Second, modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation. 

Following are three examples of the unscientific nonsense that is found in world-class natural history exhibitions:

Dr. Damadian, biophysicist, is the recipient of the Lemelson-MIT Achievement Award as “the man who invented the MRI scanner.” In 1988 he was awarded the National Medal of Technology, America’s highest award for applied science, and a year later, he was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame, an honor he shares with Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse, and the Wright Brothers. The first MRI scanner that Dr. Damadian and his colleagues built in 1977, “The Indomitable,” resides at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

QUESTION: Why do you believe that the Bible is true?

DAMADIAN: If you take the trouble to examine the evidence supporting the Bible and contradicting alternative theories, from my perception, the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the biblical record and vacates alternative thoughts such as evolution. The evidence for evolution is non-existent. In my opinion, evolution is science fiction.

QUESTION: Does the Bible’s account of creation contradict any known facts of science?

DAMADIAN: No. Absolutely not. In my opinion evolution contradicts them.

QUESTION: What things would you think that evolution contradicts in terms of known facts of science?

DAMADIAN: Just as an example, it contracts the first law of thermodynamics. It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. And it contradicts a major, fundamental law of physics, which is the law of cause and effect. The effect can never be greater than the cause, but evolution has to start with slime mold and end up with a human being. So that is an outright contradiction of the law of cause and effect. The second law of thermodynamics says that everything is running downhill. All of the processes of nature are degenerating to the point where the ultimate outcome is going to be equilibrium where no actions of any kind occur because you have a universal equilibrium. Evolution says the opposite. Evolution says that by the sheer process of chance things are not running downhill, they are getting progressively more perfected. That is an outright contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution ducks the question of where does matter come from. The only way you can start is that you have to make something out of nothing. You have to start with nothing and end up with matter. When you go from nothing to something you are violating every one of the laws of physics that we know about. The first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, and the law of cause and effect.

_________________

It is significant that present processes, which are the only kinds of processes which can be tested by the scientific method, are not in any way creative processes. That is, the basic laws of modern science, which describe these present processes, are laws of conservation and deterioration, not of creation and integration. These laws deal with the fundamental behavior of matter and energy, which actually include everything in the physical universe, and are known as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics (from two Greek words meaning ‘heat power’) is the science dealing with the conversion of heat and other forms of energy into work. It is now known that everything in the universe is energy in some form, and everything that ‘happens’ is basically an energy conversion process. Thus, the first and second laws of thermodynamics could just as well be called the first and second laws of science. All processes in the universe, as far as known, have to obey these two laws.

The first law of thermodynamics is also called the law of energy conservation. This law states that, although energy can be changed in form, it is not now being either created or destroyed Since all physical phenomena, including matter itself, are merely different forms of energy, this clearly implies that creation was an event of the past and is no longer going on.

The second law of thermodynamics, stated in nontechnical form, says that all physical systems, if left to themselves, tend to become disorganized. Thus, machines wear out, processes run down, organisms get old and die. Any temporary increase in organization requires an input of energy from outside the system itself.

These two universal laws are basic in all disciplines of modern science. Verified by thousands of experiments, from the nuclear level to the astronomic level, with no known exceptions, they clearly indicate that nothing is now being created and taht the original creation is ‘running down.’

The following is from the new book SEEING THE NON-EXISTENT: EVOLUTION’S MYTHS AND HOAXES, which is available from Way of Life Literature.

The Scopes trial of 1925 is a major evolutionary icon, allegedly proving that evolution has won over the Bible and Christianity, but the way it is typically presented is a myth. In particular, the 1960 Hollywood movie Inherit the Wind staring Spencer Tracy is a cheap propaganda piece. (The movie was based on a 1955 play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.)

In History of Modern Creationism, Dr. Henry Morris observed that “the Scopes trial was evolution’s great triumph...” (p. 76).

When Dr. Morris spent six weeks speaking on creationism in New Zealand in 1973, the government-controlled televisions broadcast Inherit the Wind repeatedly in each city he visited (History of Modern Creationism, p. 77).

During the Kansas School Board debate on evolution in 1999, evolutionists trotted out Inherit the Wind as a brainwashing tool.

“That very summer the leading repertory theater in Kansas City quickly changed its schedule to feature the play and use it as a veritable teaching device. Kansas University imported Hollywood actors to stage a highly public reading of the play. High school science teachers in Kansas showed the movie in class as an example of the kind of opposition science faces. And journalists, print and broadcast, used the play as a template from which to fashion their typically inaccurate and often defamatory reporting” (Jack Cashill, Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture, p. 189).

The Scopes Trial was held to determine whether John Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution in a public school classroom contrary to Tennessee state law. (The law forbade any state-funded educational establishment to teach “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”)

At a conference in Bavaria in September 1984, this view was put forth as one of the possible paths of bird evolution. The textbook Understanding Biology through Evolution by Bruce Olsen calls crocodiles and birds “cousins” and claims that both evolved through the archosaur (“ruling lizard”).

Though attempts have been made to describe how a crocodile could become a bird, even the most ardent evolutionists have to admit that they “cannot as yet offer any plausible explanation for the origin of the unique shaft, barbs, and barbules without which modern feathers would have neither aerodynamic nor insulatory function” (Regal, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 1975, p. 35).

That could be the mother of all understatements!

The trilobite is an extinct arthropod, a hard-shelled, segmented creature that “lived in the Earth’s ancient seas.” The name “trilobite” means “three lobed” and refers to the fact that the creature had three longitudinal lobes. They existed in a bewildering number of varieties, with 17,000 known species, ranging in size from one millimeter to over feet in length.

Evolutionists place the trilobite in the earliest stages of life, in the so-called Cambrian layer. The earliest trilobites supposedly lived 570 million years ago and the creature is thought to have gone extinct 240 million years ago. It is considered one of the signature creatures of the Paleozoic Era.

Digital SLR photography is both a hobby and a ministry tool for me, and I enjoy the challenge of photographing butterflies and dragonflies. The monarch butterfly lives up to its name in that it is the king of these amazing creatures and a wonderful icon of divine creation. I own many books on butterflies and have visited prominent butterfly conservatories in several countries, and in my experience evolutionists don’t even try to explain how such a creature could have evolved. They merely presume that it did. They even talk about the “co-evolution” of the butterfly and the flower, as if natural selection and mutation or any other naturalistic concept could possibly explain the origin of such wonderful symbiotic relationships! How could blind evolution create such a thing? If the flower and the pollinating insect did evolve, they had to have evolved at exactly the same time--like in the same day or week--because they are dependent on one another for their very existence.

Metamorphosis

The monarch butterfly’s Latin name, Danaus plexippus, means “sleepy transformation,” referring to its amazing life cycle.

The butterfly goes through a four-stage process called metamorphosis: from egg, to larva, to pupa, to adult.

It begins life as a tiny, brilliantly-designed EGG that the female butterfly attaches to the exact type of vegetation needed by the caterpillar when it hatches. It is attached with a special glue that hardens rapidly and holds the egg securely in all types of weather. The egg stage usually lasts a few days, but eggs laid before winter can enter a resting stage and hatch the following spring.

High Schools, colleges, and universities typically teach only one theory of origins, that being evolution, and the students are not presented with a creationist or even an Intelligent Design viewpoint. In fact, they are often given the idea that no true scientist today is a creationist.

When the National Academy of Sciences in America published an educational tool in 1998 entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, they posed this question, “Don’t many scientists reject evolution?” The answer was, “No; the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”

Richard Dawkins, a brash atheist and anti-creationist, says in his book The Greatest Show in Earth:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

According to Dawkins, if you reject evolution, you are unintelligent and your sanity should be questioned, and he proclaims that no reputable scientist disputes it.

The following is the testimony of Gary Parker, Ed.D. in biology/geology from Ball State University:

“I wasn’t just teaching evolution, I was preaching it. ‘It was millions of years of struggle and death that brought mankind and all the other animals and plants into being,’ I told my college students. I praised Darwin for being the first to understand how evolution worked. ... I let students freely express their religious beliefs, but would not let them use their personal faith to challenge what I considered the rock-hard science of evolution. I thought it was part of my duty as a science teacher to deliver my students from silly old superstitions, like taking the Bible literally and trying to refute evolution with ‘creation science.’

“The change began when Dr. Charles Signorino, a chemistry professor at the college where I was teaching biology, invited my wife and me to his home for Bible study. ... I started studying the Bible, primarily to criticize it more effectively. ...

The creation-evolution debate is too important to accept anything less than confirmed facts.

In 1922, William Jennings Bryan warned,

“It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth--not even a theory--but a mere hypothesis” (In His Image, 1922, p. 94).

Bryan was right, and nearly a century later, evolution remains “a mere hypothesis.”

The outcome of a murder trial requires evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt,” because so much is at stake, and we should require no less on the issue of creation vs. evolution, which potentially has eternal consequences.

The Bible claims to be the revelation of God to man. It claims to reveal God, man’s beginning and fall, the way of salvation, and the future. If the Bible is true, there is a heaven and a hell, man will live forever in one place or another, and salvation is only through personal faith in Jesus Christ.

This is too grave an issue to be decided on the basis of anything other than solid proof that the Bible is not to be trusted and that evolution is an absolute science.

Though all bird sounds are typically categorized as “songs,” a distinction should be made between true songbirds and other birds that make various noises. For example, most ducks, eagles, and hawks are not songbirds. They quack or screech, but they don’t sing.

I suspect that bird calls are often lumped into the “song” category because of the evolutionary philosophy underlying the field. It is assumed that the purpose for all bird noises, regardless of how pretty and complicated, is for such things as territorial marking and mating which supposedly acted as conditions for “natural selection.” Evolutionists even theorize that the true song birds are more highly evolved (Les Beletsky, Bird Songs from Around the World, 2007, p. 7).

While there is no doubt that bird songs mean something to birds, the Bible believer knows there is more to it than this. Evolutionists are blind to the fact that pretty bird song has a much higher purpose, and that is to glorify the Creator and to please man, the crown of creation (Psalm 8:4-8).

PILTDOWN MAN

Piltdown Man was held forth as a missing link in human evolution for 40 years, but it turned out to be a complete hoax.

In 1912, amateur naturalist Charles Dawson told the Geological Society of London that over the previous four years fragments of a skull, half of a lower jawbone, and a tooth had been found at the Piltdown gravel pit in Sussex. Dawson had been accompanied on some of his excavations by Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the geological department at the British Natural History Museum and the world’s leading expert on fossil fish, and by Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest and New Age mystic. It was Teilhard who found another tooth at the Piltdown site in August 1913.

NEBRASKA MAN

In 1922, Henry Osborn, president of the American Natural History Museum in New York City, announced the discovery of a new missing link between apes and man based on “fossils” discovered in Nebraska.

This was based on a tooth discovered five years earlier by Nebraska rancher Harold Cook. Joining Osborn in the conclusion that a new apeman had been discovered were William Gregory (museum curator) and Milo Hellman, who were regarded as two of the world’s leading authorities on the teeth of primates. They concluded, “On the whole, we think its nearest resemblances are with ‘Pithecanthropus’ and with men rather than with apes” Museum novitiates, no. 27).

“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996).

One of the most frequently-used evidences for evolution is the “just-so” story that purports to explain how evolution happened but which is actually a theoretical explanation lacking evidence. The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.

Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.

Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.

THE PEPPERED MOTH

One of the most repeated icons for evolution is the peppered moth, Biston betularia.

In the book New Guide to Science, Isaac Asimov devoted a small section to proving Darwinian evolution and his sole evidence was the peppered moth. Stephen Jay Gould also used the peppered moth as one of the supposed indisputable evidences for evolution (Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, p. 257).

The following statement from Biology: The Dynamics of Life by Merrill Publishing is typical of the way that textbooks use the peppered moth as a major evidence of evolution:

“The evolution of new species is seldom observed because the changes usually require many generations However, scientists have observed many examples of the natural selection of adaptations. One of the best-studied examples involves the peppered moth in England. During the 1800s, there were two kinds of peppered moths--a common light-colored variety and a rarer dark-colored variety. These moths rested during the day on light-colored tree trunks. In 1850, almost all the moths were light in color. Then, during a rapid expansion of industry around that time, the air became full of smoke and soot. This extreme pollution of the air turned the trunks of trees black. By the end of the century, most of the peppered moth population in England was dark colored. The light-colored individuals had become rare. ... In 1950, scientists performed an experiment to determine if natural selection had caused the dark variety of months to become more numerous. They observed light and dark moths in both industrial and rural areas. The experiment showed that birds ate more dark moths in rural areas where the trees were light-colored and more light moths in industrial areas where the trees were dark-colored. Through natural selection, populations of peppered moths had become adapted to living in industrial areas. The experiment showed that organisms whose color provides better camouflage are more likely to survive and reproduce” (Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Merrill Publishing, 1991, p. 209).

It has been said that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” and I have no doubt that more people have been influenced to believe in evolution by artwork than by words. From its inception, Darwinian evolution has been popularized by art.

Lying art.

THE LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS

Serious natural history museums typically feature a model or photo of the Laetoli footprints that purport to prove that apes walked upright over a million years ago on the evolutionary path toward manhood.

In 1978, footprints discovered at a site called Laetoli in Tanzania by Mary Leakey’s team were announced to be “made by a creature that walked upright in a human manner.”

Two sets of prints ran parallel to one another for a length of about 80 feet. One set of prints is man-sized while the other is much smaller.

The footprints are used as an argument for depicting Australopithecus afarenses’s feet (Lucy) as human-like, in spite of the fossil evidence, and Lucy supporters are dogmatic at this point. Typical of these claims is that by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall.

LUCY: THE CUTE LITTLE APE-WOMAN

The premier missing link between apes and men today is Australopithecus afarensis, a little creature that has been popularized by giving one set of fossils the endearing name of “Lucy.”

Artistic reconstructions typically depict Lucy with human hands, walking uprightly in a purely human manner on human feet, and typically with human-proportion arms and legs. This is true for the models and drawings that I have seen personally at the Museum of Natural History in New York City, the American Museum of Natural Sciences in Washington D.C., the Field Museum in Chicago, Yale University’s Peabody Museum, the Seattle Science Center, the Museum of Man in San Diego, and Michigan State University Ann Arbor.

You can also find drawings of Lucy in science textbooks that depict her walking uprightly with human hands and feet. An example is Life: The Science of Biology by Purves, Orians, and Heller, 1992, p. 604.

These reconstructions are not scientific; they are brainwashing tools.

NEANDERTHAL

Ernst Haeckel, inventor of the deceptive embryo chart and Java Man, also helped spread the Neanderthal myth. The first edition of his book History of Creation in 1868 featured a series of drawings depicting man evolving from apes--mandrill, monkey, gibbon, orangutan, chimpanzee, gorilla, Tasmanian, African Negro, Australian Negro, Fuegian, Chinese, Indo-German. Haeckel being German, placed his own “race” as the crown of evolution. In 1907, Haeckel described Neanderthal as a pre-human and placed him between Pithecanthropus (Java man) and Homo Australis, which he called “the lowest race of recent man.” This reflected Haeckel’s racist view that the Australian aborigines represented the lowest stage in full human evolution. Haeckel misrepresented Neanderthal’s brain capacity at 1270 cc, which is less than the average for modern man, when in reality the brain capacity was 1560 cc, which is larger than average.

After the discovery in 1908 of a nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton in La Chapell-aux-Saints in France, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule (1861-1942) of the Laboratory of Paleontology in the Museum of Natural History in Paris, added his authority to the evolutionary myth. Boule believed that Neanderthal was a branch of ape-men who became extinct without giving rise to modern humans. Between December 1908 and June 1909 Boule reported to the Academy of Sciences that Neanderthal was ape-like in many characteristics, including the skull and “a divergent great toe.” He believed that Neanderthal did not walk erect like modern man but walked pigeon-toed like an ape with a bent-knee gait.

In 1909, Frantisek Kupka drew a sketch of Neanderthal as a stooped, hairy ape-man gawking wildly with a club in his hand. It was published in the Illustrated London News. (shown at top)

HAECKEL’S DUMB APEMAN

Ernst Haeckel, inventor of the iconic evolutionary embryo chart, was also the inventor of the dumb cave-dwelling ape-man, and it was based on nothing more scientific than his own fertile imagination. As we saw in “Lying Evolutionary Art - Haeckel’s Embryo Chart,” Haeckel was not one to draw back from inventing facts out of thin air.

Reasoning that the major difference between man and apes is the former’s ability to talk, and assuming that evolution is true and that man evolved from animals, Haeckel concluded that man’s predecessor was a dumb cave-dwelling ape-man. He even invented a scientific name for this mythical creature, Pithecanthropus alalus (“speechless ape-man”).

Haeckel had an artist, Gabriel Max, draw the imagined creature, and Max depicted an entire Pithecanthropus family. The pot-bellied father, ape-headed but having a hairy human body, stands upright and leans on a thick branch, looking as stupid as stupid can be. The poor dim-witted mother sits cross-legged nursing a dumb little ape-man baby. She has long-straggly hair but is less ape-looking than her “husband” except for her ape-like feet.

HAECKEL’S EMBRYO CHART

It was Ernest Haeckel, Charles Darwin’s most enthusiastic disciple in Germany, who devised the iconic embryo chart “proving” that at the embryonic stage man looks almost exactly like various types of animals.

He based this on his “law of recapitulation” (also called the biogenetic law) which stated that the human embryo goes through an evolutionary cycle during which it resembles a single-celled marine organism, then a worm, then a fish with gill slits, then a monkey with a tail, and finally a human. According to recapitulation, each creature repeats or recapitulates the entire alleged evolutionary history. Thus, the human embryo progresses from a single cell to a fish to an amphibian to a reptile to a mammal to an ape to a human.

Haeckel’s embryo chart first appeared in print in 1866 in his book Generalle Morphologie der Organismen and in 1868 in The Natural History of Creation, and since then it has been republished in various forms in countless textbooks, journals, popular reports, and museums. It is still appearing in textbooks in the 21st century. One teacher said, “I have taught Jr. High Science for over 35 years. Every textbook from every major publisher I have ever seen has had Haeckel’s embryos pictured and the text usually claims this as a proof for evolution” (http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered).

Charles Darwin did not offer any scientifically-proven evidence for his theory. The book On the Origin of Species did not prove that species arise from the process of natural selection. It only proved that species adapt through various processes. A century and a half has passed since Darwin published his thesis, and the scientific proof remains elusive. In fact, remove the evolutionary assumptions, and the “evidence” disappears.

Consider the following testimonies from Ph.D. scientists, most of whom once believed in evolution:

“Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications--from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories--which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief” (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, In Six Days, p. 230).

One of the most widely used icons of evolution is Lucy, the name given to a fossilized ape of the australopithecine class that is supposed to be millions of years old and is alleged to be a missing link between apes and man.

The actual fossils were shown at the Lucy Legacy exhibit in Seattle, which I visited in March 2009. They announced this as “the key piece in evolution’s puzzle.” What they did not say is that the supposed indisputable evidence that this fossil is “proto-human” is non-existent.

Lucy was a tiny creature standing about 43 inches high. The skeleton itself is less than 40% complete and is entirely missing the foot bones, though other bones representing Australopithecus exist.

The bones were found in 1974 in northern Ethiopia by Donald Johanson and his colleagues. The first bone discovered was a knee joint, which Johanson first considered to be that of a monkey, but upon further consideration announced that it was that of a hominid. “He thereupon declared on the spot that he had discovered a three million year old human ancestor” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, p. 241).

They named the fragmentary skeleton “Lucy” after playing the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” repeatedly at the camp rock & roll party the night of the discovery. John Lennon’s 1971 song “Imagine” would have been more suitable, as Johanson and crew were living out the vain Darwinian dream that there is no God, no heaven or hell, only blind evolution. In the chorus, Lennon sang, “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one/ And some day I hope you’ll join us/ And the world will be as one.” Evolutionary scientists are at the forefront of pushing this dream of a world united in a damnable myth, and it is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy (e.g., Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:2-4).

Yesterday, the New York Times website carried a stunning look at how computer generated animation is depicting the inner workings of the cell. These animations describe cellular operations that are truly ‘jaw-dropping’ as the newspaper said. However, they also show processes that are impossible to explain by chance and time. If nothing else, these animations show intelligence, design, order, complexity, and, most of all, purpose. We felt that this NY Times video was a fitting companion piece to today’s FBIS article, “Staking Eternity on a Wispy Hypothesis.” “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:” Hebrews 1:3

In 1922, William Jennings Bryan warned,

“It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth--not even a theory--but a mere hypothesis” (In His Image, 1922, p. 94).

Bryan was right, and nearly a century later, evolution remains “a mere hypothesis.”

The outcome of a murder trial requires evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt,” because so much is at stake, and we should require no less on the issue of creation vs. evolution, which potentially has eternal consequences.

The Bible claims to be the revelation of God to man. It claims to reveal God, man’s beginning and fall, the way of salvation, and the future. If the Bible is true, there is a heaven and a hell, man will live forever in one place or another, and salvation is only through personal faith in Jesus Christ.

__________________________

The doctrine of Darwinian evolution is taught throughout the world today. It proposes that life originated spontaneously from inanimate matter and that all living things evolved from an original single-celled creature.

The point of this lesson is that a Bible believer must reject evolution because the Bible and evolution are diametrically opposed.

Some professing Christians try to hold to evolution and the Bible at the same time by interpreting the early chapters of Genesis as poetical or allegorical. But this is an impossible position, as we will see in our first point:

1. The early chapters of Genesis are literal history.

a. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are written as literal history, not as poetry. “There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable cultural items (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities, towers) in those opening chapters. The significance of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with ‘the paucity of references in the Koran. The single tenth chapter of Genesis has five times more geographical data of importance than the whole of the Koran.’ Every one of these items presents us with the possibility of establishing the reliability of our author. The content runs head on into a description of the real world rather than recounting events belonging to another world or level of reality” (Walter Kaiser, Jr., “The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11,” New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. by J. Barton Payne, 1970, p. 59).

______________________

The damage that evolution has caused on college campuses is legendary, and its not difficult to cite examples of children from Christian homes who have turned away from their childhood faith after attending college--even ‘Christian’ college. The final episode of the PBS series [“Evolution,” September 2001] gives a striking example from Wheaton College, which is said to be a conservative Christian college. According to Wheaton’s website:

Wheaton College selects candidates for admission from those who evidence a vital Christian experience, high academic ability, moral character, personal integrity, social concern, and the desire to pursue a liberal arts education as defined in the aims and objectives of the College.

This college is the show-pony of the PBS series, showing viewers how people can mix ‘God’ and evolution. But one must wonder how the school defines a ‘vital Christian experience’ since their professors evidently don’t believe the Bible, the only source of information about Christ. At one point in the PBS series, it shows a teacher on a school field trip who proclaims that a water hole is 33 million years old.

There was quite a stir back in 1961 when Prof. Walter Hearn promoted evolution at Wheaton. As a result of this controversy, now the school apparently insists that professors sign a statement that Adam was a historical figure.

____________________________

A recent research article by Gibson, & Glass et. al.(J. Craig Venter Institute), in Science titled “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome” was heralded by the media with the sensational claim that “Scientist Creates Life” (see Time.com).

What exactly did this group of researchers do that would warrant such a fantastic claim? What can we learn from their research? What conclusions can we draw from their accomplishments? To answer these questions, I went beyond the media reports and reviewed the original scientific article published by this group of researchers.

Simply put, these researchers transplanted the DNA of one bacteria into another bacteria, and the recipient bacteria took on the characteristics of the donor bacteria and replicated itself.

____________________________

I want to share with you the account of a day that began as the worst day in my life and ended as the best day in my life. I will tell you first how I got to that day, and then I will tell you what happened on that day.

I was born in a small country in South America, although my grandparents were from somewhere in the Indian Subcontinent. I often attended a Lutheran Church with my mother when I was a child. My parents divorced when I was eleven years old, and my mother, two brothers, and I, immigrated to Canada when I was fourteen years old.

I did not go to Church for years after we moved to Canada. By the time I finished High School, I was questioning the existence of God. I went to University, and by the time I finished my four year degree in Science, I was very much a secular humanist/atheist. That’s a person who does not believe that there is a God and believes that humans are the ultimate and best product of evolution.

In fact, he never was a Bible believer, never professed Christ as his Saviour, and was influenced deeply by skepticism from a young age.

Charles’ grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a famous skeptic who worshipped “a distant Deity ... the vast Unknown.” Erasmus’ skepticism was so radical that it even shocked the Unitarian transcendentalist Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who called him “an Atheist.” Josiah Wedgewood, Erasmus’ close friend and the grandfather of Charles’ wife Emma, was a Unitarian who rejected the Deity of Christ and the infallibility of the Bible. Josiah’s famous Wedgwood pottery firm honored the infamous Unitarian Joseph Priestly with a medallion featuring his likeness. The two grandfathers bequeathed “a mixture of freethought and radical Christianity to their grandchildren” (Adrian Desmond, Darwin, p. 5). Erasmus published a very popular two-volume work entitled Zoonomia, which presented nearly the same evolutionary theories later popularized by Charles. Erasmus added an evolutionary symbol to the Darwin family’ coat of arms, consisting of three scallop shells and the motto E Conchis Omnia (“all things out of shells”). The meaning was that all things had evolved out of the sea.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphos apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

High Schools, colleges, and universities typically teach only one theory of origins, that being evolution, and the students are not presented with a creationist viewpoint. In fact, they are often given the idea that no true scientist today is a creationist. When the National Academy of Sciences in America published an educational tool in 1998 entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, they posed this question, “Don’t many scientists reject evolution?” The answer was, “No; the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”

Richard Dawkins, (shown right) a brash atheist and anti-creationist, says in his recent book The Greatest Show in Earth,

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

According to Dawkins, if you reject evolution, you are unintelligent and your sanity should be questioned, and he proclaims that no reputable scientist disputes it.

November 19, 2009 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from “The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists” by David Coppedge, which is available from Master Plan Association, http://www.creationsafaris.com/products.htm --

Sure, there have been Christians who did good science, but that was before Darwin. Right? Wrong! Here is the story of a staunch Darwinian who converted to creationism first, then to Christianity.

You couldn’t claim Dick Lumsden’s (1938-97) faith come from the culture in which he lived, like you might with someone from the 1500s. If anything, he was a product of the anti-creationist second half of the twentieth century. Dr. Richard D. Lumsden was fully grounded in Darwinian philosophy, and had no reason or desire to consider Christianity. Science was his faith: the facts, and only the facts. But at the apex of his professional career, he had enough integrity to check out the facts, and made a difficult choice to go where the facts led him, against what he had been taught, and against what he himself taught. His life took a dramatic turnaround, from Darwinist to creationist, and from atheist to Christian.