After introducing myself to him and making small talk, the stately man interjected he teaches evolution at a college in Georgia. I recall him saying how nice it would be to believe in creation “But there is just too much evidence.”
I’ve heard that phrase before. For me, it has always served as a piece of rhetoric used to intimidate believers in creation. I’ve looked at the so-called “evidence” of evolution and was not impressed.
“That’s the way I feel about creation,” I quickly said. “There’s just too much evidence to believe otherwise.”
We were standing pretty close. He looked me in my eyes but said nothing. People were busy moving around us. He then said something about religious people taking too many things in the Bible literally. Before we could get back to evolution, however, he gave me his card and abruptly walked off.
“Just as well,” I thought. “This may not be the time or place.”
I’m sure evolutionists can rally their scientists and creationists can gather theirs. Both teams will present their evidence with contrasting conclusions as to what they believe happened.
This reminds me of the story of a team of archaeologists who discovered fragments of the existence of an undiscovered king. The pieces were in no particular order, so they began debating if the name was more likely, “King Par Zoe Non” or “King Zoe Non Par.”
As they broke for lunch, the child of one of the archaeologists approached the fragments, noticed the letters and arranged them correctly: No Parking Zone.
The problem was the archaeologists and their preconceived ideas. It is hard to look at evidence objectively once the mind is made up. So how does one judge which view is right — evolution or creation? Most people do not have the time to become an expert and weigh all the evidence themselves.
Consider how a real judge approaches a court case. He has to rely on the evidence presented and make a ruling based on the facts, laws, expert testimony, cross examinations, eyewitnesses and what seems logical in the light of provable facts.
On that basis, anyone can weigh the hard evidence and make their own conclusion. For example, the objective data of proven science is that life comes from life. Eyewitness testimony verifies this fact. Anything else is speculative.
Evolution teaches life came about by chance. Is there evidence to support this? No. Logic, personal experience and eye-witness testimony tells us life comes from life. This fact alone has led billions to believe in a Supreme Being who started all life.
Can you name a single complex device in use today — a wristwatch, cellphone, camera or ink pen — without intelligence behind its existence? Is it reasonable then to believe in a highly Intelligent Creator who designed the far more complex organisms around us?
Proven science also shows each species on Earth reproduce according to its own “kind,” as Genesis 1:21-25 says. This “law” of nature, does not support all life coming from one single cell. It supports the Bible’s view that God created a variety of life forms separate from the other.
Evolutionists can speculate all they want but cats cannot breed with dogs, cows cannot mate with monkeys and a lizard cannot impregnate a lion. Why? Because these creatures are not of the same “kind” and cannot reproduce beyond their species. Have we seen anything different?
If mankind evolved from apes over millions of years — where is the evidence of these intermediate “ape-men”? Scientists draw sketches, but sketches are not proof. What can we actually testify to? We still have monkeys and apes roaming the Earth. We also have humans gracing the Earth. How could apes and monkeys exist today but not their superior “ape-men?” If these “ape-men” existed for millions of years, why is the fossil record so silent?
Shouldn’t there be countless fossils of these “beings,” not just hoaxes surfacing or science fiction movies to rely on? Their “missing link” is still missing. What we do have is highly evolved talk — rhetoric — masquerading as fact. Weigh the evidence, use common sense and decide for yourself.
Scientists can take the ingredients of a cookie, identify what each substance is and how its role, combined with heat, became a treat. But the ingredients won’t tell them who made the cookie. Nor will the ingredients tell them why the cookie was made. This is a problem for evolutionists. People want to know who made these things, and why.
The question of purpose or motive is absent in science. It’s time to stop monkeying around. Without a motive, this court rules in favor of creation.
*For a copy of The Little White Book of Light featuring more than 100 Wright Way columns, visit barnesandnoble.com, booksamillion.com and amazon.com.