|Recently I published an article in the local paper supporting the removal of evolution from the school curriculum. I received some mail by those who supported the evolutionary theory and one particular e-mail contained some interesting questions and points worthy of responding to and as exampled by the above opening, his points or group of similar points will title each new section.
As believers, we are to be the light unto the world. Jesus makes this very clear in Mat. 5:14 and as that light we cannot follow or spread the message of darkness. We must speak the truth if the people of the world are to receive the light.
What this means is that no matter what scientists say, no matter what science claims if it disagrees with the Bible we have to oppose, refute and not follow it. It is not the truth. At no time in the Bible does either God or Jesus say go and follow science. Nor does the Bible say to use science to discover our origins.
If they did, then, there would be no reason for them to include Genesis 1 & 2 in the Bible, nor would they need to include all other references to the various creative acts. Why? Simply because that would mean that they lied about God’s power, creativity, work accomplished in the beginning and the Bible would become a useless book not worthy of study or accepting. It would just be one big lie and a waste of time to read.
At best, it would only be studied to learn what not to do in life. There is a reason why God did not teach or command people to follow after science in learning about origins, actually there are many. First, we would not learn where we came from. Science does not have that answer and cannot verify their claims. We would waste our lives wondering about our source.
Second, we would not know why we exist. Science does not have that answer either. Without God, scientists cannot produce an answer to this question. They don’t know and they cannot heal the torment that would be found in people because of this void.
Third, not only does God answer those two questions but He included an aspect of life that escapes many. He tells His creation that He wants them. It is a message that overwhelms those feelings of rejection which come when family, friends and the human race abandon you for whatever reason. One can always turn to God and feel wanted.
Fourth, God gives support to morality. If God was not part of the act of origin, then morality would not be needed. It would not be needed nor would it matter because there is no ultimate authority going to punish those who do evil. Heaven and hell would not exist thus morality would have no hold on how people lived their lives. There is nothing to achieve by being moral.
Sixth, God set an example for all to follow. He commanded His people to work 6 days and rest the 7th and if He did not do so then His command becomes hypocritical and God would have sinned. This would mean that there was no God and people are free to live as they please.
Seventh, He made it very clear that He alone is God and there is no other. This means God let His people know that no matter what kind of trouble or problem they had, He was stronger than them all. He wanted to reassure His creation. None of this could be taught, if God and Jesus turned peoples’ attention away from them and put it on secular science.
What would be the point of learning or believing if God and Jesus said we are not the ones who know the answers and you have to go to another source to get their answers? Science is not wrong but how it is used and by whom does matter. Origins is outside the scope of real science because our origins have been revealed to us. There is no reason for real science to be redundant. There is far more information waiting to be discovered but secular science has decided to waste time, resources and money to find an alternative to the Genesis account.
The following will contain rebuttals to the evolutionary arguments and may not be answered in the order that they were originally written. That re-order doesn’t manipulate or change the content or context of the letter. Some of the points have been edited simply for reasons of space but again no attempt has been made to alter the points made by the author of the letter.
You go on to disparage Charles Darwin’s credentials, and imply that evolution is just some s ort of conspiracy among unqualified scientists
The article did not disparage Darwin’s lack of a scientific education nor did it hint at any conspiracy by Darwin and his colleagues. It simply mentioned how ironic it was that trained scientists the world over, for over 100 years, have followed a non-scientist and his theory even though those same scientists disparage and attack all opponents of the theory of evolution for not being scientists.
It is ironic because secular scientists are following a group of non-scientists’ thinking. But this scenario also depicts a biblical passage where God said He would send a delusion for people to believe and the theory of evolution fits that description; for no matter how many times a believer points out that the process can’t work or exist, the evolutionist holds even tighter to their theory.
It doesn’t help when the prevailing attitude of many secular scientists is the motto—‘all science is good science.’ This tells us that they do not consider the possibility that being deceived is in their minds. Most secular scientists do not accept the fact of the existence of the devil and do not consider that they are being led astray with their acceptance of a non-existent process.
To them, they are doing ‘science’ and science has become their god, their final authority even though its limitations contradict such promotion. One of the disturbing trends in science is the removal of moral boundaries as secular scientists strive to do more and more questionable activities. Secular science itself does not contain any moral code or fiber as all things done in the name of science means society as a whole will benefit.
This is not true but such thinking shows how deep the deception goes in some secular scientists’ thinking. All science is not good science and the anything goes because it is science mentality doesn’t work as right and wrong disappear, as does morality.
Darwin was not a believer in God despite his degree in theology. He said it himself that his faith or belief did not take thus his work is tainted by unbelief and his results are influenced by his rejection of the biblical account of creation.
His work was non-scientific but it was appealing as it provided those who did not want to believe the Bible an alternative idea to explore. It doesn’t matter how futile the theory of evolution is, it is not the Bible thus people will accept it so they do not have to follow God’s word.
For non-believers then, Darwin’s and his cohorts’ lack of a scientific degree means little because, even though they may disagree with his initial thesis, Darwin has made their lives easier by providing a theory that can be constructed to fit scientific thought regardless of its validity, its veracity, or its lack of credibility. Also, it does not contain God. This theory allowed men to appoint themselves the supreme species and they like that over humbling themselves to the true Supreme Being.
The mental gymnastics evolutionists have to perform to keep their flickering light lit is astounding as they will use any excuse, no matter how feeble, to keep their acceptance of the theory alive.
In your opinion piece in The Korea Times you made the claim that evolutionist ‘cheat’ and you added, “They start at the end to prove the beginning and that just doesn’t work.” Could you expand on this? Also what is a ‘fully genetically developed specimen’? What do you mean “original conditions”? What would you consider a ‘transitional species’? What experiments are you referring to?
The Bible tells us that God saw what He created and He declared it good. You find those words throughout Genesis 1; then in Genesis 2:1 we find these words: ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”
Now focus on the word ‘completed.’ That word tells us that no further work was necessary to make creation better. No process was needed to improve upon the design or function of the species created nor upon the humans either.
All species were genetically complete and each creature and human had a perfect complete set of genes needed to function in the environment in which they were placed. Then Adam sinned and that allowed that perfection to be corrupted which meant that the genes were no longer invulnerable but would react to impurities that entered the world at that time.
Sickness, death became a part of life and they altered the workings of the genes so that they could not perform to their utmost ability 100% of the time. It is this situation in which the evolutionary scientist does his or her work. They are not working upon developing genetical material but working on a product that has become corrupted or imperfect.
Their work is not discovering new evolutionary methods or avenues of production but merely showing how genes or DNA react to alien ingredients injected into their already corrupted processes. The supposed mutations and changes to a species body are not evolution action but merely reactions to more corruption.
The problem comes in when the evolutionist over-broadens the definition of what evolution is. Now, it is no more a process but simply ‘change.’ Any and all ‘change’ is declared evolutionary whether that is true or not. The label ‘change’ is a means of defending the theory without the responsibility of producing real evidence or do real investigation into what they are experimenting with or on. It is crediting a source without proving that the supposed source is actually responsible for such change.
This is what I mean by cheating. Evolutionary scientists are not starting from the beginning and demonstrating their theory as truly true but they are starting with a finished product that has been corrupted then attributing their work to their theory because they do not believe God and do not want Him part of their work.
They do not and cannot produce one scientific experiment that shows that their theory works. They take God’s work, influenced by sin, and then use assumption, conjecture, leaps to conclusions and wishful thinking to say that their process exists and is responsible. That isn’t proving their theory true, it is cheating.
If the evolutionary scientist wants to prove their theory is correct then they need to find and produce the original one-celled creature and put it in something that contains the original conditions that influenced it to produce multiple life forms and stand back and let it do its work without their help.
Any other method doesn’t prove their theory true but is an escape from the rules in order to maintain their theory’s ideas. We need to see the real process in action not just the evolutionists’ word.
I say word because recently Live Science published another article claiming that a transitional fossil had been found. Well we do not know it is transitional because it is a fossil, the creature is dead and no transitional process is being observed in action. We merely have a dead animal preserved in whatever position it finally laid and the evolutionists’ word that it is in transition.
It is a declaration not an observed, repeatable ocurrance which means that declaration is neither scientific nor evolutionary. To many mitigating factors are in play with that fossil which determine the species final look that the evolutionists ignore to desperately find proof for their supposed process.
The evolutionist is quick to jump on the transition wagon to consider the other possibilities like: it was born deformed, it survived an attack by another creature, it wasn’t fossilized in a perfect photographical position and on it goes. There are just too many alternative reasons that explain the appearance of the fossil and none include the evolutionary idea of transition.
Another good example of the assumption and conjecture factor in evolutionary thinking is the idea of the ‘walking fish.’ There the evolutionary scientist used 1/2 of a fossil, sans legs to claim it was a transitional species that walked on land. Problem is, it was a fossil and no observation of the whole fish nor its ability to walk were observed. No historical record or pictures recording its journeys were ever produced to support their claim.
In other words, the evolutionist is making up their ideas as they go and claiming them to be evolutionary and scientific. Doesn’t work and their house of cards goes tumbling down as they are shown not to follow their own rules when it comes to their theory. Looking at an incomplete fossil and claiming something is declaration and faith not scientific principles.
As for the other questions in that header, those are just distractions meant to waste a believer’s time. The evolutionist really knows what is meant by ‘original conditions’, ‘transitional species’ and they are well aware of the hundreds of thousands of evolutionary experiments that have been conducted over the past 150 years. I am reminded of all of those in the many discussions I have had with evolutionists and my usage of those words follow the evolutionary definitions, not my own or other creationists.
What ‘ancient document’ do you suppose might have supported their claim? Why would anyone expect an ancient document to support a 19th century idea?
I will address the second question first and the first question second. Evolution is not a 19th century idea. It comes from long before Darwin and his generation and I am not referring to the theorizing done by Darwin’s grandfather. The idea of evolution has been around since about the 6th century BC, (or at least that is the earliest recorded mentioning of such thinking that I am aware of).
In China there is a work called Kuo-Hsiang which states: “I venture to ask whether the creator is or is not. If he is not, how can he create things? The creating of things has no Lord; everything creates itself” No the ancients probably didn’t use the term ‘evolution’ but the concept has been present from the earliest of times as not all ancient people were religious or believers in the truth.
The reason we would expect ancient documentation to support a supposedly 19th century idea is simple. If evolution were true then we would see a historical record documenting the process and we would not see a worldwide documenting of creation or altered versions of the creation account.
In almost all ancient civilizations we find some sort of creation event, some are similar to the one found in Genesis and others are not but they all record at creative act not a processional one. We find no such history for the evolutionary theory. In fact not one ancient society records any word that supports an evolutionary origin.
If the idea of evolution were true then we would see the reverse of this fact. We would see evolutionary tales, legends, bed time stories, we would also see the idea of evolution attested to by ancient writers other than a mere mention in the above quoted work. Yet there is none. This lack of a historical foundation undermines any claim that the evolutionist makes about their theory’s supposed historical achievement.
There would be no reason for any creation account to exist if creation did not take place. The Bible also backs this up as in Ecc. 1:9 we are told ‘that there is nothing new under the sun.’ This means that the idea of evolution is not a original or modern concept. It has been thought of before and if true, we would see a different set of historical works, ones which attested to and supported the truthfulness of the evolutionary theory.
The idea of evolution has been shown to be a false alternative for over 3,000 years. This is an obstacle that the evolutionist cannot overcome. They can claim that the ancients weren’t smart enough, didn’t have the right equipment etc. to see this theory in action or its supposed presence but that is just an excuse to avoid the reality that evolutionists are supporting a lie.
The type of ancient manuscript that would document the truthfulness of evolution would be many. We find creation accounts written on different surfaces from rock to mud to paper thus we should find the same for the theory of evolution. Yet none exist.
Unlike the quoted words above, we would see documentation of real evidence for the theory not the declarations we have today or in that short passage. To be true one must have real evidence not the kind that is stolen from other sources and attributed to the theory but real physical, observable evidence. None exist for evolution.
For creation, we have myriads of evidence. The nurseries for humans, animals and plants show that all species and humans reproduce after their kind. There is no breaking the boundary down and seeing new species develop. The secular hybrid experiments also support this fact and the Genesis account. Secular scientists have not been able to produce new species from mixing kinds, their results have been met with failure 100% of the time.
We also have the original conditions for the creative act present today. The environment is the same today as it was when God created plant life, animals and humans. The evolutionist cannot produce their idea of the original environment because they do not know what they were nor how life started. They do not have a clue. (Of course, the evolutionist will complain that their theory is not about origin of life but development but if they do not know where life came from then they have no clue how it developed).
All historical documentation follows the creative account not the evolutionary model. Evolution is without historical fact and foundation. Such is necessary to prove that one has the theory correct and so others can verify their claims. No evolutionist can verify one claimed historical transitional event in their theory.
They do not the historical foundation needed to show that they are correct, and that they got everything right. That means they have to use blind faith to accept their theory. Unfortunately for the evolutionist, their claims to be scientific depend upon producing physical, observable, repeatable evidence But they cannot do that for their theory nor can they point to any historical document which backs up their words.
Yes, they need historical documentation to support their claims and since the do not have any, their theory is unverifiable, unobservable and unscientific. Not to mention—untrue.
If I say ancient people didn’t understand modern astronomy it is not an insult. It is just a fact. To view it as an insult is just an appeal to emotion. We know that the earth orbits around the sun without a doubt now, but most ancient people believed the sun went around the Earth. Why would you expect ancient people to have a greater insight into the workings of nature?
Actually it is an insult as it infers that modern astronomers and evolutionists were smarter than the ancients and that the universe somehow changed over the intervening few thousand years. There is no appeal to emotion but it is just another distracting tactic done by the evolutionist to take a person’s attention off the fact that the ancients knew the universe as well as the modern astronomers do.
The ancients charted planets, the moon, eclipses, created calendars that were as accurate or almost as accurate as modern ones and on it goes. The fact that most of their records do not survive leaves a void in how much the ancients really knew.
Each day more information is discovered that tell s us that the ancients knew far more than some people give them credit. As to the idea that most of the ancients believed the sun went around the earth, that is just not true.
That idea is taken from the famous Galileo trial between him and the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few misguided people, who read scripture wrong, thought that the sun revolved around the earth does not mean that the whole ancient world thought the same. Or such thinking is taken from commonly used phrases such as: ‘the sun rises’ or ‘the sun is setting’ and so on.
Such referencing does not indicate one believes the sun revolves around the earth but merely implies what it looks like to the non-astronomer. There is no real evidence that the people of the ancient world were any different in their remarks about the sun’s comings and goings as the modern world.
The last question is basically an elitist query done in hopes of establishing superiority over others. The ancients were as curious about the world as the modern inhabitants and knew so much about nature that they were able to derive ancient medicines that worked. In fact we still use those ancient medicines today.
To dismiss the ancients simply because a bunch of 19th and 20th century men and women were foolish enough to buy into the evolutionary scheme doesn’t mean that the ancients were ignorant savages who did not know where they came from or how they came to be.
The ancients were smart enough to construct buildings so perfectly square and fit together that a sheet of paper could not be placed between the blocks. They also constructed sewer systems, had hot and cold running water, and a host of other modern day conveniences that would astound the modern observer by the craftsmanship, the calculations etc., and all done without modern equipment.
To say that the ancients would not be able to study nature is a charge that cannot be supported and an insult to their intelligence, abilities and personalities. Such negative thinking by evolutionists just does not hold up but we can see how their modern inferiority complexes drive them to insult a people long dead and incapable of defending themselves.
On evolutionists rely on ‘fortune telling’ Do you mean that scientists make predictions based on their theory and then make observation that will either support of refute their hypotheses?
At the website Proslogion we find an excellent article on scientific predictions and in the article we find these words: “Like most evolutionary predictions, however, this turns out to be dead wrong.”
To be a prophet of God the standard for predictions coming true is 100%. There can be no failure but in the evolutionary world, that standard seems to be considerably less. One would think that if evolution were true, they would not need this guessing game and be able to hit the mark each and every time.
They don’t but they do represent to the courts and the general public that they actually do have great success in their fulfillment of their predictions. In other words, they misrepresent the reality that takes place in their work and one wonders if the courts would give evolutionary teachers such latitude if they knew the true results and how few predictions actually came true.
This misrepresentation of the use of predictions is simply fraud as the truth is well hidden from public view. In an interview with Evolutionary News and Views Dr. Hunter said very much the same thing.
But there are other problems with the method of prediction and one major one is that predictions do not eliminate other sources from producing the same results. There is no way for the scientist to determine if the process of evolution was responsible for the desired result and no way to show it was actually involved.
This is what I mean by fortune telling when it comes to evolutionary science. It is a big guess and their guesses fail to either materialize or show that the supposed process did the actual work. Predictions certainly do not exclude God’s genetic design under the influence of sin and corruption from producing those observed results.
When the evolutionist publishes or proclaims a successful match between prediction and results it reminds me of a class of students who, when given a question with multiple possibilities for the right answer, recite every possibility till they eliminate all the wrong answers and are left with the only one that answers the question.
That is not prediction but a continued effort till one gets the answer they want. In other words, evolutionists will not stop and think that their theory is wrong but will keep going till they word the prediction in such a way they get the answer they want to hear. When they fail, the excuses are as ridiculous and ludicrious as they are feeble. The Proslogion article records an example of their excuses.
The evolutionist doesn’t want the truth thus they ignore those results and unfulfilled predictions in order to continue pursuing a false idea and theory. This tells you that evolutionists want anything, no matter how badly it performs, other than the creation account found in the Bible. There is no other reason for their ignoring of the facts.
Predictions are not evidence but attempts to use circular reasoning to justify the expense and waste of time, money and other resources which are needed in other more needy places.
Science is a powerful methodology, but as you point out it cannot tell us about things for which there is no evidence. Thus if all the evidence of what I ate last week is destroyed the scientific method can’t tell us anything. Fortunately that is not the case in evolution; there is fossil evidence, DNA evidence, embryonic development, phylogenetics, et al. all of them converging independently on the fact of evolution.
I am not going to say much about methodology because there are only so many ways one can physically do an experiment but more can be said about who wields the methodology because that s where the danger lies.
Like guns, science methodology is not a weapon unless it gets placed into the wrong hands then trouble begins. Secular scientists are not immune to the sin and corruption that entered into the world at Adam’s sin and they are subject to the same sins as anyone else.
Seeing one’s life work go up in smoke is a powerful motivator to influence one’s experiments and point of view. We also know for a fact that evolutionary scientists do not like anybody working on anti-evolutionary material and they have gone to great lengths to ruin people’s careers because of that hatred.
Scientific methodology is not the problem, people are. As for the next part of the quote, the author missed the point. Since science cannot determine what someone had for breakfast last week even when written statements or shopping lists, etc. are given to the researcher as a clue and a starting point it stands to reason that they would not be able to figure out how life developed even with fossils and DNA evidence.
What I mean is, the written statements and menus are mere mute evidence as there is no way to verify what the person actually ate that week. The researcher would have to do a lot of assuming, leaping to conclusions, using conjecture and wishful thinking to create a possibility for what the menu looked like. Then if they did not accept the written words, create their own menu and declare it valid even though they could not verify the correctness of their work.
The same goes for the fossil record, (I will get to the other examples in the quote after this), as all fossils really are are one snap shot in time. A fossil is mute and to the chagrin of the researcher there are no ancient manuscripts detailing any description of the fossil, how it lived and so on. The evolutionary scientist has to assume, conjecture, leap to conclusions and use wishful thinking in hopes of creating a possibility for the existence of the fossil.
Then like the breakfast menu, they have no way of verifying their investigation or conclusions and no way to show that they got it right. Fossils do not record transition in process and it takes a lot of reading into the species to come away with any sort of story the evolutionist likes.
Fossils also cannot show in which direction the supposed transition took place. What that means is that they really cannot tell which is mother sample and which is the daughter (next in line) specimen. Again there is no way for the evolutionist to verify their claim. These fossils are supposed to have been dead for millions of years and no observation has been made to see how the transition occurred.
Of course, the evolutionist will turn to indicators like the rocks or dirt the fossil was found in to help date the sample but there is no real way to date those rocks and the evolutionist is left with circular reasoning to make their theory stick. I say no real way because th supposed dating systems are so flawed and miss key data that there is no way they can actually date anything accurately enough to support their ideas.
As for the other examples mentioned, DNA was thought to be the holy grail of science; that is until it was found out that DNA can be faked to fit the situation. It is also not that easy to recover DNA samples from ancient bones. As for embryonic development, that is a moot point. That does not demonstrate evolution in action for the evolutionist cannot show anywhere in history an observed repeatable transition from its predecessor method to the present form.
They just do not have the evidence to prove their claims. Now the evolutionist will claim that these pieces come together independently but that is just not so for in each different field there are like-minded men who produce work in favor of their theory. There is no objectivity let alone independent meshing of information. All of the scientific fields employ the same assumptive, etc., method of doing their work and all start, if they are evolutionist, from the pre-conceived conclusion that evolution is a fact.
Their ‘independent’ argument falls short when examined closely. All the evidence they claim to have does the exact same thing. Fossils, DNA, embryotic development upon close scrutiny do not support what the evolutionist clams. Fossils do not record actual transitions, do not show an actual process in action, nor do they record perfect specimens each and everytime to be studied. It all has to be read into them to make the supposed evidence speak for the theory of evolution. DNA, embryotic development are the same.
The evolutionist starts with an end result then try to force a new beginning to fit, simply because they do not want the truth. The truth is God created a perfect product and no fine tuning was needed.
I rarely hear creationists complain about modern medicine, the engineering of their automobiles, or the operation of their smartphones — which developed from the same process that brought us evolution. It is just when science has something to say about ‘origins’ that they seem to mind.
First, modern medicine, automobiles and smart phones have a real track record. They are made or designed from real raw materials and have a historical track record that can be seen without having to take an elitist’s word for it.
In researching medicine, we see that the ancients had more than a few witchdoctors chanting some magic spell. Archaeology has uncovered real professional dental work whose superior work exceeds most modern dentists and we have found prescriptions and medical texts along with the bones of humans who have had major surgery and recovered.
The ancient’s prescription medicines were derived from real plants that still exist and are used in today’s medical profession. Automobiles in some form have been around for some time, though the motorized versions are basically a 19th century product, transportation of the public has been done throughout the centuries in some form or another. Again, automobiles are a product of real raw materials that can be found by anyone.
As for smart phones, they are a product of technology but figuring out how to communicate simply has been a task for civilizations for millennium. They too come from real raw materials found today all over the world.
In contrast, the theory of evolution has no such track record and its components are nor real. The theory is the work of over fertile imaginations of those who have rejected the Biblical account of creation and needed an alternative to explain how life came to exist as we know it today.
Unfortunately for the evolutionist, its design, its history, its procession cannot be found by just anyone but only revealed to a small group of elites who want people to take their word for it. Also, in the aforementioned examples we see that none of those products go contrary to God’s word.
There is nothing prohibiting the use of medicine, automobiles or smart phones found written I God’s word. One just has to follow God’s rules when using them. In contrast, the theory of evolution does go against God’s word and has humans, who were not at the beginning, declaring that God lied to everyone.
Evolutionists do not like being called liars but do they stop to think how God feels about it especially when He is offering eternal life to all who will by faith accept His way of salvation? The ramifications of God lying are far greater than those that come with the evolutionary scientist lying.
For evolution to exist and be true, God cannot exist nor can He or religion be constructed. Why? Simply because a person cannot conceive of something that had no existence in some form or another during their lifetime. To explain those words an example is needed. Take flying for instance. Man would not be able to conceive of the idea of flying if birds and other flying animals had never existed. How could they? There would be nothing to plant the idea into their heads and nothing to motivate them to pursue achieving the art of flying.
It doesn’t matter if the technology for airplanes was not invented at that time, the idea of man flying is found in ancient Greek myths and continued on from there. The idea possibly pre-dated the Greeks as well we just do not know. In other words, if God did not exist and had not existed at any time then humans would not be able to conceive of religion or God or a god. It would just be impossible.
There would also be no need to invent a god or religion for man would be the supreme species and their rule would be law. They could do whatever they wanted to and would not be in need of a religion to ease their fears. They would not have any for no judgement would be coming nor any punishment for how they lived their lives would be implemented.
Second, what evolutionist fail to realize is that science is not responsible for medicine, automobiles or smart phones. All products we see in existence that man enjoys, is a product of God given intelligence and the raw materials to make things work. The evolutionist likes to credit science but science would be nowhere and achieve nothing if God had not provided the brains, the thinking processes, the materials needed to construct said products.
Science and evolution actually do nothing in all of this and are over-credited for the things that were invented. They say that ‘necessity is the mother of all inventions’ thus according to that saying one does not need science to invent they just need a problem to solve. The solutions do not come from science nor the process of evolution, they come from God via the intelligence He bestowed upon people.
It is pure arrogance for the evolutionist to think that science and evolution were responsible for any achievement we see today or in the past.
Third, the evolutionist also ignores the fact that God created science and owns it. The evolutionary scientist has simply usurped control and authority, taking it form God and placing it where it does not belong—with the process of evolution.
This brings us to an interesting problem which the evolutionist cannot solve. The supposed process of evolution is a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-creative, non-foreknowing, non-emotional, non-intelligent, and so on, machine; yet the evolutionary scientist cannot explain how such an apparatus could guide life to where it produced all that the process did not have nor could conceive.
Reproduction is a prime example. Since the process guided initial reproduction via splitting of cells why would it deem it necessary to guide life to develop a sexual reproduction system? There is no purpose for that in the theory of evolution. There is for creation as sexual reproduction is more than just sex but a uniting of two people to create a single unit, so people have someone to rely upon, to create a family.
In the theory of evolution, there is no purpose or reason for things like disease, death, hunger, wars, right and wrong, morality, laws and so on. Nothing that exists has a reason to exist or a purpose if the theory of evolution was true and the evolutionist has to scramble to come up with some half-baked idea to explain why such things exist in life today.
With creation, we have both the reason for their existence and the purpose. Creation answers all of people’s questions, evolution doesn’t answer one. This is why creationists get upset when evolutionists try to replace creation with evolution. Evolution is a lie, does not work, has nothing, calls God a liar, and has no answers or purpose.
The theory also destroys hope, honesty, fairness, justice and other necessities that make societies function in a healthy manner. The theory of evolution is a destructive theory where nothing good comes from it for anyone but those who happen to be bullies and are stronger than the next person.
Educators have a duty to their students to teach the subject they are assigned to teach. To avoid teaching evolution, which is central to a knowledge and understanding of biology, is a negligence of that duty.
This is a typical appeal to authority by the evolutionist. They do not like it when the creationist does it but they certainly do not mind when their own make such appeals. The duty of the teacher is to teach the truth and they are not to cause students to disbelieve in Jesus. In fact Jesus has some very strong words for those who like to alter the beliefs of their students and lead them away from Jesus.
In Matthew 18:6 we read this warning: ‘But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
God takes teaching very seriously and we read in 1 Cor. 12:28 that teachers are placed third in the Kingdom. That means with such great honor comes great responsibility and that responsibility includes teaching the truth to the students.
If one is to teach the subject they are assigned then they must teach it excluding all the untrue parts. That means a teacher’s duty really is to not teach the theory of evolution because none of that theory is true.
It is not negligent to not teach the theory of evolution for it is not integral to learning about biology. It is an imported idea that is neither scientific nor sustainable when scrutinized carefully. One can do biology without learning the theory of evolution because the supposed changes and mutations are only attributed to the theory.
There is no way the evolutionist can prove the supposed process actually guided the altered state of the specimen under investigation. It doesn’t take knowing the theory of evolution to learn how a body functions or how disease hinders its normal working state.
The proof for this is found in history. For thousands of years prior to the forcing of the evolutionary theory upon the school curriculum medical personal and other students were taught biology and the lack of knowing about evolution did not hurt their medical employment. In fact, we have ancient medical textbooks that do a very good job in instructing the student about the body.
Medicines were made and successful without any evolutionary knowledge. We have ancient prescriptions that back that statement up. It is a misrepresentation to the students to claim that the knowledge of evolution is necessary for biological study.
If you are going to teach science then you have to address the consensus view of the authorities on that topic. Among biologists the consensus view is evolution has over abundantly met its burden of proof, teaching otherwise is a disservice to the students.
This is another appeal to authority and it just doesn’t work. Just because there is a consensus view that the supposed theory of evolution is a fact doesn’t mean it is really a fact or even true. When it comes to truth, when it comes to origins, the majority does not rule.
Even if a false idea has 100% support, it still doesn’t make it true. The truth remains no matter if any one follows it or not. It also doesn’t matter how many experts on biology say that evolution has met its ‘burden of proof’ their opinion and declaration do not change what is false into something true.
God has made this world, and since it is God’s universe, God’s creation, God’s kingdom, then it is God’s way that rules not secular man’s and certainly not the majority of humans. God has already said what is true and if anyone opposes that, then they are not in the right nor of God.
Believers are not to listen to the unchurched world for they are being deceived and deceiving others (2 Tim 3:13). It doesn’t matter how many scientific degrees they have, how many books they have published, how many articles printed or how many experiments they have done. If they do not believe then they are not following the truth and the believer is to dismiss their words.
God makes the rules very clear and easy to understand it is up to the believer to make their stand with God and not man. In scripture, you will find many verses where God sand Jesus say: ‘Follow me” but nowhere will you find a verse that states to follow science, especially secular science. There are many reasons why this is so.
First, God wants to see if people love Him for who He is and not what they can get from Him. Second, it provides proof that they love him as 1 Cor. 13 tells us that if we love someone we believe them thus if we love God, we will believe Him over science.
Third, the unbelieving world has as its ruler the devil and the human is to make a choice—either they choose God or evil, there is no middle ground. By choosing evolution over creation the believer sides with evil not God.
It doesn’t matter what the consensus says because the opinion of the consensus is not part of the rules. It is up to the believer to be the light unto the world and speak the truth so the unbelieving world will hear it and be without excuse, if they reject that message.
God uses the believer but if the believer follows the consensus of the secular world, then God cannot use them and the message is not sent. Consensus means nothing, the truth means everything and the truth lies in the Bible starting in Genesis 1 and going to the end of Revelation.
The Ministry of Education has failed in this respect. They should no more consult with creationists over matters of biology than they should consult biblical literalists over history, or geography.
I am not going to say too much here except to point out a couple of things. The Ministry of Education referred to is the South Korean one and it has not failed. In fact it has taken a brave stand to remove the lies of evolution from its students grasp.
The other part just exposes the hatred and bias found in the evolutionary scientist (and those who accept the evolutionary theory over Genesis 1). It undermines their credibility as they make themselves hypocrites who demand open-mindedness and other attributes from the believer but refuse to do the same in return.
In other words, they do not practice what they preach. History, it is said, is in the eye of the historian and that saying actually disqualifies so many secular historians from being consulted on anything historical for their unbelief, their personal preferences, their emotional attachments etc., alter history and they write it as they see fit not objectively so that all can see the real truth.
But that is the point why evolutionists are so militant when it comes to teaching others about origins. They do not want the truth and they certainly do not want others to have it. They hide behind science because it is far too limited to be of any use to anyone as far as origins is concerned. But the believer doesn’t have to worry about science for God made the equation that is to be used when deciding about how all things came to be.
Part of that equation is faith and there is no escaping that factor. The evolutionary scientist was not present in the beginning and they have no clue how things originated because they reject scriptures. God was present and He knows what He did, all the human has to do is to choose one side or the other but they have to use faith.
They either trust a fallible human scientist who doesn’t know or care if you exist or if you are healthy or not, etc., or they put their trust in God who does care, about everything about you. It is not about evidence or being scientific, it is about reality.
The evolutionist has nothing and offers nothing. God has everything and offers everything. You would think the choice would be simple but evil plays a role in this as well and it all depends upon whom you will listen to as you make your choice.
I hope you will take this opportunity to clarify your position.
Evolutionists like to force their ideas on to others. It is the only way they can get people to listen to their theories. They like to use democracy because it opens the door and allows them to manipulate enough people to vote their way. Democracy is a sword that cuts both ways, it is great for instituting the right things in life but it is also available for those who have ulterior motives or evil intent.
Adolf Hitler found this out as he saw that direct violence to gain power simply would not work. So he switched tactics and took the democratic route. It wasn’t long before he wielded supreme power over Germany and we know how that turned out.
Evolutionists are doing much the same way. They are using democracy to get their theory into the school curriculums as a monopoly in order that students cannot learn the truth. They are also using democracy and the legal system to keep alternative points of view from competing with their theory. If evolution were true, they would have nothing to fear from alternate ideas for they would know they were right. But since their theory is not true, they have to take extreme measures to maintain their strangle hold on science.
If evolution were true, we would have real evidence and everyone would be able to see it and the discovery of how it works would not be left in the domain of a few elites; all people would know be familiar with the process on a first hand basis.
If evolution were true, the details of how the supposed process works would not change from decade to decade, century to century and so on. In many discussions I have had with evolutionists over the years one of their great rallying cries is that science changes.
Well, if they had the truth, it wouldn’t change. The truth is the same no matter who is handling it in any century. Evolutionary scientists claim one year that they now have the truth about evolution, but 5 to ten years later such claims are overturned and a new truth is proclaimed. Then another 5-10 years goes by and yet another upheaval takes place. It gets to the point that people start to notice that the evolutionist doesn’t have the truth nor has any clue to what the truth is.
The ever changing scientific idea concerning evolution is its weakest link, not greatest strength. It is also a very good clue to all people that evolution will never be true. The theory of evolution really is part of the great deception God sent to earth as people cling to it no matter how many times one refutes it and demonstrates how false it really is.
The sad thing is that many so-called Christians have jumped on the evolutionary bandwagon and either stayed with the original secular model or have tweaked it to include God via false ideas of theistic evolution and progressive creationism.
They do so because they are under the false impression that the idea of evolution allows them to do science. It doesn’t for evolution is neither scientific nor real and those who claim otherwise only delude themselves.
We do not need false teaching in our churches, in our schools or seminaries. Evolution is a false teaching and those that promote it are false teachers. The Bible tells us what to do with false teachers.
To combat this growing invasion into our educational systems, Christians need to get together and start really praying; praying for God’s participation and guidance in what to do. We do not need the legal system to fulfill our desires, we just need to follow God.
I think I have clarified my position thoroughly enough. Evolution is not true and believers need to fight against its implementation scripturally and follow the Holy Spirit’s leading honestly to save our students from being deceived and lead away from God.