Tree of Life Blog

Engaging Culture with the wisdom and power of Christ!

Tag Archives: Darwin

An Oxymoron (Ray Comfort)

0

“Dear Ray, Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact of evolution when it has been universally accepted by the scientific community, and 99.99% of people who dedicate their lives to studying it? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that there are many very very serious bible believing Christians who claim to know God but also accept the fact of evolution? Why is it so difficult for you to think that if your God existed, he might be working through science instead of directly violating it? It merely makes the story of Genesis One allegorical, describing man’s relationship with Jehovah rather then a literal account of how the world was made. Why, Ray, why, you constantly attack scientific discourse with a bumptious attitude, yet you do not let us know the real reasons for it, why?” Mojo

Let me deal with your questions one by one. First, I strongly contest your 99.99%. You are saying that only .01% who study evolution don’t believe it. I think you greatly exaggerate your figures. Still, never forget that there was a time when 100 % of the scientific community thought that the earth was flat. The majority must be right is a fallacy. Only God is right all the time.

Second, no Bible “believing” Christian accepts evolution. Such a thought is an oxymoron. To believe evolution means that the “Christian” doesn’t believe the words of Jesus, when He said, “In the beginning God made them male and female” (see Matthew 19:4). To believe that God made mankind through the process of evolution means that you don’t believe Bible.

Here’s a question for you: Why do Darwinian believers insist on hiding behind the cloak of “science,” when their theory isn’t scientific in the slightest? It’s nothing more than a pseudo science–a fairy tale for grownups, believed by the gullible, and created by the imaginations of secular speculators.

Here’s the bottom line: When anyone comes to know God through the new birth (see John 3:3-5), the issue is dead in the water. I can never convince you that Genesis is the truth, but you can know the truth yourself through repentance and trust in Jesus Christ.

If you are interested, read John 8:31-32.

Atheists confuse God with the Bible
When I said to a believer in the theory of evolution, “Your trust is in fallible man. My trust is in infallible God,” other atheistic believers in evolution replied:

“You trust the Bible, which was written, edited, compiled, interpreted, and preached by fallible man. That is all.”

“No. Your trust is also in something you believe happened long ago that was written by fallible men: The Bible. Then you throw in the subjective feelings that you interpret as a personal relationship with an infallible God.”

“You have trust in a book, written by men, assembled and edited and copied by men, none of them even claiming to be infallible.”

These atheists are mixing apples and oranges. God is the Creator. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books. They are two distinct entities. It’s like thinking that President of the United States is the Constitution. One is a written document, the other is the political leader of our country.

Christians of the first few centuries didn’t have a “Bible” as we know it. Most people of that time couldn’t read. The New Testament hadn’t been compiled, and there was no such things as the printing press. Those who were Christians were converted to Christ through the spoken message of the Gospel. They heard that they had violated God’s Law and that because of their crimes against a holy God, they were justly headed for Hell. But they also heard that God was rich in mercy to all that call upon Him, in that He provided a Savior. Jesus of Nazareth had paid the fine so that guilty sinners could have their case dismissed. Those who repented and put their trust in Him alone for their salvation received everlasting life as the gift of God.

They were saved by the power of God not by reading and believing the New Testament. Their trust was in Him, not in the Bible (again, which didn’t exist as we know it nowadays).

The contemporary Christian has the same experience. But we have the added blessing of having an Instruction Book that tells us what we experienced through our conversion, and how to live now that we have come to know God.

Consequentially, you can take the Bible away from me and burn it, or “disprove” it, or ban it, and it won’t change a thing for me because my salvation doesn’t come from believing the Bible, but through trusting in the person of Jesus Christ as my Lord and my Savior. Not even death will separate me from Him (see Romans 8:38-39).

An atheist further wrote, “But of course, as I’ve pointed out, you are not infallible; your trust might be in error.” That would be true, if we were simply dealing with another human being. If you said to me that my trust in my wife is misplaced, I would be upset that you are insulting her integrity. I have a wife who is incredibly faithful, very loving, and extremely honest. Yet, she is still a human being and is therefore subject to human weakness. Not so with God. He is without sin. It is impossible for Him to lie. He keeps every promise He makes. You and I can trust Him like an immovable and solid rock.

So, if you are a professing atheist, you are without excuse. God has covered every base. You are dealing with the One who created the genome, the atom, the unspeakable complexities of DNA and this entire infinite universe. You cannot win. Give up. Humble yourself and surrender to His will today and you will come to know Him “whom to know is life eternal.”

Creationism/Intelligent Design | Teachers TV

0

An excellent programme showing the creation and evolution debate. Enjoy!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Reflections on The Emperor’s New Clothes (Ralph Matthews)

0

Reflections on the Emperor’s New Clothes

by Ralph Matthews

In the tale by Hans Christian Andersen, the emperor’s special clothes were invisible to anyone who was unfit for office or unpardonably stupid. The emperor got caught in a web that was partly of his own making because of his vanity.

People who have great confidence in their own enlightenment and the inherent ability of man to solve the problems of humanity without divine aid are also vulnerable to pride and self-deception.

The emperor ended up parading before the people in regal nakedness, convinced of the beauty of his imaginary apparel. For fear of being thought unpardonably stupid, the multitudes enthusiastically applauded his public modelling of his invisible clothes. Emperor ‘Evolution’ is similarly dressed up with continual promotion from the media and educational authorities.

Some of this emperor’s followers seem to imply that anyone who can’t see the evidence is so ill-informed that they’re not entitled to an opinion. Let us consider the emperor’s articles of clothing extolled by true evolutionist believers.

Illegitimate inferences

Article #1. Natural selection. Darwin called this his theory. By invoking natural selection, plausible explanations can be given for almost everything. The long neck of the giraffe and the short neck of the hippopotamus are both explained by the theory. Most people readily accept these explanations. Natural selection can be used as a justification for immoral human behaviour.

Problem.  There are limits beyond which variation cannot proceed even with artificial selection. Truly natural selection selects against novel and monstrous forms and is basically a conservative, not an innovative, mechanism. Natural selection does not explain amoeba-to-man evolution. We see many varieties of finches, ducks and dogs, but they always produce offspring which are finches, ducks, and dogs. Change is limited.

Article #2. Mutation. Random changes in the genetic blueprint of the organism produce the novelties that allow natural selection to break through the natural limits.

Problem. Random changes in the complex coded information in living organisms are usually lethal, harmful or useless and even the rare ‘beneficial’ mutations, e.g. wingless beetles on windy islands and fish in caves with shrivelled eyes, are information losses. The effect of mutations is likely to have the same effect as the random shuffling of statements in a computer program. Random changes to existing genetic information do not produce truly new traits (such as feathers, eyes, wings, lungs, etc.). [See The evolution train’s a-comin’ Creation 24(2):16–19 and Q&A: Mutations] Where are the ‘Missing Links’?

Article #3. Transitional forms. Since evolution has (it is alleged) proceeded relentlessly over many millions of years, remains of the intermediate forms should be everywhere in the fossil record.

Problem. The search for these transitional forms—’missing links’—has failed to produce any unequivocal examples. Some paleontologists suggest that they will never be found because they are not there. Evolution supposedly occurred so rapidly in the past that the evidence has vanished without trace. This explanation raises another problem. Evolution cannot be observed in the present because allegedly it is proceeding too slowly. Why should it have occurred so rapidly in the past?

Article #4. The fossil record shows the development of life-forms that have proceeded from simple to complex over geological time.

Problem. The simple life-forms are not so simple. There are other explanations for the perceived order in the fossil record. For example, the more plentiful number of marine fossils in lower strata with more mobile forms in higher strata is to be expected if the earth suffered a catastrophic flood. [See also Q&A Fossils] We do not see anything proceeding from simple to complex by any natural process. In fact, the reverse occurs: complex things naturally tend to become less ordered. All natural spontaneous processes are accompanied by more disorder.

Article #5. Extinct life-forms. We know that many different creatures once lived on earth which are now extinct as a result (it is believed) of the evolutionary process of competition in the struggle for survival. Problem. Creatures can become extinct for numerous reasons, such as encroachment of man’s activities upon the domain of the endangered species. Extinction is not evolution.

Article #6. Embryonic recapitulation. The development of the foetus in the womb retraces the evolutionary history of life-forms.

Problem. The leading proponent of this idea, German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, faked his drawings. The idea has been discredited by authorities for a long time. [See Q&A: Embryonic Recapitulation and Similarities] General fallacies

Article #7. Vestigial organs. The human body is said to contain many organs that are a carry-over from our evolutionary development—the appendix, the coccyx, tonsils, ear muscles, etc.

Problem. It used to be maintained that there were almost 200 vestigial organs in the human body. Almost all these organs are now known to perform useful functions. The routine removal of various organs or their destruction by ionizing radiation was once widely practised in the belief that they were useless. People died because of this. Nowadays, doctors are reluctant to remove even tonsils, which once were regarded as ’vestigial’. [See Q&A: Vestigial Organs]

Article #8. Homology. The fact that there are certain similarities between components of living creatures ranging from bones to biochemistry shows that all things must have evolved from a common ancestor.

Problem. This is by no means the only conclusion. An alternative explanation is that the components of all living things are designed and manufactured by a common Designer/Maker.

Article #9. Imperfections. The alleged existence of imperfections in the design of living things supposedly proves that evolution must have occurred. A Creator God would never have made anything with these imperfections.

Problem. A better explanation is that all life-forms were created perfectly fitted for the functions for which they were originally intended, but some changes have occurred because of the entry of sin into the world which has marred that original perfection (Romans 8:20–22). Also, many so-called ‘imperfect’ designs work brilliantly in reality.

Article #10. Adaptation. We know that germs develop an immunity to antibiotics, insects develop resistance to insecticides, rabbits develop resistance to myxomatosis. All these things are said to be examples of evolution in action.

Problem. After all this, the germs are still germs, the insects are still the same sort of insect, the rabbits are still rabbits. There is no indication that the basic form of the organism under the attack is going to change into something else. These changes do not result from some spontaneous increase in information in the genetic programs. The rabbits are not about to become horses or hounds. The general evolution model requires that one kind of thing change into a different kind of thing. Age-of-the-earth assumptions

Article #11. 4.6 billion years. Evolutionists say they know that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Given the great age of the earth, anything could have happened over such a vast period of time, and probably did.

Problem. There are no scientific laws in the present that allow us to postulate that life could ever make itself. We do not know that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The assumption of the principle of uniformity (‘everything remains the same’) together with assumptions about starting conditions and other matters, allows selected data based on long-lived radioisotopes to be used in support of such a belief. Other data based on radioisotopes give estimates ranging from comparatively young ages to billions of years more than 4.6 billion years. There are dozens of natural chronometers based on the principle of uniformity that give estimates for the age of the earth ranging from less than 10,000 years to millions of years.  The majority of these chronometers give ages vastly younger than the presently accepted evolutionary age for the earth. [See Q&A: Radiometric Dating and Young Age Evidence.] The articles attiring the Emperor are, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, in spite of the devoted homage of powerful courtiers. Some museums, especially, are shrines of remembrance—long on scenarios relating the story, but short on critical attention to the substance of the actual garments. The credibility is impressive, but not the clothes. This emperor’s clothes really are invisible.

%d bloggers like this: