Charles Darwin said that modern man came from apes. Do you agree?

Teaching Creation Versus Macro Evolution
shared with you by
Kraig J. Rice

(Index Page)

(Clicking on these little squares will move you down this page)
Introduction Help In Teaching Creationism
Links to The Teaching Lessons Big Daddy by Chick Comics
Professor Deceived and Preacher Believed Facts The Evolutionists Have Problems With
Some Voices Against Evolution Conclusion

"A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless"
- Simone Weil


Macro Evolution is unprovable because we can't witness it and we can't reproduce it. Unsaved scientists are guessing at evolution- don't build your foundation there. Rather, make Jesus the cornerstone of your life with your foundation built solidly on the Rock (of Ages). Unsaved folks who believe this lie are most likely caught up in their own pride and disregard the Bible without really studying and believing it.

There are 6 differing groups of evolutionists, each with their own viewpoint. Each group proves the other 5 groups wrong.

Evolution is only an unproven theory. Just because a college professor teaches it as fact does not mean that it is. Just because animal nature shows or science videos refer to evolution does not make it so. It makes me wonder if God's curse is on the American public school system because of this false relgion that is taught there as fact. America's public schools were founded by the Puritans so our young folks could learn how to read so they could read and study the Bible. It's not that way any more.

How is macro evolution supposed to work? Macro evolution assumes there is no outside intelligence involved in the process of life’s existence. The main factors are chance, environment, and a lot of time- eons of time. Following the explosion of matter from nothing, into the universe (Big Bang), the universe expanded outward. Large gaseous clouds of matter condensed into stars and collected into galaxies. Around our star, the sun, formed planets composing our solar system, the planet earth, had the right mixture of environmental factors conducive to life. In a pond of water, a primeval soup-  the right collection of chemicals and environment formed protein molecules. These molecules later would form into more complex protein molecules. With the right environment and eons of time, random collections of chemicals became living matter, a one-celled organism. With natural selection and mutation, this first cell was able to multiply. This cell became the basis of all future life forms.

Most folks are taught that macro evolution is a science. Yes, it's taught as science so it can get into the classroom but it's actually a false religion. Why is it a religion? Because it's a belief style. This religion has it's own doctrine, creeds, and goals. In my opinion it's one of the most dangerous of all of the false religions because it's cloaked and linked by the humanists and Satanists to science to give it an air of credibility. But it's still a lie and the ones who believe this lie are deceived. I know. At one time I was deceived into believing it until I got saved.

I knew an 80 year old man one time who lived in Santa Cruz, Calif. I witnessed to him about Christ, His sacrifice and great love. I asked this old man if he wanted to accept Christ as his saviour. He told me no. I asked him why. He told me that he believed in evolution rather than in the Bible. He refused to accept Christ because he believed the lie of evolution. Don't ever let anyone kid you that this isn't a dangerous false religion that Satan has spawned and propagated over the years.

It's also an unproven theory (or opinion) that is accepted and "preached" as truth. Yes, folks can believe something that is not true. They can adhere to this lie and accept it's teaching to live an animalistic lifestyle that is in rebellion to God. This is exactly what Satan wants, and if he can, he will keep you trapped there, but God wants you to know the truth so you can love and serve Him. Speaking from experience, you will not find the inner peace that you crave by worshipping at the altar of the evolutionists. You will only find that kind of inner peace by inviting the Prince of Peace to come and live inside of your heart. And once He lives there you will know what I found out- that evolution is a lie of the devil.

All creation points to the Almighty Creator

Help In Teaching Creationism

Perhaps one of the best known and most widely used creation vs. evolution teaching helps in times past was:
What's Your Answer?
The Living Word Curriculum
A teaching and discussion guide for use with the book titled
Who Says? by Fritz Ridenour
published by Gospel Light in Glendale, California, in 1968

It's sad for me to say that this book and teaching course has gone the way of the dinosour- in other words, it has gone extinct. And this material is no longer easy to find. However, I am sharing it with you here because evolution is still taught and Christians need to have the tools to combat it. The Apostle Paul urges us to wear the helmet of salvation to protect our minds against false religions. There are a lot of voices in the world and we need only listen to the voice of our Creator because sheep know the voice of their Master. And if we will only follow Him, He will lead us to green pastures.

Links to The Teaching Lessons

I have placed the 5 teaching lessons (as seen above) on 5 web pages due to the large volume of information. You can follow these links to each of the 5 teaching lessons so you can have all 5 lessons. Feel free to read this information, quote it, download it, use it to teach your students, or send it to others. The important thing is to shape our young people's minds in knowing the truth about creationism.

(Click on the little square button to go to that web page)

Lesson 8

Lesson 9

Lesson 10

Lesson 11

Lesson 12

Big Daddy by Chick Comics

Here's a Chick Comic Tract, Big Daddy?, that deals with creationism versus evolution.

Chick Publications has a nice selection of tract booklets for Christians to purchase and distribute to those who are lost. They have many good comic type booklets that are very effective. You can view their complete listing at All of their booklets are copywrited so please order from them rather than printing your own.

Professor Deceived and Preacher Believed

Here is a true story about a college professor who believed in evolution and went to speaking engagements trying to discredit the Christian faith. This story is called
"Taste and You Can Tell the Difference."

"At the University of Chicago Divinity School each year they have what is called "Baptist Day". It is a day when all the Baptists in the area are invited to the school because they want the Baptist dollars to keep coming in. On this day each one is to bring a lunch to be eaten outdoors in a grassy picnic area. Every "Baptist Day" the school would invite one of the greatest minds to lecture in the theological education center. One year they invited Dr. Paul Tillich. Dr. Tillich spoke for two and one half hours proving that the resurrection of Jesus was false. He quoted scholar after scholar and book after book. He concluded that since there was no such thing as the historical resurrection, the religious tradition of the church was groundless, emotional mumbo jumbo, because it was based on a relationship with a risen Jesus, who, in fact, never rose from the dead in any literal sense.

He then asked if there were any questions. After about 30 seconds an old preacher with a head full of white hair stood up in the back of the auditorium. "Docta Tillich, I got one question," he said as all eyes turned toward him. He reached into his sack lunch and pulled out an apple and began eating it. "Docta Tillich ... CRUNCH, MUNCH...
My question is a simple question, ...CRUNCH, MUNCH ... Now, I ain't never read them books you read ... CRUNCH, MUNCH ... and I can't recite the Scriptures in the original Greek... CRUNCH, MUNCH ... I don't know nothin' about Niebuhr and Heidegger ... CRUNCH, MUNCH... He finished the apple. "All I wanna know is: This apple I just ate, - was it bitter or sweet?" Dr. Tillich paused for a moment and answered in exemplary scholarly fashion: "I cannot possibly answer that question, for I haven't tasted your apple." The white-haired preacher dropped the core of his apple into his crumpled paper bag, looked up at Dr. Tillich and said, "Neither have you tasted my Jesus."

The 1,000 plus in attendance could not contain themselves. The auditorium erupted with applause and cheers. Dr. Tillich thanked his audience and promptly left the platform."

Have you tasted Jesus? God has risen ... and he's coming back one day! "Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him." If you have, rejoice!

Some Facts The Evolutionists Have Problems With:

Mankind Came From the Apes

In 1965 when I was a sophomore at Santa Rosa Junior College I took an anthropology class. Anthropology is the study of man. My professor at the time taught evolution as a fact and not as a theory. I wasn't saved at this time and so I bit on the hook and believed this guy for awhile until I got saved a couple of years later. One problem him and the other evolutionists of the day had was this: why did mankind kill itself off in warfare? Since we came from apes and apes don't do this, then they had a problem. After a lot of debate, they finally came up with the notion that modern man is not descended from just the apes, but, instead, descended from the killer apes. That's why mankind could kill itself off in war. They believed this reasoning for awhile. Now, that reasoning has changed and they believe something else.

Here is what a Christian apologist had to say:
"Evolutionists today, of course, do not contend that man descended from the apes. Instead, they contend that both men and apes descended from a common ancestor. We, however, agree with the late evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University, George Gaylord Simpson, who summed up such an idea quite succinctly when he wrote:

On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the descendant of any living ape— a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility— and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous (cowardly), if not dishonest, for an informed investigator to say otherwise (1964, p. 12, emp. in orig.).

Ironically, some evolutionists even have gone so far as to suggest—  albeit incorrectly—  that Charles Darwin himself never claimed that man evolved from the apes. Yet he most certainly did—  in The Descent of Man (1870, pp. 519-520)."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is

The Universe Is Running Down

Some evolutionists think that mankind is progressing forward in evolution and that the universe has existed forever. It bothers them to know that, rather, the universe is running down. Here is some info from a Christian apologist that explains this:


"Something exists now. Something must have always existed, because something cannot come from nothing. What has always existed? What is the first cause of the universe?

If you asked your friend how long the candle in his room had been burning, and he answered, "Forever." Would you believe him? Certainly not. Now consider that the cosmos, the energy-material universe is like a burning candle.

The Energy-Material Universe:

Since the first atomic bomb explosion, we have known that material is a form of energy. Material is a part of the energy universe. Elements such as iron, sulphur, and hydrogen are just different arrangements of energy. So then, we live in an energy universe in which material is a form of energy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The energy level of the universe is known to be running down. Energy goes from higher levels to lower levels, from higher temperatures to lower temperatures, from usable forms to unusable forms, and never in the opposite direction. Material can be changed to another form of energy, such as in an atomic explosion. Such changes are always downward in level. This is called the second law of thermodynamics in physics, chemistry and engineering. The universe is going toward its heat death.

A Beginning:

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy-material is neither being created nor destroyed now, but only changing form and level. Every change in the energy-material universe is toward a lower level, which is the second law of thermodynamics. The universe is running down. If the energy-material universe had always existed, it would have already run down to the heat death of the universe. Since it has not done this, we know that the energy-material universe has not always existed. The energy-material universe had a beginning.

The Sun:

For an example that is easy to understand, look at the sun which gives energy to our earth. The sun is "burning up." If the sun had existed forever, it would have already burned out. You can understand that the material universe had a beginning.

Radioactive Elements:

Radioactive elements are also running down in energy level. Material is changed into radiated energy. If the energy-material universe had always existed, the radioactive elements would have already run down.

The Eternal First Cause:

The energy-material universe has not always existed. There was a beginning to the energy-material universe. Materialism is clearly unscientific. Materialism is a false philosophy of the last century, a myth.

What is the origin of the energy-material universe? It has not always been here. There must be a first cause of the energy-material universe, or it would not be here today. There must be a first cause that has existed forever, or there would be nothing in existence now. You cannot get something from nothing. There must then be a self-existent eternal first cause. The Bible declares:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Genesis 1:1

In the Bible, God claims to be the eternal, self-existent First Cause of the universe.

A person might ask, "Where did God come from?" That person has missed the fact that there must be an eternal, self-existent first cause. Something must have always existed. It is not the energy-material universe. The eternal, self-existent First Cause calls Himself Jehovah, which means, "I AM."
Exodus 3:14-15

"There is a Creator of the energy-material universe. It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens."
Jeremiah 10:12

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host."
Psalm 33:6

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:1

Do you believe in God?"
This info quoted from the web. Web address is

The Problem of Carbon

William B. Tripp has this to say about carbon dating:
"It seems that much is made of, and surety placed in, radiometric dating, normally associated with the isotope Carbon 14. Indeed, the results of dating materials and artifacts with this method is perhaps singularly the most compelling “evidence” for evolution—the vast majority believing that since so many fossils have been dated far beyond the chronology of the Bible, evolution must be true 1. In a literal reading of the Old Testament of the Bible, the age of the earth would be around 6 to 9 thousand years; this is obviously quite incompatible with artifacts dated at hundreds of times such a figure. This leads many to assume a priori that the record of the Bible cannot be trusted at all; if it is wrong on the chronology, it is probably wrong about many other things. It would seem that this scientific assignment of dates is the Achilles Heel of theism.

On its surface, this is quite logical. That is, either science is wrong about the dates or the Bible is; if the Bible is wrong about the dates, certainly logic would dictate that the relative level of trust it could be given would be quite low. The Bible is a record handed down over 3,500 years, the people writing it having little if any scientific or mathematical capacity, which could hardly be considered supporting evidence of its veracity and accuracy. On the other hand, science is present, imminent, and tangible; it can be tested on the chalkboard and in the laboratory— the approach purely from logic and objectivity would seem to gravitate singularly towards its findings and reject the former. In the modern society, the great age of once living organisms is an established fact; to posit otherwise is to be wholly unscientific and less than honest and objective. Indeed, the average person has little need of the supporting scientific methodology and specific findings since the great ages of the artifacts are so universally accepted; the old age of the earth must be right.

In the positive, therefore, the older dates for the age of the earth are assumed right, any other posit must then necessarily be wrong, and this is essentially the pervasive and common belief. Perhaps however, a question should be asked, and the answer to it sought, from the negative; that is, asking the question “What if the dating methods and their findings are wrong?” Or even, “Could the dating methods be wrong?”

The methodology of Carbon dating will then be considered from this perspective such that its relative veracity and reliability will be examined in comparison to known and proven scientific and mathematical function. That is, since there is indeed a great presumption that the findings of radiocarbon dating are sound and in fact inviolate, the probity of coming to such a conclusion will be tested. The manifestation of such an approach will be not to prove without qualification that the dating method(s) are true or false, but rather to simply determine whether the intellectual assent to such findings is congruent with the fundamentals of logic and science. In essence, we will look not to what belief is commonly held, but rather why it is.

The approach here will be divided into two main categories, the inherent physical properties and methods, and the effects of human interactions or limitations.


Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14 method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which is seen as a constant. Every living thing takes in and expels Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is maintained. When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended, and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the “half-life.” The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the specimen. Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific, there are several serious problems.

The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.

Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs— levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. Isn’t it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth’s history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?

Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength 2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.

Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to “old-age” proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14’s half-life is around 5,630 years3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.

This leads to yet another inherent problem in the use of radiometric dating which would seem virtually insurmountable, and is caused by the presence of environmental Carbon 14 itself, ironically, the phenomenon scientists exploit in the determination of date of origin. Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to preclude contamination that seriously affects the results of the measurement. The levels of Carbon 14 in any “old” artifact are extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the specimen. Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is. This effect cannot be overstated in regard to the estimates of age— a less than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen, owing to the “constant” of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times the actual age. Imagine the effect on science if an artifact dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are staggering.

The foregoing is but a few examples of the problems with Carbon 14; many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years, and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th. The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited. On the other hand, there is an obvious dichotomy in these problems and the lack of common knowledge regarding them; it would seem that there should be some explanation why the vast majority of society is so unaware of the spurious nature of the science behind radiocarbon dating. That is, since science is ostensibly clinical and without emotion, the most likely cause of the dearth of knowledge of the limitations, fallacies, and vulnerabilities in this method is man himself—a manifestation of his own biases and predilections. This is the subject of the next division.


Whereas in the foregoing the physical and scientific limitations and problems of using Carbon 14 dating has been examined, the human effect and influence on the science is often underestimated; this could be illustrated essentially in the rhetorical “Why?”

That is, since the use of Carbon 14 in radiometric dating has several glaring and seemingly irreducible problems that almost certainly cast doubt on its results, this begs the question of “why” it is used at all, or at least why it would be considered accurate. It would seem quite clear that some bias is at work in the published results of dating activities, and therefore the motivation for fostering erroneous (or at least misleading) findings is suspect.

It would also seem however that it is not so much what the proponents are trying to present as much as what they are trying to prevent. That is, the view is held because a suitable alternative is not available— evolution depends on the great age of living things— the alternative is creation by God, and this is unacceptable to many, especially it seems, scientists. (Though there are indeed many scientists who believe in special Creation by God). This lack of alternative is sufficient motivation for some to ignore the obvious problems with radiocarbon dating, as long as their “religion” of the theory of evolution remains intact. It is somehow appropriate that the theory itself has the same type of problems as the dating methods that support it. The question of “why” is however yet unanswered; it boggles the mind to think that many scientists, ostensibly known for their dedication to truth, objectivity and scholarship would entertain such a problematic system, seemingly at all costs.

It may be that the answer can be found, appropriately enough, in the same place as the account of the creation of man, the Book of Genesis. In the story about the fall into sin, it would seem that the motivations are essentially the same:

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
(Genesis 3:4-5, King James Version, emphasis mine throughout).

Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since. Note also that man’s (Eve’s) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond. Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man’s desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason.


1 Various studies have revealed that the data and results of radiometric analysis is essentially the only commonly and universally offered defense for the evolutionary view. The vast majority of respondents cannot cite any other facet or evidentiary for holding to the theory of evolution.

2 Most scientists believe that the rate of decay is such that it would render the field about ten times stronger at the time of the Flood of Noah than it is today. Most models of decline show that the earth’s field loses half its strength every 1,400 years— which would quite obviously support a young earth theory— prior to about 10,000 years there would have been no field at all.

3 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, (Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company 1984) 229. Most volumes include the half-life under the definition for "Carbon 14."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is
from Creation Science Evangelism

The Problem of Evil

Rick Rood had this to say about the subject:
"John Stott has said that "the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith." It is unquestionably true that there is no greater obstacle to faith than that of the reality of evil and suffering in the world. Indeed, even for the believing Christian, there is no greater test of faith than this- that the God who loves him permits him to suffer, at times in excruciating ways. And the disillusionment is intensified in our day when unrealistic expectations of health and prosperity are fed by the teachings of a multitude of Christian teachers. Why does a good God allow his creatures, and even his children to suffer?

First, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures. Murder, rape and theft are examples. Natural evil results from natural processes such as earthquakes and floods. Of course, sometimes the two are intermingled, such as when flooding results in loss of human life due to poor planning or shoddy construction of buildings.

It's also important to identify two aspects of the problem of evil and suffering. First, there is the philosophical or apologetic aspect. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the skeptic who challenges the possibility or probability that a God exists who would allow such suffering. In meeting this apologetic challenge we must utilize the tools of reason and evidence in "giving a reason for the hope within us."
(I Peter 3:15)

Second is the religious or emotional aspect of the problem of evil. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the believer whose faith in God is severely tested by trial. How can we love and worship God when He allows us to suffer in these ways? In meeting the religious/emotional challenge we must appeal to the truth revealed by God in Scripture. We will address both aspects of the problem of evil in this essay.

It's also helpful to distinguish between two types of the philosophical or apologetic aspect of the problem of evil. The first is the logical challenge to belief in God. This challenge says it is irrational and hence impossible to believe in the existence of a good and powerful God on the basis of the existence of evil in the world. The logical challenge is usually posed in the form of a statement such as this:

A good God would destroy evil.
An all powerful God could destroy evil.
Evil is not destroyed.
Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.

It is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil. On the other hand, the evidential challenge contends that while it may be rationally possible to believe such a God exists, it is highly improbable or unlikely that He does. We have evidence of so much evil that is seemingly pointless and of such horrendous intensity. For what valid reason would a good and powerful God allow the amount and kinds of evil which we see around us?

These issues are of an extremely important nature- not only as we seek to defend our belief in God, but also as we live out our Christian lives.

The Logical Problem of Evil

We have noted that there are two aspects of the problem of evil: the philosophical or apologetic, and the religious or emotional aspect. We also noted that within the philosophical aspect there are two types of challenges to faith in God: the logical and the evidential. David Hume, the eighteenth century philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil when he inquired about God, "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" (Craig, 80). When the skeptic challenges belief in God on the basis of the logical problem of evil, he is suggesting that it is irrational or logically impossible to believe in the existence of both a good and all powerful God and in the reality of evil and suffering. Such a God would not possibly allow evil to exist.

The key to the resolution of this apparent conflict is to recognize that when we say God is all powerful, we do not imply that He is capable of doing anything imaginable. True, Scripture states that "with God all things are possible"
(Matthew 19:26). But Scripture also states that there are some things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie
(Titus 1:2). Neither can He be tempted to sin, nor can He tempt others to sin
(James 1:13). In other words, He cannot do anything that is "out of character" for a righteous God. Neither can He do anything that is out of character for a rational being in a rational world. Certainly even God cannot "undo the past," or create a square triangle, or make what is false true. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd.

And it is on this basis that we conclude that God could not eliminate evil without at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish other goals which are important to Him. Certainly, for God to create beings in his own image, who are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings who are capable of freely loving Him and following his will without coercion. Love or obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere compliance. But creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate or ignore Him. Creatures who are free to follow His will must also be free to reject it. And when people act in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering is the ultimate result. This line of thinking is known as the "free will defense" concerning the problem of evil.

But what about natural evil- evil resulting from natural processes such as earthquakes, floods and diseases? Here it is important first to recognize that we live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not have occurred had man not chosen to rebel against God. Even so, it is difficult to imagine how we could function as free creatures in a world much different than our own- a world in which consistent natural processes allow us to predict with some certainty the consequences of our choices and actions. Take the law of gravity, for instance. This is a natural process without which we could not possibly function as human beings, yet under some circumstances it is also capable of resulting in great harm.

Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil- but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. And most agree that this line of reasoning does successfully respond to the challenge of the logical problem of evil.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

While most agree that belief in a good and powerful God is rationally possible, nonetheless many contend that the existence of such a God is improbable due to the nature of the evil which we see in the world about us. They conclude that if such a God existed it is highly unlikely that He would allow the amount and intensity of evil which we see in our world. Evil which frequently seems to be of such a purposeless nature. This charge is not to be taken lightly, for evidence abounds in our world of evil of such a horrendous nature that it is difficult at times to fathom what possible purpose it could serve. However, difficult as this aspect of the problem of evil is, careful thinking will show that there are reasonable responses to this challenge.

Surely it is difficult for us to understand why God would allow some things to happen. But simply because we find it difficult to imagine what reasons God could have for permitting them, does not mean that no such reasons exist. It is entirely possible that such reasons are not only beyond our present knowledge, but also beyond our present ability to understand. A child does not always understand the reasons that lie behind all that his father allows or does not allow him to do. It would be unrealistic for us to expect to understand all of God's reasons for allowing all that He does. We do not fully understand many things about the world we live in- what lies behind the force of gravity for instance, or the exact function of subatomic particles. Yet we believe in these physical realities.

Beyond this, however, we can suggest possible reasons for God allowing some of the horrendous evils which do exist in our world. Perhaps there are people who would never sense their utter dependence on God apart from experiencing the intense pain that they do in life
(Psalm 119:71). Perhaps there are purposes that God intends to accomplish among his angelic or demonic creatures which require his human creatures to experience some of the things that we do
(Job 1-2). It may be that the suffering we experience in this life is somehow preparatory to our existence in the life to come
(2 Corinthians 4:16-18). Even apart from the revelation of Scripture, these are all possible reasons behind God's permission of evil. And at any rate, most people agree that there is much more good in the world than evil- at least enough good to make life well worth the living.

In responding to the challenge to belief in God based on the intensity and seeming purposelessness of much evil in the world, we must also take into account all of the positive evidence that points to his existence: the evidence of design in nature, the historical evidence for the reliability of Scripture and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In light of the totality of the evidence, it certainly cannot be proven that there are no sufficient reasons for God's allowing the amount of evil that we see in the world...or even that it is improbable that such reasons exist.

The Religious Problem of Evil - Part I

But the existence of evil and suffering in our world poses more than a merely philosophical or apologetic problem. It also poses a very personal religious and emotional problem for the person who is enduring great trial. Although our painful experience may not challenge our belief that God exists, what may be at risk is our confidence in a God we can freely worship and love, and in whose love we can feel secure. Much harm can be done when we attempt to aid a suffering brother or sister by merely dealing with the intellectual aspects of this problem, or when we seek to find solace for ourselves in this way. Far more important than answers about the nature of God, is a revelation of the love of God- even in the midst of trial. And as God's children, it is not nearly as important what we say about God as what we do to manifest his love.
First, it is evident from Scripture that when we suffer it is not unnatural to experience emotional pain, nor is it unspiritual to express it. It is noteworthy for instance that there are nearly as many psalms of lament as there are psalms of praise and thanksgiving, and these two sentiments are mingled together in many places
(Psalms 13, 88). Indeed, the psalmist encourages us to "pour out our hearts to God"
(Ps. 62:8). And when we do, we can be assured that God understands our pain. Jesus Himself keenly felt the painful side of life. When John the Baptist was beheaded it is recorded that "He withdrew to a lonely place" obviously to mourn his loss
(Matthew 14:13). And when his friend Lazarus died, it is recorded that Jesus openly wept at his tomb
(John 11:35). Even though He was committed to following the Father's will to the cross, He confessed to being filled with anguish of soul in contemplating it
(Matthew 26:38). It is not without reason that Jesus was called "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief"
(Isaiah 53:3); and we follow in his steps when we truthfully acknowledge our own pain.

We cross the line, however, from sorrow to sin when we allow our grief to quench our faith in God, or follow the counsel that Job was offered by his wife when she told him to "curse God and die"
(Job 2:9b).

Secondly, when we suffer we should draw comfort from reflecting on Scriptures which assure us that God knows and cares about our situation, and promises to be with us to comfort and uphold us. The psalmist tells us that "the Lord is near to the brokenhearted"
(Psalm 34:18), and that when we go through the "valley of the shadow of death" it is then that his presence is particularly promised to us
(Psalm 23:4). Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord said, "Can a woman forget her nursing child, and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you"
(Isaiah 49:15). He is more mindful of us than is a nursing mother toward her child! It is of the One whom we know as the "God of all comfort and Father of mercies" that Peter speaks when He bids us to cast our anxieties on Him, "for He cares for us"
(1 Peter 5:7). Our cares are his personal concern!

The Religious Problem of Evil - Part II

We noted that when suffering strikes it is neither unnatural to experience emotional pain, nor unspiritual to express it. But we also noted that when suffering strikes, we must be quick to reflect on the character of God and on the promises He gives to those who are enduring great trial. Now we want to focus on one of the great truths of God's Word- that even in severe trial God is working all things together for the good of those who love Him
(Romans 8:28). This is not at all to imply that evil is somehow good. But it does mean that we are to recognize that even in what is evil God is at work to bring about his good purposes in our lives. Joseph gave evidence of having learned this truth when after years of unexplained suffering due to the betrayal of his brothers, he was able to say to them, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good"
(Genesis 50:20). Though God did not cause his brothers to betray him, nonetheless He was able to use it in furthering his good intentions.

This is the great hope we have in the midst of suffering, that in a way beyond our comprehension, God is able to turn evil against itself. And it is because of this truth that we can find joy even in the midst of sorrow and pain. The apostle Paul described himself as "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing"
(2 Corinthians 6:10). And we are counseled to rejoice in trial, not because the affliction itself is a cause for joy (it is not), but because in it God can find an occasion for producing what is good.

What are some of those good purposes suffering promotes? For one, suffering can provide an opportunity for God to display his glory- to make evident his mercy, faithfulness, power and love in the midst of painful circumstances
(John 9:1-3). Suffering can also allow us to give proof of the genuineness of our faith, and even serve to purify our faith
(1 Peter 1:7). As in the case of Job, our faithfulness in trial shows that we serve Him not merely for the benefits He offers, but for the love of God Himself
(Job 1:9-11). Severe trial also provides an opportunity for believers to demonstrate their love for one another as members of the body of Christ who "bear one another's burdens"
(1 Corinthians 12:26; Gal. 6:2). Indeed, as D.A. Carson has said, "experiences of suffering... engender compassion and empathy..., and make us better able to help others" (Carson, 122). As we are comforted by God in affliction, so we are better able to comfort others
(2 Corinthians 1:4). Suffering also plays a key role in developing godly virtues, and in deterring us from sin. Paul recognized that his "thorn in the flesh" served to keep him from boasting, and promoted true humility and dependence on God
(2 Corinthians 12:7). The psalmist recognized that his affliction had increased his determination to follow God's will
(Psalm 119:71). Even Jesus "learned obedience from the things He suffered"
(Hebrews 5:8). As a man He learned by experience the value of submitting to the will of God, even when it was the most difficult thing in the world to do.

Finally, evil and suffering can awaken in us a greater hunger for heaven, and for that time when God's purposes for these experiences will have been finally fulfilled, when pain and sorrow shall be no more
(Revelation 21:4)."

This info quoted from the web. Web address is

If you want to read more on why bad things happen to good people
Click here

He is no genius who ignores his Creator

Key Elements for Scientific Evidence

Walter Bradley had this to say about the subject:
"Up until 1960, there was a general optimism that the more we learned about nature through our scientific investigations, the more we would be able to explain the world around us, including its origin, and render belief in God unnecessary, though not impossible. During the past 30 years, we gradually became aware of flies in the ointment of naturalism, and they have grown to the point that doubt now exists as to whether they can ever be removed.

The Washington Post, describing an international conference held in Washington D.C. in the late 1980s, noted,
"Many scientists who were not long ago certain that the universe was created and peopled by accident are having second thoughts and concede the possibility that some intelligent creative force may have been responsible."
It should be emphasized one cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Nevertheless, it is perfectly permissible to study the character of the universe and ask, "What does it reasonably suggest: an intelligent creator, or a universe which is in some sense self-caused?" I will consider in a cursory way just three such flies:
(1) evidence for design in the universe;
(2) the origin of the universe; and
(3) the origin of life.

Evidence for Design

Evidence for design comes from three sources:
(1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes;
(2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to be to support life of any type on this planet; and
(3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are also critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the universe and life to come into being.

In a mathematical sense, we can say the universe is described by deceptively simple and elegant differential equations which just happen to have universal constants which are exactly what they need to be and initial conditions precisely prescribed to allow for the unfolding of a suitable habitat for life and for the appearance of life itself.

Nature Bound by Simple Mathematics

As a young physics student in high school, I was surprised and pleased to learn that the many diverse observations in nature find their description in such a small number of simple mathematical relationships such as Newton's laws of gravity and motion or Maxwell's equations of electricity and magnetism. It would probably surprise many of our earliest scientists to discover that today the universe is adequately described by such a small number of fundamental physical laws, represented by simple but elegant mathematical relationships, that they can be easily written on one side of one sheet of paper.

The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe, said astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986), We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.

Coincidence of the Universal Constants

One of the remarkable discoveries of the past 30 years has been the recognition that small changes in any of the universal constants produce surprisingly dramatic changes in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life, not just as we know it, but for life of any conceivable type. In excess of 100 examples have been documented in the technical literature and summarized in such books as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).

For example, if the strong force which binds together the nucleus of atoms were just five percent weaker, only hydrogen would be stable and we would have a universe with a periodic chart of one element, which is a universe incapable of providing the necessary molecular complexity to provide minimal life functions of processing energy, storing information, and replicating. On the other hand, if the strong force were just two percent stronger, very massive nuclei would form, which are unsuitable for the chemistry of living systems. Furthermore, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen containing compounds.

As a second example, if the relationship between the strong force and the electromagnetic force were to vary only slightly, we would not have the quantum energy levels which allow the remarkable conversion of beryllium to carbon (nearly 100% efficient) and the partial conversion of carbon to oxygen. With slight changes in either of these constants, we would have had a universe either rich in beryllium and little, if any, carbon or alternatively, a universe rich in oxygen with no carbon.

Since carbon is unique in its ability to chemically bond with almost all other elements in bonds that are stable but not too difficult to break (playing the critical role of the round pieces in a tinker toy set), it is remarkable that these forces are so precisely tuned to provide carbon in abundance, along with oxygen which is critical in its own right.

Many additional examples could be cited. If I rolled a dice and got a "6," you would not be surprised. If I rolled a dice five times and got a "6," you would begin to be a little suspicious. However, if you rolled the dice 1,000 times and got a "6" each time, you would be certain that there is something funny about the dice. So it is with our quirky universe in which everything has to be just so and is indeed found to be. Hume and others have argued incorrectly that it is not surprising that everything is just so, else we would not be here to observe it. The well known atheist J.L. Mackie (Miracle of Theism, p.141) saw the flaw in Hume's criticism:

"There is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants, and it is therefore surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. This is not made less surprising by the fact that if it had not been so, no one would have been here to be surprised. We can properly envision and consider alternative possibilities which do not include our being there to experience them."

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, in The Intelligent Universe commented on the cosmological coincidences discussed by Mackie, "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them." "Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible . . . the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design," stated John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept., 1986).

University of Virginia astronomers R.T. Rood and J.S. Trefil conclude their book Are We Alone? by estimating the probability of life existing anywhere in the universe to be one in a billion, and thus conclude the existence of life on planet earth, far from being inevitable, is the result of a remarkable set of coincidences.

"If I were a religious man," Trefil wrote in the concluding chapter, "I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore, special in God's sight." Instead he concludes that life on planet earth is a remarkable accident, unlikely to have been replicated anywhere else in the universe, which his book powerfully argues.

Initial Conditions

Initial condition problems are found in many places in our scenario of the origin of the universe, its development into a suitable home for us, and the origin of life. These initial condition problems have, in fact, grown much worse with the recognition that many critical processes in the origins scenario are nonlinear, and therefore, require particularly precise initial conditions. Trefil and Rood's book cited above mentions some of these problems in detail. I will also discuss, briefly, initial conditions problems having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

In summarizing this section, it is clear that there does appear to be something unique and special about our home in the universe and our existence in it.

Origin of the Universe

Cosmology is not neutral when it comes to philosophy and theology. A universe that eternally existed is much more congenial to an atheistic or agnostic worldview. By the same token, a universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?

In a dramatic address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1977, Robert Jastrow, Professor at Columbia University and Founder and Director of the Goddard Space Center, made a presentation which was later published as a book entitled God and the Astronomers. In this presentation, Jastrow, who is himself an agnostic, argued that the evidence for the Big Bang cosmology had been quite superior to competing cosmologies since 1929, but that many scientists had refused to accept it because they did not like the philosophical implications.

For example, Sir Arthur Eddington commenting on the Big Bang in the 1950s noted, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole."

By the 1970's, after the discovery of the background radiation in 1965, John Gribbin in Nature said,
"The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical- perhaps even theological- what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely."
[Articles published in 1984 in Nature by Guth and by Bludman clearly demonstrate the impossibility of a "bouncing" universe.]

Jastrow went on to argue that it is time that astronomers begin to acknowledge the philosophical implications of their discoveries. Jastrow concluded his presentation (and his book publication of it) with the comment, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the big bang] ends like a bad dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Furthermore, recent measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope, both reported in 1992, seem to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."

"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.
"It is worth noting that Steven Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, has as its stated purpose to try to escape the implications of the Big Bang, to which he strongly objects for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. His book is filled with conjecture not rooted in observational science and should be taken not as careful science, but as a polemic argument motivated by Hawking's own "religious" beliefs. The very fact that Hawking felt compelled to write such a book indicates the force of the Big Bang in arguing for a theistic universe."

Information Theory and Origin of Life

There is a necessary molecular complexity required to provide minimal life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. Chemical evolution, as distinct from biological evolution, cannot look to mutation and natural selection to solve its problems (which don't solve the problems of macroevolution either).

Chemical evolution addresses the development of living systems from a prebiotic soup which did not initially have molecules, much less systems, capable of replicating. The production of molecules such as protein, RNA and DNA from a prebiotic soup is extremely difficult to imagine. The original euphoria associated with the making of building blocks such as amino acids under prebiotic conditions by Stanley Miller in 1952 has gradually been replaced with a somber recognition that the assembly of such molecules into function biopolymers is indeed the real problem. It is analogous to the problem of selecting a sequence of letters by randomly picking out of a box of typeset and hoping to accidentally get a sequence that corresponds to words, sentences, and coherent paragraphs.

"The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard beside Boeing airplane company accidentally producing a 747 airplane," Sir Fred Hoyle suggested in The Intelligent Universe.

In an article in Scientific American (February, 1991), Sir Francis Crick wrote, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

In the same article, Harold Klein who chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee which reviewed the origin of life noted, "The simplest bacterium is so damned complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened."

Anyone who thinks recent work on RNA has or will solve the problem of the origin of life should read Robert Shapiro's article in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere (1988) or Klaus Dose's article in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1988) entitled "Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers."


It is abundantly clear evidence abounds for the existence of an intelligent creator. I have only provided information from three narrow areas, but similar arguments could easily be formulated from many different scientific disciplines. One need never be ashamed of the intellectually respectability of belief in an intelligent creator; modern science has come down decisively on the side of the person who would posit such a belief. While Hume and Kant may have been right in their arguments that scientific proof for the existence of God cannot be made, they would surely be as impressed as I am with the compelling evidence that makes such a belief perfectly reasonable."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is

Who Jesus Really Is

Darwinism Fails Four Critically Important Tests

Robert A. Meyer had this to say about the subject:

"Darwin theorized that life began by reactions in a warm pond of chemicals.

Back in Darwin's day this was easier to believe. At that time there didn't appear to have been that much a leap between non-living chemicals and basic one-celled organisms. When Darwin looked through a primitive microscope what he saw when he looked at a single celled organism looked pretty uncomplicated. That's why he called them simple one-celled organisms.

In a similar way how long would it take to randomly link together the building blocks of life? Living cells are built with protein molecules and protein molecules are built with 100s of amino acid links. In all, there are 20 different kinds of amino acids which are lethal.

If we ignore the question of where the amino acids come from in the first place, and eliminate the deadly ones, how long would it take for the 100s of amino acids necessary to form one protein molecule to link together by random choice?

Dr. George Walls, the Nobel Prize winning microbiologist at Harvard University concluded that it's not just unlikely that life could have emerged by chance, not just improbably or implausible. He declared it's outright impossible.

The British expert on the origins of the universe, Sir Frederick Hoyle put it this way, "Believing life could result by chance is like believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and the winds accidentally assemble a fully functional Boeing 747. It isn’t going to happen. Darwin fails the origins of life test. Instead, the very existence of life with all it’s intricacies powerfully points in the direction of God being the Creator of the universe.


Again Darwin fails and God prevails. When Darwin formulated his theory in the 1800s he admitted right up front that there was no fossil evidence to support his contention that one species gradually changed into another. He recognized that if it had really happened there would be countless transitional links or fossils of ancient animals that filled the gaps between species. Darwin said that the lack of these fossils "is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against my theory". He saw the big problem but said people would continue to look for fossils and felt that as they did they would find these transitional links and his theory would be vindicated. Now, fast forward to modern times, and listen to Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist, professor of biology and geology at Harvard; "120 years of fossil research after Darwin it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s prediction. A species does not arise gradually by gradual transformation of it’s ancestors".

Check out a textbook on paleontology and look at the unexplained gaps in the evolutionary charts. As Dr. Gould of Harvard said, "The family trees that adorn our textbooks are based on inference, not on evidence." In other words, they are based more on imagination than on fact.

What do the millions of fossils that have been found actually show? What is the record? They show the sudden appearance of nearly all animal phylum which appear fully formed, unchanged to present, and without any record of ancestors before them or transitions after them. The same is true for plants. The first representatives of each major group suddenly appear in highly specialized form

When we consider the evidence which way does it point more convincingly? The sudden appearance of diverse creatures fully formed with no transitional forms to new creatures, and no ancestors from which they gradually developed, doesn’t that sound a whole lot more like creation than evolution? Of course it does. When it comes to the fossil test Darwin fails and God prevails.


Biochemist Michael Beebe has a new book called Darwin's Black Box that has been devastating to evolutionists. In it he explains the test of irreducible complexity

Here is what Darwin said about this, "If it could be demonstrated that complex organisms existed which could not possible have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications then my theory would absolutely break down". It has broken down. Dr. Beebe and other scientists have demonstrated that these complex and interconnected organisms abound on the molecular level of living cells. One example is blood clotting, a very complex, intricately woven system, consisting of scores of interdependent protein parts.

Dr. Beebe's conclusion is this, "The result of these cumulative efforts by scientists to investigate the cell, to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design, design, design'. Therefore there must be behind all this an intelligent designer."


Inside every living cell inside every living creature there is DNA. What is DNA? It is a language, a chemical language based on a genetic alphabet every bit as real as words. It is like computer software with precise instructions for piecing together every part of you from your 600 muscles, to your 2 million optic nerve fibers, to your 100 billion never cells. The blueprint of how to put all this together is contained in the DNA of every single cell of your body.

If the genetic information in the DNA of a microscopic single celled organism were translated into English it would equal the entire 30 volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica. All of that is inside the DNA of a single celled organism.

Imagine that kind of information contained in the DNA of very single one of our cells, being a much more complex organism.

The only rational explanation for the information inside DNA is that life came from a who, and not from a what.

Dr. Michael Denton concluded his 368 page dismantling of Darwinism with these words, "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or no less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century. The mere idea that life could by random processes form from nothing is simply an affront to reason." But some scientists aren’t willing to even consider the possibility that there is an intelligent designer. Their minds are so made that they won’t even look at the evidence, since to admit God exists would be to admit that He has rightful authority over their lives.

Dr. George Wall, the Nobel Prize winning Harvard biochemist says it is impossible for life to have spontaneously arisen from non-life. But listen to the rest of his quote, "That leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. But, we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds. Therefore we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance." His philosophy will not accept the possibility of a divine creator no matter how much evidence is presented. So, he takes the blind leap of faith by continuing to believe what he acknowledges to be unbelievable.

Don't make that mistake yourself. Don't close your mind to the clear implications of the evidence you are fearfully and wonderfully made, not by some combination of chance plus time over millions of years, but by a loving God who has made you in His very image and who stands with His arms open wide and beckons you to come to Him."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is

Some Voices Against Evolution:

The Assemblies of God Position Paper In Regards to Creation


“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”
(Genesis 1:1). The Bible begins with creation, and the fact that God is Creator is always in view from Genesis to Revelation.

Even though the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it is as trustworthy in the area of science as when it speaks to any other subject. We can have confidence in what it says concerning the origin of all things because “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
(2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is not the changing word of human beings, but the unchanging Word of God
(1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The Bible Shows God as the Creator

Scripture focuses our attention not so much on the act of creation as on God himself as the Creator.
In Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 God is the subject of most of the sentences. We read that God created, God said, God saw, God divided, God called or named, God made, God set or appointed, God blessed, God rested, and God sanctified.

Creation is the revelation of an intelligent, loving, personal God. In contrast to pantheism He is distinct from His creation
(Psalm 90:2). In contrast to deism He continues to be personally interested in His handiwork; for He upholds, sustains, and preserves it
(Nehemiah 9:6).

The rest of the Bible continues this emphasis on God as the Creator, bringing it into many facets of our relationship to Him. We are to worship and serve Him as the Creator
(Isaiah 40:26,28,31). We are warned not to strive against our Maker
(Isaiah 45:9). We are to commit the keeping of our souls to Him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator
(1 Peter 4:19). We also recognize that our help comes from the One who made the heavens and the earth
(Psalms 121:2; 124:8; 146:5,6), and there is nothing too hard for Him
(Jeremiah 32:17).

The Bible further emphasizes the fact that God is the Creator of all things. Repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments this is brought to our attention
(Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 146:6; Acts 14:17; Revelation 4:11; 10:6).

This is one of the distinctive elements of the biblical revelation. In contrast to ancient heathenism and modern materialism, the Bible teaches a genuine beginning. Most heathenism was dualistic, teaching that the universe in some form existed eternally alongside the gods. In the heathen myths the gods are seen as having created something, but always from preexisting materials. The very declaration that God is the Creator sets Him apart from the idols
(Psalm 96:5).

Materialists teach that matter and its laws are eternal and are the sum total of all existence, thus ruling out the idea of God altogether. But the Bible declares that God is the Creator of all things and that He existed before all things
(Psalm 90:2). Thus we have a genuine beginning when God brought the universe into existence out of nothing.

Another important fact of biblical revelation is that creation was the cooperative work of the Trinity. The Old Testament shows that the Spirit of God had a part
(Genesis 1:2). The New Testament further reveals that Jesus, who is the one Mediator between God and humankind
(1 Timothy 2:5) in our redemption, was also the Mediator in Creation. Christ, who is called “the firstborn” because He has first place, the place of the heir
(Colossians 1:15), was the active Agent in creation. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”
(John 1:3). The Greek word translated “through” (dia) is a word of secondary agency, used, for example, where God spoke by the prophets. So God created by or through Jesus. Jesus was the living Word through whom God spoke the worlds into existence. He was the One who made humankind from the dust of the earth. He is before all things and is the Creator of the invisible angelic world as well
(Colossians 1:16).

The Biblical Account of Creation Reveals Progress and Climax

Progress and a climax were a part of the biblical account of creation. Progress can be seen in the increase of personal attention God gave in His creative work. Of the vegetation we read that God said, “Let the land produce vegetation . . . .’ And it was so”
(Genesis 1:11,12). Of the animals we read that God said, “‘Let the land produce . . . .’ And it was so”
(Genesis 1:24,25). But of the human race God said, “‘Let us make man. . . .’ So God created man…; male and female he created them”
(Genesis 1:26,27). The human race is thus a special and distinctive creation, the climax, and to human beings is given dominion.

All this evidence of sequence, balance, correspondence, progress, and climax shows careful, intelligent planning. That God created by plan absolutely rules out any idea that part of creation came into being by mere chance. God exercised His wisdom and control at all times
(Psalms 136:5; 148:5; Isaiah 45:12; 48:12,13) and brought it all to a complete and well-designed end
(Genesis 1:31).

The Biblical Account Shows Distinct Steps of Creation

It is evident that God carried out His plan in distinct steps. This is indicated by the mention of succeeding days in Creation and by the mention of the evening and morning. That is, here is an evening, this part is over; here is a morning, a new beginning.

Genesis chapter 2, instead of being another creation record as some claim, is an amplification of activity not mentioned in
Genesis chapter 1. That is, the first chapter simply states that God created man, male and female created He them. The second chapter gives further details about part of the sixth creation day. There we see that God took the dust of the earth and formed Adam. Then He breathed into him the breath of life. This act indicates that humans are distinct from animals and that God did not form Adam from some previously existing animal
(1 Corinthians 15:39). The creation of animal life from the dust of the ground
(Genesis 2:19) only indicates that God used the same source of material for both.

After creating Adam, God put him in the Garden and gave him work to do. Then “the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; ... he took one of the man’s ribs” and made a woman
(Genesis 2:21,22).

This Bible record of creation thus rules out the evolutionary philosophy which states that all forms of life have come into being by gradual, progressive evolution carried on by resident forces. It also rules out any evolutionary origin for the human race, since no theory of evolution, including theistic evolution, can explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could evolve into a woman.

Only God Can Create

It is also evident that no part of God’s creation, whether human, angel, or devil, is creative in the sense God is. The Hebrew word for create (bara’) always has God as the subject of the verb. This word is used for God’s work of creation and is also used to indicate that God would do something unusual and unprecedented. When the earth opened up to swallow the rebellious Korah, the phrase “brings about something totally new” is literally “create a creation”
(Numbers 16:30). It is used when God said to Israel at Sinai: “I will do wonders never before done [bara’, created] in any nation in all the world”
(Exodus 34:10).

Of miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah’s day, when events showed the foolishness and weakness of the people’s trust in idols, God said, “‘From now on I will tell you of new things. . . . They are created now, and not long ago’”
(Isaiah 48:6,7). Thus even in the first chapter of Genesis, the word create is used only of completely new and unprecedented acts of God; that is, of the creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning, of the creation of the first animal life in the sea
(Genesis 1:21), and of man and woman in God’s own image (Genesis 1:27). Other times the word made
(Hebrew, ‘asah) is used. The word create (bara’) thus emphasizes that God alone is the Creator, and His acts of creation are unique and unprecedented.

God Had Purpose in Creation

God had purpose in creation. He created “for his own ends” or for His own pleasure
(Proverbs 16:4; Revelation 4:11) and for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). He wanted the earth to be inhabited
(Isaiah 45:18). All creation is thus an expression of His will and His power.

People are beings who are in the image of God
(Genesis 1:26,27): free, rational, capable of selfappreciation and self-expression, capable of moral and spiritual understanding, created for fellowship with God. They will find their proper place in creation only as they are in right relation to God through the redemption accomplished in Jesus.

The Creation Account Is Factual and Historical

The account of creation is intended to be taken as factual and historical. Our understanding of God as Creator is rooted in a revelation that is historical in nature, just as our understanding of God as Redeemer is rooted in the revelation of God’s dealings with Israel in history and in the historical events of the life, death, and resurrection of His Son. All the New Testament accepts it this way. The first man Adam, for example, is recognized as a historical person
(Romans 5:14;1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13,14).

Some have contended that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetical and are to be taken as parables. But a comparison of poetical references to Creation
(Deuteronomy chapters 32 and 33; Job 38:4–11; Psalms 90; 104:5–9) shows that the Genesis account is not poetry but prose. It should be noted, however, that poetry in the Bible often describes actual, historical events, so the use of poetry does not make an event a parable or myth.

It is significant that although creation events are not stated in modern scientific terminology, they are given in unusually acceptable statements, thus providing a solid record for all peoples in all times
(Ephesians 1:18).

In summary then, we see that the Bible points us to God as the Creator in every step of creation. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible”
(Hebrews 11:3). “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm”
(Psalm 33:9).

(c) 1977 by the Assemblies of God
Gospel Publishing House
Springfield, Missouri 65802
Gospel Publishing House Catalog # 34-4177
This report was adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 15-17, 1977.

A man hears what he wants to hear
disregards the rest

Charles Darwin Died As A Christian

Charles Darwin died as a Christian- not believing any more his very own theory of evolution he put forth as a young man. Modern evolutionists have a problem with this and in their attempt to re-write history, they deny this testimony and try to prove it false. However, many creationists are familiar with the account that British "Lady Hope" gave of her visit to Darwin a few months before he died. This article first appeared on the 19th of August in 1915 in the Baptist "Watchman-Examiner" in Washington D.C. Here is the testimony for those to whom it is new:

"It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.

He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade.

Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvelous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room.

He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.

"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered- "still Hebrews. "The Royal Book" I call it. Isn't it grand?"

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"

"What shall I speak about?" I asked.

"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."

How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!"
This info quoted from the web. Web address is


On Sunday morning, March 30, 2008, the Lord started dealing with me in the Spirit. He impressed upon me that there was a lot of confusion going on and that I was to minister in this area. I was not expecting this and I started scratching my head as to just exactly what the Lord had in mind because what He told me was kind of general. I realized: what could be more confusing than folks who label themselves as "Christians"- who are supposed to be obedient to Jesus Christ and His Word- to go around believing and teaching the doctrines of devils. So this is what lead me to pen this document in the hopes I could reach someone who was confused, or about to turn away from Christ, or to reach someone who had already done so to bring them back.

Just what is the doctrine of devils? In a nut-shell it is false belief. Is that dangerous? Yes, very much so. Why? Because the false belief offers another way of salvation rather than through the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven
(John 14:6).

Some folks cling to the materialistic philosophy behind evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because they like the "freedom" that comes from living without moral constraints. Since there is no God and we are the result of random natural processes, then there is no objective basis for moral judgments. Hence, there is no right or wrong. And since there is no right or wrong, then we can do whatever we want to without fear of being judged by God. Since we are an animal then we can act like an animal. When we die, we die. We don't have a soul- we are not an eternal being. However, there will be eternal consequences for each one who believes these lies of this false religion of evolution and builds his or her house upon the sand
(Matthew 7:24-29).

Man always has been man; he did not "evolve" over millions of years. Rather, God, the Giver of life, created mankind on the sixth day of creation, just as the Bible states
(Genesis 1:26-27). If you are saved by the blood of the Lamb let's try our hardest to reach folks for Christ and turn them away from the false religion of evolution. And let's try our hardest to teach Christian young folk the truth about this deadly religion so they don't get sucked into it's false teachings and dangerous lifestyle.

I want you to know the truth, to accept the One who is the Truth, and to teach the truth. That is why I have placed all of the teaching material on this web page and on the other relevant web pages. I pray it will be a blessing to you and to those who you teach.


Proof for the existence of God and the truth of His Bible (in Ridenour's book)

A free ICI bible study about God's design for you

"Evolutionists Disagree with each other" Evangel article

How archaeology proves the bible to be genuine

Hall placed a section in his book on God's word versus evolution

BOW Index of False Religions

BOW Index of Apologetics

Bread On The Waters (BOW)

Click here to go to the master index page


As of October 22, 2008