Italian Souls for Christ

I decided to post a blog on evolution as a follow-up to the previous one titled The Existence of God. The material is taken from one of the lessons I taught a few years ago in the Faith Builders Sunday School class at my home church. It has been a while since I put this information together but I believe the majority of it was taken from this website.

The Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Man has a serious heart condition. The Bible says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9). Creation is reasonable and directs man to his Creator (Rom. 1:20), however mankind has found an opiate in evolution to darken his heart to the thought of personal accountability to a holy God.

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Rom. 1:21,22

Scientific investigation does not take place in a vacuum, but rather by individuals who all maintain beliefs and biases. Often you will find that some of the most narrow-minded, intolerant people are those who profess to be broadminded. Nobody is completely open-minded. We all have biases. Being aware of them will certainly help you to investigate things in a more honest fashion, but your biases will be ever present in all that you do. We must beware of those who tell us otherwise, for they are either self deceived, or they are outright lying and have an agenda. Our educational system is currently almost completely dominated by this sort. Some have said the liberal viewpoint is the most appropriate for our universities since they are open to multiple viewpoints. Of course this is true as long as each of those multiple viewpoints are exactly in line with what they believe. There is no such thing as an unbiased person, and scientific investigation is performed by people. In other words, the creation viewpoint is no more biased than the viewpoint of naturalism. The Theory of Evolution is as much faith in a hypothesis as Creationism is faith in the Word of God.

For this reason, no matter how sensible the argument for a Creator behind creation, the unregenerate will find solace in erroneous theories from “science falsely so called.” Listed below are sensible questions for the evolutionists. However, much time can be wasted in debating this issue – in many instances they have rejected truth (Jn. 14:6; 17:17) for a lie (Jn. 8:44) and cannot be reasoned with (Prov. 23:9):

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” Rom. 1:28

Question: Where has macroevolution ever been observed?

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

There has been no observations of “macro” evolution (transition to a new “species”), although “micro” evolution (changes within a species) has, indeed, been observed.

Further scientific problems with macro evolution:
• OBSERVATION – steps of evolution have never been observed
• EXPERIMENTATION – The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter
• REPRODUCTION – impossible to reproduce in the laboratory
• FALSIFICATION – cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science

Complexity requires direct design or underlying constants that were ultimately designed

Question: What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?

Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many slip into this false belief.

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery.

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation. Such situations would have been widespread in the centuries after Noah’s global flood.

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries.

Question: If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ?

Without a vital organ, the organism is dead – by definition. If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?

When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any “evolutionary progress” would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal.

Question: How could metamorphosis evolve?

Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis; that is, a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon or chrysalis around itself. Its body inside then disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges – one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from those of the adult.

Evolution claims that mutations slightly alter an organism’s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling those offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.

If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages?

What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards.

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pin head? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce?

Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.”

Obviously, the vast information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.

Question: How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs – especially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections, more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts.

Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems – including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world’s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate:
• Molecular-size motors in most living organisms
• Miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales
• Frequency-modulated radar and discrimination systems of bats
• Efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds
• Control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chamber of bombardier beetles
• Precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects
• The self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life

No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component’s evolution was complete. All evidence points to an intelligent Designer.

Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second, equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour – in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate up to 100,000 revolutions per minute. Each shaft rotates a bundle of whip-like flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors. However, these electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the “propeller’s” shape. They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit in the circular cross section of a human hair.

Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals.

Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors. Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designed – beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

Question: What are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?

In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), fossils appear full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed – worldwide. Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct) have no evolutionary ancestors. The fossil record does not support evolution.

Question: If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there?

Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record. At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae).

Fossil links are also missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones), between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.

I have a newspaper article titled “Dinosaur-bird link smashed in fossil flap” from USA Today January 25, 2000 that reports on a transition fossil that turned out to be a fake. National Geographic magazine featured a “missing-link” dinosaur-bird unofficially named Archaeoraptor. The magazine described it as a “true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs and birds.” In actuality the specimen turned out to be a composite of two animals pieced together; the Archaeoraptor was not authentic. This website give more information about this fake “missing-link.”

Question: How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce?

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened – even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins

Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved – but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, almost miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system.

Question: Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?

What about the 4,000 books’ worth of coded information that is in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?

The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books. Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero.

Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as “junk DNA,” because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this “junk” explains much of the complexity of organisms.

Question: How could sexual reproduction evolve?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by an Intelligence Being.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.

Question: How could immune systems evolve?

How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.

If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense. Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have all been there from the beginning. Again, creation.

Question: If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

Question: The natural tendency of things is to rust, rot, deteriorate, decay, and die; the unnatural process of growth and development is initiated and sustained only with much effort and difficulty, and then only temporarily. How reasonable is it to assume that given enough time things will develop order and evolve?

Yesterday was Earth Day. It seems all the world is now bowing before the god of “environmentalism” and worshipping the creature more than the Creator. PBS this week had several programs explaining that the greatest crisis facing humanity is the environmental destruction of the earth. A sincere seeker of truth has only to pick up a Bible and read the first seven chapters of the book of Romans to truly see the greatest crisis facing humanity.

However, rather than throw my hat in the ring of public debate on global warming, carbon emissions, green initiatives, alternative energy, and the like I would rather address the extreme views that some Christians hold that since the earth is going to burn up in a fervent heat anyway (2 Pet. 3:10,12) we might as well pillage the land and make the most of it for human consumption. I believe this view ignores the responsibility given to us by God to be good stewards of His creation.

I am an unashamed nature-lover that cares for the environment. I’m certainly not against industrial advancements but it shouldn’t be at the expense of clean air, water, and land, etc. Traveling on deputation has given us opportunity to enjoy God’s creation and praise Him for His handiwork. We’ve romped through forests, enjoyed walks along beaches on both coasts, sat in wonder as we watched the sunset in the desert, and breathed clean mountain air while taking in the beautiful vistas from such elevated heights. We’re told in Revelation 4:11 that all things were created by God for His pleasure, not mankind’s unrestrained use.

Dr. Jeff Adams, pastor of Kansas City Baptist Temple, enumerated some good principles regarding our God-given natural resources in his blog from Earth Day of last year (click here to read it in its entirety)…
- The earth belongs to God (Psalm 24:1; 89:11; 1Corinthians 10:26).
- God’s creation has been terribly twisted by sin and is presently “groaning” awaiting the fullness of redemption at the establishment of God’s Kingdom upon the appearing of our risen Savior (Romans 8:19-25).
- God’s original commission to man was to have dominion over creation as a responsible steward (Genesis 1:28). It would seem logical that even in our fallen condition we would have some responsibility to exercise stewardship over God’s earth, especially those of us who claim to have eternal life.
- The redemption realized through the finished work of Jesus Christ includes more than our souls; it includes all creation (Colossians 1:19-20).
- We are still expected to be faithful stewards (1Corinthians 4:2) of anything and everything that belongs to God – our time, our talent, our treasure, our natural resources.

“The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” – Psalm 24:1