by Lee Strobel

Why should we believe the Bible? Can I rely on it for my salvation? Why not any other book? In a short answer to a question Dr. Zacharias explains the reasons to believe the Bible.

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. of Apologetics Press

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

“Well, I know it’s impossible, but maybe…”

How do atheistic evolutionists get away with teaching a viewpoint that so brazenly contradicts the scientific evidence? Concerning this question, Wald said:

Most…biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. [Actually, they “are left” with God.—JM] I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously underpresent conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).

So, pre-biotic planetary conditions were different? Conditions which would allow for the spontaneous generation of life? On what is this conjecture based? Has any evidence been brought to light which proves that there are any possible conditions that could lead to abiogenesis? No. Else scientists would be able to create life in a laboratory. Conclusion: “different conditions” = evidenceless speculation. Abiogenesis is impossible, but life is here and had to come from somewhere. We, the atheistic, evolutionary community, refuse to consider the God option. That leaves us with the assumption that Earth’s planetary conditions must have allowed for the miracle of abiogenesis in the past. There is no evidence for such speculation, but who cares? In his next breath, Wald went on to admit:

To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede thatthe spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are…. (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).

Evolutionists write, in essence, children’s fables—full of wild speculation, theories, and conjecture about the possible pre-life planetary conditions, but ultimately their viewpoint is “inaccessible to the empirical approach” (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978, p. 26). Richard Dickerson agreed with Wald. Writing in Scientific American under the heading of “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” he remarked that when speculating about Earth’s pre-biotic conditions we have “no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly unfettered by inconvenient facts” (1978, p. 85, emp. added). He went on to concede: “We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful” (p. 86, emp. added). So, basing theories upon imagination is now considered scientific!

Notice from this discussion that in holding to such a position about “pre-biotic conditions,” atheistic evolutionists have nonchalantly moved away from the standard evolutionary model—recognizing that it simply cannot account for the existence of life. Evolutionary theory has historically been based on uniformitarian principles, which assume that geological processes existing today on Earth have existed throughout the past as well (Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, 2003). Theorizing conditions that are not in existence today is, in effect, a rejection of standard evolutionary assumptions. It is the creation model—not the evolutionary model—which has historically rejected uniformitarianism. Sadly, in today’s scientific community, it appears that evolutionists have been given the freedom to cherry-pick what their standard assumptions will and will not apply to. How can such be deemed scientific?
“Watch us convert young minds to the Church of Evolution, in spite of the evidence!”

Some 50 years ago, in Frontiers of Modern Biology, George Wald admitted:

As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur—it is a curious thing that until quite recently professors of biology habitually told this story as part of their introductions of students to biology. They would finish this account glowing with the conviction that they had given a telling demonstration of the overthrow of mystical notion by clean, scientific experimentation. Their students were usually so bemused as to forget to ask the professor how he accounted for the origin of life. This would have been an embarrassing question, because there are only two possibilities: either life arose by spontaneous generation, which the professor had just refuted; or it arose by supernatural creation, which he probably regarded as anti-scientific (1962, p. 187, emp. added).

So, according to Wald, in 1962 the demise of spontaneous generation was openly taught in biology classes “until quite recently,” and then, with the next breath, the teacher would proceed to engage in self-contradiction by teaching evolutionary theory with its abiogenesis myth. Though this statement was made years ago, the same is still the case a half century later.

According to evolutionists, the planetary conditions must have been different in the distant past—more conducive to abiogenesis. Enter the endless speculation about the pre-biotic world. Consider an example of how such speculation plays out in the high school biology classroom. In one high school biology textbook from the 1990s, published by the popular company Prentice Hall, immediately after explaining how Pasteur, Redi, and Spallanzani disproved spontaneous generation, the authors queried: “If life can come only from life, how did life on Earth first arise?” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 342). The book proceeds to speculate with profound certainty what conditions were like on Earth billions of years ago. The observant student, who is able to see through all of the jargon, will notice that throughout the ensuing discussion about these hypothetical conditions, subtle disclaimers are made. “No one can say with certainty…”; “Somehow these earliest life forms appeared…” (p. 343, emp. added). While discussing the experiments of Miller and Urey conducted in 1953, the textbook says, “Thus, over the course of millions of years, at least some of the basic building blocks of life could have been produced in great quantities on Earth” (p. 344, emp. added). The authors proceed to admit concerning the experiment’s products: “A collection of organic molecules such as amino acids is certainly not life” (p. 344, emp. added).

Next, as if emphasizing the power of intelligent design, the authors briefly discuss the experiments of Russian scientist Alexander Oparin and American scientist Sidney Fox and the round droplets (deemed “protolife”) they “created” in their lab, which can “perform tasks necessary for life” (p. 344). However, they admit that, “we would still not say that these droplets are alive” (p. 344, emp. added). So, recapping the evolutionary rhetoric to this point: evolutionary theory’s explanation of the origin of life is based on words and phrases such as, “no one can say with certainty,” “somehow,” “some,” “could have,” “certainly not life,” and “still not say that these droplets are alive.” Recall that the original point of the authors’ discussion was to explain how life could have spontaneously arose in the past. The authors, in spite of several paragraphs of “explanation,” have yet to answer the question. Assuming they have a brilliant answer coming in the following paragraphs, the ambitious student reads on.

Unfortunately, by now, the authors have likely “lost” the typical student. At this point, these students, probably not catching the authors’ disclaimers, will tend to “zone out” and just take the evolutionist’s word for it—“So, we came from goo. Please move on.” However, now the authors actually start to make candid, significant admissions. Under the heading “From Proto-life to Cells,” the authors concede:

The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand completely. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth’s oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. Scientists do not know how these vital information-carriers formed, but there are several interesting hypotheses (pp. 344-345, emp. added).

The authors then imaginatively give several potential suggestions for how matter could have arranged itself in preparation for life to spring into existence, liberally sprinkling in words like “could have arisen” and “might have combined.” They finish off the section stating, “This is one piece of evidence supporting this interesting, but as yet unproven, hypothesis” (p. 345, emp. added). Notice that the authors still have yet to prove, or even attempt to explain, how spontaneous generation could have occurred. They spent their time presenting imaginary ways matter allegedly could have randomly and accidentally arranged itself in ways that might prepare it for life—although they have no way of knowing whether that arrangement would help or hinder the process, since abiogenesis has never been observed to occur. No evidence was given for how matter could have actually sprung to life.

Finally, the authors simply skip over the question of how the spontaneous jump from inorganic matter to living cells occurred, perhaps correctly realizing that most of the dazed and confused students will not catch this subtle sleight of hand. The authors boldly state, “Although the origin of the first true cells is uncertain, we can identify several of their characteristics with certainty” (p. 345, emp. added). So, the student is quickly distracted and led away from the original question. According to the authors, scientists do not know how living cells actually spontaneously generated, but they assert they know “with certainty” what those cells were like once they mysteriously sprang into life. The authors state this assertion as if they have decisively answered the original question about how life arose. They then proceed to speculate concerning the nature of these living cells, never answering the question of how they originally came to life. In all fairness, how could they answer such a question? Spontaneous generation has already been disproven—scientifically—and they admitted as much on previous pages. Yet they have conveniently failed to come to grips with the import of their own admissions.

The 2006 edition of the textbook did not rectify the problem. The authors acknowledge the work of Spallanzani and Pasteur, unabashedly stating that Pasteur’s work,

convinced other scientists that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was not correct. In other words, Pasteur showed that all living things come from other living things. This change in thinking represented a major shift in the way scientists viewed living things (Miller and Levine, 2006, pp. 12-13, emp. added).

Sadly the evolutionary community has not allowed Pasteur’s findings to “shift” the way they view living things and their origins.

In this same, more recent edition, the authors “wisely” separated the discussion of Pasteur’s and Spallazani’s work from the discussion on the origin of life by 415 pages. This helps students to forget that evolution contradicts the scientific evidence found by these scientists’ work. In discussing the origin of life, the authors once again fail to accept the implied conclusion from Pasteur’s work regarding the origin of life, stating, “As you will see shortly, researchers still debate such important questions as precisely how new species arise and why species become extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began” (p. 386, emp. added). Undaunted, the authors proceed to engage in the same hapless speculation they engaged in 15 years earlier. Similar to the previous edition, they discuss the findings, or rather non-findings, of the Miller-Urey experiments. A significant change in the 2006 edition was a candid admission about those experiments which was couched in the midst of the discussion: “Scientists now know that Miller and Urey’s original simulations of Earth’s early atmosphere were not accurate” (p. 424, emp. added). If such is the case, one might rightly ask why the experiments are still discussed at all. The answer lies in the embarrassing fact that evolutionists still have absolutely no evidence that can corroborate abiogenesis. Leaving the discussion out would highlight the unscientific nature of evolution. Leaving the discussion in the textbook creates the impression with youth that some hidden support remains for the abiogenesis postulate in the Miller-Urey experiments—support that is somehow too advanced to discuss with them at their current competency. After all, many youth are more likely to believe the teachers and textbooks they have been trained and taught to believe than they are to think critically about the material actually being presented.

In the next section, under the heading, “The Puzzle of Life’s Origins,” the authors admit, “A stew of organic molecules is a long way from a living cell, and the leap from nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific hypotheses of Earth’s early history” (p. 425, emp. added). And that’s it. Proof for abiogenesis is not presented. A scientific refutation of the Law of Biogenesis is not conducted. Once again, the authors fearlessly launch into pages of speculation concerning the origin of the building blocks of life, liberally using qualifying language to subtly admit that nothing the authors are saying has been proven. Concerning proteinoid microspheres, which have some cell-like characteristics but which are not considered living entities, the authors note: “Microspheres are not cells, but they have some characteristics of living systems…. Several hypotheses suggest that structures similar to proteinoid microspheres might have acquired more and more characteristics of living cells” (p. 425, emp. added). Such unending speculation, not backed by any proof whatsoever, is being allowed to fill the minds of unsuspecting youth, causing them to lose faith in the biblical model of life origins—which, in reality, is the origin model actually in keeping with the scientific evidence. The authors proceed to admit once again, “Another unanswered question in the evolution of cells is the origin of DNA and RNA” (p. 425, emp. added). So, in their pointless trek to prove evolutionary theory, evolutionists cannot even reach the abiogenesis chasm of impossibility that they must cross in order to prove their theory. They are still hampered by the chasms that exist much earlier in their mythical journey.
Structure of a Cell

Structure of a Cell

Notice that the phrase “unanswered question” can be misleading to a young biology student. It leaves the subtle impression that scientists have answered many questions about how life arose, and those answers are established fact. In actuality, the “unanswered question” is not referring to the question of whether or not evolutionists know anything about how life or its building blocks arose on the planet. The question is referring to the fact that there are questions regarding the feasibility of the origin of life that evolutionists cannot answer, but which must be answered in order for the theory of evolution even to be a possibility, much less the true, factual scientific explanation of the origin of life. Still, many unashamedly—and unscientifically—tout evolution as a fact.

In spite of the truth, sadly, with the wave of a hand, the typical biology student becomes an evolutionary disciple, not realizing that he has just succumbed to the longest, evidence-less leap into the dark that he may ever make in his life. Such vague speculation, substanceless hope, and blind “faith” can hardly be dignified as scientific. One might rightly ask, “Why are Americans allowing their children to be subjected to such anti-scientific propaganda? Why are parents not outraged that their students are wasting valuable class time learning about such speculation, rather than learning true science?”

OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS

An Unreasonable Assumption which Leads to Contradiction of the Evidence

There is no scientific evidence in nature that life can come from non-life. Not one experiment has been conducted which can boast an exception to this rule. One must start with the assumption that there is no Creator and that only nature exists in order to even consider abiogenesis—in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Again in his lecture series, Origins of Life, Robert Hazen said:

In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists. I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).

[Notice the fact that Hazen contradicts himself by claiming that he relies “on the power of observations and experiments” in his belief on the origin of life, while also admitting in his lecture series that he and all evolutionists are “woefully ignorant” concerning the origin of life, and that likely, “any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments” (2005, emp. added). He claims to rely on “observations,” “experiments,” and “reasoning” to arrive at his scientific conclusions—one of which is abiogenesis. However, he accepts this belief without reason since it is not, and cannot be, backed by observation or experiment, and according to his own words, such may not ever even be possible.] Hazen states that he considers himself to be in line with “most other scientists” in his self-contradictory assumption regarding the naturalistic origin of life. Of course, he means “atheistic evolutionists” when he speaks of such “scientists” and is absolutely correct in his assertion.

Atheistic evolutionists begin with the biased assumption that there is no God, regardless of its contradictory and unsubstantiated nature. Atheistic evolutionist, prominent science writer, and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at M.I.T., Boyce Rensberger, admitted:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position (1986, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Rensberger’s overgeneralized statement certainly does not describe all scientists’ approach to their day-to-day research, but it is clear from its handling of the matter of origins that such a statement certainly describes the evolutionary mindset—hardly “objective and dispassionate,” and often given to “wild guesses.” Regardless, with the assumption in place that only the physical or natural exists—no Creator exists—abiogenesis must be true, since life is here and had to start somehow. Thus, if abiogenesis is true, biogenesis cannot be a law. [Note: Rather than making assumptions that do not contradict the scientific evidence, evolutionists resort to unscientific assumptions—assumptions that contradict scientific laws which have been time-tested to be scientifically accurate 100% of the time.]

Consequently, some scientists have become increasingly uncomfortable with calling biogenesis a “law,” since a scientific law, by definition, is “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena,” and abiogenesis would constitute an exception, thus removing it from “law” status (McGraw-Hill…, 2003, p. 1182, emp. added). What once was commonly taught in textbooks due to its universal support by the scientific evidence is being systematically stripped from biology courses in spite of its continued universal support. In the commonly used middle school/junior high textbook, Life Science, the text’s authors do not even mention the word “biogenesis,” much less, “The Law of Biogenesis.” Instead, under the heading, “Life Comes From Life,” the authors explain the work of Redi and Pasteur and proudly proclaim:

Living things arise from living things through reproduction…. The mistaken idea that living things can arise from nonliving sources is called spontaneous generation. It took hundreds of years of experiments to convince people that spontaneous generation does not occur (Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, pp. 36-37, emp. added).

So, the truth of biogenesis still stands as law, though now stripped of its appropriate scientific designation: “Living things arise from living things”; “[S]pontaneousgeneration does not occur.” Unfortunately, it seems that evolutionists, like these very authors, still have not gotten the memo. One would think that the admission, “spontaneous generation does not occur”—clearly implying there are no exceptions to this rule—would mean that biogenesis is still a law. After all, the same statements were made when it was considered a law. The only change appears to be the removal of the word “law,” while still teaching the same truth. Starting on page 170, the authors proceed to teach evolutionary theory, never even addressing the question of how life could have come about—a question which must be able to be answered before the impossible theory of evolution could even begin its “work” millions of years ago.

Other textbooks still use the term “biogenesis,” but have lowered its standing from that of a law. Under the heading, “Spontaneous Generation and Biogenesis,” another prominent life science textbook briefly explains the work of Pasteur, stating that he “provided enough evidence to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation. It was replaced with biogenesis, which is the theory that living things come only from other living things” (National Geographic…, et al., 2005, p. 19, emp. added). Notice the sly adjustment from a “law” to a “theory.” Why change biogenesis to a “theory” instead of a “law,” particularly since the same textbook defines a “scientific law” as “a statement about how things work in nature that seems to be true all the time” (p. 10)—a statement which perfectly describes biogenesis? Based on this definition, has scientific investigation over the last several years nullified biogenesis as being a “law”? As we have already seen above, the answer to that question is a resounding, “No.” There is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis. Thus, biogenesis, by all rights, is still a law, not a theory. Only the biased evolutionist would proclaim otherwise.

Again, in spite of “hundreds of years of experiments,” in an attempt to lighten the certainty and implication of biogenesis, others are now calling it a “principle,” instead of a law. Has experimentation proven there are exceptions to its validity? No. Quite the contrary is true. However, if it is considered to be a law, then atheistic evolution cannot be true, and one must then concede the existence of God. In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher discuss the Law of Biogenesis. In a footnote, they say:

Some philosophers call this a principle instead of a law, but this is a matter of definition, and definitions are arbitrary. Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig.).

In truth, calling Biogenesis a “principle” instead of a “law” does absolutely nothing to aid the evolutionary model, other than making its proponents falsely feel more comfortable with the self-contradictory viewpoint they embrace. After all, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a “principle” as “a scientific law which is highly general or fundamental, and from which other laws are derived” (2003, p. 1671, emp. added). Evolutionists simply cannot escape the truth of the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution cannot be true, and the Law of Biogenesis also be true. Why go against the scientific evidence in support of an unscientific whim?

A Recent Quibble

Today’s evolutionist tries to side step the abiogenesis problem by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this is wishful thinking. Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory. Recall that Kerkut listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Recall further that atheistic evolutionist Robert Hazen admitted that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). After all, without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution. One would have to concede, at the very least, some form of theistic evolution. However, proposed theistic evolutionary models have been found to be untenable as well (cf. Thompson, 2000). Further, evolutionists themselves often use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. Creationists are merely using the evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them. The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by scientists today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. The two are linked and logically cannot be separated. The reality is that since macroevolution cannot harmonize with true theism (cf. Thompson, 2000), that theory is left alongside abiogenesis as a fundamental plank of atheism. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together.

One wonders why some “scientists” are so unscientific in their view of origins. Why pick the view that is, by their own admission, “impossible”? Why not look at the scientific evidence and allow it to lead to a conclusion that is in keeping with that evidence—regardless of whether or not they wish to accept it, and regardless of whether the ultimate Cause of life can be directly observed? Would not such an approach be the reasonable one? Would not such an approach be the scientific one? Why should the assumption be made that there is no Creator? Recognizing the existence of a Creator allows for an explanation of the origin of life that is in keeping with the scientific evidence—unlike abiogenesis. The late, renowned British philosopher and former atheist, Antony Flew, after decades of promoting atheism, decided at the end of his life to accept the evidence and concede the existence of a Supreme Being. He wrote, “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (2007, p. 132). While his willingness to stand against the overwhelming tide of false science in becoming somewhat of a deist is certainly commendable, coming to such a conclusion should not be difficult. An unbiased examination of the scientific evidence on the matter shouts the truth to the unbiased mind.

CONCLUSION

If it could be said that the Law of Biogenesis contradicts the scientific evidence, it would be false. However, such is not the case. It is in keeping with all the evidence. Consider, though, that if one rejects the Creation model, the Law of Biogenesis must be false, since without the Creation model, life had to come from non-life—in violation of that law. The atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion: all of the scientific evidence over the centuries which has proven, according to the evolutionists themselves, the impossibility of abiogenesis, should be discarded in support of a theory which has no scientific support.

Evolution is not in harmony with true science. Creation, however, is. If abiogenesis is not true according to science, special creation, which does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis, must, of necessity, be true. Science, once again, is the friend of God and His Word and the enemy of the atheist.

REFERENCES

Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005), Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).

Dickerson, Richard E. (1978), “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 239[3]:70-110, September.

Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is No God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1991), Biology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine (2006), Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2003), http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.

Moore, John N. and H.S. Slusher (1974), Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

National Geographic Education Division, Lucy Daniel, Peter Rillero, Alton Biggs, Edward Ortleb, and Dinah Zike (2005), Life Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe).

Rensberger, Boyce (1986), How the World Works (New York: William Morrow).

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.

Wald, George (1962), “Theories on the Origin of Life” in Frontiers of Modern Biology (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).

Conventional wisdom says Christians (or any person who doesn’t believe in evolution) live by faith. In contrast Evolutionists live by fact based scientific knowledge. When an Evolutionist states they believe in evolution, their statements are made based on what they believe is scientific evidences presented through scientific study, experimentation and evaluation. Is this true?

As Berkeley University states, “Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true.” They go on to state, “A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway.

In other words and from the above explanation of science, we would have to be able to (1) observe evolution and then (2) design experimentation to not only prove evolution but also (3) design tests in which evolution does not work.

Does evolution fit these criteria? Has evolution been observed? Have experiments been devised to prove evolution as well as disprove it? It doesn’t appear so. These things we know:

1. No one has ever observed evolution taking place, either scientifically in existing biological activity, or,

2. Historically in the records of past biological phenomena.

Additionally, it shouldn’t even be considered a hypothesis since there is no conceivable experiment that can be devised which might refute it.

Two evolutionary biologists Paul Ehrling and L.C. Birch admitted this when they said:

“Our theory of evolution has become….one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations…No one can think of ways in which to test it.”

If anyone objects to this, devise an experiment that disproves evolution. It can’t be done. As they stated further, “Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.” In other words it doesn’t meet one of the criterion for the scientific method. Karl Popper, professor of philosophy of science said,

“Agreement between theory and observation should count for nothing unless the theory is a testable theory, and unless the agreement is the result of attempts to test the theory. But testing a theory means trying to find the weak spots; it means trying to refute it. And a theory is testable if it is refutable…It is far from clear what we should consider a possible refutation of the theo ry of natural selection.”

Evolutionists respond by saying Popper still believed in evolution; but that’s the point isn’t it? He ‘believed’ but didn’t have any evidence. In other words, he too lived by faith. He believed evolution even though it isn’t testable and isn’t observable.

Even while writing the forward to Origin of Species by Natural Selection in 1971 L. Harrison Matthews stated;

“Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”

Matthews states both the evolutionist and the creationist must believe in their respective positions without proof. Neither evolution nor creation is testable or verifiable by scientific standards. We are left with nothing but faith.

The evolutionist believes and insists that evolution is true yet believes it on faith. The Christian believes and insists that Christianity is true based on faith and this is exactly what the Bible says is the case:

(Hebrews 11:3)  By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

God, in His infinite wisdom, created the universe and placed all mankind on equal footing. As we all stand before God in judgment, the evolutionist will be forced to tell God he rejected Him based on his faith (belief) while the Christian will confidently state they believe in special creation based on faith. Both are correct but which on stands justified before God? Only the one who accepts Jesus as Savior and obeys the Gospel will escape the judgment.

Have You Ever Obeyed the Gospel?

by Eric Lyons M.Min from Apologetics Press. The article and other apologetics resources can be found here.

Evolution has become so popular in today’s world that even many religious people, including some members of the church, have accepted the teachings of Genesis 1 as “partial” truth. A loose interpretation allows them to “straddle the fence,” hanging onto evolution with one hand and onto Creation with the other. Bible believers who desire to incorporate the long ages of evolutionary geology must find some way to fit billions of years into the biblical record. One theory they use to add eons of time to the age of the Earth is the Day-Age Theory, which suggests that the days of Genesis 1 were not literal, twenty-four hour days, but rather were lengthy periods of time. Is such a theory to be welcomed with open arms, or is there good reason to reject it?

The available evidence reveals several reasons why we can know that the days mentioned in Genesis 1 are the same kind of days we experience in the present age, and were not eons of time. First, whenever the Hebrew word for day (yom) is preceded by a numeral (in non-prophetic passages like Genesis 1), it always carries the meaning of a 24-hour day. The same occurs in the plural (cf. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17).

Second, yom is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. The words “evening” and “morning” are used together in the Old Testament with the word yom over 100 times in non-prophetic passages, and each time they refer to a 24-hour day. Furthermore, if the “days” of Genesis 1:14, were “eons of time,” then what were the years? And, if a “day” is an “age,” then what is a “night”?

Third, if the “days” of Genesis were not days at all, but long geological periods, then a problem of no little consequence arises in the field of botany. Plants came into existence on the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). If the days of Genesis 1 were long geological ages, how did plant life survive millions of years of total darkness? Also, how would the plants that depend on insects for pollination have survived the supposed millions or billions of years between “day” three and “day” five (when insects were created).

Fourth, while Jesus was on the Earth He taught that men and woman had been here from “the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6; cf. Matthew 19:4). Paul affirmed this same sentiment in Romans 1:20-21, where he stated that man and women have been here “from the beginning of the creation” when they were “perceiving the things that were made.” The Day-Age Theory, on the other hand, places man at the end of billions of years of geologic time. Both cannot be true.

Finally, one must ask, if God wanted us to know that He created the world in six literal days, what words would He have used? Or if a person wanted to explain to someone else that God created all things in a literal six days, what words would he use? The answer?—the exact words used in Genesis 1.

You can trust your Bible when it says, “For in six days [not six billion years—EL] the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

I’m not sure if you’ve heard of Vanderbilt University’s decision to require open access to all school sponsored groups. The decision would require any Christian organization to allow anyone to join and run for office regardless of their moral positions which may be in direct contrast to the teaching of the Bible. Several Christian organizations reject the open enrollment policy as it would obviously undermine the very reason for their existence in the first place.

Satan and the world continue to attack Christianity. We as Christians must be prepared to take a stand against tyranny.

Here is an excerpt from the post:

“Across the United States and around the world, few ministries are more urgently needed than campus ministries.  According to UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, many students said that they enrolled in college to find their life purpose, and that they expected their college education to help them not only with their intellectual development, but their emotional and spiritual development as well.  Little wonder that the college years have been called the last, best time to reach someone for Christ.

Yet now, on a growing number of campuses, there are stiff challenges regarding campus access for Christian organizations.

At least if they want to stay distinctly Christian.

In a test that may reverberate through private educational institutions around the nation, Vanderbilt University has placed InterVarsity’s Graduate Christian Fellowship and several other Christian organizations on provisional status until the issue of compliance with the university’s nondiscrimination policy is resolved.  In essence, Vanderbilt does not want organizations like InterVarsity to use religious criteria for the leadership or character of its organization.  There must be an “all comers” policy that requires completely equal access to all organizations for every student.”

The entire blog post can be found here.

This email message is from Sarah who works on Capitol Hill in a Senator’s office. It was sent on February 9, 2012.

————————————————————————–

Hello!

I wanted to share some good news from Capitol Hill! As you know, I lead a ladies Bible study here in the Senate. One of my girls, Jordan, invited us to a private screening of the movie “Courageous” here at the Capitol sponsored by the Congressional Prayer Caucus. This screening was open to members of Congress, Staff, and U.S. Capitol Police and their families.

It’s highly unusual to be granted permission to show a movie when it’s currently in Theaters.

You must understand that securing a room anywhere in the Capitol complex is a royal pain in the neck.

- A room must be approved for use by the rules and ethics committee.

- A member of Congress must make the request.

- Once the room is secured, you have to ask one office to help turn on the lights.

- You need to call another person to bring a podium.

- You need to call yet another department to bring a microphone.

- You need to call another person to bring the cord for the mic to secure it to the podium and to plug it in so it will work.

*(You can’t make this stuff up. I promise… it’s ridiculous)

About a year ago a friend asked me if I was aware of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. (The Congressional Prayer Caucus is a group of 100 members of Congress who meet in a room just off the House floor to pray once a week for upcoming votes.)  I had never heard of it.

When I saw Jordan yesterday, I learned that not only is her dad a U.S. Congressman from VA, but that he also CHAIRS the Congressional Prayer Caucus. The CPC sponsored the screening of “Courageous,” and it was paid for out of the personal funds of 10 members of Congress (i.e. no tax payer money was involved).

My cyncial self was anticipating a handful of folks showing up for the screening and at least one group of protestors. I was STUNNED when I arrived in the Jefferson Auditorium in the Library of Congress to see the place packed. There had to have been 300-350 people there. The Capitol Hill Police Chief was present. I spotted one USCP Officer who brought his wife and all 10 of his children (who were more well-behaved than a lot of adults I know). From my spot, I counted about 35-40 members of Congress, including one Senator. I was later told that 90 members of Congress had RSVPd, and many stood in the back but left early for previous commitments.

As we watched the film, I was even more SHOCKED to hear the gospel CLEARLY proclaimed. No one made any apologies. The member sitting in front of me cried throughout the entire movie.

As soon as it was over, there was an immediate standing ovation from the audience. No protesting. Then, to my delight, the writer of “Courageous” and the lead actor were introduced *(they were in the audience the entire time). Another standing ovation for them… I couldn’t believe it. We had three separate standing o’s. I leaned over to my friend Hannah and said, “I’m sorry, am I in the U.S. Capitol or am I at church?”

The chief of staff for Congressman Forbes ( Jordan ‘s Dad) told me that I wouldn’t believe the hours of prayer soaked into this evening. By the time they had reserved the room, opened up tunnels, and paid the Capitol Police overtime, it cost about $5,000 to pull this off — and about 10 members of Congress paid for this out-of-pocket.

There was no doubt that God was present in that room and that the message in the movie “Courageous” resonated with many people. Eternal things took place.

I know all of you care and are praying for our country. Know that YOUR prayers are being heard and being answered. God is not finished with us yet. He is still here and His remnant remains in the halls of our government.

AMEN.

An interesting exchange between Dr. Zacharias and a Muslim student. The Muslim student has a hard time grasping grace. He understands the law system from his own religion and that of Judaism and believes Christianity has no moral law. It really sounds as if he really desires to understand Christianity.

This is the third in a series on the forgotten word sin. Part one is here. Part two is here. If you’ve not read them it would be best to read parts one and two first. In this post I’d like to explore the nature of God and why he hates sin so much.

The Bible makes clear that the holy God hates sin. Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9. God is infinitely good. His standard is perfection because he is perfect in every way. But why does he hate sin so much?

The answer is straightforward. Sin is a violation of God’s law and a violation of his very nature. God cannot be separated from his moral law. They are one and the same. When King David sinned with Bathsheba and killed Uriah her husband, he states in Psalms 51:4;  “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.” Therefore, to commit a sin is not just to break some impersonal, arbitrary rule; rather, it is rebellion against God personally. It is a blow against his very nature.

James tells us in James 2:10; “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” (If you read part two of this series you can see just a very short list of ways mankind can and does sin. And the list only barely scratches the surface of our sin.) James statement means that one violation makes us guilty before God. The little white lie, the sarcastic answer, the slightest lust, a little anger violates God’s law and we stand condemned before him. Whenever we violate our own conscience we have sinned. Romans 2:14-15. We no longer are able to stand in his presence. Our sin has separated us from God. Our violation has severed out ability to be in his presence. In our fallen state, mankind has no way to repair the relationship. We have no answer and no hope. We have no way to pay for our sin. In Romans, Paul says the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23a.

As Paul explains God did not leave us stranded or abandon us.

Romans 5:6  You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.  (you and me and all mankind)

Romans 8:3  For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

God sent a part of himself to earth to identify with our humanity. He lived a perfect life and then voluntarily went to the cross to pay for our sin.Philippians 2:8.  As the eternal God, his value and worth is unlimited. He bore our sins so we wouldn’t have to pay for our sin. He was raised from the grave on the third day to assure us of our resurrection. He sits at the right hand of the Father acting as our attorney. Hebrews 7:21. He is coming back one day to give us our reward. …and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. Hebrews 5:9.

Have You Really Received Christ as Your Personal Savior?

Here’s some Android and IPhone app recommendations for you.

Holy Bible. It comes with several different Bible translations along with reading plans, the ability to place bookmarks and write notes. One cool thing about this app is it has a player feature so if you’d rather listen to the Bible being read to you instead of reading it yourself, the option is available.

Blue Letter Bible. BLB for short. It has many of the same options as Holy Bible. This app has a feature when a verse is clicked it provides options for additional studies, dictionaries, commentaries, concordances and comparison of verses between versions of the Bible.

Answers in Genesis. It is based off the Answers in Genesis website which can be found here. Articles and blogs are linked along with updates on the Creation Museum.

Got Questions? This is also based off of the Got Questions apologetics website. It can be found here. The website concentrates on answering Biblical questions.

Add these apps to your devices and have fun studying the Bible.