Repentance

I thought I would share a sermon that I recently preached.

And He said, "A man had two sons. "The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.' So he divided his wealth between them. "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. "So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. "And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. "But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 'I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."' "So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
Luke 15:11-21

Now many of us are familiar with this parable. And we see the problems that the son got himself into. And we can understand why he did what he did. We have all at one time or another gone off and done what we wanted to do and got ourselves into a lot of trouble for it. I’m sure if we had time we could go around the room and everyone would have a story to share that is similar to the son’s story.

So here the son is. Eating with the pigs. And he experiences what everyone experiences when they get themselves into trouble because of a bad, selfish, sinful decision they have made.
He feels Sorrow, and He feels Regret. But these things are not the same thing as Repentance. Let’s take a look at 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 to help illustrate this for us.


(8) For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it--for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while--
(9) I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.
(10) For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.


So we see that Regret is not the same as Repentance and neither is Sorrow the same as Repentance.
Now lets get back to the prodigal son. He undoubtedly felt much sorrow for the predicament he was in before he repented. I mean it’s no fun going broke and feeding the hogs, and eating what they eat. That’s sorrow.
And he most certainly had regret. He knew his father’s servants were eating better than he was. He regretted leaving his home. He knew it was a bad decision.
But those two things were not repentance. He could have kept his regret and his sorrow there in the far country and died there.
But we see that his sorrow and his regret lead to repentance. A change in the will. If you take a look at the parable again, at what moment do we see his repentance? When he says, “I will…”

Now sin has a way of making us sorry in all kinds of ways for all kinds of things. But I think there are three basic directions for Sorrow, Regret and Repentance.

1. We are sorry for what our sins do to us. It embarrasses us. It humiliates us. Some sins will destroy our health.
Take the man who is an alcoholic and he drinks himself to the point bad health. He can’t hold a job down. He can’t remember his own house number. He is simply living from one drink to the next. He regrets that. He is very sorry for that. He is concerned about how his sin affects him.
And of course our sins ultimately hurt us most because they separate us from God. And if not forgiven will cause us to go to hell.

2. We are sorry for what our sins do to other people. We can look at the alcoholic again. He might also regret what his sin had done to his family. The money that he spent on boos could have gone to the well being of his family. Not to mention any emotional or physical abuse that often takes place when dealing with alcoholism. And he fells regret and sorrow for what he has done to his family.

3. But true repentance does not really begin until we start to have sorrow or regret for what effect our sin has upon God. It’s easy for us to get concerned about what sin does to us and to ours. It messes me up, it destroys my life, it threatens my eternal soul, isn’t that bad, sin is just terrible.

But do we think about what our sin does to God?
The answer to that question is this. Only to the extent that we really love God.
One of the reasons that in our churches today there is a very low level of repentance is because we live in a very narcissistic, egocentric culture.
And so when we think about sin and repentance what receives most of the attention is what sin does to me. And it’s very bad what sin does to me. We think I should quite this I should stop. Why? Well look what it’s doing to me! And God knows we don’t want anything bad to happen to me. Look how important I am. My do I love me.

But we have to remember that our sin ultimately resides in the mind of God. Who does our sin hurt the most? If sin bothers our conscience, think what our sin does to an absolutely righteous God.

And we can see how this is true. Think about your first child and the first time they fell and got scraped up. Your child was over it in a few minutes but it bothered you all day. Right? It bothers us when our children get hurt.

When I was growing up and I did something wrong and was about to be spanked as punishment, my parents said to what all parents say when they are about to spank you, “This is going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you.” And of course as the child I couldn’t understand this at all. I thought well you just hand me over than paddle and I’ll see what I can do about that.

But it’s true isn’t it? The parents are more hurt because of the child’s pain than the child is. And why is that? Because of our love. We love them so much that when they hurt, we hurt.

And it’s like that with God. Our sin hurts God more than it does us, because He loves us with an intensity that we can’t even imagine. And our sin offends Him.

So once again, Do we care about how our sin hurts God?
Only to the extent that we truly love Him.

If we love our selves more than anything else in the world then our primary concern in repentance will be what my sin does to me. And this is a legitimate concern. But it becomes illegitimate when it is our only concern. Do you see what I’m saying?

Our primary concern has to be what our sin does to God. How it hurts Him. And that can only be our primary concern when we love Him.

So how can you tell what you primary concern is? Well when you are faced with temptation, what reasons do you think of to resist the temptation? Do you think, “Well I might get caught.” Or “I could get hurt doing that.”
Perhaps you are a little better and think, “Well I don’t want to hurt my spouse.” Or “I don’t want to take advantage of that person.” “I don’t want this person to get hurt.”

But what is it that we should be thinking? “What would God think?” “I do not want to offend my God” “I do not want to sin against Him!”

Back in Genesis when Joseph was being tempted by Potiphar’s wife, how did he respond?
Genesis 39:7-9

(7) It came about after these events that his master's wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, "Lie with me."
(8) But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, with me here, my master does not concern himself with anything in the house, and he has put all that he owns in my charge.
(9) "There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?"

See if Joseph had been enticed by the temptation and slept with Potiphar’s wife, there would have certainly been consequences. He would have gotten into a lot of trouble with His master, as we see he did when he was falsely accused of that crime. But you see Joseph’s primary concern was not how will I be hurt if I do this, it was how will God be hurt if I do this. And he answered “I could not do that to my God.”

It comes down to what is our motive. Why do we obey God? Why do we read our Bibles? Why do we spend time with Him in prayer? Why do we try and evangelize to the lost? Is it simply because we are supposed to if we want to go to heaven?

Take evangelism. Why do we evangelize to the lost? Because we are supposed to so we don’t go to hell?
Is it because we don’t want the lost to go to hell? Are we thinking of them? That’s a bit better. But what about wanting to reach the lost for Jesus? Because He loves them and He died for them? Shouldn’t we want to reach the lost for Him?

What is it that motivates us to do what we do? And this is the case with repentance. What is our primary concern with repentance? Is it only for ourselves and how sin has hurt us? If that is true, then that is not enough. It’s not enough to simply not want to deal with the pain and consequences of sin and that’s why you are repenting. That is not true repentance and it will not lead to revival. True repentance and true revival flow from our love for God.

Let us look back at what the prodigal son says to the father upon his return.
“Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son”

Note what he did not say. He did not say , “Father I want to come Home. Why? I hate hog feed. I’m sick of the pigs. Look at me, I’m in terrible shape.”

Was this one of his motives for coming home, sure it was. But he didn’t say to the father, “accept me back because of what my sin has done to me.”

Look at his priorities. We know he had three reasons but he only talks about two of them.
I have sinned first of all, how? Against Heaven. I’ve hurt God.
Secondly, I’ve sinned in your sight. I’ve hurt you.
And even though he hurt himself, he didn’t give that as a reason.
That’s a great model of Repentance.

If we examine the short comings in our lives and If we ask the question why am I not doing what I should be doing. We will come down to the question “Do we really love God?”

If we really love Him that is the greatest motive for repentance. That’s the greatest motive for the Christian life.
This is why Jesus gives us, as the greatest commandment, “Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength”

See if we start there, we will have everything in proportion.
You see true revival comes from true repentance. But true repentance comes only from a heart that loves God. Do you love God? Are you more concerned with how your sin hurts Him rather than how it hurts you?

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design - Part 4

This is the final installment of my Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design posts. I know they are on more of the academic side for a blog, but there is valuable information here. The books listed in the bibliography are good sources of information to get you started. I think Christians need to realize that this is an important debate. It's not just for the scientists to discuss. There is much at stake in this debate and Christians need to know that the opposition doesn't hold the monopoly on truth. As shown here, there is much evidence that goes against Evolution and points to an Intelligent Designer. It is my hope that this information will be used to defend the faith and to defend the truth (for they are the same).

Support for Intelligent Design

There needs to be an acknowledgment of the fact that we all look at the evidence and the facts with certain presuppositions. This is just as true for the Christian as it is for the evolutionist, just as true for the scientist as it is for the rest of us. We all view things through a biased set of glasses and the sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can open the conversation. If we do not recognize this, though, then we are only fooling ourselves and not helping our journey to find the truth. Ken Ham states,

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
(Ham. Creation, Where’s the Proof)

What should reasonable people conclude when they look at the available evidence? This is the question that should be asked when we are looking at the facts that have been established. When looking at the complexity of life and the large variation in life it seems reasonable to conclude that nature has been designed by some form of intelligence.

Irreducible Complexity

In his book, “Darwin's Black Box”, Michael Behe introduced the notion of irreducible complexity as a challenge to neo-Darwinian theory: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (Behe 39).” Why is irreducible complexity a challenge to Darwinian Theory? In the “Origins of Species” Charles Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Irreducible complexity is a challenge to Darwinian Theory because it shows that some biological structures cannot be built by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” as Darwin first proposed.



Michael Behe uses the example of the mousetrap to explain the concept of irreducible complexity: It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth; certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all (Behe 42).

How does irreducible complexity apply to biology?



Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cell was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box", something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore.

Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton 250).” In a word, the cell is complicated, very complicated.

In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all or nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner, it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against.



A prime example of Michael Behe's “irreducible complexity” is the bacteria flagellum. With over 40 essential parts, the flagellum is a rotary motor used to propel a bacterium in liquid. Spinning at 17,000 RPMs, the motor is acid driven, liquid cooled and self-replicating. Each of the components of this system are necessary and will not function with out the others.

This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.

Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional (Behe Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry).” By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected.

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function at all, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution; the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding “yes.”


Bibliography
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Behe, Michael J. “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry”
(http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm)

Chambers, Roger. “Darwin in Fantasyland” Christian Standard. Oct. 17th, 1982.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People. Dallas: Haughton
Publishing Company, 2004.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Ham, Kent. “Creation, Where’s the Proof?” Answers In Genesis.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design - Part 3

These posts are based off of a project I presented for my History and Logic of Science class. I decided to put them up here as a possible resource for Christians. Too many Christians have given up the intellectual battle against atheism and evolution and all they stand for. We have been bullied into thinking that we don't even get a seat at the table to discuss such things. Christians need to know that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand. Christians need to know that believing in the Bible and in a God who created the universe and everything in it is intellectually defensible.



The Fossil Record

Perhaps the largest problem with the theory of evolution is found in the fossil record. Darwin knew that this was perhaps the biggest flaw in his theory.
He said, “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (The Origin of Species)


“It was perfectly obvious to Darwin and his contemporaries, who had the difficult task of convincing their skeptical colleagues of the validity of evolution, that transitional forms were essential to the credibility of their claims. The fact that they were largely missing was acknowledged to be a major flaw in their argument (Denton 158).” Darwin simply thought that this was due to the fact that paleontology simply had not made many discoveries yet, but he was confident that over the next several years more and more discoveries would be made to provide evidence of transitional forms.


It has now been over one hundred years since that time and not one confirmed transitional form has been uncovered. The general illustration that is used to understand the large variation in species is “the Tree of Life” or a cone that is extending outward. This however is not what is found in the fossil record. What we find in the fossil record is sudden appearance of species, sudden disappearance of species, and stasis of the species while it is there. There is no transition from one species to another as portrayed in the tree of life illustration. Evolutionist have tried to point to a small handful of fossils that are claimed to be the “missing link” between species; such as, Archaeopteryx [a bird], Ambulocetus [a land mammal], and Acanthostega [an amphibian]. But a closer examination of these fail to show an actual transition from one species to another. They are simply a separate species of their own.


Darwin’s theory (a) predicts that fossil transitions between different types of organisms will be found. When transitions were not found, evolutionists proposed punctuated equilibrium (b), where the transitional forms existed briefly, and were not fossilized. Model (C) represents the fossil record with regards to the origin of the phyla. The sudden appearance of organisms points to design, not evolution.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1096


The tree of life illustration also shows that all life started out in a small number of species and then began to branch out further and further, thus creating the cone effect. This is the opposite of what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record shows that there was a lot more types of species early on and they have dwindled down over the years to a fewer number of species. The fossil record shows an upside down tree of life, in a sense. The fossil record is a clear and consistent contradiction to evolutionists and they do not generally have an adequate answer for this problem.


Bibliography
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Behe, Michael J. “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry”
(http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm)

Chambers, Roger. “Darwin in Fantasyland” Christian Standard. Oct. 17th, 1982.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People. Dallas: Haughton
Publishing Company, 2004.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Ham, Kent. “Creation, Where’s the Proof?” Answers In Genesis.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design - Part 2

These posts are based off of a project I presented for my History and Logic of Science class. I decided to put them up here as a possible resource for Christians. Too many Christians have given up the intellectual battle against atheism and evolution and all they stand for. We have been bullied into thinking that we don't even get a seat at the table to discuss such things. Christians need to know that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand. Christians need to know that believing in the Bible and in a God who created the universe and everything in it is intellectually defensible.


Did Life Begin Spontaneously?

In 1924 biochemist A.I. Oparin published a theory suggesting that the first cell or cells formed very gradually over time. This theory was furthered by biochemist J.B.S. Haldane, who thought that ultraviolet light from the sun simple gases found in the early earth atmosphere into organic compounds through which cells could gradually develop. This came to be known as the Oparin Hypothesis (Davis and Kenyon 43). There are several erroneous assumptions on which these men based their theory.

Assumption No. 1- Reducing Atmosphere: The earth’s early atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. This assumption is necessary in order for Oparin’s theory to work. If the earth’s early atmosphere had a significant amount of oxygen it would react with the organic compounds in a destructive process called oxidation.

Assumption No. 2- Preservation: The simple organic compounds formed in the soup were somehow preserved, so that the energy that caused them to form did not also destroy them. It would have taken a lot of energy to form these complex compounds which could have been provided through ultraviolet light from the sun, cosmic rays, electrical energy from a lightening bolt, heat, or radioactivity. The organic compounds would have had to be formed and then some how protected from being destroyed by the same force that created them.

Assumption No. 3- Reservation: Enough biological compounds were reserved for combination with the “right” molecules (rather than being tied up by reacting with useless molecules) to form the large molecules useful to life. These compounds not only had to develop but had to react with the right kind of other compounds.

Assumption No. 4- Uniform Orientation: Only L-amino acids combined to produce the proteins of life, and only the D-sugars reacted to produce polysaccharides, or nucleotides. This says that the amino acids making up living things had to also be shaped in a particular way even though other formations occurred as well.

Assumption No. 5- Simultaneous Origins: The genetic machinery that tells the cell how to produce protein and the protein required to build that genetic machinery both originated gradually and were present and functioning in the first reproducing protocells.

Assumption No. 6- Specified Complexity: The highly organized arrangement of thousands of parts in the chemical machinery needed to accomplish specialized functions originated gradually in coacervates or other protocells. Oparin thought that these primitive forerunners to living cells would have competed for “food” sources and natural selection would have taken place.

Assumption No. 7- Photosynthesis: A chemical system called photosynthesis, the process of capturing, storing, and using energy of sunlight to make food, gradually developed within coacervates. Somehow a decline in the food source for these protocells declined and they were able to develop a way of using sunlight for a food source.

This theory was put to the test by Stanley Miller (pictured above) and Harold Urey. They attempted to use these assumptions that Oparin has set up and see if they could simulate the conditions and get the same result. Using a complex apparatus they were able to simulate the conditions and the result was the collecting of some organic acids. This was a success in their eyes and to the scientific community as a whole. It has now been found that the assumptions that Oparin’s theory suggested are false. The earth’s atmosphere did most likely contain some oxygen, and only 1% would be needed to destroy any organic compounds. Also the Miller-Urey experiment did not properly simulate early earth in the sense that once the amino acids were collected they were no longer exposed to the electric current used to form them, unlike their early earth counterparts. The Miller-Urey experiment also did not form any organic compounds that would have been useful to life. Regardless of the numerous problems with the Miller-Urey experiments, many scientists agree that the appearance of amino acids in them gives experimental support to their belief that life began in some spontaneous way.

Bibliography
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Behe, Michael J. “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry”
(http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm)

Chambers, Roger. “Darwin in Fantasyland” Christian Standard. Oct. 17th, 1982.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People. Dallas: Haughton
Publishing Company, 2004.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Ham, Kent. “Creation, Where’s the Proof?” Answers In Genesis.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design - Part 1

These posts are based off of a project I presented for my History and Logic of Science class. I decided to put them up here as a possible resource for Christians. Too many Christians have given up the intellectual battle against atheism and evolution and all they stand for. We have been bullied into thinking that we don't even get a seat at the table to discuss such things. Christians need to know that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand. Christians need to know that believing in the Bible and in a God who created the universe and everything in it is intellectually defensible.


Evolution is taught in public schools today as an undeniable scientific fact. Children are told that virtually all scientists agree that Evolution is scientifically sound. We are being misled by those representing Evolutionary theory.

On November 5th, 1981 Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and editor of its journal, delivered a speech to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. He revealed what many evolutionists don’t want us to know; the truth behind Evolutionary theory!

Last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school."

Problems with Evolution

Neo-Darwinism, a current form of evolution, states that the evidence for evolution is seen in small changes which will gradually accumulate into the forming of a new species. Roger Chambers in his article Darwin in Fantasyland evaluates this, “Neo-Darwinism promised that tiny changes (microevolution) will gradually accumulate into the new kinds (macroevolution). Evolutionists happily filled the textbooks with examples of microevolution (black moths, blind fruit flies, et al.) and assured one and all that evolution was now proved. Creationist scientists have been pointing out that (1) there are no undisputed transitional forms in the fossil record, (2) the overwhelming tendency in genetics is against change, (3) gradualism is a totally inadequate explanation for the complexity evident in the biological order, (4) the mathematics don’t work – the theory is magnificently improbable, and (5) all the “evidence” for macroevolution consists of complicated descriptions of what might have happened – extrapolations from microevolution. The standard response of the evolutionist establishment has been to declare that all non-evolutionists are, thereby, nonscientists. School children are told to believe that the evidence is there because “all scientists” say it’s there, like the emperor’s new clothes. But that’s not what they’ve been saying to one another (Chambers).”


Douglas Futuyma points out six major examples that are used as evidence for evolution (Johnson 25-26).

1. Bacteria naturally develop resistance to antibiotics, and insect pests become resistant to insecticides, because of the differential survival of mutant forms possessing the advantage of resistance.
2. After a severe storm in 1898 hundreds of birds were left dead or dying in Massachusetts. A Scientist named Bumpus found that among the male sparrows, the larger birds had survived more frequently than the smaller ones, though the size differential was slight.
3. The finches that live in the Galapagos Islands have a variation of beak sizes that fluctuate due to the environment. When there is a draught then the finches with the thicker beaks are able to crack the hardened berries to get to the food inside.
4. Sickle-cell anemia in African populations is associated with a trait that confers resistance to malaria. Those who inherit sickle-cell from one parent but not the other benefit the most, thus never breeding out the sickle-cell.
5. Mice populations have been observed to cease reproducing and become extinct when they are temporarily “flooded” by the spread of a gene which causes sterility in the males.
6. Due to industrialization many trees that the Peppered Moths supposedly live on were covered with soot. Therefore the moths that previously had an advantage because they were light colored and matched the tree now stood out thus providing a survival advantage.


All of these examples that Futuyma provides are only showing adaptation. Adaptation is micro-evolution, though most evolutionist refuse to acknowledge that there is a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Johnson states, “If we take these six examples as the best available observational evidence of natural selection, we can draw two conclusions:”

1. We can observe that circumstances can in fact favor species with a particular trait over others with a different trait. The trait that is not favored will then become reduced for a period of time as long as the circumstances prevail.

2. None of these “proofs” provides reasonable evidence to show natural selection can produce new species, new organs, other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. The sickle-cell anemia case only shows that in special circumstances an apparently disadvantageous trait may not be eliminated from the population. The larger birds may have an advantage in high winds or a drought but the smaller birds have the advantage in other circumstances; this is why birds have not continuously become larger.

The fact of the matter is that there has never been found an undisputed transitional species. Evolutionists can only point to examples of a particular species adapting in a particular way to the circumstances that it is in. There is also no new genetic information being introduced. In all six of the previous examples, circumstances are favoring a particular group of species that carry a certain trait; this can not ever create a new trait that was not originally part of that species.

Bibliography
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Behe, Michael J. “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry”
(http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm)

Chambers, Roger. “Darwin in Fantasyland” Christian Standard. Oct. 17th, 1982.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People. Dallas: Haughton
Publishing Company, 2004.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Ham, Kent. “Creation, Where’s the Proof?” Answers In Genesis.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Beginnings

I have, for a while now, wanted to start my own blog. It would be a place where I could write about things that interest me, that challenge me, and that irritate me. I chose to title my blog “Stologic.” My wife is the one who created this term to describe any time I get too analytical. So here is a place where I can be as analytical as I want. I will try to post as often as I can or as much as time will permit. My primary interest is Christian theology and so most of my posts will most likely have to do with this subject. As a disclaimer I belong to a brotherhood started in the 1800’s called the Restoration Movement. The direction of this movement is to restore the Church and Christian life to the pattern and precepts found in the New Testament. There are a set of links on the bottom right side of my page that can give you more information about the Restoration Movement if you are interested. Along with having a place to write out my thoughts, it is my humble hope that this blog in some way will be edifying to the Body of Christ and glorify our Heavenly Father.