Posts Tagged ‘science’

Are Humans on the Verge of an Evolutionary Leap?

By Roger Oakland
Understand the Times International

Is mankind on the verge of an evolutionary leap that will produce a super race? There are some who believe man is in the process of this happening right now. What does the Bible teach? Is man on the way up, or is he on the way down? Will this super race of humans become a reality? Or could the idea of evolution be a great delusion that Satan has used to blind the minds of countless people all over the world into believing that man can become God?

The basic assumption behind Darwinian evolution leads to the idea that mankind is at the top of the evolutionary pile. Check out the Darwinian tree of life – humans are at the top of the tree and a single cell is at the bottom. If evolution is true, then it stands to reason that the next stage of development will be for humans to evolve to become superhuman.

Evolution theory also promotes the idea that man is capable of playing a role in advancing and directing the evolutionary process in the future. This could be through genetically engineering life or by finding ways and means through technology to human development.

An article titled “Superhumans: Chips Inserted in Brains will give us Mind-blowing Abilities Within Years” [1] provides interesting insights from various individuals who say that mankind is on the verge of taking a giant step of evolution and soon will be elevated to a higher dimension of consciousness never before seen on planet Earth. Linking the human brain with electronic chips and computer technology, they say, is the key to the development of a super race. Click here to continue reading.

(Photo from bigstock photo; used with permission.)

To see the connection between evolutionary thinking, the New Age, and the last days, read The Evolution Conspiracy by Roger Oakland and Caryl Matrisciana.

NEW BOOKLET TRACT: Creation Versus Evolution: Things They Never Told You

Creation Versus Evolution: Things They Never Tell You by Maria Kneas is our newest Lighthouse Trails Booklet Tract. The Booklet Tract is 18 pages long and sells for $1.95 for single copies. Quantity discounts are as much as 50% off retail. Our Booklet Tracts are designed to give away to others or for your own personal use.  Below is the content of the booklet. To order copies of Creation Versus Evolution: Things They Never Told You, click here. This is an important booklet. As Roger Oakland says, what one believes about creation and evolution determines what they will believe about morality and a Savior.

rp_bkt-mk-evol.jpgCreation Versus Evolution: Things They Never Told You

By Maria Kneas

Years ago, I was fighting cancer, and I needed to trust the Lord. In spite of the fact that God has always faithfully taken care of me, it was amazingly difficult for me to really trust Him. I said the right things and prayed the right prayers, but deep down inside, I was still afraid. It is always easier to trust the Lord from a point of safety, but my difficulty went deeper than that. So for months, I asked God to help me trust Him and to deal with whatever was hindering that trust.

Then, one day, someone unexpectedly gave me a catalog of books and videos produced by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).1

Out of curiosity, I ordered a video on the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens in Washington. On watching that video, I saw with my own eyes a wall of sediment six hundred feet high, which had been laid down by the volcano since 1980. Rather than being laid down gradually, it was laid down in spurts by lava flows, mud slides, etc. For example, in one day, 25 feet of finely stratified layers were laid down. Some of those layers were less than a centimeter thick and were laid down in seconds. I had always been taught that layered rock like that takes millions of years to form.

I saw with my own eyes a 100-foot-deep canyon system carved out in one day by a hurricane-speed mud slide which cut through solid rock. The canyon system looked like a miniature Grand Canyon. It even had a stream running through the bottom of it. I had always been taught that canyon systems are formed over millions of years as a river gradually cuts its way down into the rock.

The video was interesting, but I had no idea how important it was until the next time I read the Bible. It seemed more real, more believable. I felt the Bible’s authority in a way I had never felt before.

I had always believed things with which I was personally familiar. I believed Jesus healed people because I saw God heal my mother’s back. I believed Jericho’s walls fell down, and many other events in biblical history, because they have been verified by archaeologists. I believed biblical prophecy because it has been verified by history.2 However, it was difficult for me to believe unfamiliar things such as Creation and Noah’s flood. I was always looking for other evidence to support what Scripture said because the Bible’s authority wasn’t enough for me.

All my life, I’ve been interested in science. As a result, I was thoroughly steeped in evolution, both in school and through reading, TV, and movies. In college, my professors of religion taught me that the Genesis account of Creation isn’t true because science has proved evolution, and therefore Genesis can’t be taken to mean what it says. Starting with that assumption, they tore the entire Bible to pieces. And this happened in a college that claimed to be Christian!

Seeing the video on Mount Saint Helen’s broke the power of what I had been taught in college. Evolution no longer seemed like a rock-hard, unquestionable fact. For the first time, I was free to seriously question evolution. For the first time, I was free to consider trusting the book of Genesis. The result was I found myself trusting the authority of the Bible in a new way.

I ordered more videos and some books. As I studied them, I saw a change take place in the way I shared the Gospel with people. Before, I had never been able to tell people why it was necessary for Jesus to shed His blood. I had heard and read the standard explanations many times, but they never really made sense to me. Intellectually, I knew that:

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

I could quote it, but it didn’t really make sense to me. However, once I became familiar with the creation books and videos, that statement came alive for me. For the first time in my Christian life, I became comfortable talking about the sin of Adam and the need for the shed blood of Jesus.
Before those creation materials set me free, I had been double minded. With part of my mind, I believed the Bible, and with part of my mind, I believed in evolution.

Evolution says that animals suffered and died for millions of years and gradually changed into people. In other words, death and suffering were in the world millions of years before Adam existed. The Bible says there was no death or suffering before Adam’s sin. Therefore, evolution denies that death and suffering are the result of sin, thereby denying the reason that Jesus died. The following quotations from the American Atheist and The Humanist show the importance of this issue:

When the theory of evolution was advanced, that was the date that the Judeo-Christian religion began the decline in which it now finds itself in the West.3

Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God.4

Darwin’s discovery of the principle of evolution sounded the death knell of religious and moral values. It removed the ground from under the feet of traditional religion.5

These quotes also show the importance of creation in evangelizing. It is difficult for people who believe in evolution to really believe the Bible, which means they usually aren’t open to being led to Jesus through Scripture. Once people learn that creation is scientifically reasonable, then a major hindrance to faith is removed, and they become more open to the Gospel. If you have never watched Roger Oakland’s lecture series on creation versus evolution, Searching for the Truth on Origins, I would highly recommend it. Mr. Oakland explains how “creation evangelism” is a highly effective way to win people to Christ through showing them the evidence (which he provides in the series) that evolution is a faulty and unproven theory.

Two Opposing Religions
The controversy between creationism and evolution is not a disagreement between science and religion. Rather, it is a dispute between advocates of opposing religions: scientists who believe the Bible versus scientists who believe in humanism.

For humanists, evolution is one of their basic articles of faith. In America, humanism and atheism are both tax-exempt religions, as I explained earlier in this book.6 Here is what some evolutionists have said:

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.7

[The theory of evolution is] universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative—special creation—is clearly incredible.8

Many scientists who were formerly evolutionists have become creationists as a result of the scientific evidence. They have found that the scientific model of creation followed by a world-wide flood explains the evidence better than the scientific model of evolution.9

Scientific Problems with Evolution
There are many problems with the theory of evolution. For example, gradual improvements are supposed to be caused by mutations. However, geneticists say that mutations never cause beneficial changes—mutational changes are always harmful or neutral.

Chemicals are supposed to have formed simple life forms, but microbiologists have discovered there is no such thing as a simple life form. Even the most primitive one-celled creatures are incredibly complex. Scientists specializing in probability theory say:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.10

If evolution occurred, then the fossil record should be full of missing links. However, only a few have been found, and every single one of them is disputed by experts. For example, archaeopteryx used to be considered a missing link between reptiles and birds. However, fossils of modern birds have been found which are older than archaeopteryx. (It can’t be a missing link—something slowly evolving into a bird—if birds already existed.) Also, the eohippus-to-horse transition turned out to be a fallacy.

Every single ape-man has turned out to be a regular human, a regular ape, or a fraud. Even the celebrated Lucy is considered by many experts to be a regular chimpanzee. The only bone in Lucy which makes her seem human is the knee joint, which was found a mile and a half away from the rest of the skeleton and 200 feet lower down in the rock. Skeletons of modern humans have been found which are older than any of the “ape-men.” (Ape-men couldn’t have been slowly evolving into modern humans if modern humans already existed.)11

Evolutionists are so anxious to have evidence that ape-men existed, they continue to teach them in textbooks and museum exhibits long after they have been proven to be mistakes or frauds. For example, Peking Man consisted of ape skulls, human implements, and the assumption that the owners of the skulls used the implements. However, six complete human skeletons were later found at the same site. Obviously, the humans were the creatures that used the human implements. In spite of that, Peking man continues to appear in textbooks and museum exhibits. Furthermore, a furnace was later found at the same site, along with a pile of ashes over two stories high. No primitive ape-man could have built a furnace like that.

Java Man was a fraud, but it is still treated as an ape-man. Eugene Dubois found an ape skull and a human leg bone and said they belonged to the same creature—an ape-man. Before his death, Dubois confessed he had found two fully human skulls and four other human leg bones at the same site. Therefore, Java Man (also called Homo Erectus) was just a normal human. However, it is still presented as an ape-man in textbooks and museum exhibits.

Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud—a human skull cap and an ape’s jaw with teeth that were filed down to look like human teeth. It had been chemically stained to look old. Piltdown Man was exhibited at the British Museum of Natural History in 1912.

Suppressing Evidence
In 1916, a dental anatomist examined Piltdown Man and wrote a report showing that it was a fake. However, the museum suppressed his report.12 They exhibited a copy of the fossil, locked the original skull in a safe, and refused to allow scientists to examine it. Piltdown Man remained on exhibit until 1953. By then, the man who discovered the skull was no longer around. Personnel and policies at the museum had changed, and some scientists were allowed to date the skull. In the process, they discovered that it was a fraud.13 In other words, leading scientists of a world-renowned museum had suppressed the information that Piltdown Man was a fraud. They exhibited Piltdown Man as an ape-man for 41 years even though they knew that it was a fake. Furthermore, they deliberately concealed the evidence by locking the fossil in a safe and refusing to let other scientists examine it. This shows a desperate need to convince people that ape-men existed, whether or not there is any real evidence.

Suppression of evidence also takes the form of automatically discrediting any evidence that is contrary to evolutionary theory. I was always taught in Science class that if the facts don’t fit your theory, you are supposed to change your theory—not throw out the facts. However, in practice, the opposite is often true.

Motives for suppressing evidence include job security, fear of causing a controversy, professional reputation, and the philosophical implications of evolution. Also, paleontologists don’t get research grant money for finding apes or men; they only get it for finding ape-men. Therefore, they are tempted to suppress evidence and claim that a find is an ape-man when they know that it really isn’t.

One example of suppressing evidence is the “Calaveras skull,” which was found 130 feet below ground by a California gold miner. The skull was almost completely mineralized. It was authenticated by a physician as a modern type of skull. J.D. Whitney, chief of the California Geological Survey, authenticated that it was found in the Pliocene rock, which is supposed to be over two million years old.

The problem is that, according to the evolutionary timetable, human beings weren’t around then. So it was assumed that the skull had been planted there—in spite of the fact that the rock was also full of stone mortars, bowls, and other signs of human workmanship. Also, how could anybody plant a skull in solid rock? To this day, the skull is ignored or explained away, while Whitney’s report lies buried in the museum archives.14

Another example of suppressing evidence is two half-skeletons that were discovered in Utah in 1975. They were completely encased in rock. The bones were taken to the University of Utah for official testing and confirmation. However, nothing was done; no report was issued. The experts refused to follow up on this discovery. The man who discovered them had to come back to pick them up. Why were the experts afraid to follow up on it? Because the bones came out of a rock layer that was supposed to be a hundred million years old.15

Lack of Evidence
Fortunately, also, some evolutionists are scientists of integrity, men and women who genuinely seek the truth and aren’t threatened by ideas different from what they were taught. Real truth-seekers aren’t threatened by facts. They don’t try to suppress evidence contrary to their position, and they don’t try to exaggerate evidence that favors it. Such scientists are often aware of how shaky the evidence for evolution is in their own area of science, but, having been taught evolution by teachers they trust, they assume that other scientific disciplines must have the solid evidence for it. Once they study the evidence in other areas of science, and realize how weak it is, some of them become creationists.

Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent evolutionist from Harvard University, tried to explain the lack of fossil evidence by developing the theory of “punctuated equilibrium,” which pictures evolutionary history as long periods when nothing happens, punctuated by sudden evolutionary spurts that occur so quickly no record is left in the fossils. Other evolutionists have tried to explain the lack of solid evidence for evolution by saying that it occurred somewhere else in the universe and the resulting plants and animals were transported to Earth (the theory of “directed panspermia”).

Many animals and plants show a precision of efficient engineering design that couldn’t have occurred by chance. Some evolutionists recognize this but are unwilling to acknowledge that God is the designer. Therefore, they attribute plan and purpose to evolution itself, or to the earth, or to mystical New Age forces. In other words, they personify evolution (or the earth) and make a god out of it.

Michael Denton, an Australian microbiologist, believes in evolution and openly mocks the Genesis account of creation in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.16 Yet his book shows that biochemistry, microbiology, genetics, embryology, paleontology, and probability theory all fail to support the theory of evolution. His book contains so much information showing that the evidence of science is contrary to evolution.

There is also the problem of how transitional forms could have survived. For example, according to the theory of evolution, reptiles gradually changed into birds, which means that their front legs gradually changed into wings over millions of years. But wings and legs function in completely different ways. How did these transitional animals survive without the use of their front legs during the millions of years before those legs became functional wings?

If you want to understand this in practical terms, then get down on the floor and crawl on all fours. While you are still crawling, suddenly pick up your arms and hold them out sideways like wings.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.

The problems of gradual evolution have led some scientists to postulate the “hopeful monster” theory, which says that one day a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched from it. But a baby bird cannot survive without a mother bird to feed it, take care of it, and teach it to fly. No mother reptile could do that for a bird, even if she wanted to. (Reptiles lay their eggs and leave; they don’t take care of their babies.) Also, how could such a bird reproduce with no other birds around? In spite of this, “hopeful monsters” are considered to be serious science, and articles about them are published in scientific journals. The American Association for the Advancement of Science even endorses a children’s book which promotes the idea.

One of the world’s greatest experts on fossils is Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History. His museum contains over seven million fossils, which is the largest collection in the world. After more than twenty years of studying fossils, writing books on evolution, and teaching and speaking on evolution, he gave the following statement during his keynote address to prominent evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, on November 5, 1981. He said that, after studying evolution for twenty years, he realized:

[T]here was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.17

The introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species states that evolution has not been scientifically proven, and therefore belief in evolution could be considered faith rather than science. It says that evolution is the foundation of biology and, as a result:

[B]iology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith?18

Harvard’s Nobel Prize winning biologist George Wald said, in Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life:

I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.19

Problems with Dating
Evolution requires immense amounts of time to be at all plausible. (If a princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince, that’s a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that’s evolution.)

According to radiometric dating, the earth is over four billion years old. However, a number of problems with radiometric dating exist. It requires making several assumptions. Each one of these assumptions cannot be verified, and many scientists consider them to be unrealistic. Furthermore, as explained below, there is a problem caused by water.20

Radiometric dating depends on precise measurements of radioactive materials such as uranium, thorium, strontium, rubidium, and radioactive potassium. All of them occur as salts, which dissolve in water. If a rock containing them is left under water, the radioactive salts will leach out of the rock, and radiometric dating will show the rock to be far older than it really is. The presence of fossil fish on mountain tops indicates that the earth has known extensive flooding.

There are at least 68 other “natural clocks” which can be used to date the earth. These include:

The rate at which land is washed into the ocean
The rate at which salt collects in the ocean
The amount of cosmic dust on the moon
The decay of short-period comets
The rate at which oil leaks out of oil deposits
The earth’s shrinking magnetic field

Most of these “clocks” give a maximum age of thousands of years.21

The inaccuracy of radiometric dating is shown by studies of underwater rocks, which were formed less than 200 years ago by lava from two Hawaiian volcanoes (an active volcano named Kilauea and a volcano near Hualalai). The rocks were dated using radiometric dating. The ages obtained from Kilauea’s rocks ranged up to 22 million years.22 The ages obtained from rocks formed by the volcano near Hualalai ranged from 160 million years to three billion years.23 Both sets of rocks are known to be less than 200 years old because their formation by the volcanoes is a matter of historical record.

Evolutionist William Stansfield recognizes the serious problems with radiometric dating. In his textbook on evolution, he says:

Age estimates on a given geological stratum using different methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).24

This is of great practical importance because, during Noah’s flood, the entire earth was under water for over a year. The rain only lasted for forty days, but it remained twenty feet higher than the highest mountains for 150 days. After that, it took a year and ten days for the earth to dry out enough for Noah to come out of the ark (see Genesis 7:17-8:16).25

Many discoveries indicate that processes which we were taught take thousands or millions of years, actually occur quite quickly. As I mentioned earlier, the volcano at Mount Saint Helen’s laid down 25 feet of finely stratified layers in one day. A 100-foot-deep canyon system was carved out in one day by a mud slide through solid rock.

Other examples are coal (that also happened at Mt. St. Helens) and oil, which can be formed quite rapidly in a laboratory. They don’t require millions of years. All they require is the right conditions.

Given the right conditions, wood can be petrified quickly and fossils can form quickly. Many fossils of modern items have been found, including a fossilized 20th century hat.

Many fossils have been found, which indicate rapid burial under catastrophic conditions. For example, a fossil of an eighty-foot whale was found standing on its tail, buried in diatomaceous earth.26 (Diatomaceous earth, or diatomite, is formed by microscopic organisms with hard exterior skeletons or shells.) That whale had to be buried so quickly that it couldn’t rot or fall over. One witty letter to the editor in Chemical & Engineering News remarked:

The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter.27

Conflicts with Laws of Science
Another basic problem with the theory of evolution is that it goes directly against several important laws of physical science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Entropy, states that everything wears out, has less and less energy available for use, and becomes less and less ordered. You can see it all around you: your body is wearing out, your car gets more and more run down, you have to fight to maintain your house in decent shape. But evolution goes completely contrary to all that by saying that, on their own, things will become more and more complex, more ordered, that they will go upwards instead of running down. Evolution also goes contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy and matter). It also goes against the Law of Cause and Effect, and the Laws of Probability.

Humanist Agenda
Why is evolution taught so dogmatically as an absolute, unquestionable fact even though many scientists recognize there are serious difficulties with the theory? Because John Dewey (the “father of progressive education”) almost singlehandedly revolutionized education in the United States. He was a staunch humanist and a signer of the original “Humanist Manifesto.” He was determined to make the American school system conform to humanist ideals. An important part of that goal was indoctrinating students in evolution.28

The Bible says that one of the signs of the last days will be that people will choose to ignore three facts: (1) God created everything; (2) Noah’s flood was a world-wide judgment sent by God; and (3) there will be a coming judgment by fire. The refusal to acknowledge these things will be associated with moral corruption:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7)

Moral Consequences
There is a definite connection between moral corruption and not wanting to acknowledge God as our Creator. If God created us, then He makes the rules. If we evolved from animals, then we make the rules. Therefore, anybody who doesn’t want to abide by God’s rules has a vested interest in promoting evolution. Sir Julian Huxley, a famous atheist and one of the leading evolutionists of the 20th century, said during an interview on a talk show:

I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.29

Widespread belief in evolution has had a devastating effect on the morals of our society. Even Will Durant, a humanist philosopher who doesn’t believe he personally needs God, can recognize it:

By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom.30

The principles of biological evolution have been extended to social, economic and national affairs, with tragic consequences. These are extensively documented by Henry M. Morris (The Long War Against God) and Ian Taylor (In the Minds of Men).31

Hitler, Mussolini, and Marx considered themselves to be applying the evolutionary principle of “survival of the fittest” to national affairs. Hitler believed that Jews were an inferior (less evolved) race. He decided to speed up the evolutionary process by exterminating them as part of his plan for producing a “super race” in Germany.

Slavery and racism were justified by saying that blacks have not evolved as far as whites. Evolutionary scientists publicly justified racism until Hitler’s massacre of the Jews made it unpopular.

Another result of evolutionism was the murder of Australian Aborigines to provide specimens for study and museum exhibits. Some have estimated that as many as 10,000 dead bodies of Australia’s Aborigines were shipped to British museums in an attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the “missing link.”32

Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney in 1894, published a museum booklet which included Aborigines under the designation of “Australian Animals.” It gave instructions on how to rob graves and how to plug up bullet wounds in freshly killed “specimens.” “Collectors” working under Ramsay were paid bounties for Aborigine skulls, brains, skeletons, bodies, and skins for mounting.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist, was known as the “black angel of death” because she had so many Aborigines shot for specimens. In the United States, evolutionists also collected specimens of “subhumans.” The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races. Even in quite modern times, aboriginal bones have been sought by major institutions. Aboriginal leaders and others are asking to have such remains returned and given a decent burial.33

Evolution contributes to suicide, especially among teenagers. Physician Michael Girouard has, in the course of his medical practice, seen a marked increase in suicidal thoughts when teenagers in science classes accept what evolution says about them—that they are just animals who exist because of blind chance, with no reason for being.34 A friend of mine vividly recalls the day in twelfth-grade science class when he suddenly saw the implications of evolution and concluded, “I’m just a piece of meat!”

Our nation was shocked by the brutal beating of Rodney King at the hands of the Los Angeles police. People were horrified by the events that followed: rioting, looting, burning, beatings, and killings. But should we really be surprised? What else would you expect from senseless animals? What we saw in Rodney King’s beating, and in the riots that followed, is people living out the evolutionist philosophy they were taught in school.

School children are taught they are just animals who have evolved from apes. Many people say that our schools today are a zoo. But what else should we expect from children who are taught they are animals? Our teachers have been telling them they are animals, without thinking through what the practical consequences will be when they grow up.

Everybody knows that you can’t have a watch without a watchmaker and you can’t have an airplane without an engineer. But our school children are being taught that incredibly complex things, such as the eye and the human brain, developed by random chance. In other words, we have been teaching them to think illogically and to discount everything they have learned through personal experience about how things are made in the observable world around them. We have taught them to think the opposite of what logic, reason, and common sense teach them. Then should we be shocked to see them grow up to be people who do things that are illogical, unreasonable, and senseless?

Belief in evolution has had a devastating effect on our society. It has paved the way for widespread immorality, secular humanism, atheism, and New Age religions.35

The bad fruits of evolution are obvious, and Jesus said we would be able to recognize what things really are by their fruits (Matthew 7:17-20).

“Experts” Versus the Bible
The scientific case for creation is very strong. This is very encouraging. However, we must never depend on science to prove the Bible. Rather, we should let the Bible show us whether a particular science is valid and true.

All human beings (including scientists) have limited knowledge, limited understanding, and questionable motives. They make mistakes, they deceive themselves, and sometimes they tell deliberate lies. We need to put our confidence in God rather than in weak, fallible, sinful human beings.

God knows everything; there is no limit to His understanding, and He is absolutely truthful. This world will pass away, but “the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8).

In the past, humanist “Bible scholars” told us that archaeology had disproved the Bible. But God raised up archaeologists to show that the Bible is right after all.

Humanists have told us that evolution is an indisputable scientific fact that they say disproves the Bible. But God has raised up scientists to show that creation explains the scientific evidence better than evolution does.

Humanism will continue to raise up “experts” in many fields who will try to disprove the Bible. And we will have to stand our ground and keep on trusting the Bible, whether or not those false claims are disproven in our lifetime. Jesus said:

 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. (John 15:7)

The word “abide” can also be translated as “stand” and “endure.” It is not a passive word. It has the military connotation of holding your ground against enemy attack. As Jesus said in the parable of the sower, the devil is always trying to snatch the Word of God out of our hearts. We need to stand our ground and refuse to have God’s Word stolen from us. Let us remember, creation is woven into the very fabric of Scripture. We can trust what God says.

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)

To order copies of Creation Versus Evolution: Things They Never Told You, click here.

1. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1806 Royal Lane, Dallas, TX 75229 (phone 800-628-7640). They have children’s books, home schooling materials, books and videos for laymen, Creation Magazine, technical monographs, and a technical journal. They also have speakers available for presentations, debates, and Christian media. Their website is
2. See Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vol. I (1979) and Vol. II (1990) (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life). Fulfilled prophecy is discussed on pages 267-324 of Volume I. Archeological discoveries relating to biblical history are discussed on pages 17-24 of Volume II.
3. O. Hambling, “Genesis and Evolution” (American Atheist, January 1988), p. 7; quoted in Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 119; available from ICR.
4. G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution” (American Atheist, February 1978), p. 30; quoted in The Long War Against God, op. cit. p. 119.
5.S. S. Chawla, “A Philosophical Journey to the West” (The Humanist, Vol. 24, September/October, 1964), p. 151, cited in Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Toronto, ON: 1991, 3rd edition), p. 422.
6. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, op. cit., pp. 394-395 and 420-422.
7. Biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, Beyond the Post-Modern Mind (New York: Crossroads, 1982), p. 173; quoted in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book (P.O. Box 41644, Mesa, AZ: Eden Productions, 1991), p. 114.
8. D. M. S. Watson, “Adaptation” (Nature, Vol. 123, 1929), p. 233; quoted in Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 2nd edition, 1985), p. 8.
9. Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (Santee, CA: Master Books, 1988, 4th edition), pp. 7-8.
10. Sir Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution” (Nature, November 12, 1981, Vol. 294), p. 105; quoted in The Revised Quote Book (Sunnybank, Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd., 1990), p. 21.
11. See In the Minds of Men by Ian Taylor. Point by point, it exposes the fuzzy reasoning behind textbook presentations of evolution. It also presents counter-evidence that has long been concealed from the general public.
12. Peking Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, and all of the other “ape-men” turned out to be normal men, normal apes, or frauds. Revealing evidence about them is shown in the video Ape-Men: Monkey Business Falsely Called Science (available from ICR).
13. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1991), p. 187. This outstanding book was written by a law professor who specializes in logic and evidence.
14. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, op. cit., pp. 217-218.
15. Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (El Dorado, CA: Creation Resource Foundation, 1988) p. 131.
16. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc., 1985).
17. This speech was tape recorded and transcribed with the permission of Dr. Patterson, quoted in The Revised Quote Book, op. cit., p. 4.
18. L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species (London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Ltd., 1971), p. xi; quoted in The Revised Quote Book, op. cit., p. 2.
19. George Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1972) p. 187; quoted in Rex Russell, M.D., What the Bible Says About Healthy Living (Ventura, CA: Regal Books), pp. 273-274.
20. See Henry M. Morris, editor, Scientific Creationism, op. cit., pp. 131-170; also see Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987), pp. 253-293. Also see the video Evolution: Fact or Belief? These are all available from ICR.
21. Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, op. cit., pp. 284-293.
22. C.S. Noble and J.J. Naughton, “Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating” (Science, October 11, 1968, Vol. 162), p. 265; cited in Scientific Creationism, op. cit., pp 146-147.
23. J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, Vol. 73), p. 4606; cited in Scientific Creationism, op. cit., p. 147.
24. William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (New York: MacMillan, 1977) p. 84, see pp. 80-84; quoted in What Is Creation Science? op. cit., p. 285.
25. The flood began on the 17th day of the second month of the year. (Genesis 7:11). On the 7th month, the ark landed on Mount Ararat (the highest mountain) (Genesis 8:3-4). On the 10th month, the water had gone down enough for the tops of other mountains to become visible (Genesis 8:5). On the 27th day of the second month of the following year (one year and ten days after the flood started), God told Noah to come out of the ark (Genesis 8:13-15).
26. Kenneth M. Reese, “Newscripts” (Chemical & Engineering News, October 11, 1976), page 40; cited in Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984), pp. 218-219.
27. Harvey O. Olney III, “Letters” (Chemical & Engineering News, January 24, 1977), p 5; cited in Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, op. cit., pp. 219-220.
28. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, op. cit., p. 425.
29. Quoted by Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 58. Available from ICR.
30. Will Durant, “Are We in the Last Stage of a Pagan Period?” (Chicago Tribune, April 1980); quoted in Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, op. cit., p. 149.
31. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, op. cit., Ian T. Taylor, In The Minds of Men, op. cit.
32. Carl Wieland, “Darwin’s Bodysnatchers” (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 2, March-May 1992). For further information, contact Creation Magazine (P.O. Box 710039, Santee, CA 92072) or Carl Wieland (Director, Creation Science Foundation, Brisbane, Australia). Creation Magazine and the Institute for Creation Research should both have Carl Wieland’s address.
33. Ibid.
34. Dr. Michael Girouard discusses the relationship between evolution and teenage suicide in the video Ape-Men: Monkey Business Falsely Called Science (see #12).
35. Kenneth Ham and Gary Parker, Understanding Genesis Study Guide (El Cajon, CA: Creation Life Publishers, Inc., 1988), p. 4.

To order copies of Creation Versus Evolution: Things They Never Told You, click here.

This booklet is an extract from Maria Kneas’ book How to Prepare for Hard Times and Persecution. We encourage you to get a copy of this book. There is a large list of recommended resources on evolution and other vital topics.



By Roger Oakland
Understand the Times, International

When I first became a Christian some thirty-five years ago, the topic of genetically redesigning life was still considered science fiction. While predictions were being made about the possibility of designing chimera-like hybrids of monstrous proportions, the reality of that happening seemed far off in the future.

Not so today. Quoting from a recent Russian news article titled “Human-animal Hybrids, Disasters in the Making,” the following statement is made:

Scientists worldwide are creating bizarre human-animal hybrids that could wreak havoc on society. In the past ten years alone, unforgettable advances in the field of genetic modifications have left researchers and on-lookers stunned. To give a concrete example, scientists have made mice with an artificial human chromosome “in every cell of their bodies”. Such an act is being praised as a “breakthrough” which may lead to different cures for a wide scope of disease. . . University of Wisconsin researchers have had much success by transferring cells from human embryos into the brains of mice. These very cells began to grow, and in time made the mice more intelligent. [1]

While this may sound bizarre to some, the fact mankind is tinkering with life comes as no surprise to those who have read the Bible. The Bible states that God is the creator of all life. In the beginning, all life was created perfect (Genesis 1:26). The Bible also clarifies that God has an adversary—Satan—who hates God and His creation. Satan’s goal from the beginning has been to destroy or contaminate the original creation. Click here to read this entire article.

Weekly News in Review with Understand the Times

  • The Temple Institute Reaches Nearly $105,000 From 30 Countries For Third Temple Crowdfunding Campaign; Deals with Criticism
  • Is Your Church Worship More Pagan than Christian?
  •  Bill Gates talks biometric identification, banking for emerging countries
  • Scotiabank Unit Launches Biometric Banking
  • EAB to host second Biometrics in Banking seminar
  • Holograms, VR and telepresence: Experts herald the coming Gigabit Age
  • Michelle Malkin: Look Who’s Data Mining Your Toddlers
  • Click here to view articles!

Weekly News in Review From Understand the Times

Weekly News in Review from Understand the Times

Weekly News in Review with Understand the Times

Lighthouse Trails RSS Feed

December 2017
« Nov    
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons