Basic HTML Version
Evolutionists
(Continuedfrom page 20)
near the heads of sorne animals, to
indentations, to indentations with a
membrane, to lens- like membranes,
to everything up to humans." So
far, so good. This is evidence.
It
is
true. No creationist would deny it.
Now comes the interpretation! The
evolutionist takes the quantum Jeap
and takes for granted that evolution
has occurred. The Jetter continues,
" ... all the various stages in the evo–
lution of tbe eye still exist today."
But that is only one way of interpret–
ing the evidence. That is nol proof. A
creationist could just as easily say
that "all the various kinds of eyes
God created still exist today."
But then the evolutionist clouds
the issue even further. He concludes
his shor t reply, "By looking at [all
the variet ies of eyes in] the living
world, then, we can easily see how
something as complcx as the eye
could evolve."
Notice that!
"Could
evolve." l s he
claiming it
did
evolve that way? l s
he claiming that if you line up all
exist ing eyes in the living world in
order of complexity, from the light–
sensit ive spots to the human eye,
that the arrangement would show
how the eye evolved? No, he is not.
He would be laughed out of the labo–
ratory by his fellow evolutionists.
Why? Because if you line up all
living creatures in an order based
solely on the complexity of their
eyes- from simple eyes to complex
eyes- the position of the creatures
themselves in such a lineup would
be out of conformity with the "evo–
lutionary tree."
The statement, then, t hat by
looking at al! the different eyes "we
can easily see how something as
complex as the eye could evolve"
implies what evolution itself cannot
support. Yet this type of reason–
ing-even in textbooks-misleads
many people.
When al! is said and done, we are
st ill left with the question, how did
the different eyes develop if they
were not created?
The Creator's Credentials
The realm of the physical sciences
confines itself to what can be experi–
mented with, observed, measured
and weighed-the physical, material
28
universe. While many scientists–
including evolutionists-may allow
for the possible existence of God,
most freely admit they do not allow
belier' in the spi ritual to affect their
theories, They pride themselves in
their powers of inductive reasoning.
But they Jeave out data from an
entire dimension- t he spi r itual.
Why? Because they cannot quantify
it-measure it. There is, then, a
built-in qntisupernatural bias in
most scientific reasqning.
1t is no wonder science never even
claims to have the truth! Rather, its
avowed goal is only to find a closer
approximation to "truth." S ignifi–
cantly, the Bible describes as one of
the characteristics of our times that
sorne would be "ever learning, and
never able to cometo the knowledge
of
the truth"
( 11 Tim.
3:7).
J esus Christ promised his follow–
ers, "Ye shall know
the truth,
and
the truth
shall make you free"
(John
8:32).
He meant spiritual
truth, certainly. But not exclusively.
He also meant truth concerning
even a
physica/
matter that affects
one's worship and perception of the
true God.
Sorne have suggested that
The
Plain Truth
should not take a posi–
tion in the evolution versus creation
question. The realm of science, it is
claimed, should be kept separate
from religion.
Where science sticks to the facts
in areas such as chemistry, physics
or mathematics, there is no argu–
ment. But when human beings
depart from strict observation and
measurement of physical laws and
bcgin to theor ize and interpret
evidence erroneously, when they
ignore an entire d imension of evi–
dence- the spi ritual- when they
seek to take away the credentials of
God the Creator and Lifegiver, then
it is they who have encroached upon
the realm of the spiritual , and not
vice versa!
The credentials of the true Cre–
ator God set him apart from all
gods. One day the apostle Paul con–
fronted a crowd of idolators and
admonished them to worship the
real God. Which one? T he " living
God, which made heaven, and earth,
and the sea, and all things that are
therein" (Acts
14:15).
That is how
God is identified.
On another occasion Paul was
standing amid lifeless idols wor–
shiped in ancient Athens. But Paul
:didn't worship those gods. He wor–
shiped the
real
God. How did Paul
identify this one true God and dis–
tinguish him from gods humans had
made? Listen to Paul! "God that
made the world and all things there–
in ... he is Lord of heaven and
earth ..." (Acts
17:24).
The theory of evolution attempts
to strip the Almighty Creator God
of those credentials, making him lit–
tle different from impotent idols.
the works of men's hands! That
is why
The P/ain Truth
cannot
remain silent.
To demonstrate God is the Cre–
ator, we don't have to produce
lengthy volumcs detailing all the
proofs. The evidence is already
available.
lt
is everywhere. l t is
beneath our feet, in strati fi ed depos–
its. lt is all around us, .in everyth ing
we can see, hear, touch, taste and
feel.
lt
is above us, stretching out
incalculable numbers of
lig~t
ycars
into space.
lt
has been gathered by
geologists, biologists, paleontolo–
g ists, astronomers. Tt has been writ–
ten up in countless volumes. One
needs only to separate erroneous
interpretation from measu rable
facts.
Whereas scientists who acknowl–
edge God as Creator can look at the
physical evidence and see God 's
handiwork- brill iant, imaginat ive,
colorful , sometimes even humorous
- evolutionists look at the same evi–
dence and try to construct a work–
able godless theory. Those who
understand the true accoun t of cre–
ation simply give God credit for his
workmanship and marvel at what he
has done and at the ultimate pur–
pose of life; evolutionists have lo
contend with an idea whose mecha–
nism they cannot explain and which
is purposeless.
lt all boils down to a matter of
rejecting the false and unscientific,
traditional explanation of creation
and accepting the tr ue biblical
record of creation (this makes all the
evidence explainable), or reject ing
God as Creator ( in which case faith
in sorne form of evolution, with all of
its difficulties, is the only- and erro–
neous- alternat ive).
Why not look at all dimensions of
knowledge- inc luding the most
important? o
The PLAIN TRUTH