had to say during his seminar on “Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence” regarding life to spontaneously occur.  “If we are going to talk about life elsewhere, we are surely considering a system of some formidable complexity, and a standard problem, both in the theological and in the biochemical literature, is how systems of such complexity could possibly have come into being.  Let me give a numerical example.  A simple protein might consist of 100 constituent units called amino acids, of which there are 20 biological varieties.  

Therefore, the probability of the chance assembly in the appropriate order of such a molecule consisting of 100 amino acids is 20100, or something like 10130.   Well, it is clear that one could randomly assemble all the elementary particles in the Universe a billion times a second for the age of the universe and never get this protein.  Vastly less probable yet is a given human being.”  The only problem with that is anything over 1056 power is beyond any mathematical probability.  So why hold on to it if it is mathematically impossible?

            Where did life come from?  “According to one of the most popular theories on the origin of the universe, all energy and matter of the universe was once contained in a plasma ball of electrons, protons, and neutrons and other subatomic particles (how it got there, no one has the faintest notion).  This huge cosmic egg then exploded and here we are today, several billion years later, human beings with a three pound brain composed of twelve billion neurons each connected to about ten thousand other neurons in the most complicated arrangement of matter known to man.  (There are thus 120 trillion connections in the human brain.)”

            If all the blood vessels in your body were laid end to end, they would reach some 60,000 miles, and that did not happen by chance occurrence.  If you study the workings of the human body, you will see that it is a marvelous work of design, and not by a chance happening, for it is beyond any mathematical probability that it would occur by chance.

            “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around 1012 bits, comparable to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”  And, again, we are to believe that this was a random chance occurrence.

            Another book puts it this way, and it is just as unbelievable.  “For the history of all life on earth could as well be seen as one continuous and arduous quest for sustaining energy, and it has been principally as a means of succeeding in that quest, that life, over billions of years, has ‘evolved’ from a microscopic bit of seaborne jelly to more than 1.25 million different species ranging from asters to zebras, and including you and me.”   That is not science! It is faith!

            Let's look at the DNA molecule, which makes up the essential genetic material.  DNA or Deoxyribonucleic Acid is double helix structure.  The chance of this occurring by random is one in 10130 power.  Say the universe is 6 billion years old; there are only 1017 seconds in 6 billion years. That means there was not enough time for this to occur by random chance.  Lets say that different chemicals were coming together every nanosecond.  That is every 1 billionth of a second this would be occurring.  This still presents a problem in that there are only 1026 nanoseconds in 6 billion years.  That means there was still not enough time for this to occur by random chance.  And yet we want to believe that man and all the living things around us have evolved by random chance.  It is improbable for the formation of one DNA molecule to form let alone all the living things, seen and unseen, around us. When I was in school the earth was a few billion years old, now it is 5 billion, and folks, I am not that old!  Why did the earth increase in age? Because time is needed for their theory to be plausible, at least in their minds and it still does not work!

            In closing the door on spontaneous generation, listen to this statement by Dr. Wald, the foremost biologist in this country. He says, “Spontaneous generation was totally disproved 100 years ago by Louis Pasture . . . That leaves us only one possible conclusion.  That life arose as a super natural creative work of God.  I cannot accept that philosophically, because I don't want to believe in God.  I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”    

            If it is “scientifically impossible” then why are we holding on to it?  It is as Dr. Wald has said, because they want to deny the existence of God and because of that, they have moved away from science and towards their own religious belief called evolution. That is why Paul says they are without excuse, they know there is a Creator God, a Designer God, creation testifies of that fact, but they deny the truth to believe a lie, the lie of evolution!

            “Matthew's, a British biologist and evolutionist, in his introduction to a 1971 publication of Darwin's Origin of Species says: `The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory is it then a science or faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.’”

            But don't we see evolution out in the world?  Yes we do. There is evolution within species.  We have many different types of dogs, but dogs never turn into cats or birds.  They remain dogs.  The theory of evolution tells us that all life forms have evolved from a single cell.  Thus we have non-life to life, single cell organisms to fish, fish to reptiles, reptiles to apes, and apes to men.

            If this idea or theory is true, then the fossil record should show evidence of these transitional life forms.  But how do things become fossilized?  For the most part, the creature or specimen must be buried immediately.  If not, they will decay or be eaten by animals or maggots and no fossils will be left.  But if the specimen is buried immediately, in suitable soil, we will have a fossil of that specimen.

            Today we have few fossils that are being formed.  But the fossil record from the past shows us that some catastrophic event occurred that buried millions of life forms instantly.  As Ken Ham would say, the fossil record shows billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. In other words, a flood has laid down the fossil record! I even have pictures showing 2 different fish in the process of swallowing another fish and they were fossilized in that action.  The picture is from the fossil record and shows us that something catastrophic stopped these fish dead in their tracks and has preserved it for us.

            The geological column, according to evolutionists, is the laying down of fossils over millions of years beginning with the lower life forms like the trilobite, from the age of invertebrates, to fishes, amphibians, reptiles and finally mammals, with man evolving some 2 million years ago.  So as you go digging for fossils, if you find a trilobite it would be placed in the Cambrian period, between 570 and 500 million years ago.  How do you know they are that old?  Because trilobites are from the Cambrian period, which tells us how old the rock layer is. That is circular reasoning!

            I guess if the geological column were true, at least we would know the order in which these fossils were laid down, but still the age would not be known.  There are no “Born” dates on the bottom of these fossils! Furthermore, the problem is that we have no such progression of rock layers with its corresponding fossils anywhere on the earth.  The geological column does not exist.  That is not exactly true. The only place you will find the geological column is in evolutionary textbooks, but not in the fossil record!

            “In the supposedly 600 million year old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose.  And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense.  To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata.”

            Dr. Steven Austin states, “The fossils appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record, arguing for multiple abrupt appearances for creation more than they do for evolution.  All the major phyla that we have today of organisms, the basic categories of organisms, the basic broad patterns of types of creatures, all are found in the earliest strata of the earth.  We have multicellular organisms, and all the phyla appear abruptly, fully formed without transitional forms.” 

            The fossil record is not one of transformation and transition from one life form to another, but rather a record of mass destruction.  These graveyards filled with millions of fossils have been buried by water and sediment during a cataclysmic event and not gradually developed over millions of years. Furthermore, I believe that the cataclysmic event that made up this fossil record was the flood spoken of in the Bible, a worldwide flood!

            In speaking of transitional forms, listen to what these scientists have to say.

            "In fact, there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from another.”  So far so good, it sounds like there are many transitional forms out there.

            “The problem of transitional forms is one all honest paleontologists have a problem with.  The geological record is incomplete. It's incomplete because of erosion, that has eroded things away.” 

            You mean to tell me that erosion has eroded all the transitional fossils away and has left the rest?  I doubt that any scientist would actually believe that story.  There are no facts to back that idea up and how could erosion be selective for only transitional forms?

            “There is a myriad of transitional forms.  There is no problem finding transitional forms.”  “It is completely false to say there is a lacking of transitional forms, we have plenty of them.  More than sometimes we can cope with.”

            Yet Dr. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, has one of the foremost books on evolution, has no intermediate forms or transitional forms in his book.  In fact, he has over 7 million fossils in his museum.  Dr. Patterson has said this in response to one reader who wrote and asked why he had not included any of these transitional forms in his book.  He said, “I fully agree on your comments on the direct illustration on the evolutionary transitions in my book, if I knew of any fossil or living (transitional forms) I certainly would have included them.  I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a water tight argument.”

            In fact, Dr. Patterson, an evolutionist, has said, “Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the creator and his plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin.  They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill in the trunk and the twigs of the tree.  But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research.  In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science.”

            The very thing that evolutionists say Christians who believe in creation are doing, their own people are saying they are doing, holding back the progress of science! You see, there is no evidence for transitional forms and yet many hold onto that hope.  But why hold on to something that is just based on theory instead of looking at the evidence that has been preserved for us in the fossil record? In other words, “Just the facts!”

            There is the emergence of an old theory that many are using to justify that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. That theory is known as the hopeful monster theory or the punctuated equilibrium mechanism.  Goldschmidt, who termed this mechanism the “hopeful monster” mechanism, has proposed that at one time a reptile laid an egg and a bird was hatched from the egg!  If this was true, can you imagine the fear that expectant parents would have when they went to the hospital for the birth of their child?  They would not know what would come out!  But don’t worry, that is not a problem until they become teenagers, then all bets are off!  Sorry.

            This is how Goldschmidt describes his theory.  “The facts of greatest general importance are the following.  When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.”  That is what you have to believe if you don't believe in a creator, the hopeful monster theory. Is that scientific? Absolutely not!  But if you read the creation account in Genesis, that is what God said took place. He created life from non-life, all the different kinds, and they reproduced after their own kind, they did not evolve into something else!

            Listen to these quotes from Time Magazine; December 4, 1995 regarding the hopeful monster theory, it made the front page of this magazine.  “For the Cambrian is a period distinguished by the abrupt appearance of an astonishing array of multicelled animals, animals that are the ancestors of virtually all the creatures that now swim, fly and crawl through the visible world . . .while most people cling to the notion that evolution works its magic over millions of years, scientists are realizing that biological change often occurs in sudden fits and starts . . . Life has occupied the planet for nearly 4 billion of is 4.5 billion years.  But until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and singlecelled plankton . . . [and we see] the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world.”

            Steven Jay Gould, who is a proponent of this so-called punctuated equilibrium, is now admitting that there is no evidence for gradual change occurring in the fossil record. He says, “ . . . then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”  And yet, we see in all our school textbooks the theory of evolution based upon slow, gradual change, and yet Steven Jay Gould is telling us it is a dead theory!

            Because that theory is dead, they need this other theory to hold onto because they refuse to acknowledge a designer in all of this.  And yet there is no evidence in the fossil record except that life has appeared fully formed with no transitional forms.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that maybe they were created that way!

            But what about some of these so-called transitional forms, like horses? Yes, in textbooks and museums around the country, you can witness the evolution of the horse, from its beginnings to what we see today, the only problem is that the only place you will find this type of evolution is in textbooks and museums, the fossil record does not support it!

            The fossil of Eohippus (Dawn Horse), which is supposedly the oldest, has been found in the same surface strata as two modern day horses, (Equus Nevadensis, and Equus Accidentails).  Now there is some question of who Eohippus belongs to.  When it was first discovered it was said to be identical to the rabbit-like Hyrax living in Africa today, and classified as Hyracotherium.

            In any case, Dr. Garret Harden nails the coffin shut on this kind of evolution, when he writes in Nature and Man's Fate, and says: “There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of the modern horse . . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all.  Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . . Had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History, photographed and much reproduced in elementary textbooks (where it is still being reproduced today).”

            And if that is true, then we don't need to bother looking any further, because - A HORSE IS A HORSE, OF COURSE!

            Now, what about fish, do we have transitional forms for fish.  Well, the idea here is that fish gave rise to amphibians, the frogs and salamanders.  The only problem is there is no fossil evidence to support this theory, and even more alarming to the evolutionist is that orders of amphibians appear in the same geologic rock layers as the fish!

            But that won't stop the hard-core evolutionist from making his case.  The late Carl Sagan suggested in his television series called Cosmos, that a drought in the Devonian period, some 400 million years ago, when the swamps were drying up, some fish found it very convenient to have evolved feet and legs for walking on land.

            Now I don't know about you, but I have had my car break down and it would have been very nice, very convenient to grow wings and fly to a gas station for help, but that did not happen.  And neither did fish grow feet and legs to walk on the dry land because of the swamps drying out!  How long did it take them to grow these legs and feet before they died for lack of water? Folks, God gave us a brain, and we need to use it and think about these things that these evolutionists are saying instead of believing with blind faith!

            Now they tell us that this evolutionary advance from fish to amphibians took some 30 million years and yet we find not one transitional form.  There are no fishibians!  Yes, the Coelacanth was supposed to be a transitional creature, living some 430 to 395 million years ago.  But they found him swimming in the waters of Madagascar in 1938!  He didn't transform into anything.  In 400 million years he is still the same!  Go figure?

            And understand this.  There are no walking fishes and that includes the “walking catfish” of Florida.  They don't walk but slither along on their belly, using the same type of motion they use in the water.

            J. R. Norman said: “The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes . . .”

            And Barbara J. Stahl said: “None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates . . . Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved . . .” 

            Now this evolution from fish to amphibians is nothing more than a GREAT BIG FISH STORY, it is not science!  The evidence says so!

            Ernst Haeckel, back in 1866, came up with this idea of embryonic recapitulation or that embryo's from fish to salamander to turtle to chicken to rabbit and to humans all had remarkable similarities, at least that is what he said, and this showed the evolutionary process, we are all linked together.

            The problem is that way back in 1874; professor Wilhelm His published a catalog of willful distortions of the data Haeckel used to win adherents to his theory.  Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.

            And, in a more recent inquiry on this theory, Michael Richardson, who is a lecturer and embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School, London, has also proved this to be a fake, a false theory.  He assembled and international team to collect and examine the embryos of 39 different creatures.  His conclusion is as follows: “This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud.  It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading.  It makes me angry . . . what he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stages of development.  They don’t . . . these are fakes.”  He forged his drawings to make them fit his theory!

            In knowing this is just a lie, listen to what transpired in a debate between professor Ashely Montagu, a famous anthropologist and Dr. Duane Gish on April 12, 1980 at Princeton University.  Professor Ashely agrees that this embryonic recapitulation theory is debunked.  But listen to what Dr. Gish has to say, he is a creationist, and then the response made by professor Montagu.

            Dr. Gish said:  “ . . . I have traveled all over the world.  I have debated and lectured on many, many major University campuses, and it is hardly a single University campus that I appear on that some student does not tell me that he is taught the theory of embryological recapitulation right there in the University.  I’ve had many evolutionists argue the evidence for evolution from embryological recapitulation.  Unfortunately, as Dr. Montagu has said, it is a thoroughly discredited theory, but it is still taught in most biology books and in most Universities and schools as evidence for evolution.”

            Dr. Montagu responded by saying, “Well ladies and gentlemen, that only goes to show that many so-called educational institutions, called universities, are not educational institutions at all or Universities; they are institutes for miss-education.”  Interesting response from a hard-core evolutionist!

            Yes there are similarities in life, not because we evolved from each other, but because we have the same designer and creator.  Life does not come from non-life.  Life does not evolve from simple celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, adding more data to the system.  The evidence clearly shows, God created life fully formed, able to reproduce after its own kind, and yes, within these kinds are a variety of different characteristics.  But a dog is a dog, a cat a cat, and a man a man!

            Listen to these following 2 quotes; listen to what they are saying. The first from Dr. Richard Dawkins, who said: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance.  Superficially the obvious alternative to change is an intelligent designer.” How true that is and yet, why don’t they believe what they know to be true?

            And then Sir Fred Hoyle, who said, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.”  “It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligence's to our left, even to the extreme idealized limit of God.”

            And this theory is hard for me to understand, how anyone can believe this theory but there are those in the scientific community that think that the earth and the entire universe have come together by a “BIG BANG.”  It evolved suddenly out of the primordial “nothing” to become an infinitesimal particle of space and time.  This remarkable particle somehow contained essentially infinite energy and unlimited information, which enabled it to expand rapidly into our gigantic universe with all its stars and galaxies and animals and people.  Sounds like a fairy tale, doesn't it?

            Fred Hoyle originated the name “Big Bang” way back in 1950.  The name is not too great, so then in the August 1993 issue of Sky and Telescope magazine; there was a contest to replace the name of the “Big Bang.”

            The three judges were to be Carl Sagan, Hugh Downs, and Timothy Ferris.  They had over 13,000 entries from 41 different countries.  Some of the names that were sent in were: “Matter Morphosis,”  “The Bottom Turtle,” “Super Seed,” “Bertha D. Universe,” “Doink,” “Let There Be Stuff,” and “Hey Looky There At That!”  With all those entries, the three judges could not decide on a new name, and just gave up. I don’t know why they couldn’t decide, those where such intelligent names but I guess we will have to stick with the BIG BANG!

            Robert Oldershaw, of Dartmouth College, has these comments about this theory.  “First, the big bang is treated as an unexplainable event without a cause.  Secondly, the big bang could not explain convincingly how matter got organized into lumps (galaxies and clusters of galaxies).  And thirdly, it did not predict that for the universe to be held together in the way it is, more than 90 per cent of the universe would have been in the form of some strange unknown dark form of matter.”

            He goes on to say, “Theorists also invented the concepts of inflation and cold dark matter to augment the big bang paradigm and keep it viable, but they too have come into increasing conflict with observations.  In the light of all these problems, it is astounding that the big bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously.” And yet they still do!

            And Geoffrey Burbridge, one of America's most eminent astronomers has said: “Big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth . . . This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.”

            And so, we have no idea how we got here or how life could evolve into such diversity even in 5 billion years.  In fact, if you believe the big bang theory, let me go and blow up your car. Why would I do that? Because, according to the big bang theory, out of massive explosions comes order, not disorder! Out of massive explosions comes design. So if you have a inexpensive car, an explosion will turn it into a BMW. 

            Sound ridiculous, it is. But that is what is taught and believed today.  And I love what God has done. There are a few planets that rotate in the opposite direction, which does not work if you believe in the Big Bang theory. I do believe in the Big Bang, but it hasn’t happened yet. Peter tells us of this event that will take place, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.” II Peter 3:10! You see, the Big Bang is coming; it is the judgment of God! 

            Look how this evolutionist tried to illustrate how evolution works. In his book he looks at the example of the changes that occurred in the Corvette sports car, from 1953 through 1978. He says, “The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an end point rather distinct from the starting point.  A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.”

            What 2 important facts is this writer leaving out that was implemented with the Corvette and yet they say was not involved with the evolution of life.  The 2 facts they left out were that the Corvette had a designer and a creator or one that assembled the car. You see, there was not just a collection of metal, rubber, plastic that over a period of time just happened to evolve into a Corvette sports car. But, when it comes to life, which is vastly more complex than this car, we are told that there was no designer, no creator. I find that hard to believe.

            Here is what I believe. In Genesis 1:1 we are told, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  The word “created” is important for us to understand. It is the Hebrew word BARA and it means to bring into existence something out of nothing and only God can do that.

Man can “make” things or ASAH in Hebrew, or “form” things or YATSAR in Hebrew, but he can’t make the materials out of nothing and bring them together to form something, only God can do that. Man can take and form existing materials into more complex things but that is as far as it can go.  

So, in the beginning God created out of nothing all the material for the heavens and the earth, and He will assemble them together. 

            It is out of this, these elements that God created, that He assembled life together, fully formed, fully functional and they were able to reproduce after their own kind. You see, science, the fossil record shows us this truth and if you don’t want to believe it, you don’t have to. But if you reject it, then you are suppressing the truth that there is a God and creation itself will condemn you. There is no excuse! Thus, receive the righteousness that is from heaven, receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior and have His righteousness imputed into your life by faith. The evidence is overwhelming and we will look closer next week at the so-called ape-men to put a nail in the coffin of what is known as evolution!

            Folks, don’t have the testimony of Bob the atheist that we read this morning, but have the testimony of Bob, or Joe, or Fred, Sue, or Sally the Christian!  There is nothing greater or more satisfying than coming to know the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Won’t you receive Him?

 

To help clear up any other misunderstandings we have made these links below to help further your understanding on the subject of evolution-vs-creation.

www.creationinstruction.org

www.answersingenesis.org

Romans 1:18-32
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 


Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 


For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 


And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.