Connect with us

Creation Corner

Evolution’s liberal defenders



Blake's Image of Creation and creationism should be a warning to fools who deny God and His creation narrative. Or those who presume to judge God with theological questions about which they know little themselves. Some dire predictions are also possible today. Creation also answers a great many questions about who we are and where we came from.

Evolution has its defenders. Atheists obviously defend and propound evolution. They wield the “Trident” (uniformitarianism, abiogenesis, and common descent) to skewer Christianity and promote their view of the universe as a giant roulette wheel. Or so they think. But evolution has another class of defenders worse than these. Nominal Christians (and some nominal Jews, also) seek somehow to “reconcile” evolution with what Scripture (literally, what is Written) says about God’s Creative act, and His policies that followed.

Scripture describes such people in the days of the prophets and the Apostles. Ezra the eponymous high priest referred often in his Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (in two memorable volumes) to kings who did, or did not, remove the “high places” (Hebrew bamot, plural of bamah, whence the Greek bema for “judgment seat”). Peter of Galilee, Paul of Tarsus, James of Nazareth, and John of Jerusalem (Apostle and Revelator) all warned in the last days, people will say the world has stayed the same since it began. Well, they’re saying it today. Their spiritual ancestors burned incense on the high places. But by consistently applying Scripture as one should apply it, and also applying the scientific method as defenders of evolution do not (though they say they do), one can throw down the high places of evolution.

A High Place at Tel Dan, northern Israel. A metaphor for evolution and any atempt to reconcile it with Scripture

A “High Place” (Hebrew: Bama, pl. Bamot) at Tel Dan in northern Israel. Photo: CNAV.

Two days ago CNAV published this preview of the Creation Ministries International production, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels. CNAV promoted this on several on-line forums. Several nominal Christians object to the piece on typical “theistic evolution” grounds. Any Christian defending creation will likely hear these grounds, and should refute them this way:

Must Christians set themselves in opposition to science?

So asks one nominal Christian. He also charges, “There is not a scientific consensus on both sides. There also aren’t peer-reviewed journal articles and scientific papers on both sides.” He also speaks of the “ideological drive” of creation advocates.

But what exactly can he mean, “there is not a scientific consensus on both sides”? If that means the two sides cannot agree with one another on the basic facts, that is correct. Those who push the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm, the Trident, will never accept anything that threatens that Trident or any tine thereof.

But perhaps he means, “creationists can’t get their stories straight.” In so saying he drags a red herring across the trail. Science does not move by consensus. It moves by observation, attempt at explanation, and experiment.

“Creation scientists are entirely ideologically driven.” And evolutionists aren’t? The ideological driver of evolution is and always has been: atheism.

“Approach the evidence and come up with models that account for it as best they can,” he exhorts. But I challenge anyone to defend the evolutionary model. It is full of holes. And worse, it has its basis in lies.

Evolution serves more than the money wants of its immediate practitioners—though that’s a far larger part of it than most people imagine. It also serves the interests of the sin industries. Did not Aldous Huxley say: “We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom”?

Why do those fifteen scientists, Michael Bresciani, and I set ourselves up in opposition to the conventional paradigm? Because it is a paradigm of death. A paradigm of sin. A paradigm of rebellion against God. And a paradigm, by the way, that Peter of Galilee, James of Nazareth, and Paul of Tarsus all predicted we would see in the last days. (And don’t forget John the Revelator!)

Must one take Genesis chapters 1 through 3 literally?

Yes. Unless the Creation and Fall of Man story took place exactly as narrated, man did not fall and we need no Savior. That is exactly what the evolutionary scientists try to prove. And it negates this other phrase you read in Genesis chapter one: “Mo’ed tov.” Rendered “very good.” It actually means “of surpassing excellence.” Now what part of evolution is “absolutely excellent”? Answer: nothing.

Jesus Christ Himself attested directly to the literal historicity of Adam, and of Noah, too. (Paul of Tarsus also testified to the historicity of Adam and Eve both.) Furthermore, the history of man begins with his creation, and then his fall, through one single act of disobedience, as the Annals of Adam (Genesis 2:4b-5:1a) clearly records. John of Jerusalem, in his General Letters (and especially his first), tells us Jesus “takes away the sin of the world.” Singular, not plural. That refers to the sin of Adam.

To detract evolution will not suffice, without a good theory to take its place.

[ezadsense midpost]

And who said creation advocates cannot explain the observable world? For what is a theory, but an explanation of what one sees. (From the Greek theoreo, meaning “I behold.”)

About the origin of life, no one has ever worked out a way for life to arise by chance alone. Panspermia, and especially directed panspermia, beg the question of origin. Panspermia literally means “seeding it everywhere.” The seed had to come from somewhere.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle KGStJ (Knight of Grace of St. John) memorably said when you eliminate the impossible, the truth must lie with what remains, however improbable that might appear.

But how to explain the evidence evolution advocates usually cite to “prove” they have a record stretching back “millions of years”? At least three such theories exist. Here is my favorite:

Presenting the Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood. The material at that link will take a long time to read. It takes four hundred hardcopy pages to refute the thousands of pages of evolutionary propaganda, beginning with Anaximander and continuing with Darwin’s Origin and Descent and continuing to the present. Walter T. Brown Jr. gives solid evidence, that an honest mind will find irrefutable, that:

  1. This earth is young. And not merely the earth, but the solar system, too. Sorry, Darwin. Sorry, Richard Dawkins. (And sorry, Hugh Ross.) “Millions of years” simply have not passed.
  2. Fifty-three hundred years ago (give or take a hundred), this earth suffered the most violent event since its formation, an extremely violent event that left its scars not only on the earth itself but also throughout the entire solar system. The only reason we are hear to talk about it is this: one hundred twenty years before the subcrustal ocean (see the link) broke out, one man received warning, and the plans for a ship that could safely “launch” and withstand the violence. The log of that ship’s construction and cruise survives today as the Annals of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Genesis 6:9(b) through 10:1(a).

For the origins of the universe itself I recommend Hartnett J, Starlight, Time and the New Physics. John Hartnett is one of those fifteen scientists Michael Bresciani listed. By searching on their names in any search engine, one will find those scientists do more than detract. They also propose.

More to come.

[ezadsense leadout]

<a href="" title="Evolution’s liberal defenders">Evolution’s liberal defenders</a>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

CATEGORY:Creation Corner


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x