There was a time when I was a Christian yet still believed in evolution; If I come off sounding a bit harsh in this post, believe me that I’m not trying to condemn – I’m trying to inform. My brothers and sisters in Christ, if you believe in evolution then you need to know who you’re in bed with (so to speak).
Some people believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming so it must be true. They then somehow try to reconcile their beliefs with the “facts.” When people see the Bible contradict "science" then it's usually the facts of the Bible - not "science" - that become suspect. People then are using "science" to interpret the Bible rather than trusting the plain words of the Bible. This attitude is actually encouraged by staunch evolutionists. Consider this quote from Nature Magazine (as quoted on the NCSE Website):
"Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs."
Well that certainly sounds reasonable, doesn't it? DON’T BE FOOLED!! These same people who try to assure you that evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible are telling a completely different story out of the other side of their mouth. Here are a few other quotes about what evolutionists really think of a Creator (I've added some bold for emphasis):
The obvious implication is that THE DESIGNER OF LIFE IS INCOMPETENT. We all know it; no amount of gushing over how "perfect" life is can cover up the fact that everything here can be improved upon. Let's stop making up excuses and admit that the Creator did a half-assed job. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/index.html)
...It makes sense if every feature of an organism is the product of its history, but it doesn't make sense if you want to argue independent design with appropriate reuse of common elements. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that the Designer is wasteful, incompetent, and lazy. (Talkorigins.org/feedback)
Another problem when considering a designer in nature is that of disuse or elimination of parts of the design. I must ask myself why a designer would go to the trouble of creating a certain model of living organism, only to have that organism, over time, throw away much of the creative handiwork. Many parasitic organisms have done just this.
Evolutionary theory provides answers to such questions. I can't seem to find satisfactory answers anywhere else. (Talkorigins.org/feedback)
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better. (Talkorigins.org)
God's omnibenevolence usually goes along with claims that He is all-knowing and all-powerful. But the three qualities are not compatible with the observation that there is suffering in the world. (Talkorigins.org)
If we conclude that living organisms are designed, and we know that some of these organisms reproduce by laying eggs within a living organism, so that their newly-hatched young can quite literally eat the helpless creature from the inside out, how can we infer that the designer of this system is a kind and benevolent one? (Talkorigins.org)
I guess the "Biblical Creator" in his infinite wisdom could not design eyes any better than natural selection could. (Talkorigins.org)
These same evolutionists who claim it’s OK to believe in both God and evolution must themselves believe in some other god – not the God of the Bible. If evolution were true, then the god of evolution would be a clumsy, incompetent, lazy, moronic creator who couldn’t create his way out of a wet paper bag. He is not the all-powerful Creator who spoke the universe into existence.
It escapes me why so many Christians will associate themselves with such devout God-haters. Why do they trust the opinions of finite men (especially godless men) over the infallible words of the Bible? Science is not the gospel. What evolutionists consider “true” today will most assuredly be found wrong later – just read any “science” text book from 50 years ago and see how much garbage we once believed was true. If you wed your faith to science today, you will be widowed tomorrow. But the Scripture cannot be broken.
Let me give you one quote from the Bible, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). So, Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation (on day 6 of our 6,000 year history to be precise). Yet evolutionists say God created man (or rather, man evolved with or without God) around 16 billion years after the Big Bang. Who are you going to believe?
Now don't get me wrong: I believe a person can be a Christian even though he believes in evolution. I just think the two beliefs are strange bedfellows.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
1 Samuel 8:11-18: You Asked for Him
Is it blasphemous to believe that God has a sense of humor? Sometimes I think God, in His providence, has a funny way of reminding us how wrong we can be.When God delivered His people out of Egypt, He established an unusual form of government. They did not have an earthly king; instead, God was their ruler. He gave them the Law through Moses and appointed judges whose job it was to interpret the Law. This lasted from the time of Moses until Samuel.
Now when Samuel was old, his sons had turned away from God (1 Samuel 8:3). Since there were no other judges, the people came to Samuel and asked him to give them a king like other nations (1 Samuel 8:5). It grieved God that they rejected Him as their ruler and He gave some stern warnings about what it would be like having an earthly king:
“… This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.” [God ended with this most dire of warnings:] “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” (1 Samuel 8:11-18)The people persisted and God appointed Saul as their king. Sure enough, everything God had warned them about came true.
So where is the humor? The name “Saul” is a Hebrew word meaning, “asked for.” Every time we read about the failings of Saul, God reminds us that this was the king the people asked for.
A lot of people call Jesus, "Lord" but won't let Him be Lord of their lives. They think they know what’s best so they live their lives however they want – not how God wants. When things don’t turn out like they planned, they sometimes blame God. I think God, in His own gentle way, reminds them, “Don’t blame me - this is what you asked for.”
Luke 15:10: Rejoicing in Heaven
I’ve often heard Luke 15:10 paraphrased as something like, “The angels rejoice whenever a sinner repents.” There are variations on that, of course, but the common theme seems to be that it’s the angels who are rejoicing. However, the verse actually says, “Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” So it’s not the angels who rejoice (although they might); there is joy in the presence of the angels.
Who then is rejoicing? I think the answer is obvious: It is God, in the Person of the Trinity, who is rejoicing.
In the entire chapter of Luke 15, Jesus gives us three parables: The parable of the lost sheep (v. 3-6), the parable of the lost coin (v. 8-9), and the parable of the prodigal son (v. 11-32). The person who rejoices in each account respectively is the shepherd of the sheep, the owner of the coin, and the father of the prodigal son. All of these are pictures of God.
God is patient toward us, and long suffering. It is His will that everyone should repent (2 Peter 3:9). He waits expectantly, longingly, like the father of the prodigal son hoping to see his son return to him. Then, when one sinner repents, God rejoices; His child has literally come back from the dead (John 5:24). Perhaps the angels rejoice also. Perhaps the saints who have lived before us rejoice as well. But none are as happy as Jesus!
Who then is rejoicing? I think the answer is obvious: It is God, in the Person of the Trinity, who is rejoicing.
In the entire chapter of Luke 15, Jesus gives us three parables: The parable of the lost sheep (v. 3-6), the parable of the lost coin (v. 8-9), and the parable of the prodigal son (v. 11-32). The person who rejoices in each account respectively is the shepherd of the sheep, the owner of the coin, and the father of the prodigal son. All of these are pictures of God.
God is patient toward us, and long suffering. It is His will that everyone should repent (2 Peter 3:9). He waits expectantly, longingly, like the father of the prodigal son hoping to see his son return to him. Then, when one sinner repents, God rejoices; His child has literally come back from the dead (John 5:24). Perhaps the angels rejoice also. Perhaps the saints who have lived before us rejoice as well. But none are as happy as Jesus!
Lightning Strikes – Again and Again and Again …
One evidence evolutionists use to support their theory is homology. The forearm bones in humans, for example, are similar to the bones in the wings of a bat. They argue that this is because both bats and humans are mammals and descended from the same ancestor: the bones adapted to become arms and wings in bats.
Homology might sound convincing when animals are assumed to be closely related, but what about similar features in animals not considered closely related? Both octopi and humans have similar eyes yet are very far removed according to the evolutionists’ nested hierarchy. So why do they have similar eyes? In that case, evolutionists evoke the term, convergent evolution.
According to Wikipedia, "convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related,... independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches." Oh that’s right – octopi and humans live in virtually the same environments!
Darwin recognized that the eye was immensly complex. He even made this quote in his book, On the Origin of Species:
Therefore, all these different eyes we see in nature supposedly came about via convergent evolution. So, we go from “the eye is so complex it’s hard to imagine how it evolved” to “it’s so easy it happens all the time.”
Wings are another example of this. When we think of flying, birds immediately come to mind. However, wings also are found among insects, reptiles (pterosaurs), and mammals (bats). There are also examples of “flying fish” which use their pectoral fins to “fly” long distances out of the water. Even among plants there are examples of wings such as seen in maple seeds. Evolutionists still haven’t nailed down exactly how the incredible feat of flying evolved in birds. Yet as difficult as it is to explain in birds, they still insist it happened again and again and again in other animal kingdoms as well.
And then there is abiogenesis. The odds of random chemicals coming together to create life are astonishingly small. However, evolutionists argue that in such a large universe even something very improbable will eventually happen. Later, Carl Sagan said, “... the time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.” Convinced that there is a high probability of the origin of life, then it's no great leap to imagine that other life began in space as well. His faith in extra-terrestrial life inspired groups like SETI to search for signs of life beyond our planet. Today, with NASA’s interest in exploring Mars, people speculate that life could have evolved on Mars as well. Imagine two people, living next door to each other, winning separate power-ball lotteries and you can see how ridiculous that sounds; only the odds of abiogenesis happening among next door neighbors are billions of times more unlikely. So even though we’ve NEVER observed abiogenesis, evolutionists suffer under the delusion it happens everywhere.
Evolutionists are somewhat cavalier about what is credible. They waive their theory around like it’s a magic wand and suddenly the impossible becomes commonplace. There’s an old saying that lightning never strikes twice in the same place. That's actually not true; it's an expression meaning that if you ever witness something improbable, it's unlikely you'll see it happen again. Evolutionists, on the other hand, would have us believe that lightning strikes in the area of the improbable like a timpani.
Homology might sound convincing when animals are assumed to be closely related, but what about similar features in animals not considered closely related? Both octopi and humans have similar eyes yet are very far removed according to the evolutionists’ nested hierarchy. So why do they have similar eyes? In that case, evolutionists evoke the term, convergent evolution.
According to Wikipedia, "convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related,... independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches." Oh that’s right – octopi and humans live in virtually the same environments!
Darwin recognized that the eye was immensly complex. He even made this quote in his book, On the Origin of Species:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.Of course, Darwin still believed the eye evolved and went on to explain how he thought it could have happened via gradual steps. Richard Dawkins later said, "the time needed for the evolution of the eye... turned out to be too short for geologists to measure! It's is a geological blink." And, "it is no wonder the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom" (River Out of Eden).
Therefore, all these different eyes we see in nature supposedly came about via convergent evolution. So, we go from “the eye is so complex it’s hard to imagine how it evolved” to “it’s so easy it happens all the time.”
Wings are another example of this. When we think of flying, birds immediately come to mind. However, wings also are found among insects, reptiles (pterosaurs), and mammals (bats). There are also examples of “flying fish” which use their pectoral fins to “fly” long distances out of the water. Even among plants there are examples of wings such as seen in maple seeds. Evolutionists still haven’t nailed down exactly how the incredible feat of flying evolved in birds. Yet as difficult as it is to explain in birds, they still insist it happened again and again and again in other animal kingdoms as well.
And then there is abiogenesis. The odds of random chemicals coming together to create life are astonishingly small. However, evolutionists argue that in such a large universe even something very improbable will eventually happen. Later, Carl Sagan said, “... the time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.” Convinced that there is a high probability of the origin of life, then it's no great leap to imagine that other life began in space as well. His faith in extra-terrestrial life inspired groups like SETI to search for signs of life beyond our planet. Today, with NASA’s interest in exploring Mars, people speculate that life could have evolved on Mars as well. Imagine two people, living next door to each other, winning separate power-ball lotteries and you can see how ridiculous that sounds; only the odds of abiogenesis happening among next door neighbors are billions of times more unlikely. So even though we’ve NEVER observed abiogenesis, evolutionists suffer under the delusion it happens everywhere.
Evolutionists are somewhat cavalier about what is credible. They waive their theory around like it’s a magic wand and suddenly the impossible becomes commonplace. There’s an old saying that lightning never strikes twice in the same place. That's actually not true; it's an expression meaning that if you ever witness something improbable, it's unlikely you'll see it happen again. Evolutionists, on the other hand, would have us believe that lightning strikes in the area of the improbable like a timpani.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)