Christian Apologetics - Acts III Ministries and Thrift Store

Throughout this section, you will be presented with numerous representative quotes usually by evolutionists from many different fields. It makes little difference to an evolutionist if a ‘Creationist’ bashes the theory, but it does make a big impact if the negative quotes come from their own camp. By following the footnotes, you will see the references below the quote on each page.

For example, the quote below is from a scientist that at the time of the quote was the Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France . This quote would mean a lot less if it came from me or a Preacher for example—but as it is, it comes from a well respected Scientist.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."[1]

At this point, we need to address the issue of our Existence. The person you are offering an apology, defense or witness to states that they have a problem with the idea of God and the Bible because in their mind science has proven evolution to be our father. Thanks to our public schools (and some private) and the brainwashing we all received there, we have grown up hearing evolution taught as fact. Even as children we read books about dinosaurs that started off with the phrase, “millions of years ago…” right there on page one. While these small children’s books may not specifically discuss evolution, they are already setting the stage for their brainwashing later in school and society by acclimating them to the idea of something living millions or billions of years ago. This way it does not sound as strange to them when they reach the grades when these things are taught.

In order to illustrate that evolution is a direct attack on God and Christianity as a whole, read the following quote by an evolutionist. Note that the quote illustrates how this attack on God has backfired and placed them in a position of worshipping and counting on a false god.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."[2]

It is worth noting here that the word used above—“incredible”—is not used in the sense that you may think it is. Here it is used in a context of ‘unbelievable’ or ‘preposterous.’

Presupposition Reminder

Don’t forget, before you potentially invest a large amount of time going through all of this material with the person you are witnessing to, you need to agree on some foundational issues. First and foremost they must agree that there are only two possible ways that we came into existence. They are Creation by God (don’t argue yet Who God is) and evolution.

This point is imperative to agree on up front. Since neither side can be “Proved” scientifically, the best proof for one is disproof of the other. If there are only 2 options, and you know it is not one then logically it must be the other by the process of elimination.

Just in case the target of your apology is skeptical about there only being two choices, here is a quote to that effect:

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."[3]

Definition: Evolution

There are several ways in which the word “evolution” is used. This is usually where the battle starts—over the semantics of the definitions. Therefore, instead of making up my own, I will use those already well established in society. The first one below was taken off of the internet at www.encyclopedia.com. It states that evolution is a:

“concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.”[4] (emphasis mine)

Moreover, just for clarification purposes, we will look at one more definition of evolution:.

“A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.”[5] (emphasis mine)

Definition Analysis

There are several things that need to be pointed out about this definition. First and foremost, it describes two separate categories of evolution—they are Organic and Inorganic. But notice also that they are discussed and defined together because the theory must account for the origin of all things in the universe. Many evolutionists only want to address but one “link” in the chain and ignore the rest. But for the theory of evolution to work, it must account for everything!

Here is an overview of the definition and what it states about evolution and what evolution tries to explain and account for without the assistance of a Creator:

Also Note the portion of the first definition that is the 4^th and 5^th line dealing with “Organic Evolution.” It reaffirms that Evolution and Creation are opposites and the only two options.

From this point, it is important to note that there are still two primary classifications of types of evolution. They are Microevolution and Macroevolution. This is where evolutionists leave the road of reason and get into the wilderness of imagination. Let’s now look at the definitions of each and discuss how they pertain to Apologetics realm of Creation vs. evolution.

Definition: Microevolution

“Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.”[6] (emphasis mine)

Here it deserves mentioning how ‘Scientists’ and the Bible classify life forms differently. The Bible refers repeatedly to God’s Creation as ‘Kinds.’ When the Creation is done, he commands all life to reproduce after their “Kind.” Science on the other hand, has offered many variations of classifications of life on earth. Here is the most commonly used yet not conclusively agreed upon.

Once you get below the top level of the Kingdoms, scientists divide up the life forms into phylum (usually called division in botany), class, order, family, genus, and finally species. In order to save time, space and attention here, these terms are defined in Appendix B in the back.

However, using the graphic to the side, you can see that at the top of the taxonomic division are the 5 kingdoms listed above. At the bottom of this classification system is the Species category.

All too often, Creationists and Evolutionists alike relate the Kinds in Genesis to Species. This is not correct. Depending on the “Kingdom,” the Genesis ‘Kinds’ may refer to any grouping from genus to classes, maybe even to kingdom.

Definition: Macroevolution:

“evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups”[7] (emphasis mine)

Adaptation and variation within kinds is a fact and Creationists do not debate the point. It is mislabeled as microevolution, but it does happen. The controversy comes with the theoretical macroevolution. In quick summary, most evolutionists believe that macroevolution is simply compounded microevolution built up over immense periods of time. Again, this topic will be discussed quite thoroughly in another chapter dealing with the origin of life on Earth. Notice the image to the left as it depicts the difference between the micro and macro forms of evolution.

As this graphic demonstrates, you can breed dogs all your life, but all you will ever produce are dogs! Some may have shorter hair, longer ears, etc., but they will still be dogs. This is what they are calling ‘microevolution.’

On the other hand, macroevolution states that all life came from a ‘soup’ that formed when water from rain or somewhere else mixed with rocks! This will also be discussed further in a later chapter.

Evolutionary History

The quote below shows the attitude of many evolutionists. It was written as part of the Introduction to a book on evolution.

‘There has been a great change in the status of science within the last quarter century, particularly since the Second World War. Science has become a source of power, not merely a subject fit for fiction.”[8] (emphasis mine)

It kind of sounds like to me that someone has an inferiority complex about their profession. The Bible warns about people full of pride and those that crave power. For it is written about them in Romans 1:24-32,

“Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions… And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”^{^[9]} (emphasis mine)

As you can see from the italicized portions in the Scripture reference above, these people will serve the creation and not the creator. This is precisely what these atheistic evolutionists have done. They are making themselves out to be gods…they are worshipping themselves as they seek to do their will only and to do what is evil in the sight of the Lord.

Now back to the analysis. In the first chapter of a book titled, Evolution, the author pays tribute to her god…Darwin… while blasting the one true God of the Bible. Here is how the book begins:

“The year was 1832 and he was 23, starting a five-year world cruise as the unpaid naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle—and finding the world full of coincidences, likenesses and differences that the prevailing theory of creation failed to account for. The theory [of creation] was both explicit and vague: every species of plant and animal on earth, it held, had come into being at one grand moment in time, presumably about 6,000 years ago, when ‘certain elemental atoms were suddenly commanded to flash into living tissues.’ But had beetles been created full-grown, or as larvae? Which had come first, the oak or the acorn, the pumpkin or the seed, the chicken or the egg? And why did many living species appear to be refinements of extinct, fossilized ones? The theory of spontaneous, special, separate creation did not say.”[10] (emphasis mine)

Something I found rather amusing about this author’s opening comments on evolution is how the criticisms she applies to Creation and the Bible predominantly apply to evolution—not creation. The author makes the faulty assumption that Darwin saw coincidences, likenesses, and differences that creation could not account for. What is humorous here is that she shows her ignorance of the Bible and its account of creation in Genesis.

It’s a big joke in my circle of friends to tease me about the sheer number of Bible’s translations that I own and study. However, I have yet to find a translation that reads, “God commanded atoms to flash into living tissues.” Even funnier still is what evolution teaches about the beginning of life.

Also of interest is that she ponders the question of the Chicken or Egg. Again, she shows her ignorance of the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that all of the kinds were created fully formed with apparent age. The earth was created with fruit trees already bearing fruits with seeds in them. Man and woman were also created mature. This is evidenced by the fact that God commanded His creations to go forth and multiply and reproduce after their kinds.

The final display of her ignorance (in this one paragraph) was in her question and then statement that, ‘…why did many living species appear to be refinements of extinct, fossilized ones? The theory of spontaneous, special, separate creation did not say.’ Again, apparently she is clueless of what the Bible teaches. Had she opened it and actually read it, God might have granted her wisdom to see the Truth.

Her comment stems from a predetermined assumption that evolution was correct. In fact, she also shows her shallowness as a journalist by not researching the Facts of either side. Had she performed any investigation at all, she would have noticed that a majority of fossils are very similar if not identical to life forms still alive today. Many of them only differ in size. The ones that are different only in size can scientifically be attributed to the pre-flood climate that included the water vapor canopy. Again, if she had read her Bible and researched the issue, she would have realized her lack of knowledge on both the subject that she was blasting (Creation & the Bible) and the one she was praising and promoting (evolution).

Being the inquisitive person that I am, I wanted to know a little more about the person that wrote this book. As luck would have it, there was an introductory miniature biography about the author and her interest in evolution. It states:

“Ruth Moore is a journalist who arrived at her interest in evolution…while she was attending an economic conference [and] a University of Chicago professor sitting next to her casually announced: ‘We’re rewriting the theory of evolution.’ What the professor was referring to were some experiments in carbon-dating fossils, and the new light they shed on the evolutionary time scale.”[11] (emphasis mine)

The first thing worth noting here is that they admitted they were “rewriting” the evolutionary time scale. Ironically, the Creation time scale has never needed to be rewritten. Especially not by millions and billions of years as you will see is the case with evolution. Below is another good quote that talks about the need by evolutionists to create more time.

In this quote the same author is attacking the Reverend John Ray, a 17^th Century Cambridge University lecturer, that explained fossils based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Here, the author once again blasts the Creationist’s viewpoint. It is interesting to note that she picked an historic figure in creationism and not someone that lived in her century. I guess she figured it is harder for a dead person to defend himself against her baseless attack than a live person. Anyway, she writes,

“To account for marine fossils…Ray resorted to ingenious interpretations of Old Testament earth history. He concluded after much study that fossils were washed up to their places of deposit when the Bible’s 40 days and 40 nights of unceasing deluge filled the reservoirs of the world and caused the ‘Fountains of the Great Deep’ to break forth. In the tremendous surge that overflowed the globe, he reasoned, the fish and other creatures of the sea were simply swept up…” (emphasis mine)

Another display of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty is displayed above. She again offers her own evolutionary commentary on the Bible without actually reading the Bible. Genesis 7 and 8 clearly teach that the floodwaters were on the earth for over a year. The 40 days were only the duration of the continuous rain—not the flood. She continues,

“The flood theory of fossils was finally destroyed by the drawing recognition that the face of the earth…was slowly shaped by continuing natural forces—the ‘uniformitarianism’ of geologist Charles Lyell. But it took some doing, by the infant sciences of geology and archaeology, to give this evolutionary concept enough time to operate in—a few thousands of millions of years instead of a few thousand years.”[12] (emphasis mine)

“The story [of evolution] is well documented through all but its opening chapters. Our planet and the rest of our solar system are now reckoned to be about 4.5 billion years of age, and for most of that incomprehensibly long time the earth was lifeless.”[13] (emphasis mine)

There are a couple of things in the above quote worth noting. First is the word ‘reckoned.’ It literally means to, “to think or assume.”[14] It does not mean proven. Second, she reveals their bluff by conceding that they have introduced the all-important missing link needed by their theory. This missing ingredient was and still is: “incomprehensibly long time.” Evolutionists know that is the only way to make their theory plausible—to imagine and invent a long time frame so as to allow at least a remote possibility for the impossible and improbable spontaneous formation, diversification and survival of life on earth. On discussing why there are no traces of the early life, she admits:

Notice the key word miraculous. Isn’t it strange how “scientists” scoff at thenotion of the existence of God because He cannot be “proven,” and yet they themselves count on innumerable miracles that are unscientific and contrary to known evidence and laws?! Let’s see what another author has to say:

“To adapt successfully, organisms must be able to meet every challenge of the environment. Plants and animals are affected by the climate and must respond in various ways to changes in temperature, humidity, wind velocity and precipitation. They need a source of food. There must be space in which to live, a place where there is sun or shade, dampness or dryness; a place to build a nest, dig a burrow, extend roots, lay eggs or bear young.”[16]

“An organism must adjust to others of its species and to organisms of different species. Sometimes it has to compete with them for space, food, sunlight or water. If it belongs to a social species, it must cooperate with its species mate. It is affected by parasites and by natural enemies that would kill it for food.”[17]

While this is quite an extensive list of requirements needed in order for a life form to be successful here on earth, it is by no means exhaustive. In reality, evolutionary theory would still depend on several critical factors being just right that are not even listed above. They include: surviving radiation, obtaining new instructions for newly evolved features, how they actually got their instincts, knowing the need to mate-how to mate-when to mate-how to find/attract a mate-who not to mate with, etc., and even being accepted. Since evolution depends on mutations for variety of kinds, the newly mutated species must be accepted by its kind if it hopes to reproduce and continue its mutation heredity.

The Mechanism?

Expert evolutionists are still perplexed by the theory of evolution and its mechanism—in other words, they have no clue how it works. Read the following quote from David M. Raup. At the time of this quote he was curator and chairman of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago . Speaking on why some life goes extinct and others flourish, he states:

“Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists ask such questions more and more frequently. Understanding why a species, a family, or an order of animals or plants suddenly appears or disappears is central to a bigger question: How does evolution work?”[18] (emphasis mine)

“…the Theory of evolution—how and why it happened—is more difficult to pin down and much more controversial. What causes evolution? Scientists want to know why mass extinctions take place and why, conversely, some animal or plant group may suddenly burst onto the biological scene and vigorously radiate—expand and develop new forms and new species.”[19] (emphasis mine)

Can you hear the frustration in his quest? I know how to help him, tell him to open a Bible! Isn’t it funny that no one knows how or why things supposedly evolved, and yet they have an entire religion founded upon it? What is even more pathetic is that they build their entire life around just such a blind faith.

“Many scientists who ponder the problems of extinction and radiation [radiation is referring to the expansion and development of new species] are questioning the traditional view of evolution that…developed from…Charles Darwin in the 1800’s.” (emphasis mine)

So why are he and many other scientists questioning ol’ Charles and his theory of evolution and natural selection?

“There are several reasons to do so, [first] it does not explain the whole process [of evolution]. Also, some of the results of evolution do not match what Darwinian theory would predict. For example, if evolution leads to a perfect adaptation through natural selection acting on random heredity changes, the process ought to slow down as it gets closer to the optimum for each species because favorable changes are made…We should also see a decrease in the number of species as they compete with one another and unsuccessful species are eliminated. But we see no such slowing down, and the number of species appears to be at least as great now as in the geologic past—and perhaps even greater.”[20] (emphasis mine).

Well, the above paragraph tells us pretty plainly that Charles’ theory does not explain how evolution operates, and it does not match the facts. I wonder…is there anything else that could be wrong with Charles’ theory? YES! He continues,

“Still another problem with Darwinian theory involves extinction. The dinosaurs were extremely successful for a long time—they lived on earth much longer and had more species than many other mammal groups. About the only failing of the dinosaurs that we know for sure is that they did not survive. We can work out fairly plausible explanations for such major extinctions… however, some evolutionists believe that such explanations stretch Darwinian theory too far.”[21] (emphasis mine)

It really sounds like there are quite a few problems with evolution doesn’t it?

Evolution Summary

So many times we hear the phrase “Missing Link” or search for the Missing Link regarding the theory of evolution. This term makes the hearer envision that evolution is a strong and complete chain stretching across billions of light years through infinite space and time with just a single link missing. On the contrary, the WHOLE evolutionary chain is missing! Evolution is a FAITH not SCIENCE. Notice the following quote by an evolutionist.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."[22] (emphasis mine)

In order for evolution to “work,” it has to predict and explain the following:

Þ How the Universe was formed (including time, space, matter, energy, laws, etc.)

Through this study, you will see that evolution fails at every step. Every link is missing. Admittedly, the Creation theory must answer the same challenges for it to be “proven” as well. We will look at which one does a better job throughout the next few chapters.

[1] Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963). Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France .
[2] T Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), p. 101-102
[3] D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
[4] The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2000, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.
[5] The American HeritageDictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Co.
[6] Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P) 2001 Microsoft Corporation.
[7] Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P) 2001 Microsoft Corporation.
[8] Theodosius Dobzhanksy, Professor, The Rockefeller University, as quoted in “Evolution” a part of “Life Nature Library” series © 1962, Revised 1969. p. 7
[9] NASB
[10] Ruth More, “Evolution” part of “Life Nature Library” series © 1962, Revised 1969. p. 9-10
[11] “Evolution” part of “Life Nature Library” series © 1962, Revised 1969.
[12] Ruth More, “Evolution” part of “Life Nature Library” series © 1962, Revised 1969. p. 110-111
[13] open citation. “Evolution” p. 111
[14] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
[15] open citation. “Evolution” p. 111
[16] “The Book of Popular Science,” volume 6, ©1963 Grolier Inc. p.276
[17] ibid
[18] David M. Raup, “The Revolution in Evolution,” recorded in Science Year: The World Book Science Annual1980. ©1979 World Book-Childcraft International, Inc., p. 198
[19] Open Citation, “The Revolution in Evolution,” p. 198
[20] Open Citation, “The Revolution in Evolution,” p. 203
[21] Open Citation, “The Revolution in Evolution,” p. 204
[22] Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.