My Photo
Location: Para, Brazil

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Worldly ways!!!!


An older lady was in the hospital reading her Bible when her doctor came in for his visit. She asked him how she was doing.

He told her to read Hebrews 13:8, which says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever", meaning she was about the same.

However, she reversed the numbers and read Hebrews 8:13, "Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," which concerned her very much.

While the Hebrew writer wrote that verse about the "old covenant" (the Law of Moses), the words could just as accurately been written to describe each and every one of us, for we are all growing old, and it won't be very long before we will vanish away (from this world). God's Word describes our life on this earth as a "flower of the field" that passes away (James 1:10) and "a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away" (James 4:14).

We don't like to think of life in that way. We live in an age that likes to make things that last. We have our plastic and non-breakable jars and cups. We buy a car battery and are given a guarantee that it will last as long as we own our car. And we would like a guarantee that our bodies could last forever. But it's just not the case.

That can be a frightening thought, or it can be comforting. For someone whose life is wrapped up in material things, death means losing everything they consider to be of value. But, for someone who has laid up treasures in heaven, death is an opportunity to shed the trials and tribulations of this world and enjoy an eternity in the presence of our Father and his family.

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Cor. 4:17-18)

Have a great day!

Alan Smith

Monday, November 26, 2007

Shower of Blessings

The following letters supposedly were taken from an actual incident between a London hotel and one of its guests. In truth, this was composed by comedian Shelly Berman. It is rather long, but it is very funny and if you haven't seen it before, you'll love it.

Dear Maid,
Please do not leave any more of those little bars of soap in my bathroom since I have brought my own bath-sized Dial. Please remove the six unopened little bars from the shelf under the medicine chest and another three in the shower soap dish. They are in my way.
Thank you,
S. Berman

Dear Room 635,
I am not your regular maid. She will be back tomorrow, Thursday, from her day off. I took the 3 hotel soaps out of the shower soap dish as you requested. The 6 bars on your shelf I took out of your way and put on top of your Kleenex dispenser in case you should change your mind. This leaves only the 3 bars I left today which my instructions from the management is to leave 3 soaps daily. I hope this is satisfactory.
Kathy, Relief Maid

Dear Maid - I hope you are my regular maid,
Apparently Kathy did not tell you about my note to her concerning the little bars of soap. When I got back to my room this evening I found you had added
3 little Camays to the shelf under my medicine cabinet. I am going to be here in the hotel for two weeks and have brought my own bath-size Dial so I won't need those 6 little Camays which are on the shelf. They are in my way when shaving, brushing teeth, etc. Please remove them.
S. Berman

Dear Mr. Berman,
My day off was last Wed. so the relief maid left 3 hotel soaps which we are instructed by the management. I took the 6 soaps which were in your way on the shelf and put them in the soap dish where your Dial was. I put the Dial in the medicine cabinet for your convenience. I didn't remove the 3 complimentary soaps which are always placed inside the medicine cabinet for all new check-ins and which you did not object to when you checked in last Monday. Please let me know if I can of further assistance.
Your regular maid,

Dear Mr. Berman,
The assistant manager, Mr. Kensedder, informed me this morning that you called him last evening and said you were unhappy with your maid service. I have assigned a new girl to your room. I hope you will accept my apologies for any past inconvenience. If you have any future complaints please contact me so I can give it my personal attention. Call extension 1108 between 8AM and 5PM. Thank you.
Elaine Carmen

Dear Miss Carmen,
It is impossible to contact you by phone since I leave the hotel for business at 7:45 AM and don't get back before 5:30 or 6PM. That's the reason I called Mr. Kensedder last night. You were already off duty. I only asked Mr. Kensedder if he could do anything about those little bars of soap. The new maid you assigned me must have thought I was a new check-in today, since she left another 3 bars of hotel soap in my medicine cabinet along with her regular delivery of 3 bars on the bath-room shelf. In just 5 days here I have accumulated 24 little bars of soap. Why are you doing this to me?
S. Berman

Dear Mr. Berman,
Your maid, Kathy, has been instructed to stop delivering soap to your room and remove the extra soaps. If I can be of further assistance, please call extension 1108 between 8AM and 5PM. Thank you,
Elaine Carmen,

Dear Mr. Kensedder,
My bath-size Dial is missing. Every bar of soap was taken from my room including my own bath-size Dial. I came in late last night and had to call the bellhop to bring me 4 little Cashmere Bouquets.
S. Berman

Dear Mr. Berman,
I have informed our housekeeper, Elaine Carmen, of your soap problem. I cannot understand why there was no soap in your room since our maids are instructed to leave 3 bars of soap each time they service a room. The situation will be rectified immediately. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.
Martin L. Kensedder
Assistant Manager

Dear Mrs. Carmen,
Who....left 54 little bars of Camay in my room? I came in last night and found 54 little bars of soap. I don't want 54 little bars of Camay. I want my one.....bar of bath-size Dial. Do you realize I have 54 bars of soap in here? All I want is my bath-size Dial. Please give me back my bath-size Dial.
S. Berman

Dear Mr. Berman,
You complained of too much soap in your room so I had them removed. Then you complained to Mr. Kensedder that all your soap was missing so I personally returned them. The 24 Camays which had been taken and the 3 Camays you are supposed to receive daily. I don't know anything about the 4 Cashmere Bouquets. Obviously your maid, Kathy, did not know I had returned your soaps so she also brought 24 Camays plus the 3 daily Camays. I don't know where you got the idea this hotel issues bath-size Dial. I was able to locate some bath-size Ivory which I left in your room.
Elaine Carmen

Dear Mrs. Carmen,
Just a short note to bring you up-to-date on my latest soap inventory. As of today I possess:
- On the shelf under medicine cabinet - 18 Camay in 4 stacks of 4 and 1 stack of 2.
- On the Kleenex dispenser - 11 Camay in 2 stacks of 4 and 1 stack of 3.
- On the bedroom dresser - 1 stack of 3 Cashmere Bouquet.
- 1 stack of 4 hotel-size Ivory, and 8 Camay in 2 stacks of 4.
- Inside the medicine cabinet - 14 Camay in 3 stacks of 4 and 1 stack of 2.
- In the shower soap dish - 6 Camay, very moist.
- On the northeast corner of tub - 1 Cashmere Bouquet, slightly used.
- On the northwest corner of tub - 6 Camays in 2 stacks of 3.
Please ask Kathy when she services my room to make sure the stacks are neatly piled and dusted. Also, please advise her that stacks of more than 4 have a tendency to tip. May I suggest that my bedroom window sill is not in use and will make an excellent spot for future soap deliveries. One more item, I have purchased another bar of bath-sized Dial which I am keeping in the hotel vault in order to avoid further misunderstandings.
S. Berman

It dawned on me that God is like those maids! Every day he sends us blessing after blessing. Whether we ask for them or not, whether we deserve them or not ("he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good"), whether we acknowledge them or not, we are absolutely flooded with blessings from a good and gracious God.

"Bless the LORD, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name! Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits: Who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from destruction, who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies, who satisfies your mouth with good things." (Psalm 103:1-5a)

To the God who keeps on giving and giving be all praise and honor and glory!

Have a great day!

Alan Smith

Monday, November 19, 2007


Principles of Bible Prophecy
by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

The study of prophecy is one of the truly challenging, yet rewarding, areas of biblical investigation. It is also a theme that is grossly abused. In this article, I propose to examine some of the principles governing Bible prophecy that will enable the devout student of the Scriptures to have a better grasp of this important topic.

An examination of the lexical literature reveals that scholars are undecided as to the etymology of the term “prophet.” Some think that the noun is from an Arabic term meaning “spokesman” (Smith, 1928, p. 10), whereas others have contended that the root is a Hebrew form which signifies a “bubbling up,” as when water issues from a hidden fountain (Girdlestone, n.d., p. 239). This would suggest the idea of the inspiration behind the prophet. It is now more commonly believed, however, that the word may be of Akkadian origin and that it may denote “to be called” (Unger and White, 1980, p. 310).

Perhaps the best way to determine the meaning of the term is to examine the manner in which the Bible employs it. The classic passage which sets forth the role of the prophet is Exodus 7:1-2. “And Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh....’ ” A prophet was simply a spokesman for God. The prophet was also called a “seer.” Note how the terms “prophet” and “seer” are interchanged in 1 Samuel 9:9: “Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, ‘Come, and let us go to the seer’; for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.” Some scholars suggest that the term “prophet” stressed the objective or active work of God’s spokesman, whereas “seer” underscored the subjective method of receiving divine revelation, i.e., by “seeing” (Freeman, 1968, p. 40). A prophet also was designated as a “man of God” (2 Kings 4:9), a “servant of the Lord” (Ezekiel 38:17), and a “messenger of Jehovah” (Malachi 3:1).

There are a number of truths that need to be appreciated if one is to understand the function of prophecy in biblical literature. Let us consider the following points.


In discussing prophecy, one needs to make a clear distinction between “foretelling” and “forthtelling.” Many assume (erroneously) that all prophecy is foretelling, i.e., predictive in its nature. However, prophecy also concerns the revelation of events that occurred in the past; it may deal with present circumstances (i.e., contemporary with the prophet); or it can look forward to the future.

For example, Moses was a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15), yet when he recorded the creation activity of Genesis 1, he was giving a divinely inspired account of what transpired during the first week of earth’s history. Certainly he was not present to witness those events. His prophetic testimony thus looked into the past. On the other hand, when the prophet addressed certain situations during Israel’s forty-year sojourn in the wilderness, he was dealing with current conditions in the lives of his fellow Hebrews. Amos was a prophet who wrote many things that “he saw concerning Israel” (Amos 1:1).

Finally, the prophet’s vision was sometimes directed into the future where he foretold details regarding certain people and events. In passing, we might simply mention several categories relating to predictive prophecy. For instance, there are prophecies that relate to individuals. The mission of Josiah was foretold more than three centuries before his birth (cf. 1 Kings 13; 2 Kings 23). The role of the Persian king, Cyrus, in releasing the Hebrews from Babylonian captivity, was described more than a century and a half before his reign (cf. Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1ff.). The fate of cities and nations is prophetically announced in various scriptures. Daniel’s descriptions of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires are nothing short of miraculous (cf. Daniel, chapters 2,7-8). Too, there is the matter of Messianic prophecy. Of the more than 800 prophecies in the old Testament, at least 300 (plus) center on the coming Christ.

The design of predictive prophecy was to establish the credibility of God and, ultimately, the authenticity of His sacred Scriptures. In this article, I will be dealing principally with the predictive nature of biblical prophecy.


Predictive prophecy may be defined as “a miracle of knowledge, a declaration, or description, or representation of something future, beyond the power of human sagacity to discern or to calculate, and it is the highest evidence that can be given of supernatural communion with Deity, and of the truth of a revelation from God” (Horne, 1841, 1:119).

There are a number of criteria for determining the genuineness of prophecy—as opposed to speculative prediction. Prophecy must involve: (1) Proper timing, i.e., the oracle must significantly precede the person or event described. It must be beyond the realm of reasonable calculation so as to preclude the possibility of an “educated guess.” When one “prophesies” that it will rain tomorrow—with a weather front moving in—it hardly evinces divine intervention. (2) The prophecy must deal in specific details, not vague generalities which are capable of being manipulated to fit various circumstances. To predict that “someone” will do “something” at “sometime” is not terribly impressive. (3) Exact fulfillment, not merely a high degree of probability, must characterize the prediction. A prophet who is 80% accurate is no prophet at all!

In this connection we may observe that the prophets of the Bible, when uttering their declarations, spoke with absolute confidence. They frequently employed a verbal form known as the perfect state, which suggests completed action. One scholar called it the “perfect of confidence” (Watts, 1951, p. 17). It speaks of the event as if it had already occurred (though still in the future), thus stressing the certainty of its fulfillment. Isaiah could therefore say, “For unto us a child is born...” (9:6), even though the incarnation of Christ was still several centuries away. Prophecy never was couched with an uncertain “maybe” or an ambiguous “perhaps.”

The divine standard for a true prophet was stated by Moses. “When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken” (Deuteronomy 18:22). In Isaiah 41:23, a challenge was issued to the false gods of paganism: “Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods....” Clearly, predictive prophecy is a very important element of the sacred Scriptures, and stands in bold relief to the counterfeit prophecies of today’s world.


While we have noted that the prophets spoke with confidence, it also is important to observe that some prophecies obviously were conditional. This is especially true with reference to predictions that contained warnings of impending judgment upon wicked peoples. The doom prophetically announced was dependent upon whether or not that nation would turn from its evil. For example, when Jonah went to the city of Nineveh, he announced: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (3:4). However, that warning obviously was conditional as evidenced by the fact that when the people of Nineveh repented, and “God saw their works that they turned from their evil way,” He withdrew the judgment and did not destroy them (cf. 3:10). Similarly, when God promised the Israelites that the land of Canaan would be their inheritance, that pledge was contingent upon their fidelity to Jehovah. Note the testimony of Joshua 23:16. “When ye transgress the covenant of Jehovah your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods, and bow down yourselves to them; then will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.” The Hebrew nation did apostatize and lost its special privileges with God (cf. Matthew 21:43). Those religionists and politicians today who argue for Israel’s intrinsic right to Palestinian territory overlook this very critical element of Bible prophecy.

On the other hand, some prophecies were absolute. Predictions concerning the coming Messiah were not predicated upon human response, and were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. The Messiah was to be: the seed of woman (Genesis 3:15), the offspring of Abraham (Genesis 22:18), from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10), born to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), in the town of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), etc. There was nothing conditional about these statements.


If one is to interpret Bible prophecy accurately, he must recognize that language of predictive literature can be either literal or figurative. But how does one determine the nature of prophetic terminology? In some instances common sense will dictate the character of the prophecy. If a literal view implies an impossibility or an absurdity, it obviously is figurative. The context frequently will shed light on the situation. In many instances, the issue will be settled by how the New Testament writers (who quote or cite the prophecies) viewed the matter. When Old Testament writers declared that Christ would be the offspring of Abraham (Genesis 22:18), or that He would be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10), they made straightforward predictions that were fulfilled literally.

However, when Isaiah announced that John the Baptizer would “make level in the desert a highway for our God” (40:3), he was not suggesting that John would engineer a freeway project in the Palestinian wilderness; rather, the language was a symbolic description of John’s preparatory work preliminary to the ministry of Jesus (cf. Matthew 3:1ff.). When the prophet foretold that “the lion shall eat straw like an ox” (Isaiah 11:7), he was not suggesting that Jehovah intended to redesign the dental/digestive processes of the animal kingdom in the alleged “millennial” age. He was figuratively suggesting the peaceful atmosphere that would be characteristic of the church of Christ as the various nations flowed into it (cf. Isaiah 11:10 and Romans 15:12). Thus, it is vital that the nature of the language in biblical prophecy be identified correctly.


Liberal critics of the Bible deny the reality of predictive prophecy (as well as other miraculous elements in the Scriptures). Frequently they ask: “What relevance would the prophecy have had to an antique generation that never would see it fulfilled?” It is for this reason that they desperately seek some application that would be contemporary with the prophet himself (as, for example, postulating a young maiden of Isaiah’s day who would conform to his virgin-birth prophecy—7:14). The fact is, some prophecies had no immediate relevance to their contemporary generation. Those ancients would not understand fully the predictions—except dimly through the eye of faith. Abraham, through prophecy, was promised that his seed would receive Canaan for an inheritance, though he himself never saw the fulfillment (cf. Genesis 15:12f. and Hebrews 11:8-16).

Not even the prophets understood the meaning of many of their inspired utterances. Peter discusses this very matter in I Peter 1:10-12. God’s redemptive plan, as previewed by the Old Testament messengers, was a “mystery,” which can now be perceived only by means of New Testament revelation (Ephesians 3:1-13).


Those with loose theological leanings sometimes are prone to say that certain prophecies of the Old Testament had a rather immediate fulfillment, but that the New Testament writers sometimes lift these passages from their original contexts and give them meanings foreign to their original design. One writer, for example, asserted: “Paul paraphrased passages without regard to their original context, or meaning.... It is as though the words of scripture convey a convincing power within themselves apart from their original context” (Batey, 1969, p. 134; unfortunately, Coffman agrees with such a statement—cf. 1983, 4:143). There is an old saying: “A text out of context is a mere pretext.” Why charge the apostles with that which we do not tolerate in contemporary preachers?

In the first place, whenever possible one should attempt to ascertain precisely how the New Testament writer is appealing to the Old Testament passage. But that is not always easy. Is the New Testament writer merely borrowing language from an Old Testament text? Is he employing an ancient scripture illustratively? Or does he mean to affirm that a New Testament incident is actually a “fulfillment” of prophecy? We must remember that ancient writers did not use the same literary devices employed today. Quotation marks, colons, ellipsis marks, brackets, etc., were unknown to them. In view of this, we may not always know just how they were utilizing the language of the former Scriptures. Since we are largely ignorant of their procedures, criticism of them is scarcely appropriate (Paché, 1969, Chapter 10).

Second, is it not possible that the omniscient Holy Spirit, Who guided both the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament inspired writers, could have directed certain prophecies to ancient Israel, but also could have known that a future event ultimately would fulfill the meaning of His words? What is wrong with such a view? Absolutely nothing. It surely is possible, and preserves the integrity of the New Testament writers. Let me suggest an example to illustrate this point.

David declared: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). During the last supper, Christ quoted from this passage as follows: “He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me” (John 13:18), applying it to the treachery of Judas and declaring that such fulfilled the statement in David’s psalm. The Lord, however, altered the quotation. He omitted, “whom I trusted,” from the original source, the reason being, He never trusted Judas! Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him (John 6:64). It is clear, therefore, that Psalm 41:9 had an immediate application to one of David’s enemies, but the remote and complete “fulfillment” came in Judas’ betrayal of the Son of God. I personally do not believe that it is acceptable to suggest that prophecies have a “double fulfillment.” That is a meaningless expression. If a prophecy is filled full once, it hardly can be filled “fuller” later! It would be far better to speak of some texts that have an “immediate application” or “partial fulfillment,” and then a more “remote fulfillment.”

Still again, we may note that, consistent with His own purposes, the Holy Spirit may give a prophecy multiple applications. Consider the case of Psalm 2:7, where Jehovah said: “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.” In the New Testament, this statement is applied to Christ in several different senses. First, it is employed to demonstrate that Christ is superior to the angels, for the Father never addressed any angelic being, saying, “You are my son, this day have I begotten thee” (cf. Hebrews 1:5). [This is a truth which the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” (who claim that Christ was a created angel) would do well to learn.] Second, Psalm 2:7 was applied by Paul to Christ’s resurrection from the dead. The apostle argued that “God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my son...” (Acts 13:33). It was, of course, by His resurrection that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4). Thus, it was appropriate that the psalm be applied to the Lord’s resurrection. Third, the writer of Hebrews used the psalm to prove that Christ glorified not Himself to be made our high priest; rather, such a role was due to His relationship as the Son of God (Hebrews 5:5). Again, we absolutely must stress that the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the original psalm, surely had all of these various thoughts in mind as is shown by His guidance of the New Testament writers as they employed His language.


The Old Testament contains numerous examples of a device called a “type.” A type may be defined as “[a] figure or ensample of something future and more or less prophetic, called the ‘Antitype’” (Bullinger, 1968, p. 768). A simpler description of a type might be “a pictorial prophecy.” For example, Melchizedek, who was both king of Salem and a priest of God, prophetically symbolized the Son of God who rules as our King and serves as our high priest (cf. Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:1-17). Jonah’s three-day confinement in the belly of the great fish was a pictorial prediction of Christ’s three-day entombment (cf. Matthew 12:40), and His resurrection from the dead. Typology is an important form of prophecy.

The foregoing principles by no means exhaust the topic of Bible prophecy. They are, however, illustrative of the kinds of factors that need to be considered in pursuing this sort of study. Again, let us remind ourselves that prophecy is one of the crucial proofs for establishing the credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Let us therefore study this area of biblical information carefully and employ it properly in our defense of the faith.


Batey, Richard (1969), Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Bullinger, E.W. (1968), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, Burton (1983), The Minor Prophets (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation).

Freeman, Hobart (1968), An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets, (Chicago, Il: Moody Press).

Horne, T.H. (1841), An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia, PA: Whetham & Son).

Girdlestone, Robert (no date), Synonyms of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Paché, René (1969), The Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Smith, G.A. (1928), The Book of the Twelve Prophets (New York: Harper).

Unger, Merrill F. and William White Jr. (1980), Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).

Watts, J.W. (1951), A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).


Originally published in Reason & Revelation, July 1988, 8[7]:27-30.


Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Evolution is Religion---not Science

This item is available on the Apologetics Press web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3511 - it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, issue 27[11]:81-87

AP Content :: Reason & Revelation

Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I]
by Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff scientists. Dr. Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Dr. Houts has received numerous awards, including a NASA Certificate of Appreciation for Exceptional Leadership. His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Dr. Houts was employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for 11 years, serving in various positions including Deputy Group Leader. He presently serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Part II will follow next month.]

One of the greatest deceptions perpetrated by atheists and humanists is that the theory of evolution is somehow “science.” The reality is that “evolution” has nothing to do with science, but is merely a tenet of certain false religions opposed to God. It is important for Christians to realize that evolution is simply another erroneous belief, and that they need not be intimidated into believing that the theory is supported by true science. It is also important that Christians not become suspicious of science just because evolutionists and atheists falsely claim it supports their worldview.

The science that put men on the moon and has yielded tremendous advances in computers, medicine, and other fields, is observable, testable, and repeatable. When a theory is developed, experiments can be devised to determine if it is false. This true science is referred to as “operational science.” In recent years, the term “science” has been broadened to include many areas that typically do not meet the criteria for operational science. These include social science, political science, and others.

Even further removed from operational science is so-called “origins science.” Origins science is not observable, testable, or repeatable. Theories related to origins science typically are constructed so that no matter what the evidence, its adherents can claim it supports their worldview. In origins science, evidence related to the origin of the Universe (and everything therein) is interpreted within a given framework. To the atheist or humanist, everything must be explained without God. To the Christian, the Genesis creation account is the basis for our understanding. The evidence Christians see is interpreted within the framework of the Bible.

Webster defines “religion” as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” (Webster’s Ninth..., 1988, p. 995). Christianity falls into this category. So do the hundreds of false religions that have plagued mankind for millennia. Matthew 7:13-14 indicates that the majority of people will be deceived. Despite the overwhelming evidence God has given, they will choose to create their own religion, or adhere to a false religion promoted by their society.

A famous event occurred nearly 3,000 years ago, when Elijah found himself confronting 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Ashera. Those false prophets ate at the queen’s table (1 Kings 18:19), indicating that they were among the most respected and trusted people in society. Although they obviously were wrong, their position and power had so influenced the people that when Elijah stated “If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him,” “the people answered him not” (1 Kings 18:21). Many (if not most) of the people undoubtedly knew that Baal had come from the imagination of men. However, the fact that so many “important” individuals in their society promoted Baal either caused them to doubt God, or intimidated them to the point that they were unwilling to stand firm for God.

A similar situation exists today. Concerted efforts to indoctrinate people into believing evolution have been ongoing for decades. However, polls continually show that the majority of Americans believe in God, and believe that He created the Universe and life (see Miller, 2007, [10]:37, 40-R). While that is good news, the promotion of evolution by many “important” people in our society likely has caused many of those polled either to doubt God, or be intimidated to the point that they are unwilling to stand firm for God. This is the main reason it is important to realize that evolution is simply another false religion, and that the temptation people face when confronted with that religion is nothing new.

Interpreting the Evidence
In origins science, the interpretation of evidence strongly depends on a person’s religious beliefs. For example, consider the changes that we see in life. Antibiotic-resistant populations of bacteria seem to develop in days, new “kinds” of cats and dogs are bred routinely, and wild animals adapt to changing environments. To both the evolutionist and the creationist, these small changes represent “microevolution.” But to an evolutionist, over a very long period of time, large amounts of microevolution lead to macroevolution, capable of turning dinosaurs into birds or an ape’s ancestor into man. Evolutionists believe there is no need for God, because in their mind the diversity of life on Earth can be explained by macroevolution, starting with a “simple” life form. In their religious framework, the genetic information needed to produce all of the life that we see today developed via macroevolution (Campbell, 1996, p. 454).

To a Bible-believing Christian, biological changes are the result of natural selection, mutations, or selective breeding acting on God’s original created kinds. The genetic information needed to produce the variety of the life we see today was present in the original created kinds, put there by God in the original, perfect Creation.

A century ago it would have been difficult to take the discussion further. However, advances in science and technology now confirm that physical and analytical evidence strongly favors the Christian framework. For example, every observable instance of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics has been traced to one of the following three mechanisms (Campbell, p. 340):

Some bacteria in the population are already resistant to the antibiotic, and become the dominant strain via natural selection (information neutral);
The genetic information needed for resisting the antibiotic is obtained via plasmid transfer from another bacteria (information neutral); or
Resistance to the antibiotic results from an information-neutral or information-losing mutation (information neutral or information negative).
In all cases, genetic information is either conserved or lost. In no case do we observe new information being generated—which is required for macroevolution to be even theoretically possible.
Our scientific knowledge of bacteria is totally consistent with the Genesis account (genetic information provided by God during the creation week). In no way does that scientific knowledge support evolutionists seeking to explain how vast amounts of new genetic information could be generated through random mutations. Information-increasing mutations have not been observed. None of the examples provided in the most popular biology textbooks support the premise that evolution of life occurs by information increase. On the contrary, many of the examples actually show the opposite of evolution—information decrease (Patterson, 2006, pp. 59-61).

“New” Breeds
When new breeds of cats and dogs are developed, genetic information is almost always lost, or is at best conserved. For example, a pair of wild dogs typically can be used to develop a breed of very large dogs or a breed of very small dogs (or both) in just a few decades, through selective breeding. However, in developing those new breeds, genetic information is lost. While the original pair of wild dogs had the genetic information to produce large dogs and small dogs, the new breeds of dogs have much less genetic information or variability. Great Danes cannot be bred from Chihuahuas, and Chihuahuas cannot be bred from Great Danes—the required genetic information has been lost. In less extreme cases much genetic information can be conserved, but in no case is information added. The evidence observed from selective breeding is once again consistent with the Christian framework, and inconsistent with the evolutionary/atheistic framework.

Changes in Wild Populations
Changes in wild populations also can be examined in greater detail. Two favorites of biology textbooks (e.g., Johnson, 1998) are Darwin’s finches and peppered moths. In both of those cases, genetic information merely is conserved and no new genetic information is developed. For example, the peppered moth story typically states that two types of peppered moths exist: speckled and dark. The moths live among birch trees. In a clean environment, the speckled moths blend in much better with the birch bark than the dark moths. The dark moths are more readily eaten by birds, resulting in a population consisting of 95% speckled moths and 5% dark moths. However, during the industrial revolution, the birch trees became covered with soot, and then the dark moths were camouflaged better than the speckled moths. The population distribution reversed, with 95% of the moths being dark and 5% being speckled.

It has been noted that the peppered moth story recorded in many biology textbooks may be largely fabricated (Wieland, 1999, 21[3]:56). However, even if true, the story has nothing to do with demonstrating macroevolution. At all times, the genetic information for producing both speckled and dark moths was present in the population. At no time was new genetic information (as needed for macroevolution) generated. The evidence again is consistent with the Christian framework, and does nothing to support the evolutionary framework.

Homologous and Analogous Structures
Another topic where the interpretation of evidence is influenced strongly by one’s religious beliefs is homologous and analogous structures. Homologous and analogous structures are structures in different species that are similar. A typical example is similarities in the structure of a bird wing, a dolphin fin, and a human arm.

From a biblical viewpoint, similar structures are exactly what one would expect. God created all life, and it would be surprising if there were no physical similarities between species. Wings, fins, and arms all bear stress, and similarities in design would be expected for performing that function. Bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels. Although those wheels are different, they have obvious similarities and similar functions. Bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels because they have a common designer (humans). Humans choose to use wheels to perform certain functions.

To the Christian, homologous structures are structures in different species that are similar because God created all life. To the evolutionist, however, homologous structures are structures in different species that are similar because of common ancestry (Johnson, 1998, p. 178). To the evolutionist, wings, fins, and arms are not similar because God designed all three, but because they share a common fish ancestor (Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 405). Expanding on the previous analogy, to the evolutionist, bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels not because of a common designer, but because they all started out as tricycles.

Both the Christian interpretation of homologous structures and the evolutionist interpretation of homologous structures end with a statement of faith. Neither statement (e.g., “similar because God created all life” or “similar because of common ancestry”) has a scientific basis—they are beliefs based on one’s worldview. However, only the atheistic interpretation is given in the five biology textbooks that were reviewed (Campbell, 1996; Johnson, 1998; Kaskel, et al., 1999; Miller and Levine, 1998; Starr and Taggart, 1984). [NOTE: For a discussion of biblical faith being based on knowledge and evidence, see Miller, 2002; Sztanyo, 1996; Thompson, 1994.]

There are many well-known cases where homologous structures could not have shared a common ancestor (within an evolutionary framework). For example, at a superficial level frog digits appear similar to human digits. However, it is now known that they develop in a completely different way, and could not share a common ancestor (Sadler, 1995, pp.154-157). Even most biology textbooks admit numerous cases of apparent similarities with no plausible way for the two species to be “related.” A typical example is similarities between sharks and dolphins (Johnson, p. 320).

To accommodate these cases, evolutionists coined another term: “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is defined as “the independent development of similarity between species as a result of their having similar ecological roles and selection pressures” (Campbell, p. G-6). Evolutionists often refer to these similarities as “analogous structures” (Starr and Taggart, p. 497).

This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of “convergent evolution.” No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.

One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.

Although the discussion is non-scientific, articles promoting evolution often use similarities between organisms in their attempt to convince readers that the theory is true. One recent example is National Geographic’s article, “Was Darwin Wrong?” (Quammen, 2004, 206[5]:31). Examples also abound in most biology textbooks.

Origin of Life
Another area where the religious nature of the theory of evolution can be seen is the discussion of the origin of life. From a Christian perspective, the Bible tells us how life was created during the week of Creation. Life is evidence of God’s handiwork. In contrast, humanistic and atheistic religions require that the existence of life somehow be explained without God. In the 21st century, most humanists and atheists have chosen to put their faith in the theory of evolution.

When the theory of evolution was being popularized in the late 1800s, it was easy to speculate about “simple” life forms originating in warm ponds laden with chemicals or in similar locales (Darwin, 1887, p. 202). Leading evolutionists freely speculated or even fabricated “evidence” in support of their religion (Grigg, 1996, 18[2]:33-36). However, advances in science have shown that these speculations and fabrications are nonsense.

For example, we now know that the simplest life form is far more complex than anything humans have ever made. It is far more reasonable to claim that a space shuttle can randomly assemble and launch itself than to claim that a simple life form can arise spontaneously from random chemical interactions.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on biotechnology. Biotechnology employs some of our brightest Ph.D.s, working in incredibly sophisticated laboratories. However, despite this tremendous investment of money, talent, and equipment, no one ever has come close to making life from non-life. Relatively simple techniques such as cloning (which essentially involves transferring pre-existing DNA from one organism to another) make national headlines when achieved, but to an objective observer do nothing more than show how amazing and complex life truly is (see Butt and Lyons, 2005 for numerous other examples).

In response, many evolutionists (and the textbooks they write) point to experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment to show that what they call the “building blocks” of life could potentially form spontaneously. However, these so-called “building blocks” are no closer to being a living organism than the atoms they comprise.

A typical textbook discussion (e.g., Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 405) of the Miller-Urey experiment may be summarized as follows.

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey re-created the early atmosphere by mixing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water together.
By passing an electric spark through the mixture, they showed that organic compounds could form spontaneously.
The results of this experiment were spectacular and exceeded Miller and Urey’s wildest dreams.
By invoking emotion (“wildest dreams”) and selectively presenting only a very small subset of the relevant information, the student is effectively misled. What most textbooks fail to mention is far more telling. Consider a few examples:

Even most evolutionists now agree that the atmosphere simulated by Miller and Urey could not have existed. Ammonia and methane would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. Hydrogen could have been present in small amounts only, as it is able to escape earth’s gravity. In the current opinion of evolutionists, carbon dioxide and nitrogen always have been present. Despite this evidence, the textbook boldly asserts, “Stanley Miller and Harold Urey re-created the early atmosphere.”
In a watery environment, amino acids do not bind together in long chains, but break apart. In a watery environment, only one in 10200 (one followed by 200 zeroes) of the amino acids can exist in a chain of 100 amino acids, roughly the length of the smallest protein. Biology texts tend to avoid completely this fatal flaw in “primordial soup”-type scenarios. However, evolutionists recognize the problem and have made numerous attempts to address it. These include postulating the presence of condensing agents (inadequate even with optimistic chemical conditions that are impossible given other evolutionary assumptions), postulating a heat source to drive off water (which destroys some vital amino acids and results in highly randomized polymers), and others. All attempts have failed to show a realistic way for spontaneously assembling the long chains of amino acids needed to form even a simple useful protein. [NOTE: An excellent summary of (failed) attempts by evolutionists to address this issue is given in Sarfati, 1998a, 12[3]:281-284.]
Amino acids exist in left- and right-handed forms, and life uses only those that are left-handed. Miller-Urey type experiments result in an even (racemic) mix of left-and right-handed amino acids, incapable of forming proteins. In the incredibly unlikely event that a chain of 100 amino acids could form (see the previous paragraph), the odds that all of those amino acids would be left handed are ~ one in 1030. For more typical protein sizes (400 amino acids), the odds are ~ one in 10120. This fatal flaw is also ignored in biology textbooks, although the authors obviously are aware it exists. For example, Campbell discussed racemization (the slow conversion of the pure L-amino acids in proteins into a mixture of L- and D-amino acids) as a means for determining how long an organism has been dead (1996, p. 457). However, during the book’s extensive discussion on the theory of evolution, the issue is not even mentioned. As with the polymerization issue, desperate attempts have been made to address the chirality (molecular handedness) issue. These include polarization by ultraviolet or other light sources, optically active quartz, the weak force, clay, and numerous other scenarios that, when analyzed or tested, prove far too inefficient to improve significantly the odds of spontaneously forming a left-handed amino acid. [NOTE: An excellent summary of these failed attempts is given in Sarfati, 1998b, 12[3]:263-266.]
Less than two percent of the products formed in the Miller-Urey experiment were amino acids. The major products were carboxylic acids and tar, both of which are toxic to life and also far more likely to bond to amino acids (thus breaking any developing chain) than amino acids themselves.
To form a chain of amino acids, bifunctional monomers are required. If a unifunctional monomer bonds with the chain, the chain is terminated. Miller-Urey type experiments produce at least three times as many unifunctional monomers as bifunctional monomers. This fact also makes the odds of randomly assembling a long chain of amino acids impossibly low.
Many famous evolutionists have calculated the odds of a cell or even just the proteins in a cell randomly assembling. These odds (again calculated by evolutionists themselves) so discredit the theory that they typically are not mentioned in discussions of the topic. The famous atheistic astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the odds of even just the proteins of an amoeba arising by chance at one in 1040,000, i.e., one followed by 40,000 zeroes (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 130). Harold Morowitz, former professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, calculated the odds that a simple, single-celled organism might randomly assemble itself from pre-existing building blocks as one in 10100,000,000,000, i.e., one followed by 100 billion zeroes (Morowitz, 1968, p. 98). Carl Sagan and other famous evolutionists (including Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA) have come to similar conclusions (Sagan, et al., 1973, pp. 45-46). Calculations such as these were the basis of Sir Fred Hoyle’s famous quote that the probability of spontaneous generation “is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein” (Hoyle, 1981, 294[5837]:105). Hoyle went on to say that he was at a loss to understand “biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious” (294[5837]:105).
The suppression of evidence against the theory of evolution is not limited to discussions of Miller-Urey type experiments, but those discussions are revealing. An objective scientist obtains and considers all available evidence. The demonstrated desire of evolutionists to suppress or ignore evidence that contradicts an atheistic worldview provides yet another example of how evolution is religion, not science. This suppression is not isolated, and is obvious in most high school and college level biology textbooks.

True science is the enemy of the atheist and evolutionist. In recent years, many evolutionists have attempted to shift the origin of life debate into areas where it is more difficult to apply operational science. One example is the theory that life somehow arose elsewhere in the Universe, and was then transported to Earth. Although postulating events “elsewhere in the Universe” does nothing to change the fundamental reasons why evolution cannot occur, the postulate fogs the issue enough to comfort those committed to finding an atheistic explanation for life’s origin.

The significance of “discoveries” in space also is frequently overstated or distorted to mislead the reader. For example, in the article, “Are we Martians? Maybe, Study Says” (2000), several professors and researchers discuss organic molecules that have been found in space. Throughout the article, terms like “primitive life forms,” “ancestral cells,” and “microbes” are tossed about. Only at the end of the article is the reader given some clue as to what has actually been found. A sentence states: “Among the chemicals detected was acetylene, a building block for benzene and other aromatic molecules that, in turn, can form complex hydrocarbons, the chemical stuff of life.” In other words, because we have detected C2H2 in space (readily predicted from a freshman-level chemistry course), we are supposed to have increased confidence that we might be Martians. In reality, C2H2 is not noticeably closer to being a living organism than carbon or hydrogen alone.

An article in Sky & Telescope concerning the Galileo probe to Jupiter, gives a more honest representation. In addition to giving measured, quantitative results from the probe, one paragraph in the article notes the following:

Another blow to scientists’ expectations was the paucity of complex organic molecules, which laboratory studies had suggested should be present. Some researchers have even postulated that pre-biotic compounds or even life itself might exist in the Jovian atmosphere. Yet the mass spectrometer found nothing fancier than simple carbon-based species like ethane (C2H6). “There aren’t any little critters floating around in the clouds,” concludes Niemann (Beatty, 1996, 91[4]:21). [NOTE: “Niemann” refers to Hasso B. Niemann, of NASA/Goddard, who led one of the teams analyzing results from the probe.]

Vestigial Structures
A typical definition of “vestigial structure” is a “structure that is remnant of an organism’s evolutionary past and has no function; from the Latin vestigium, meaning footprint” (Johnson, 1998, p. 868). In talking about vestigial structures, Charles Darwin stated “far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated in accordance with the views [evolution—MH] here explained” (Darwin, 1859, p. 350).

The idea of vestigial structures was further promoted in 1895 by German anatomist Robert Wiedersheim (Wiedershiem, 1895), who claimed to have identified 186 vestigial structures in the human body. Like Darwin, Wiedersheim also claimed religious significance for vestigial structures, stating that vestigial organs “which remain inexplicable by the doctrine of special creation or upon any teleological hypothesis, can be satisfactorily explained by the theory of selection” (p. 3).

Once again, true science has proven to be the enemy of the evolutionist. As scientific knowledge increased, structures were removed from Weidersheim’s list. Today, functions have been found for all of Wiedershiem’s 186 “vestigial” structures. Rather than providing support for evolution, the vestigial structures argument is merely an example of scientific ignorance (and atheistic arrogance) being used to promote a false religion.

Perhaps the most well-known “vestigial” structure was the vermiform appendix. Until late in the 20th century, there were no clearly identified functions for the appendix. In addition, it was established long ago that rupture of the appendix can result in a life-threatening infection. The combination of ignorance regarding function and the severity of acute appendicitis led many to regard the appendix as worse than useless. Evolutionists seized on that opinion to declare the appendix a vestigial organ, evidence (in their eyes) that their theory was true.

Recent advances in biology, however, have identified numerous functions for the vermiform appendix, especially in early childhood. For example, researchers quoted in New Scientist note the following:

Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult.... The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you. By the time you are an adult, it seems your immune system has already learned to cope with the foreign substances in the gastrointestinal tract, so your appendix is no longer important. But defects in the appendix and other immune sampling areas may be involved in autoimmune diseases and intestine inflammation (“The Last Word,” 2003, 177[2381]:65).

The same article notes that during fetal development, endocrine (hormone-producing) cells appear in the appendix. These cells produce peptide hormones that control various biological mechanisms (177[2381]:65).

Other structures previously considered “vestigial” include the plica semilunaris, human hair, tonsils, the coccyx, the thymus gland, the pineal gland, and others. Important functions have been identified for each of these structures as well. Although now abandoned by many evolutionists, the argument that vestigial structures provide evidence for evolution is still mentioned in many textbooks and the popular media (e.g., Selim, 2004, 25[6]:42-46). An analogous argument flared up in the late 1990s, when evolutionists claimed that significant portions of human DNA are “junk” left over from our evolutionary past. As our knowledge of DNA increased, that argument quickly faded. Although we still have much to unravel about how DNA functions, we now know that sections of DNA called “junk” just a few years ago have many important functions.

Ironically, even if they had been real, vestigial structures would have been consistent with the creation account. There have been over 6,000 years of natural selection and genetic degradation since Adam sinned. It is expected that many of our organs do not function as well as they did at the original perfect Creation. It is also possible that some functions may have been lost completely. [NOTE: An excellent summary of the “Vestigial Structures” argument is given in Bergman and Howe, 1990, pp. 1ff.]

Evolution as a State Religion
The concerted effort to promote evolution goes far beyond the use of biased or misleading technical discussions. A quote from The Humanist provides a great deal of insight.

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, day care, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all of its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism (Dunphy, 1983, 43[1]:26).

Many parents would rebel against a public school system that overtly stated a goal of indoctrinating their children with humanism. But in schools where the humanist agenda is being pushed, more subtle means are used. Since evolution is taught under the guise of science, it has become a very useful tool for promoting humanism and other forms of atheism.

Many public school textbooks contain telling quotes. For example, Campbell states: “Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than supernatural creation” (1996, p. 413). The author makes clear that in his view, science is incompatible with the Bible. He also fails to note that the two fundamental assertions of Darwin have been shown false. There is no such thing as a “simple cell” that could randomly arise in a “warm little pond,” and there is no evidence that mutations add genetic information to life that already exists. A more accurate statement is: “Darwin attempted to give biology an atheistic basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than supernatural creation.”

Miller and Levine attempt to support evolution by setting up an incorrect creationist straw man and then tearing it down. They assert:

The vast majority of Europeans in Darwin’s day believed that the Earth and all forms of life were divine creations, produced a few thousand years ago over a span of one week. Since that original creation, both the Earth and its living species were thought to have remained fixed and unchanged. By the time Darwin set sail on the Beagle, there were numerous discoveries of evidence—fossils of extinct animals, for example—that this traditional view could not explain (1998, p. 223).

The statement provides two important pieces of misinformation. First, the types of changes Darwin observed (variation within a kind) were documented over 3,000 years before Darwin in Genesis 30:32-42. However, by attributing an erroneous belief to the Bible (although no evidence is provided that the “vast majority of Europeans” actually held the belief as stated), the attempt is made to discredit the Bible. Second, the Genesis Flood (and the climate changes it likely produced) provides an excellent explanation for the fossil record, the ice age, and the extinction of animals. Rather than being inexplicable by the “traditional view,” the fossil record and other observations we make in the present are best explained by the Bible.

Other examples abound. For instance, the teacher’s editions of many textbooks encourage teachers to mislead students by equating changes that result from the application of intelligence to the random changes that supposedly produce evolution. Examples include comparing improvements in athletic shoes (Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 216) and changes in auto design (Kaskel, et al., 1999, p. 616) to evolution. If a student can be persuaded to link the theory of evolution to something they know to be true, they are more likely to accept the theory—even if the link is completely illogical. In the Teacher’s Edition of Biology: Visualizing Life, teachers are urged to “emphasize that evolution is considered a scientific fact” (Johnson, 1998, p. 175).

Evolution is promoted at taxpayer expense in many other ways. Public natural history museums often have multi-million dollar displays about evolution, typically with the same religious, unscientific bias that permeates most textbooks. The National Academy of Sciences (whose members, according to a recent poll in Nature, are 72.2% atheistic and 20.8% agnostic [Larson and Witham, 1998, 394[6691]:313]) recently was funded to develop a guidebook for indoctrinating students into evolution, titled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Tips include encouraging religious students to believe that “God used evolution,” or that evolution is somehow compatible with the Bible (National Academy of Sciences, 1998, p. 58). Attempts to encourage students to worship multiple “gods” are reminiscent of Jeremiah 11:13.

Much can be learned from the account of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). The Israelites had been largely deceived by false religions, and their leadership was fully committed to those false religions. Queen Jezebel’s reaction when Elijah proved her religion false is equally telling. Rather than thanking Elijah and then setting her country (and herself) back on the right course, she swore to kill him. A similar situation exists today. The evidence for God is clear. However, rather than being thankful for that evidence, many people go to extremes to defend the false religions they have chosen to follow. Methods used to promote the theory of evolution are examples of this extremism.

False religions have opposed God throughout recorded history, and will continue to do so until Christ returns. Romans 1:20-22 states:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Denying God is inexcusable. Although evolutionists may profess to be wise, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a fundamental tenet of atheistic religion. It has nothing to do with true science.

“Are We Martians? Maybe, Study Says” (2000), The Associated Press, [On-line], URL: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/01/13/mars.life.ap/index.html.

Beatty, J. Kelly (1996), “Into the Giant,” Sky & Telescope, 91[4]: 20-22.

Bergman, Jerry and George F. Howe (1990), “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Kansas City, MO: Creation Research Society).

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2005), Truth Be Told: Exposing the Myth of Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Campbell, Neil A. (1996), Biology (Menloe Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing).

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1998 reprint).

Darwin, Francis (1887), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: D. Appleton).

Dunphy, J. (1983), “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, 43[1]:26, January-February.

Grigg, Russell (1996), “Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit,” Creation, 18[2]:33–36, March.

Hoyle, Fred (1981), “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, 294[5837]:105, November 12.

Hoyle, Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Johnson, George B. (1998), Biology: Visualizing Life (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Kaskel, Albert, Paul J. Hummer, Jr., and Lucy Daniel (1999), Biology: An Everyday Experience (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill).

Larson, E.J. and L. Witham (1998), “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature, 394[6691]:313, July 23.

“The Last Word” (2003), New Scientist, 177[2381]:65, February 8.

Miller, Dave (2002), “Christianity is Rational,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1975.

Miller, Dave (2007), “Most Americans Still Reject Evolution,” Reason & Revelation, 6[10]:37, 40-R, October, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3477.

Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1998), Biology, the Living Science (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Morowitz, Harold (1968), Energy Flow in Biology (New York: Academic Press).

National Academy of Sciences (1998), Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press).

Patterson, Roger (2006), Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis).

Quammen, David (2004), “Was Darwin Wrong?” National Geographic, 206[5]:31, November.

Sadler, T.W. (1995), Langman’s Medical Embryology (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins), seventh edition.

Sagan, Carl, F.H.C. Crick, and L.M. Mukhin (1973), in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Sarfati, J.D. (1998a), “Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem,” Technical Journal, 12[3]:281–284, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/polymerization.asp.

Sarfati, J.D. (1998b), “Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem,” Technical Journal, 12[3]:263–266, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/chirality.asp.

Selim, Jocelyn (2004), “Useless Body Parts,” Discover Magazine, 25[6]:42-46, June 26.

Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart (1984), Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).

Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/far.pdf.

Thompson, Bert (1994), “Faith and Knowledge,” Reason & Revelation, 14[4]:25-27,29-31, April, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/295.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).

Wiedersheim, Robert (1895), The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History, trans. H. and M. Bernard (London: Macmillan).

Wieland, Carl (1999), “Goodbye, Peppered Moths,” Creation, 21[3]:56, June.


Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Family History


The Smiths were proud of their family tradition. Their ancestors had come to America on the Mayflower. Their relatives included senators and Wall Street wizards.

They decided to compile a family history, a legacy for their children and grandchildren, and hired a fine author. Only one problem arose -- how to handle the two black sheep of the family -- George, who was executed in the electric chair for murder and Sam, who was hanged for rustling cattle.

The author assured them he could handle the story tactfully.

When the book appeared, It said that great-grandfather Sam died, "taking part in a public function when the platform gave way.'"

As for great-uncle George, he "occupied a chair of applied electronics at an important government institution, was attached to his position by the strongest of ties, and his death came as a great shock."

I wish I could blame it all on "political correctness", but it's a problem that goes back hundreds (and thousands) of years. We want people to think well of us (or our relatives), so we paint a pretty picture of words, or we hide behind a beautiful hand-crafted mask. But when you get behind the pretty words and the image we have erected, there's only one thing that God wants to know -- what's in the heart? There's the reality.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." (Matthew 23:27-28)

May your focus this day not be on creating an image so that others will think well of you, but on cleansing your heart so that God will think well of you.

Have a great day!

Alan Smith

Would you believe"Living Fossils"

This item is available on the Apologetics Press web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3506

AP Content :: Sensible Science

What Else “Living Fossils” Reveal
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Though the term “living fossil” sounds paradoxical, the expression is used widely to refer to living plants or animals which match fossils that evolutionists believe to be millions of years old. Plants and animals on the list of living fossils include cycads, horsetails, whisk ferns, dragonflies, opossums, crocodiles, tuataras, frilled sharks, horseshoe “crabs,” etc. Living fossils are an embarrassment to evolutionary theory for several reasons (see Butt, 2006). For one, “living fossils” show how various animals have remained virtually unchanged over long periods of time (allegedly millions of years). Dragonflies in the 21st century, though several inches smaller than their fossil counterparts, are still dragonflies. The horseshoe crab living today appears essentially the same as horseshoe crabs of “350 million years ago.” The existence of living fossils goes hand in hand with what Genesis 1 has taught for millennia: animals reproduce after their own kind.

Evolutionists seemingly overlook another major point when it comes to living fossils and the fossil record: plants and animals can live long periods of time (allegedly millions of years) without leaving behind fossil evidence. According to evolutionists, Gingko trees were thriving 240 million years ago, before dinosaurs evolved (see Krock, 2003). Interestingly, Gingko fossils are absent in rock layers reportedly representing many millions of years, yet they are alive today (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Consequently, simply because they are absent in certain rock strata does not mean they were non-existent during the alleged millions of years it took those layers of rock to form.

Consider also the living fossil known as the coelacanth. From 1839 (when fossil coelacanths were first discovered—Perkins, 2001) to 1938, evolutionists alleged that this fish was the missing link in the evolution of fish to amphibians (“Diver Finds...,” n.d.). Supposedly, coelacanths had existed “for nearly 400 million years” (“Diver Finds...”). Evolutionists firmly believed that “the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out—EL] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this” (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Science News declared that coelacanths “disappeared from the fossil record 75 million years ago” (Perkins, 2001, emp. added). In 1938, however, a living coelacanth was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar, and since that time more than 200 other specimens have been sighted or caught (see “Coelacanth,” n.d.).

Evolutionists admit that the fossil record of the past “70 million years” shows no evidence of coelacanths. Yet, we know they lived during these alleged “70 million years,” because they are still alive today. Like Gingko trees, coelacanths’ absence in certain rock strata does not mean they were not living during the alleged millions of years it took the rock layers to form; it simply means that they were not buried and fossilized in those layers of rock.

More important, consider this truth we learn from living fossils in light of alleged human evolution. Evolutionists assume that humans were not alive in various past ages (purportedly millions of years ago) because human fossils have not been discovered in layers of rock dated many millions of years old. The truth is, however, we have just as much fossil evidence for humans living the past “70 million years” as we do coelacanths and Gingko trees. Could humans not just as easily have been alive when the various rock layers were formed, without leaving human fossils? Simply because human fossils are missing in certain layers of rock does not mean humans were not living at the time those rock layers were formed. Living fossils beautifully illustrate this truth, and cast serious doubt on the evolutionary geologic timetable.

Butt, Kyle (2006), “What is a Living Fossil?” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2975.

“Coelacanth” (no date), American Museum of Natural History, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.

“Diver Finds ‘Living Fossil’” (no date), Science Now, [On-line], URL: http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/ coelacanth_010601.php.

Hodge, Bodie (2006), The New Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Krock, Lexi (2003), “Other Fish in the Sea,” NOVA, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/other.html.

Perkins, Sid (2001), “The Latest Pisces of an Evolutionary Puzzle—Discovery of Coelacanth off Coast of South Africa,” Science News 159:282, May 5, [On-line], URL: http://www. sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.