Another Evolution Story Proving Creation...

For many, this is the "Year of Darwin" as they celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth.

I find tremendous irony in the activities planned not only here, but around the world, to celebrate the birth of Darwin. The same people who are celebrating his birth routinely mock or persecute Christians for celebrating the birth of Jesus. But, I digress.

The point of evolution is frequently to prove the Bible is in error. After all, if evolutionists can prove that creation is just a story, then they can argue that morals, salvation, redemption, Christ, resurrection, etc., are also mere stories. If the Bible is not the authority, then each person (well, actually, the biggest person) gets to set the rules. That's why they work so hard to prove that life spontaneously generated, and that we're all nothing more than gelatin that figured out how to grow eyes, legs, and complex organs.

Such is the case with researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

According to Fox News, on January 13, 2009, this group of scientists are reporting that are witnessing self-replicating molecules in the lab-environment, that "even evolve and compete".

I am certain that evolutionists all around the world are greeting this story with glee, and are ready to confront the next Christian who dares mention the creation account given in Genesis.

They desperately (even through the power of law) try to force us to accept this evolution nonsense, but they refuse to consider the Hand of God in the wonderful design of the universe.

Consider this recent story, however, as another example of their desperation as revealed when we look closely at how they must qualify their work. To illustrate this, I've bolded some of their language as I quote portions of the article.

The title of the article contains the first clue: "Life As We Know It Nearly Created In Lab"

Nearly? Is that science? Nearly? My junior high science teacher would not have accepted a paper from me if I reported on the results of an experiment I "nearly" achieved.

The article then talks about the 'science' that pins the mystery of life "down to roughly" chemical reactions which occurred 4 billion years ago (a number which seems to change every year, and is almost certain to change again this year) to "perhaps in a primordial soup or maybe with the help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea..."

I'm not making this up, and we're only 45 words into the article! So far the article has already identified numerous assumptions: "roughly... perhaps... maybe..." and "possibly". My science teacher called these "guesses".

Remember that this stuff is forcably taught to your children in public schools. Somehow the qualifiers are dropped and suddenly this stuff is described as fact.

But our article is just getting started. There's more we can find without being much of a detective.

The very next paragraph says that the scientists "have created something in the lab that is tantilizingly close to what might have happened" long ago.

Wait a minute! The scientists created this stuff? Um, are they arguing for the Bible now? Genesis 1 describes how God "created" the world, the universe, the stars, the planets, and everything else. Now, scientists are demonstrating that organized chemical reactions require creation. Why isn't that the story? Of course, God did not need a fancy lab, or a model to follow, or millions of dollars, or multiple researchers to make attempt after attempt until He sort of got it right.

Further, these researchers talk about materials that might be "tantalizingly close" to what "might have happened"? This is the state of modern science, and we are supposed to believe this?

Why are Christians afraid of any of this evolution nonsense? The best science can come up with is demonstrating that you need a modern lab environment, meticulous design, carefully planned out conditions, to maybe demonstrate something that might have happened?

Ah, but the article continues. The scientists then say that what they created is, "not life..." But they did manage to build molecules that self-replicate. Some accomplishment! They studied God's creation, then designed some simple replica that is not life. This is a scientific breakthrough? It seems like proof of God's design to me.

What they did was try to re-create simple RNA. But, the article admits, "RNA can't run a life form on it's own" but it "might have been" involved billions of years ago. It just needed some "chemical fix" to make the leap. I suppose that in the beginning the RNA phoned up the local chemical fix-it shop to request assistance?

Finally, the article talks about the known roles of RNA and DNA (the real building block of life), and reveals that "In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles..."

So, DNA is needed for RNA to have any function. But, the scientists think that RNA somehow might lead to DNA. This means that their experiment is working in reverse! DNA is needed for RNA to have any function, but they are working to prove that RNA can lead to DNA? I think they should consult their textbooks. The experiment is in direct conflict with what is known by scientists today.

Come on, Christian, stand firm in your faith (1 Cor 15:58). The evolutionists have no certain knowledge, only a bunch of theories, money, and political clout to force feed their world-view upon others.

It's ironic that they are proving creation with their experiments, yet they work fiecely to force our silence regarding the magnificent design and creation recorded in the Bible.

New Survey Shows Most Self-Described Christians Ignore Biblical Truth

Shortly after Christ was captured by Roman soldiers, at the insistance of the Jewish leaders, He was brought before Pontius Pilate. As the Roman governor of Judea, Pilate could pass sentence on Christ, or free Him.

As Pilate considered the fate of the Savior, he asked Him, "What is truth?"

The Greek word that is translated "truth" is aletheia (pronounced al·ay·thi·a). This word means, essentially: that which is objective in any matter. Another definition is: certainty, fact.

Truth is a question mankind has wrestled with, and, according to a new survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life, Christians today fail to recognize what is truth.

Before I jump to the results of the survey, let's cover a few Biblical definitions of truth:

• God is truth (Deut 32:4, Isa 65:16) and His truth is unchanging (Num 23:19, Titus 1:2)
• The Bible is God's Word (Isa 34:16, Rom 1:2)
• The Bible is True (Psalm 119:160)
• Christ is truth (John 1:17)
• The gospel is truth (Eph 1:13, 1 Thess 2:13)

From this we know that the Bible is the true Word of God, and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is part of that truth.

What is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

In John 14:6, Jesus answers Thomas about the only path to heaven when He says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me."

Further, as you read the Bible, you discover that the path to Christ is repentance from sin (Matt 4:17, 2 Cor 7:10, Rev 3:3), and surrendering your life to Christ (Rom 6:19, Col 4:1, 1 Cor 7:22).

The Bible also warns us that many people will miss the truth of the gospel. Read Matthew 7:13-14:

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

It appears that most of America's self-reporting Christians are looking at a wide gate.

Note: The term Christian, as used by the survey, is self-reported. That is, a person is a "Christian" if they call themselves a Christian. This is an objective standard. For the balance of this article, you can assume that I am using the objective standard. However, my desire is that people turn to God's standard (as shown above) and become true Christians.

Consider the fact that this new study finds that most Christians in America believe that you need not be a repentant slave to Christ to obtain salvation.

In fact, an astounding 65% of Christians say that many religions can lead to salvation! Before you dismiss this number and think, "well, there are Episcopal's and Baptists and Lutherans..." that is NOT what the survey respondents meant by "many religions". Upon further questioning, the Pew Forum discovered,

• More than 8 in 10 say that at least one non-Christian religion can provide Salvation.
• 69% say that Judaism provides salvation
• 52% say that salvation can be found in Islam
• 53% say Hinduism can provide salvation
• An astonishing 56% say that people with "no religious faith" can still obtain salvation, and
  
• Most amazingly, 42% say that atheists can obtain salvation.
  

How? Well, according to the survey respondents, all of these people can achieve salvation by what they believe or by their actions. What Bible verse is that?

If these self-reported Christians do not understand how others can achieve eternal life, what does that say about their own walk with the Lord?

Please, if your views conflict with the scripture above about the gospel, consider the following passage from Matthew 7:21-23,

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"

The only way we can know the truth... the only way we can share the truth... the only way to obtain salvation is to search out the truth of the gospel in the Bible.

The Bible is truth. The gospel is truth. Surveys are not. Beliefs are not. Feelings are not.

Know the truth, and share it with others... even those who sit in church with you.

The State of Modern Evangelism

I subscribe to a daily e-mail feed called Grace Gems. Each day I receive a devotional writing. Some are short, some are long. Some reference audio for listening.

I found the one from New Year's Day very instructive with regard to evangelism. I have reproduced it below (Grace Gems uses Public Domain materials, and gives permission for use of their material). This message was originally produced by Arthur Pink. The emphasis found is mine. I hope you enjoy this excerpt. If so, you can find the full message here.


Arthur Pink, "Present Day Evangelism"

The nature of Christ's salvation, is woefully misrepresented by the present-day "evangelist." He announces a Savior from hell--rather than a Savior from sin! And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of fire--who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness!

The very first thing said of Him in the New Testament is--"You shall call His name Jesus--for He shall save His people...[not "from the wrath to come," but] from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Christ is a Savior for those realizing something of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, who feel the awful burden of it on their conscience, who loathe themselves for it, and who long to be freed from its terrible dominion. He is a Savior for no others. Were He to "save from hell" those still in love with sin, He would be a minister of sin, condoning their wickedness and siding with them against God. What an unspeakably horrible and blasphemous thing, with which to charge the Holy One!

True, as the Christian grows in grace, he has a clearer realization of what sin is--rebellion against God; and a deeper hatred of and sorrow for it. But to think that one may be saved by Christ, whose conscience has never been smitten by the Spirit, and whose heart has not been made contrite before God--is to imagine something which has no existence in the realm of fact. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor--but the sick" (Matthew 9:12). The only ones who really seek relief from the great Physician, are those who are sick of sin--who long to be delivered from its God-dishonoring works, and its soul-defiling pollutions.

As Christ's salvation is a salvation from sin--from the love of it, from its dominion, from its guilt and penalty--then it necessarily follows, that the first great task and the chief work of the evangelist, is to preach upon SIN: to define what sin (as distinct from crime) really is, to show wherein its infinite enormity consists, to trace out its manifold workings in the heart, to indicate that nothing less than eternal punishment is its desert!

Ah, preaching upon sin will not make him popular nor draw the crowds, will it? No, it will not; and knowing this, those who love the praise of men more than the approbation of God, and who value their salary above immortal souls, trim their sales accordingly!