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.