MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT EVOLUTION

And The Foolishness of Man

By Gary Ray Branscome

Hasn’t God made the wisdom of this world foolish?

(1Corinthians 1:20)

The history of evolution has been a history of fraud and deception. In their zeal for atheistic religion, the advocates of evolution have come up with one so-called ape-man after another, only to have their claims later exposed as false. Now, the latest so-called ape-man, or ape-woman, is commonly referred to as “Lucy”. She is held up in text books, colleges, and museums as the ancestor of all humans. Yet most of what is being said about her is false.

First of all, the few pieces of her bones that we actually have are very similar to the bones of a small chimp that was only about three and a half feet tall. Secondly, none of the bones from her hands or feet were ever found. However, when I visited the Denver Museum of Nature and Science; the recreation of her that was on display stood at least five feet high, stood upright like a human, and had distinctly human hands and feet. Furthermore, their model had human eyes (the eyes of apes do not have whites), human lips, and relatively little body hair. None of that was supported by fossil evidence. On the contrary, it represented the artist’s fantasy, not fact. After viewing it I could only conclude that the purpose of the display was not to present the findings of science, but to promote atheistic religion at taxpayer expense.

The scientific name given to Lucy is, “Astralopithecus Afarensis”, a name which means “Southern Ape”. [The “pithecus” part of the name comes from the Greek pithēkos, meaning ape.] Scientists know that she was an ape. But, they do not get their pictures in the papers by finding ape bones, so they tell people what they want to hear (2Timothy 4:3). What is released to the media is usually designed to evoke public support for ‘research’, put institutions on the map (attract funds and students), etc. If you want to know what she actually looked like, the Creation Museum has a model of her that is actually true to what has been found.

LET’S BE HONEST

Whenever we find a fossil plant or animal that is not extinct, there is often no significant difference between that fossil plant or animal and its modern-day counterparts. I am not saying that there are no differences at all, but that the differences are often less than those within existing species. Nevertheless, because evolutionists do not like to admit that no evolution has taken place, they often give fossil life forms a different species name than that assigned to its modern-day counterparts. I encountered an example of that at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science

One display case in that museum had the skulls of two wolves. One was from a modern-day wolf, the other was found in the La Brea Tar Pits. The caption began by saying, “You can’t tell breeding habits from a fossil”, which is true. However, the captioning went on to say, “They [the two wolves] are so different in size and other traits that they probably wouldn’t have interbred. They are considered separate species.” Notice the word, “probably” in that statement. Not only do they have no way of knowing if the two wolves would interbreed or not, all of the wolf, fox and dog species in the world today can interbreed. Moreover, a quick check reveals that there are great size differences within each species of wolf. A fully grown Grey Wolf can weigh anywhere from 66 pounds to 180 pounds. And they can vary from 2 to 3 feet high at the shoulder. Furthermore, even though they claimed that the fossil wolf was much larger than the modern wolf, the size difference was less than common size differences between Grey Wolves. So could this be just another example of giving a fossil life form a different species name simply because it lived long ago?

LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one kind of animal ever changed (evolved) into another kind of animal. Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” could not, and did not, present any scientific [i.e. Baconian] evidence for evolution. Instead Darwin carefully crafted a case for evolution from circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be interpreted more than one way. For example, the finches that Darwin brought back from the Galapagos had different size beaks, and he assumed that if small changes like changes in the size of a beak could take place, then given millions of years finches could change into an entirely different animal. However, not only is their no proof that such change is possible, it flies in the face of modern genetics. Darwin’s finches are still finches, and there is no evidence that they are changing into anything else..

A similar argument used by evolutionists has to do with peppered moths. The moths come in both lighter and darker forms, and the claim is made that during the industrial revolution, when soot darkened many trees and buildings around London the darker moths became more common because the soot gave them better camouflage. For that reason, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science has a large display touting peppered moths as proof of evolution. However, peppered moths offer no proof for evolution at all. There were both light and dark moths before, and there are light and dark moths now. Nothing changed but the numbers, and they are all still moths. They have not changed into anything else. The Darwinian claim that one kind of animal can change into an entirely different kind is a cult doctrine that is being passed off as science when it is not.

WHAT ARE WE MADE OF?

Some who read the account of creation given in Genesis stumble over the words, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Instead of believing what the Bible says, the deceitfulness of the human heart causes them to doubt. They assume that they know better. After all, the idea that man is made of “dust” seems so unscientific to them. So why does Christ call them “fools”? (Luke 24:25)

What those who question Gen. 2:7 do not know, is that in ancient Hebrew the word, “dust” signifies those minute smoke-like wind-borne particles stirred up by feet, individual units of which are often too small to be seen. For that reason, if we were translating the word, “molecules” into ancient Hebrew we would translate it as, “dust”. When the Bible speaks of us as clay it is using metaphor. But, whenever it speaks of what we are made of without using a figure of speech it uses the word “dust” [i.e. molecules]. Therefore, what Genesis 2:7 is saying is just this, “And the LORD God formed man from the molecules of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”. God is always far ahead of science!

CULT DOCTRINE

In our present world we not only have to know how to deal with the attacks made on our faith by unbelievers, but also with attempts to read atheist ideas into God’s Word. One such attempt is known as the “Gap Theory”. Those who hold that view claim that the words, “And the earth was without form, and empty,” should be translated, “And the earth became without form, and empty” (Genesis 1:2). Now if that is all there was to their claim it would not be a problem. However, in order to justify that interpretation those who hold that view make up a story about millions of years of time transpiring while “the earth became without form,” and a story about Satan and his angels living on the earth and even fighting wars during that time. They then attempt to pass off that man-made story as the Word of God. However, because God does not want us to add to His Word we know that story is not from God. It is not an interpretation of the words, it is a made-up story. It is religious fiction. And, as religious fiction, it is not substantially different from the religious fiction contained in cult writings.

IRON-60 AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH

Many Christians are intimidated by claims that measurements of radioactive decay prove the earth is millions of years old. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Actually over 100 methods for dating the earth have been proposed, yet you only hear of a few because most of them give dates far younger than that claimed by evolutionists. For example: The April 2018 issue of Astronomy magazine says this. “Iron-60 [26 protons 34 neutrons] is a radioactive element that should no longer exist on Earth. It has a half life of 2.6 million years, after which the part that has become cobalt-60 [27 protons 33 neutrons] quickly turns to nickel-60 [28 protons 32 neutrons], a stable element.”

Instead of being intimidated by such claims, you need to realize that God created nickel-60 at the same time that He created Iron-60, on day one,. Therefore, the presence of nickel-60 is not evidence of an old earth, but the presence of iron-60 is proof that the world cannot be as old as the evolutionists claim. The facts always support the Bible.

THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES

People living today often do not realize that the widespread attack on the Bible in our society began over three hundred years ago. Nor do they realize that over the years scientists have held many opinions that are regarded as foolish today. Would you believe that a little over one hundred years ago, many scientists denied the existence of meteors? At the time, they insisted that, “It is impossible for rocks to fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky”. At the same time, other scientists claimed that space was full of a substance which they called “either”. In fact, as late as fifty years ago some people still spoke of radio broadcasts coming “through the either”.

Although Thomas Jefferson was a lifelong church member, and attended regularly whenever he was home, he had been convinced by a teacher that miracles were impossible. He believed that so strongly that he produced an edition of the Bible that had any mention of miracles removed from it. However, suppose that you could go back in time and tell him of some of the things that you have experienced. Tell him of a box you can look into and see what is going on at other places in the world, or things that have happened in the past. Tell him of having a carriage that moves under its own power, without horses, and flies down the road at seventy miles an hour. Tell him of great metal barrels with wings that carry hundreds of passengers, or tons of cargo, long distances through the air, and even across the ocean, in just a few hours. Tell him of a device on your belt that enables you to talk to people around the world. Would he believe you? Or would he yell, “Liar, Liar, I know that such things are impossible because they are contrary to the laws of nature”.

My point is this: He would only think that such things were contrary to the laws of nature because he was ignorant of the laws that make such things possible. And, if it is possible for us to be totally ignorant of natural laws, laws that make possible things that in the past would have seemed miraculous to us, isn’t it possible for God to be aware of facts beyond our comprehension, facts that would make miracles seem like child’s play to Him? Think about it.

LOOK AT THE FACTS

One problem that Creationists constantly deal with is the stubborn, irrational refusal of uniformitarians to look at the evidence. For example: Consider the bogus claim the rocks formed slowly over millions of years. The evidence that the rocks formed quickly is everywhere. Uniformitarians just ignore it because it does not fit their worldview. If you have seen a fossil fern you have seen evidence that the rocks formed quickly, because the rocks formed before that fern could wither or decay. The same can be said of any fossil that decays quickly. The evidence is plain, but it is ignored because it does not fit the popular view. That tells me that most people believe what they have been taught, and would rather explain the evidence away than admit their worldview is faulty. However, some Christians do the same thing. They come up with an idea, or “theology,” and explain away any Bible passages that do not fit. Now, that is a dangerous habit to get into because all of the cults do the same thing. Instead of trying to make God’s Word fit our opinions, we should be conforming our opinions to what the Bible says (Romans 12:2).

One thing that I continually try to get across is the fact that the Bible’s message of creation and the fall is part of the salvation message. The two cannot be separated. We are accountable to God because He made us, and we need to be saved because of sin. That being said, at times human language is just not adequate to describe all that Christ has done for us. Consider, for example, the words “righteous” and “obedient”. In everyday conversation those words each have a different meaning. However, when it comes to keeping God’s Law those words both mean the same thing, namely, sinless perfection. The words, “Whoever keeps the whole law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of all,” tell us that imperfect “righteousness” or “obedience” is not enough. No matter how hard we try to be “righteous” or “obedient,” if we fail in one point we are guilty of all (James 2:10). And, if we are guilty of all, then all of our efforts at “righteousness” or “obedience” are as filthy rags” in the sight of God (Isaiah 64:6). If our works will not make us “righteous” in the sight of God, they will not make us “obedient” in His sight either (Romans 10:3).

At the same time, just as the forgiveness that is ours in Christ cleanses us of all sin making us righteous in the sight of God, that forgiveness cleanses us of all disobedience making us “obedient” in the sight of God (1John 1:9). Therefore, just as “Christ is the end of the law for law for righteousness to every one who believes,” He is the end of the law for obedience to every one who believes (Romans 10:4). The two cannot be separated! Furthermore, because it is what Christ did on the cross, not what we do, that makes us “obedient” in the sight of God; believing that we are made “obedient” by what Christ did is part of trusting in Him.

MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NO EFFECT

Although the Bible plainly tells us that the Word of God (Gospel) is, “The power of God to salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16), Christ clearly taught that man’s reasoning can make the Word of God of “no-effect” (Mt. 15:6, Mk. 7:13). In fact, in each passing generation millions of young people turn away from God because, for them, evolution has made the Word of God of no-effect. It does not matter that Evolution is a lie! The young people who believe it believe that the Bible has been proven wrong, and, for that reason, do not take what it says seriously.

If such people do not leave the church entirely they are likely to confuse the following generation by twisting the words of Scripture to fit unbiblical ideas [theistic evolution], while explaining away what they cannot twist. That is why I emphasize the fact that the Bible means just what it says (2Cor. 1:13). Just as we need to distinguish between observable fact and interpretation, we need to distinguish between what the Bible explicitly says and interpretation. What the Bible says is the Word of God; interpretation is the word of man. I might also add that Darwin was trained as a clergyman in the Church of England. For that reason, I regard evolution as a false religion devised by an apostate clergyman, not science. Evolution has become the chief doctrine of the Atheist religion, and confusing it with science is why atheism is now our de facto State Religion, (our State schools being the pulpits through which it is promoted)

HOW UNBIBLICAL TALK HINDERS THE GOSPEL

Another reason that young people turn away from the faith may lie in the fact that, many whom we assume are saved never actually trusted in Christ. And, one reason for that may lie in the confused way salvation is often presented. Let me explain. As a teenager I had a hard time understanding the way of salvation. I struggled to find peace with God and assurance of salvation. And, because of my struggle, there were several times during that period when I “gave my life to Christ” or “asked Jesus to come into my heart and save me”. However, doing those things never brought me assurance of salvation! And, the reason they never brought me assurance of salvation is very simple. They never brought me assurance of salvation because that is not the way we get saved!

At this point someone might object to what I have just said, by claiming that when they got saved they “gave their life to Christ” or “asked Jesus into their heart”. And that may be true. However, if they got saved they got saved because they trusted in Christ, not because they “asked Jesus into their heart” or “gave their life to Christ”. It is what Christ did, not what we do that saves us. It is what Christ did, not our works (even the work of “asking Jesus into our heart” or “giving our life to Christ”) that saves us. And, I mention this fact because every time I hear of someone who has turned away from the faith or fallen into sin, and am told that they “accepted Christ” years ago, I ask the question, “Did they really put their faith in Christ or did they just do something they were told to do (like praying a prayer) hoping that they would be saved by doing it (rather than by what Christ did)”. If we really want to save souls we need to do it God’s way, and that is through personal faith in Christ (Acts 16:31, 1John 5:13).

CONCLUSION

The Biblical record of creation is foundational to everything else that the Bible says, and thus to faith in Christ and salvation. Ask yourself. Why do you need to be saved? I hope you realize that you are a sinner in the sight of God and need the forgiveness that Christ secured for you through His death on the cross. However, if God did not create you, if you just evolved from pond slime, then what right would God have to judge you? It is only because God is our creator that we are accountable to Him. Furthermore, if God created us with a sinful nature, if God created us as animals who through tooth and claw (survival of the fittest) evolved into humans, then what right would God have to condemn us for behaving the way he made us to behave. On the contrary, the Bible offers the only reasonable explanation for why we are accountable to God, and why we have a sinful nature even though we were created good.

Everything that the Bible says should be taken seriously. Those who think that they can make the Bible say whatever they want, and explain away anything in it that does not fit their ideas, are in rebellion against God. And, that includes those who think that they can make up a fairy-tale god who used evolution to produce mankind. Such a god does not exist.

[NOTE: There is a 24/7 Creation channel that you can watch on your computer. If you have internet access, go to the “Genesis science network” website and click on the button that says, “Watch Live”.]