We live in a time when there two competing world-views are seeking for the minds, hearts and loyalties of intelligent Western man. The future of this world will be determined, humanly speaking, by intelligent Western man. One of those world-views is Christianity; the other world-view is evolution.
Anyone who does not realize that evolution is a world-view does not know much about evolution. It is a world-view that is passionately held to by its devotees. Listen to what some well known evolutionists, all highly placed scientists in the world, have to say. Professor Louis T. More, one of the most vocal evolutionists: "The more one studies paleontology [the fossil record], the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."* Professor D. M. S. Watson, a famous evolutionist, made the remarkable observation that evolution, itself is a theory 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."*
To the reprobate mind, the unregenerate mind, creation is incredible because it requires belief in a creator, and that is totally unacceptable to such men as these. A famous British evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, just as frank in his admission. He says, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."*
What would happen if I were to stand up before my congregation and say, "My friends, Christianity is unproved and unprovable, but still you ought to believe it"? They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution.
Professor David Allbrook, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Western Australia, says that evolution is "a time-honored scientific tenet of faith."* A great many people have been led to believe it was a fact, but it is not so. Dr. Duane Gish, noted biologist, says, "Evolution is a fairy tale r adults." I believe that is exactly what it is. In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it comes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years, it becomes a prince. That is science? No, it is simply a faith--a misplaced faith but a faith nontheless.
Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales wrote an interesting and heavily documented book entitled "Why Scientists Accept Evolution". It contains numerous letters written by Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other early evolutionists. It points out that these men indicated in their letters, by their own admission, that because of their hostility toward God and their bias against the supernatural, they jumped at the doctrine of evolution.* Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, head of UNESCO, descendant of Thomas Huxley--Darwin's bulldog--said 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."*
Probably the most prevalent reason the average layman believes in evolution--if he does--is that he is told that all scientists believe it. However, a recent newspaper article indicated that one group of over five hundred scientists disbelieved it completely, in every single facet. One of the world's leading scientists, Sir Cecil Wakeley, whose credentials are rather impressive-K.B.E., C.B., LL.D., M.CH., Doctor of Science, F. R. C. S., past president of Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain--said, "The Bible is quite definite that God created the world, and I for one believe that to be a fact, not fiction. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution."* As famous a scientist as Sir Ambrose Fleming completely rejects it, as does the Harvard scientist, Louis Agassiz, probably one of the greatest scientists America has produced.
In the first chapter of the Book of Genesis is an a statement, coming from 3,500 years ago, of the creation of the universe. But it should be pointed out that it is not possible to combine the Bible and evolution, as people want to do. I believe they engage in this compromise only because they think that science has proved evolution and they must take the Bible as some sort of fancy to twist around until they have made it conform to evolution. Those who are evolutionists laugh at the idea that you can put evolution and the Bible together. Thomas Huxley, probably the most famous proponent of evolution who ever lived stated, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution isAntagonistic to that of Creation. . . . Evolution, if consisntly accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible."*
Evolution is the religion of modern unbelieving man, and it has been the pseudoscientific foundation of every false and anti-Christian "ism" that has come down the pike in the last huundred-plus years. For example, consider Nazism. Hitler acepted the evolutionary platitudes of Nietzsche: the idea of a super race. "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," a subtitle of Darwin's book, had to do with the survival of the fittest race. Hitler's master race was simply an utgrowth of evolutionary thinking. Mussolini, who frequently quoted Darwin in catch phrases, said that the idea of peace was repugnant to the idea of the survival of the fittest and the progress of the race; war was essential for the survival "the fittest.
It is well known that Karl Marx asked Darwin to write the introduction to "Das Kapital" since he felt that Darwin had provided a scientific foundation for Communism. All over the world, those who are pushing the Communist conspiracy are also pushing an evolutionary, imperialistic, naturalistic view of life, endeavoring to crowd the Creator right out of the cosmos.
In the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew term "bara", indicating the direct creation of God, is used three times. It is first of all, for the creation of matter--the material cosmos. Second, it is used for the creation of life, and third, for the creation of man.
Every peg upon which evolution has stood is collapsing and crumbling about it today, and more and more scientists are in rebellion. The leading scientist in France today, author of an eighteen-volume encyclopedia on zoology, whose knowlge of zoology, according to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, is absolutely encyclopedic, came out with an attack about six years ago that demolished evolution on every front. Dobzhansky says that though we may disagree with him, we certainly cannot ignore him, because his knowledge is absolutely staggering. This is interesting because until recently, it has been very difficult for any scientist to make antievolutionary statements in the face of the tremendous pressure that has been exerted upon them.
Let us consider one of the three uses of "bara", the creation of the material universe. This is a problem that evolutionists never solved. Astronomers believe for the most part a "big bang" theory once the universe was in one great condensed piece of matter and then it exploded with an explosion beyond our comprehension. It was an explosion that threw out particles the size of the Milky Way, our galaxy. These are speeding outward into space. If true, that would indicate that the universe was not eternal and had a beginning. To overcome this, they said it would slow down and finally come to a stop. Then gravity would pull it back together again, and it would oscillate back and forth throughout all eternity, recreating itself.
What has science to say about that? An article in the science section of Time magazine in the last two years said concerning the infinite universe: "Last week, after years of study and calculation, two respected California astronomers, Allan Sandage and James Gunn, made separate but similar announcements: The universe will continue to expand forever." Sandage, of the Hale Observatories, basing his conclusion on fifteen years of careful observations of distant galaxies, notes that measurements of the amount their light has shifted toward the red end of the spectrum indicates they are not slowing down at all but accelerating. So there is no possibilitythat these will ever turn back. Even more important, the red shift measurements of nearby galaxies gave no of the slightest gravitational slowdown in the utwar rush of the galaxies. "It's a terrible surprise," says Sandage who for years had been a leading proponent of the universe would eventually close in on itself. Both men expect their conclusion to stir a storm of protest.
Gunn and Gustav Tammann, who did their work at the Mount Polomar 200-inch-telescope observatory, say that the arguments for a closed universe are almost "theological in nature."* People hold to them passionately because if they give them up, they must then acknowledge a beginning of the universe. Along with a beginning, there must be a creator, a God, to whom they must answer. "This expansion is such a strange conlusion," Cunn said, "that one's first assumption cannot really be true, and yet, it is the premier fact."* And for that premier fact of modern astronomy--that the universe had a beginning--the evolutionist has no explanation whatsoever.
Then consider the creation of life. Darwin repeatedly referred to the simple single cell. With the crude microscopes his time, the single cell looked a little bit like a tiny basketball with a seed in the middle of it. But now the human cell is known to be fantastically complex, made up of hundreds of thousands of smaller protein molecules, and Harvard University paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson tells us that a single protein molecule is the most complicated substance known to mankind. A single cell is so infinitely complex it boggles the minds of the scientists who have studied it.
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth--all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10161 years. Most of us do not have any idea what that means. To get a single cell-the single smallest living cell known to mankind--which is called the mycroplasm hominis H 39, would take 10119,841 years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after them, you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!
In trying to explain to us the length of time it would take for chance to produce one usable gene, Dr. Coppedge suggested that we imagine a single amoeba trying to carry the entire known universe one atom at a time across the entire width of the universe (which astronomers estimate to be thirty billion light years). At what speed would this energetic and never dying one-celled animal carry out this stupendous task? Dr. Coppedge reduced its speed to the slowest conceivable speed, namely, one angstrom unit every fifteen billion years. This means that the amoeba would be traveling the width smallest known atom, the hydrogen atom, in the supposed entire time that the universe has existed; that is, fifteen years. At this incredibly slow speed, how long would our superpersistent amoeba to move the entire universe over the width of one universe? The time requirements for such a transgalactic job are mind-boggling. However, before one usable gene could be produced by chance, our indefatigable amoeba would not only have moved the entire universe one atom at a time, but would have moved more universes than the four billion people living on this planet could count if every one of them counted twenty-four hours a day as fast as they could for the next five thousand years. Yet evolutionists would have us believe that things vastly more complex than this happen all of the time."
Emile Borel, the great French scientist and probability expert, points out that if anything on the cosmic level is of a probability ratio of more than 1050 to 1, it will never happen. The probability of producing a human cell by chance is to 1, a number we cannot even comprehend. According to the probability scientists, it could never happen. 'The same is true with all other development, including man's. We are told that somehow in the last two billion years, not only did this come to pass, but this single living cell also evolved into every other kind of living creature--that all living things evolved from that one single thing."*
Thomas Huxley said: "The primary and direct evidence in favor of evolution can be furnished only by paleontology. . . . evolution has taken place, its marks will be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation."* The great evoluonist says that it is only in paleontology--only in the fossil record that evolution will be proved.
"Geological research . . . does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required."* The author of that statement was Charles Darwin.
George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard, the high priest of evolution today, stated, "In spite of these examples, it remain true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above thi level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitions sequences."* We know that in the Cambrian strata of rock all the invertebrate animals in the world suddenly appear completely complex creatures with no ancestors before them which is totally inexplicable to the evolutionists.
A scientist by the name of Richard Coldschmidt points ou that it is impossible by micromutations to form any new species. He said in his book "Theoretical Genetics", "It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species, or genus etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations., In fact, he so abandons the possibility of ever slowly formi new species that he is led to what he calls his "hopeful monster theory."* The hopeful monster theory is simply one day a lizard laid an egg and sat on it and hatched an eagle!
If you think that is amazing, a scientist by the nam Geoffrey Bourne recently stated that his examination of men and apes has led him to the definite conclusion that apes evolved from men. Another scientist, B. C. Nelson, examining the similarities in blood between various animals, concluded that a pig is the closest relative to a human being-- not an ape."* If those differing conclusions can be drawn fr the same evidence, what kind of evidence is being looked at!
Professor Enoch, zoologist at the University of Madras said: "The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, groups of invertebrates appear 'suddenly' in siliferous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time."*
The vocal evolutionist T. H. Morgan said in his book "Evolution and Adaptation": "Within the period of human we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. . . . It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis. This must be admitted." Not a single instance, and yet Huxley claims that if the evidence isn't there, it is nowhere to be found.
. It is not there! Some of the greatest scientists in the world look upon evolution as something absolutely absurd, impossible, and unprovable. Yet millions accept it because they have brainwashed into thinking it is true
The truth is that God made you and me. One day we will give an account to him of our lives. The Bible plainly declares that all of us have transgressed his law and are culpable in his sight and when we come before him, if we are judged according to our merits, we will be condignly condemned forever. This means that we have no hope except in his mercy and that mercy has been manifested in Jesus Christ, whom he sent into this world to live in our place and die in our stead. The Bible declares that if we will place our trust in Christ, he will freely forgive us our sins and give us the gift of eternal life.
One day we will stand before our Creator. If we are trusting in some supposed goodness, morality, piety, or religiosity in ourselves, we will not make it. Let us flee to the Cross where sins are removed so as to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ that we may stand faultless before our Creator.
This article published originally by Word Inc. Dr. D.James Kennedy
Go Here to Read The Good News of The Bible
Go Back to the Prophecy Review Home Page