Radio Broadcast

Why I Believe in Creation II, Part 2

Chip wraps up his 4-part study on creation vs. evolution, and he saved the best for last. Chip hits the theory of evolution head-on with some incredible evidence from the scientific community.

Message Notes more broadcasts from this series

Transcript

Now, the next discovery I want to talk about is the genetic codes of the sequencing of the human genome. And if you ever get a chance, the book I’ve put here, it’s called The Language of God by Francis Collins and I do know inside the Christian community there is, controversy would be a nice word, sometimes actual hostility between, not whether God created but how he did it.

Francis Collins is an interesting story. At age three, his mother was a math teacher, he lived on a farm in New England, obviously a lot of good genes in the family. By age two or three, he, on his own, would realize that two and three made five here and four and one made five here and two, two, and one would make five here.

Pretty soon, he became a master musician. He graduated from high school at sixteen, married his high school sweetheart at nineteen, had their first child at twenty. Got his Ph.D., finished it up and got bored with it. Had everything done but his dissertation and realized he wanted to go to med school.

The professor said you’re going to waste it. You’ll never finish your dissertation. So, he goes to med school in North Carolina, breezes through med school, and on the weekends, in med school, writes his dissertation, being married with two kids.

I’m just waiting for the “S” to come off this guy’s chest, you know? And I’ve read about him and he’s warm and loving. He described himself by the time he was twenty-seven, he was interning, doing his third year of internship… his medical, what do they call it? There’s a word for it. Residency.

All I know is, you stay up all night, you get really tired, and it’s crazy. Reminds me a lot of seminary. And he said, he would describe himself, at twenty-seven, as an obnoxious atheist. He’d been schooled in all the sciences.

But in his third year of residency, he was meeting a number of people that were having terminal illnesses. One person in particular had had angina and as he was watching people die, he would watch these people with this strong commitment to Christ and faith and a level of grace and a way they lived and had things that he couldn’t describe.

One person in particular challenged him about what he believed and why. I’m sure he went into all the scientific things. And this particular person got to the heart issues. About what really makes life sense. And he said, “I didn’t have any good answers”.

During that time a pastor gave him a copy of C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity and he began to process. He’s a very logical, smart guy.

He realized that Lewis’ arguments, philosophical, not science, really had a consistency and there was an intellectual ability to use your brain to be a Christian and became, later, a very committed Christ follower and then found this pairing of the human genome and today, he’s in charge of the human genome, entire, whatever you call it. They’ve got a group of people that are working on that and he’s the head guy.

As I read about his life, I was fascinated. And being fascinated, I took just a couple excerpts out of The Language of God. He is a Christian evolutionist, I know there are some in that camp and there are others. There are early earth and long earth and old earth and … my premise of our time together is to only go to the one basic question. Did God create all that we see and all that we have or is it macro-Darwinian evolution? Time plus chance and a little cell from some primordial soup?

I love what Click says, he says, there are several universal constants with precise values that determine our fate. Change any of those values by an infinitesimal fraction and matter would never have coalesced. There would be no stars, no planets, no people.

He’s talking about the intricacies of the universe. The circumstances that created our universe suggest it is uniquely well suited for life. The theory is known as the anthropic principle. A rich variety of theories try to explain this, most of which don’t envision God.

Collins sees the anthropic principle as a ratification of the presence of a higher power. He clearly describes this higher power in the language of God and he makes his case for a personal God, the creator of the Bible. The book also makes the case that our concern and our care for others is an evidence of God

Of all of the mysteries of human behavior, our sense of altruism, our caring for others who need us, who depend on us, who are less fortunate - He says this flies in the face of all the Darwinian teaching of the survival of the fittest.

All I want you to see is that when you go through and look at these recent discoveries in science and astronomy and the fossil record and biology and DNA and the sequencing of the human genome, these things argue powerfully for coming to one conclusion or another - Time plus chance and Darwinian macro-evolution or a creator, a personal God, with wisdom, intelligence, balance, and harmony.

Okay, those of you that wish you could get off the science field bus we’re going to move on to less scientific.

Question number six: Which theory or claim has the greatest moral or social benefit? If something is true, if something is positive, you would expect it to have a positive, fruitful impact in our relationships and life. So let’s look at the moral and social benefits of Darwinism.

Darwinism and humanism, God is dethroned, man becomes the center of the universe. Humanism just means, okay, before the latter part of the previous century when humanism was birthed, Darwinian evolution became the intellectual fodder for the Nietzsches and the Huxleys and later Hegel and the God is dead movement.

What Darwin did in Huxley’s word is he freed us, and made it intellectually acceptable to be an atheist so there are not moral constraints. And now, instead of God and His Law and morality saying this is right, this is wrong. Man is the center. We decide.

Man ultimately decides what is good, what is right, what is wrong, who has value, who doesn’t have value. What should we do? What should we not do? That’s what humanism is. And it grew out of the thinking of Darwinism applied to social relationships. Then, Darwinism and morality - relative truth is birthed and moral absolutes are discarded.

My mom was a guidance counselor and I remember her coming home and… we had a unique family.  You might pick this up, sort of a sidebar, in terms of [teaching] family and kids or grandkids, if you have them.

One of the practices of our family was, when we got done with dinner, everyone pushed their plates, literally to the middle of the table.

Both of my parents were school teachers. I don’t know how it works but if you keep renewing [your certification,] you get raises. So, they got their master’s degree. Then, thirty hours after their master’s degree. And then, more hours, then my mom did everything, she never finished writing her dissertation.

I lived in a family where people were thinking and talking all the time and when supper was done, you pushed all the plates to the middle and then everyone got a cup of coffee. I started drinking coffee when I was three. Sorry, you know. I would have been six, seven probably. Who knows?

But, I didn’t like milk and so if I put about half of milk then they’d pour a little coffee and a little sugar and it was really cool, sitting there with mom and dad. But we talked about everything.

And we didn’t have those, how was your day in school? And you said, oh nothing. That didn’t fly in my house. For thirty, sometimes forty-five minutes it would be discussions. I still remember my mom coming home and talking about situational ethics.

And how she’s going to have to start teaching these kids, she goes, this isn’t right. You know, they’d make all these hypothetical situations and if this happened and this happened and this happened, what would you do? And the whole point was, this really was existentialism going public in the public schools. And now, it’s full blown.

But back when I grew up, people actually believed there was a right that was right and a wrong that was wrong. You didn’t have to agree with it but non-Christians, hey, we know, right, wrong, okay, I’m doing wrong. Okay. But I know it’s wrong.

That’s not true anymore. The pluralistic view is, it is arrogant and intolerant to, in any way say that your view of what is right or wrong or better than anyone else. All truth claims have equal footing. What I want you to know is this grew out of Darwin’s survival of the fittest.

This is what happened when intellects began to take and say, you know what? There is no God so who’s to determine? Humanism - what is true - man is. And then among men, well let’s decide. So morals are irrelative. We’ll decide what’s right, what’s wrong in various situations.

So, you have the situational ethics, which led to the sexual revolution. Remember on the stop signs, in the sixties and early seventies?  People would write, “Make love, not war.”

And then we had this whole explosion that occurred that said, you know what? Throw off the restraints! Remember the hippie movement and Woodstock and everything? Well now, fast-forward forty years. Now we’ve always had gonorrhea and sexually transmitted disease.

But it wasn’t until the sexual revolution that we saw the disintegration of the family, HIV positive. We have a plague in the world that’s incurable. People are dying of HIV and in some places, we can help them out some but most places not.

I traveled around the world a lot in my five years of Walk Thru the Bible and now with Living on the Edge.  I’m going to go to Zimbabwe in August and there are more orphans in Zimbabwe per capita than any other country in the world.

The average age, the life average age is thirty-five years old. If you’re fifteen years old, the chances of you living to be thirty-five are slim.

And you have all these kids and many of them are HIV positive. They think AIDS stands for A-I-D-S. American Invention to Discourage Sex.

And now okay, take morality out of it. Think of what the sexual revolution has cost us economically. Think of what divorce costs us economically. The cost for single parents with kids - economically. I mean, once you remove, there is a true, there’s a false. There is a right, there is a wrong. It has been playing out for decade after decade after decade.

The, if it feels good do it, is nothing more than the roots of Darwinism applied by existentialists. By the way, John Paul Sartre and remember, Francis Schaffer would write about all these existentialists and, remember the modern art with throwing paint everywhere and saying, wow, that’s cool, that’s, who’s to say what’s beautiful and what’s not?

All that is rooted in what? If your origin is random chance, no purpose, no designer, no God. If you’re just a blob on this little part of the solar system in little planet, then it is absolutely intellectually consistent to say, like John Paul Sartre, “There is no meaning to life.”

And so, the only meaning is to have an experience, even a negative experience of any kind. And who’s to tell anyone what to do? What you see flowing out on the television and the movies and the more and more violence today is nothing more than decade after decade of an erosion of truth.

Let’s go on from humanism and morality to Darwinism and social relationships. Darwinism applied to racism, Nazism, and sexism. In other words, if it’s survival of the fittest, we should keep the best of the race. We should look at men and women and decide who is more important and act accordingly.

If we can make the world better by ethnic cleansing and getting rid of whole races that don’t live up to our standard and we’re man and we’re the center and we get to say who should live and who should die. The consistent application of macro-Darwinian thinking to social relationships would be this.

In fact, let me read you a couple quotes that might shock you. Evolution justifies racism. This is Charles Darwin. This is him applying natural selection and survival of the fittest much like Hitler did with the Arian race. This is the logical application.

It says, “The more civilized, so-called, Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date when what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world” - Charles Darwin, 1881.

Huxley, who was a big fan of Darwin, building on Darwin’s thinking wrote, “no rational man, cognizant of facts, believe that the average negro is equal, still less, the superior of the white man. It is simply incredible to think that. He will be able to complete successfully with his bigger brained and smaller jawed rival in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites”.

Now, how politically correct is that? How many people that are adamant macro-Darwinian evolutionists want to step into that one and say, the logical conclusion of survival of the fittest? This justified racism. This justified Nazism. Now, please don’t hear me say, Charles Darwin is at fault for all of this.

We’re talking about a system that was developed and multiplied and applied and the evil human hearts of people taking bits and pieces of philosophy to say that this is what we want to do.

But you gotta own the whole basket. If you’re gonna buy, this is how life began, there is no designer, there is no God, there is no Creator, therefore there is no truth. There is no morality. Then the consistent application when it comes to what races matter, who’s most important.

Ladies, you’ll hate this one but Charlie (since I’ve studied him, we’ve become close friends) writes on this one, “ The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by a man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain -whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and the hands, we may also infer that the average mental power in man must be above that of a woman.”

Now, you just say to yourself, so, which of these truth claims resonate and make the most sense? I would encourage you to examine the evidence for yourself.

Let’s look quickly to question number seven, which is, which theory claim reflects most accurately the laws of empirical science and research? And what I want to just say here is, the great scientists had historical presuppositions. Okay?

The great scientists - The Newton’s, the DaVinci’s. They had presuppositions about order, balance, predictability. In fact, the whole scientific method grew out of a belief that’s absolute contrary to random chance. In fact, I came across an article. It says, Leonardo da Vinci considered by many, to be the real founder of modern science, was a committed Creationist.

Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry as well, as the greatest physical scientist of his generation was a great apologist for the genesis of account. Isaac Newton, a prodigious intellect was, who developed calculus and discovered the law of gravity, designed the first reflecting telescope, not only refuted atheism, but also strongly defended the biblical account of creation.

Louis Pasteur, well known for his process of pasteurization and for utterly demolishing the concept of spontaneous generation was a devoutly religious and strongly opposed to Darwinian evolution. And Dr. Henry Morris’ book, “Men of Science, Men of God”, he includes other intellects. Kepler, scientific astronomy, Francis Bacon, scientific method, Pascal, the mathematician,  Linnaeus, taxonomy, Mendel, genetics, Faraday, electromagnetic and Joseph Lister, antiseptic surgery.

His point is these great scientists had presuppositions that life had order. That there was a God. That God gave them wisdom. That you could reason and that things were predictable because they were given by a logical God who wanted you to discover how he’s made the earth and how it works.

Even the law of cause and effect. The second law of thermodynamics. If you go home from this room right now and you walked in and every lamp was turned over, the couch is upside down, you walk in, the drawers are pulled out, the refrigerator’s been opened, all your papers are all over the floor. That’s an effect.

Most of you would not say, hmmm, I don’t think there’s a cause here but there must have been a slight breeze that came through my house but no one else’s. Or would you say, I think we got robbed. Especially when you find that your valuables are gone and your computer’s gone. And all you see where your nice plasma TV use to be are those little hooks...

See, but now wait a second. It’s one of the most basic laws of science. Cause and effect.  The second law of thermodynamics says that everything is winding down. Where I live, it’s a unique to California, but if I don’t cut my grass, it doesn’t grow beautifully, nicer, better, evolving into this immaculate lawn.

I just get weeds. And it just looks bad. When I don’t care of my body, it’s amazing. I just gain weight and I feel lousy. When I don’t take time to invest in relationships, they don’t get better. It’s weird. They get worse. See, the second law of thermodynamics and what we know from the Big Bang, is when you look at all the universe out there - it’s dying, winding down.

Evolution’s presupposition says, it’s going from chaos to order when, in fact, everything we observe [is the opposite]. And so, there’s part of this that says, it just doesn’t answer some of the basic issues.

The final question here is, which theory claim has the best archeological track record for their position? We have our common ancestor, if you read in the macro-evolutionary research, you know that Darwinism doesn’t teach that there were chimpanzees and monkeys and then man. But it teaches that we had a common ancestor and there was a line and this common ancestor, this missing link, and then they stayed monkey/ape and then humans were formed.

I just read an article a guy sent me who does a little research with us, something off of the internet of one of the biggest discoveries they discovered in the last two or three or four weeks, now other scientists are saying, well, whoa, whoa, wait a second. You know, this doesn’t look like the missing link.

In fact, you might be interested sometime,  this is the archeological record. This is just a summary. And going through it would probably be laborious but I’ll highlight, here’s the track record of the archeological discoveries for Darwinian macroevolution.

You have Java Man. The latest research showed that Java Man, he had a leg bone that was almost unquestionably human. The skull, which was found fifty feet away was shown to be, most likely, that of a gibbon-like ape. And the discoverer himself, Dubois, himself eventually concluded that the skull was most likely an ape and admitted that he had not found anything more than purely human bones at the same site.

And yet, in your textbook, it has Java Man. Or you have Piltdown Man. Later, it was found in the 1940s, tests proved that the fossils in this one, and again, this is no way to say that this is the standard. I have very high regard for scientists and their integrity. In this particular case, however, they found that the jaw bone was attached artificially to a human skull, that the teeth had been filed down, and that it had been treated with ore to make it appear older. But that one was in a textbook.

Then there’s the Nebraska Man. 1922. A tooth was found in Nebraska, claimed to be part of another missing link. It turned out, after further research, again, it’s on the front page, it’s in Time or, in the old days, Look Magazine. It makes it to a textbook. And then, now, we find it’s the tooth of an extinct pig.

Neanderthal Man, discovered near the Neander Valley in Germany, it was considered a missing link. It was promoted in thousands of textbooks, museums all across the way. It was discovered later that it actually walked in a stooped position due to suffering from diseases and the disfigured bones were such that they had rickets and arthritis, which was due to a vitamin deficiency.

Neanderthal has since been reclassified as a homo sapien. Then, probably Lucy. Technically a Australopithecus, was to be, in 1974, a three foot tall missing link. This is the answer, this is the missing link.

It wasn’t publically told a lot, but the knee, according to Johanson himself, who was the discoverer, when questioned during a lecture at the University of Minnesota on November 20th, 1986, Lucy’s knee was found sixty to seventy meters lower, two hundred feet lower, in the strata and two to three kilometers away from the other parts.

When asked why he thought it belonged to Lucy, his answer was, anatomical similarity. So, you’ve got a jaw over here, two to three kilometers over here, two hundred feet down. You take this, this, put them together and you say, this is the missing link.

Now this is revealing. Even Richard Leakey, well known evolutionist and director of the national museum in Kenya, this is Mr. Anthropologist himself, concluded, “It is impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species Lucy belongs to.”

Now, all I know is that I have a lens that’s anti-God, or if I have a lens where I’ve met a bunch of people who say they’re followers of Christ, that put me down and are negative and narrow and anything in science and they are just rejecting. That, I have a lens that I don’t read page three and page four and page five of that history.

So, what we want to be is, we want to be, I believe, the kind of Christ followers who say, you know what? We may not understand all that’s happening in science. And what happens after years is, sometimes the problem is, I’ve never seen where science and the Bible contradict. But I have certainly seen where our biblical interpretations of some things or our scientific interpretations of some things radically conflict.

But I think when you look at the evidence, it’s fairly strong. Archeology with regard to scripture, I’m going to not go into it here because it’ll be part of another message but Sir William Ramsay was an archeologist a generation ago who went to Israel to disprove the Bible.

And at the end of his life, he said, the Bible’s historical and archeological accuracy are unsurpassed. No discovery has disproved the biblical accounts to date.

And we have over twenty-five thousand archeological connections in the Old Testament alone, of actual people, places, and events. So, when I look at the archeology, as does the Bible measure up? Versus the archeology of the missing links, I would say, the Bible is pretty strong.

Final questions. And here’s where I want to leave you. I want to leave you with questions. I want to leave you with questions for you and I want to leave you with questions for those people that you care about.

Is Darwinian evolution really the airtight scientific fact that we were led to believe it was and were taught in school? Think about that. Your young people don’t need to dismiss themselves as; I’ve got to be anti-God if I’m going to be a scientist.

Should the recent scientific discoveries among top non-Christian scientists cause you, cause us, to reexamine your view of Darwinian evolution’s validity?

Third, could Darwinian evolution be the intellectual justification for racism, Nazism, sexism, and moral relativism? Could you defend Darwinian philosophy applied to those areas?

And finally, what do you believe, personally? What do you believe about the origin of life? And why? Based upon what? Does your life demonstrate the intellectual consistency with what you say you believe? That’s really the big issue.