News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

-Is The God Of Theistic Evolution The Same As The God Of The Bible?
-By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Most Christians are uncomfortable with purely naturalistic evolution. The solution for many Christians has been to adopt theistic evolution, which is based on the idea that the God of the Bible employed an evolutionary process to create.

Any listing of the attributes of God would include omnipotence, omniscience, loving, gracious, possessing forethought, and the desire for a relationship with man. Would this kind of God have used long ages of evolutionary development?

Theistic evolution looks back to about four billion years ago when God brought just the right chemicals into the right order to form a single cell. This multiplied and mutated for over three billion years until He either allowed or caused them to evolve into two-celled organisms, then about 500 million years ago into marine invertebrates, such as clams, snails, trilobites, and flatworms.

Over hundreds of millions of years, many types went extinct and were never seen by man. But the flatworm begat fish, then amphibians, then reptiles and birds, then mammals. They would live and die, mutate and go extinct. Some would eat the others. All were subject to disease and starvation. Some, like the dinosaurs, also passed into oblivion before man arrived. The fossil record provides ample evidence of their existence, suffering, and extinction long ago.

Just a few million years ago there were upright-walking apes, then Homo erectus, and then Neandertals, "animals" who made tools, employed agriculture, utilized both religious implements and weapons, suffered from disease and malnutrition. They enjoyed music and flowers and art, but had no soul.

Then, just a few thousand years ago, God made true man. He either created man from scratch or took a sub-human animal and gave it an eternal spirit. As He finished His work, He called it all "very good." God's creation could finally recognize His grace, respond in love, and give God the glory due His name.

But was it all "very good"? Beneath Adam's feet would lay the fossils of billions of animals, many giving evidence of traumatic death. And who were the long extinct dinosaurs? Had God been experimenting, trying to find something He could call His image? Did He not know what He wanted? Was He not powerful enough to create it without so many missteps? If the creation and redemption of man was His purpose, why did He wait so long?

And why did He use the process of the extinction of the unfit to create? His very nature ultimately impelled Him, the Fit, to die for the unfit. In redemption, He would strongly denounce personal works as a method of salvation. Would He have used survival of the fittest as His method of creation and accept "glory" from His creation on this basis?

No, the righteous God revealed in Scripture would create just as described in Genesis One. Creation would be orderly and wise, with man and his walk with God the result. It would be deathless and sinless, compatible with the all powerful, Holy, life-giving Creator's label as "very good."

*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

It is sad to see people buy into a "compromise is always right" rule. That such a rule is contrary to scripture, common sense, and even itself should be self-evident.

Thank you, CTD. Your 'input' is always appreciated. I believe we are truly living in the 'end times' as the verse, "There will be a great falling away (from truth)." (2 Thess. 2:3)

Also it's very obvious that Hebrews 10:26-27 is a 'word' we all must remember, ......Willful Sins ~

-Willful Sins

"For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27)

This is one of the most controversial passages of Scripture because of its apparent conflict with passages which teach salvation by grace, entirely apart from the law or any form of works (e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) and absolute security in salvation to those who belong to Christ (e.g., John 10:28-29; Romans 8:35-39).

Actually, many passages warn against deliberate acts of sin by Christians. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar" (1 John 2:4). "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him" (Titus 1:16).

Clearly, there are dozens of "proof texts" on both sides of this question, and it cannot be settled by citing a cliché or two in a brief study like this. There can be no real contradiction in God's Word, however, so the Lord must have had a good reason for inspiring this apparent paradox in His book. On the one hand, it is vital for every true believer in Christ to know that He is saved and has eternal life. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). On the other hand, it is deadly dangerous for a person merely to think he or she is saved when there is no evidence of a changed life. Such Scriptures as our text give sober warning that professing Christians have no basis for any assurance of salvation if they do not obey His words. "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments" (1 John 2:3). Therefore, "examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5). HMM
---
Readers, please be warned, there is no such thing as "The God of Theistic Evolution". There is only One true Jehovah, and it is the Lord Jesus. He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the Creator of ALL things visible and invisible. ------(Colossians 1:12-17).

-Who Is A Christian?
-By: Henry Morris, Ph.D.

“Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (I Peter 4:16).-

The term “Christian” has become so nebulous today as to mean almost anyone except a Jew, or Moslem, or atheist. When it was first used, however, its meaning was quite specific: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26).

Thus, a Christian was a disciple (i.e., a “learner” or “follower”) of Christ. The term is transliterated directly from the Greek, “Christ” being Christos in the Greek, and “Christian” being Christianos. It was probably used in mild derision by the unbelievers of early New Testament time.

This name is used only two other times in the New Testament. When Paul gave his testimony to King Agrippa, the king retorted: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28), the sense of the reply (according to Greek scholars) being something like: “With this little bit of persuasion, are you trying to turn me into a Christian?”

What was perhaps mild sarcasm, on the part of the citizens of Antioch and King Agrippa, soon turned into open persecution, and it became quite dangerous, in many places, to be called a Christian. A term of ridicule became a term of scorn and condemnation. The Christians to whom Peter wrote his first epistle were being “reproached for the name of Christ” (I Peter 4:14), and this persecution would soon become a “fiery trial” (v.12). Therefore, Peter sought to encourage them, by reminding them that they would thereby be fellowshipping in “Christ’s sufferings” (v.13).

Then, in the final use of the word in the Bible, he reminds us, even today, that suffering “as a Christian” (v.16) is not a cause for compromise or complaint, but for rejoicing and praising God!

We can even “glorify God on this behalf.”

ICR/HMM

-Does Convincing Evidence For Evolution Exist?
-By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Before answering this question, let me define the term "evolution" as I will be using it, lest I be misunderstood. Darwin used the term on a grand scale, and so will I. His concept of evolution proposed that all of life has come from a common ancestor. Thus over time, basic forms of life altered into other, totally different forms of life.
-
These large changes are in contrast to small-scale changes as we see expressed as varieties, adaptations, and genetic recombinations. These changes might not be trivial, but they are merely variations within a stable basic kind.

Much evidence exists for these small-scale adaptations. The claim by evolutionists is that over eons of time, small-scale changes will accumulate into large-scale evolution, and thus man descended from a fish. Needless to say, evidence for this is harder to produce.

For decades creationists have called attention to the fact that small changes do not lead to true evolution. From all we can observe in the present, there are genetic barriers to major changes. Mutations never add information to the DNA code, as would be necessary for major evolutionary advancement. Such changes may result in a loss of ability or structure and produce novel birth defects, but give no insight into the origin of finely tuned components.

Nor does it appear that large-scale evolutionary changes happened in the past, for the fossil record exhibits the same basic life forms as today. Many unique varieties are seen as fossils, and many interesting animals have gone extinct, but even evolutionists admit the dearth of transitional forms in the fossil record between basic kinds.

This lack of hard evidence for evolution has spawned a new discipline in evolution, that of scouring the creationist literature for any demonstrable error in an effort to put creation on the defensive and shift the focus off of evolution's many weaknesses. I am still being severely castigated on the Internet for not retracting an incidental statement I made about Donald Johanson and the authenticity of the knee joint of the famous australopithecine fossil "Lucy" ("Back to Genesis," November 1989). Johanson's statements, both publicly and in print were unclear and even though I no longer use that argument, I'm still not certain of the truth. The point is, even if the knee is actually part of "Lucy's" skeleton, she was still fully chimp-like.

A similar diversion tactic surrounded the article "What They Say" ("Back to Genesis," March 1999). An evolutionist's quote mistakenly used out of context was used to negate the entirety of the article and creationist claims regarding the lack of transitional forms. But the pointing out of a wrongly used quote still doesn't produce transitional forms documenting transformation of basic kinds! (The original articles and ICR's responses can be found at <http://www.icr.org> )

Evolutionists would have a more convincing case if they could produce firm supporting evidence. Since they can't, or at least haven't, they must resort to smoke screens such as these.

-What If Evolution Were True?
-By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.
-
What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find?

Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millenia. At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still elude us. Abundant soft-bodied remains have been found, so the conditions for preservation would always somewhere have existed. Why can't we find those important fossils which document evolution?

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today. Why does it seem to have stopped? Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing? They are unquestionably adapting, but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation. Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content. Instead we discover the universal second law of science, which invariably points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction, and more randomness in every unguided process. The complexity of life forms is so unimaginably great that we must account for it, and random changes in the face of a universal law can hardly be the answer.

At the least we should find a mechanism for evolution firmly in place. Mutation and natural selection are often cited, but these are deteriorative and conservative, not innovative and thoughtful. A theory of everything which has no mechanism is a weak theory indeed.

Thus we do not find the expected evidence that evolution of basic types has taken place. Surely we can be excused for looking elsewhere.

*Dr. John D. Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research.

-The Natural Direction of Life Is Degeneration, Not Evolution!
--
Mutations in the genomes of organisms are typically nearly neutral, with little effect on the fitness of the organism. However, the accumulation of deleterious (harmful) mutations does occur and the accumulation of these mutations leads to genetic degeneration.

Mutations lead to the loss of genetic information and consequently the loss of genetic potential. This results in what is termed “genetic load” for a population of organisms. Genetic load is the amount of mutation in a kind of organism that affects its fitness for a particular environment. As genetic load increases, the fitness decreases and the organism progresses towards extinction as it is unable to compete with other organisms for resources such as food and living space.

An increase in genetic potential through mutation has not been observed, while the increase in genetic load via mutation is observable in all organisms and especially in man.
--------

-How Old Is Life?
-By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.
-
According to evolution, life has been on Earth for billions of years. It is common to claim that life originated some three to four billion years ago. Even though spontaneous generation of life has been soundly disproved in every experiment, evolutionists think at least once that non-living chemicals came together on their own, without the aid of any non-natural agency, and formed a living cell, complete with its own genetic code. Under the guidance of these genetic instructions, the cell was capable of life's functions, and reproducing other similar cells with their own similar genetic codes. In this process of code reproduction, mutations may alter the coded content somewhat, so that the detailed instructions vary a little, leading to evolutionary change.

Efforts are underway to push life's origin back into the universe's more distant past, even suggesting that life came to Earth on a meteorite (or spaceship). Speculations of life's "naturalistic" origin long ago and far away seem fueled by man's aversion to being accountable to a "supernatural" Being.

A naturalistic origin of life is evolution's biggest hurdle. Obtaining useful variations of the genetic code seems easy compared to spontaneously obtaining the first genetic code. Even natural selection cannot act on the chemical precursors of life, for it can only choose between living variants as to survivability.

Mutations in existing codes, while they do not speak to the origin of the code, can tell us something about how old life can be. Most mutations are only slightly harmful, but others are acutely harmful. Most of these harmful mutations, whether mild or acute, pass on to the next generation, thus each succeeding generation is more "mutant." Today, the codes mutate at rates much higher than evolution would predict. Evolutionists have long known that if the mutation rate were as high as one per generation in the reproductive line, genetic deterioration would be a certainty. But the measured rate is between 100 to 300 harmful mutations per person that are fixed within the population! (I recommend Dr. John Sanford's new book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.) Mutations are leading, not to evolutionary advancement, but to extinction!

One obvious conclusion we can reach from the observed rate of deterioration is that mankind (or any species on Earth) cannot have been here for millions of years—or it would have already gone extinct. Instead, life appears to have been recently created and cannot last for millions of years into the future.

-The Dirty Little Secret Is Out: Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible
-By: Frank Sherwin, M.A.

In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith. Creation scientists have been saying this for decades: Darwinism is not merely science, but a God-rejecting belief system that directly opposes the events recorded in Scripture. This is plainly seen from the stark contrast between the Bible’s assertion “In the beginning, God,” and secular science’s counter “In the beginning, hydrogen.”1

Dr. Coyne is remarkably inclusive in his exclusion of the faithful from the realms of legitimate science:

I am not claiming that all faith is incompatible with science and secular reason….But the vast majority of the faithful—those 90 percent of Americans who believe in a personal God, most Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, and adherents to hundreds of other faiths—fall into the “incompatible” category.2

Coyne said that the “disharmony” between faith and science (which he definitively links with Darwinism) is “a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious.” Why would secular scientists who are so opposed to the biblical worldview resort to pretending that Christian faith and evolution are compatible? Coyne provided reasons.

After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence—the existence of religious scientists—is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.2

Thus, Coyne considers those “religious” people who don’t really believe Genesis as history to be allies, having used them as an effective tactic in his “struggle against creationism.” In fact, he calls the straightforward acceptance of Scripture “the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities.” Given his aggressive hostility to matters of faith, can there be any doubt that these issues of origins—creation or evolution—are fundamentally spiritual, and not purely scientific, in nature?

There certainly are many in the scientific community who are increasingly outspoken regarding their lack of faith in God. However, others—like creation scientists—are open to objectively following the scientific evidence, even when it points to a Creator, such as a Nobel Prize winner who said, “Somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”3

Indeed, even the late L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, an evolutionary biologist like Coyne, said:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.4

Although 100 percent empirical proof is unattainable for either faith in God or faith in no God, the evidence in favor of creation is certainly beyond reasonable doubt.5 Because the discoveries from real, operational science are remarkably consistent with biblical revelation, an understanding of God’s Word stands only to gain from science. Spread the news that the truth has finally been openly admitted by an evolutionary scientist: Darwinism contradicts Christianity. Not only is macroevolution irrelevant to science, it is antithetical to a true faith in God.

References/(www.icr.org>

--BEWARE! There Is No Evolutionist's Jesus!

----ANOTHER JESUS-

“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:4)

The verses following our text contain an enlightening warning about false teachers. One should not carelessly follow a personable religious leader merely because he “preaches Jesus” or urges audiences to “receive the Spirit.”

“Jesus” is quite popular among worldly people today, but not the true Jesus. The popular Jesus may be the baby Jesus in the manger at Christmastime, or the buddy Jesus of Nashville “gospel” music, or the success-counseling Jesus of the positive thinkers. He may be the romantic Jesus of the Christian crooners, the rhythmic Jesus of Christian rock, or the reforming Jesus of the liberals, but none of these are the Jesus preached by the apostle Paul, and therefore not the real Jesus who saves men and women from their sins.

Jesus in reality is the Lord Jesus Christ, the offended Creator of the universe (Colossians 1:16), who had to die as man on the Cross to redeem us through His shed blood (Colossians 1:14, 20), and who then rose from the dead to be set “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named” (Ephesians 1:21). Finally, it is this Jesus “who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1).

The Lord Jesus, as He really is, is not the popular Jesus of T-shirts and bumper stickers, politicians and entertainers. He was “despised and rejected of men” (Isaiah 53:3) so they “crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8).

He is the mighty God, the perfect man, the only Savior, the eternal King, and Lord of lords. God-called teachers will not preach an imaginary Jesus who appeals to the flesh, but rather the true Christ of creation and salvation.

--ICR/ HMM ~~
['Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.'
--(Hebrews 13:8). He never changes, He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Veracity and Immutable. Be very careful where you attend Church. There are 'many' false teachers in the world today, just as the Word tells us. If they teach anything other than Jesus Christ,.... Virgin birth, death, burial and resurrected Christ-- 'flee that false teaching'.~~]

--WRONG ON TWO ACCOUNTS~~

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29)-

When the Sadducees, who were the theological, philosophical, and scientific elite of the day, came to Jesus with a trick question in an attempt to discredit Him, He responded with the stinging rebuke in today’s verse. While His response dealt specifically with the fact of resurrection and the nature of the afterlife, His twofold evaluation of self-reliant scholars still fits today, particularly in regard to evolutionary speculations.

By the time Darwin had published his book 'Origin of Species' attributing evolutionary progression to natural selection, he had probably become an atheist and so set about to ascribe creation to natural causes. He attributed to nature abilities that clearly belong to God alone. He knew something of the Scriptures, but his memoirs show that he had little understanding of basic biblical teaching. He felt that if there was a God, He had little power or had not been involved in the affairs of this earth. Most atheistic evolutionists today follow Darwin’s intellectual footsteps.

But what of Christian intellectuals, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, or advocates of the framework hypothesis, who claim to know God but yet deny His awesome power in creation? They too reject the clear teaching of Scripture regarding creation, relegating God to the mundane task of overseeing the evolutionary process, reducing His power to something man can accomplish. Peter aptly describes this attitude when he calls it willful ignorance (2 Peter 3:5).

It has been suggested by some that all human error can be traced to one or both of these categories: not knowing (and/or believing) the Scriptures, and underestimating the power of God.
--ICR/ JDM

--FOUR OBSERVATIONS EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN
--BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

---Almost everyone knows someone who believes in evolution. This matters because evolution contradicts Genesis, and the Gospel rests upon Genesis. For example, Genesis teaches that God made Adam and Eve, but evolution teaches that nature somehow made us from ape-like creatures. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the last Adam—the first Adam brought death, but the last Adam brings life for those who trust Him.

This matters because evolution contradicts Genesis, and the Gospel rests upon Genesis. How can Christians converse with those who hold evolution’s radically different ideas? The following challenges might help remove evolution-based objections to the Gospel.

1.) No Evolution Today

Why don’t we observe creatures evolving into different creatures? Instead, each kind stays true to form. Every supposed example of evolution, like finch beaks changing shape or bacteria eating nylon, merely represents a trait shift. And often those shifts reverse. A beak might get thicker, but later generations can grow thin beaks again. Basic body plans stay stable. If creation is correct, then we would expect stable kinds with trait shifts that help creatures adjust to an ever-changing earth.

2.) No Evolution Yesterday

--Why don’t most fossils show transitions between kinds? Fossils instead fit within specific kinds. Some evolutionists consider Archaeopteryx a transition between reptiles and birds, but others call it an extinct bird—it had flight feathers and a bird body. Transitions between reptile and bird should show a gradual shift of the center of gravity away from the hips (theropods) toward the forward-positioned knees of birds. Evolution is supposed to happen very slowly, so most of these fossils should show a body balance somewhere between the two forms. But instead of something in between, we find either a theropod or a bird body balance. The same absence of transitions goes for clam and crab, ape and human, etc.

-3.) Beauty

--Why do humans perceive beauty and ugliness? --Evolution is supposed to proceed purely by the death of individuals that cannot compete. What role does beauty play in competition? Some birds have bright feathers and others drab ones, but both types survive just fine. For that matter, in what way does our ability to recognize beauty help us survive? It doesn’t. Animals from crayfish to cormorants thrive without a sense of beauty. But people seem obsessed with beauty. We buy lotions, luxury cars, and works of art that don’t help with survival. Where did this sense come from if not from God, who “has made everything beautiful in its time”?

-4.) Morals
--How does evolution’s struggle for survival explain our sense of right and wrong? Its defenders suggest that ancient, evolving humans invented morals that somehow helped them survive. We supposedly inherited those morals. However, humans do not inherit the mental inventions of their forebears. Also, if unconnected people groups invented right and wrong, then why did they choose essentially the same rules? Husbands in every culture despise other men who harm their wives. Nobody feels happy when punished for helping others. Instead of evolution, these reactions “show the work of the law written on their hearts.”

--We don’t see big-picture evolution in operation today. Both living and extinct animals and plants should show distinct created kinds—and they do. God’s universe should show both beauty we can appreciate from a once “very good” creation and ugliness from the sin curse—and it does.. Human hearts harbor a knowledge of right and wrong since they were made in God’s image. The Bible, not evolution, explains these four observations.

--**References/From the Holy Bible
-----
1 Corinthians 15:45.
2 Corinthians 5:11.
Ecclesiastes 3:11.
Romans 2:15.
Genesis 7:14.
Genesis 1:31.
Genesis 3.
Colossians 3:10.
~~~~~~