|MetaFilter's site and server can always use upgrades of hardware, software, and bandwidth, as well as more stable funding for continued support of its small but high-skilled moderation and backend team! If you'd like to chip in, you can donate to Metafilter.|
Living, for the moment in the google cache also. This is only a reference for this thread it does not represent the opinions or beliefs of MetaFilter. Following is Ray Comfort's 50-page introduction & rebuttal for Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.
This is the html version of the file http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1 Origin of Species 150th Anniversary Edition Charles Darwin Alachua, Florida 32615 Page 2 Bridge-Logos Alachua, FL 32615 USA Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition by Charles Darwin Copyright ©2009 by Bridge-Logos All rights reserved. Under International Copyright Law, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means— electronic, mechanical, photographic (photocopy), recording, or otherwise— without written permission from the Publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: pending International Standard Book Number 978-0-88270-919-2 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations in this book are from the King James Version of the Bible. Page 3 CONTENTS SPECIAL INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION CHAPTER II VARIATION UNDER NATURE CHAPTER III STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE CHAPTER IV NATURAL SELECTION CHAPTER V LAWS OF VARIATION CHAPTER VI DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY CHAPTER VII INSTINCT CHAPTER VIII HYBRIDISM CHAPTER IX ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS; RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION Page 4 Page 5 Special Introduction The History of Charles Darwin ChArLeS roBert DArwIN was born on February 12, 1809, in Shrewsbury, england. he was the fifth of six children born into a wealthy, professional family. his father and grandfather were both doctors, and his mother was the daughter of Josiah wedgwood, of pottery fame. when he was eight years old, his mother died. his father sent him to an Anglican boarding school until he was age sixteen, but young Charles showed less interest in studying than in hunting, natural history, and scientific experimentation. In 1825, he enrolled at edinburgh University. Darwin’s father expected him to go into medicine, and although he entered edinburgh University to pursue a medical degree, he found he couldn’t stand the sight of blood and left after two years. he then transferred to Cambridge (Christ’s College) to study for the ministry. As a clergyman, he would have the free time to follow his real intellectual love: natural history. Darwin was a passionate student of nature, and while in school he amassed a considerable beetle collection as well as other specimens. After befriending botany professor rev. John Stevens henslow, his interest in zoology and geography grew. Page 6 Origin of Species At age twenty-two, Darwin was presented with an opportunity that would change his life. henslow recommended him for a position on a British Navy survey vessel, the HMS Beagle, which was about to sail on a two-year coastal survey expedition to South America. her captain was anxious to have a naturalist and gentleman companion on board, and Charles readily agreed. the voyage ended up lasting nearly five years, during which time Darwin was able to explore extensively in South America and numerous islands in the Pacific ocean, including the Galapagos Islands. A young Charles Darwin Page 7 Introduction on returning to england in 1836, Darwin set to work examining and disseminating the extensive collection of specimens he acquired during the voyage. he quickly established a reputation as an accomplished naturalist on the London scene. In 1839 he married his cousin, emma wedgwood. that same year he published his journal of the voyage of the Beagle, which brought him immediate celebrity among London’s intellectuals. In 1842 he and emma moved to Down house in Kent. It was there that she bore ten children and she and Charles spent the rest of their lives. During his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist, Darwin had studied certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. he eventually concluded that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying degrees related. Emma and Charles Darwin Page 8 Origin of Species It appears that by 1838 his concept of descent with modification by the mechanism of natural selection was largely formed. Although Darwin is the most familiar name associated with evolution, he was only persuaded to publish his work when he learned that another young naturalist, Alfred russell wallace, was developing ideas about the evolution of species similar to his own. In 1858, at the urging of friends, he prepared a brief paper which was read before the royal Society along with the paper wallace had written. the following year he published On the Origin of Species, which he considered an abstract of a larger future work. During the remainder of his life Charles Darwin continued his research, publishing three additional books on explicitly evolutionary topics, and other books on topics including climbing plants, insect-orchid mutualisms, and earthworms. At the age of seventy-three, Charles Darwin went to meet his Maker at Down house on April 19, 1882, with his wife, emma, by his side. Timeline of Darwin’s life 1809: Charles robert Darwin is born on February 12 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. 1817: Darwin’s mother Susannah (née wedgwood) dies when he is eight years old. 1825–1827: Darwin’s father removes him from Shrewsbury Grammar School due to his poor progress and sends him to edinburgh University. he later chastised his son, saying, “You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.” 1827–1831: Darwin enrolls at Christ’s College, Cambridge University to study theology in preparation for life as a country parson. he is introduced to beetle collecting and becomes known as “the man who walks with henslow” through spending a lot of time with the professor of botany. Page 9 1831–1836: Darwin makes major natural history collections as he travels around South America as the ship’s naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle. 1835–1836: Darwin first considers the evolution of species while pondering the variations among Galapagos mockingbirds, writing in his notebook, “If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes will be well worth examining, for such facts would undermine the stability of species.” 1837: Darwin draws a simple evolutionary tree in one of his notebooks below the words “I think.” 1838–1839: Darwin starts to develop his theory of natural selection. 1839: Darwin marries his cousin, emma wedgwood. they move to London and have two children. eventually they have ten children, although only seven survive to adulthood. Publishes The Journal of a Naturalist. 1840: Publishes Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle. 1842: Darwin wrote his first essay outlining his evolutionary theory. he moves to Down house in Bromley, Kent, where he lives for the rest of his life. Charles Darwin and his son William Page 10 Origin of Species HMS Beagle by Conrad Martens Cross section diagram of HMS Beagle Page 11 Introduction 1844: Darwin secretly writes a landmark essay on evolution by natural selection and instructs his wife to have it published in the event of his death, writing in a note to her, “I have just finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe [...] my theory is true, and if it be accepted even by one competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science.” Darwin writes to botanist Joseph hooker telling him of his evolutionary ideas, saying it is “like confessing a murder.” 1851: Darwin’s first daughter, Annie elizabeth, dies at the age of ten, probably from tuberculosis. 1854–59: Continues to develop the theory of evolution through reading, consulting other naturalists, observation and experimentation in his garden and the countryside around Down house. 1856: Starts work on, On the Origin of Species. 1858: Darwin receives a letter from Alfred russel wallace in Indonesia, a young naturalist who has independently arrived at a theory of natural selection that is nearly identical to Darwin’s. 1858: Both Darwin’s and wallace’s theories are presented to the Linnaean Society on July 1. Darwin was unable to present his paper—the funeral for his youngest son took place on the same day as the meeting. 1859: Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species, putting forward his theory of evolution by natural selection. 1871: Darwin’s The Descent of Man is published, explicitly applying his theories of evolution to humans. 1882: Charles Darwin dies. his friend, neighbor and scientist John Lubbock MP secures his burial in westminster Abbey. Darwin’s funeral is attended by england’s leading politicians, scientists, and clergy.1 1 Source:www.darwin200.org/press-releases/darwin-timeline.doc. Page 12 Origin of Species Statue of Charles Darwin in the Natural History Museum, London. Page 13 Introduction The DNA Code Consider for a moment whether you could ever believe this publication happened by accident. here’s the argument: there was nothing. then paper appeared, and ink fell from nowhere onto the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of the english alphabet. Initially, the letters said something like this: “fgsn&k cn1clxc dumbh cckvkduh vstupidm ncncx.”As you can see, random letters rarely produce words that make sense. But in time, mindless chance formed them into the order of meaningful words with spaces between them. Periods, commas, capitals, italics, quotes, paragraphs, margins, etc., also came into being in the correct placements. the sentences then grouped themselves to relate to each other, giving them coherence. Page numbers fell in sequence at the right places, and headers, footers, and footnotes appeared from nowhere on the pages, matching the portions of text to which they related. the paper trimmed itself and bound itself into a Bible. the ink for the cover fell from different directions, being careful not to incorrectly mingle with the other colors, forming itself into the graphics and title. there are multiple copies of this publication, so it then developed the ability to replicate itself thousands of times over. with this thought in mind, notice that in the following description of DNA, it is likened to a book: If you think of your genome (all of your chromosomes) as the book that makes you, then the genes are the words that make up the story.… the letters that make up the words are called DNA bases, and there are only four of them: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (t). It’s hard to believe that an alphabet with only four letters can make something as wonderful and complex as a person!2 2 Kids Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline <http://genetics.gsk.com/kids/dna01. htm>. Page 14 Origin of Species 0 to liken DNA to a book is a gross understatement. the amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell is equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size.3 It would take a person typing 60 words per minute, eight hours a day, around 50 years to type the human genome. And if all the DNA in your body’s 100 trillion cells was put end to end, it would reach to the sun (90 million miles away) and back over 600 times.4 Aside from the immense volume of information that your DNA contains, consider whether all the intricate, interrelated parts of this “book” could have come together by sheer chance. Physical chemist Charles thaxton writes: the DNA code is quite simple in its basic structure (although enormously complex in its functioning). By now most people are familiar with the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. It is like a long ladder, twisted into a spiral. Sugar and phosphate molecules form the sides of the ladder. Four bases make up its “rungs.” these are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. these bases act as the “letters” of a genetic alphabet. they combine in various sequences to form words, sentences, and paragraphs. these base sequences are all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. the DNA code is a genetic “language” that communicates information to the cell.… the DNA molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise: the “letters” must be in a very exact sequence. If they are out of order, it is like a typing error in a message. the instructions that it gives the cell are garbled. this is what a mutation is. 3 Denton, Evolution: Theory in Crisis. 4 “Genome Facts,” Nova online <www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/ facts.html>. Page 15 Introduction the discovery of the DNA code gives the argument from design a new twist. Since life is at its core a chemical code, the origin of life is the origin of a code. A code is a very special kind of order. It represents “specified complexity.”5 Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by accident? or does it point to an intelligent Designer? even the director of the U.S. National human Genome research Institute concluded there is a God based on his study of DNA. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome, believes there is a rational basis for a Creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”: when you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1-billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.6 In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes. In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful 5 Charles B. thaxton, Ph.D., “DNA, Design and the origin of Life,” November 13–16, 1986 <www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign. html#ref15>. 6 Steven Swinford, “I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome,” June 11, 2006 <www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece>. Page 16 Origin of Species argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution: It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism. In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.” According to Flew, “It seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”7 DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell—which could not have arisen by accidental, mindless chance. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer. Janet Porter reasons: 7 rich Deem, “one Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest?” <www.godandscience. org/apologetics/flew.html>. Charles Darwin’s study room. Page 17 Introduction there is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it! If we can all admit that the faces of Mt. rushmore didn’t just accidentally appear, how much more complex are the people standing behind the podiums who want to be president?… which is more complex? A. the faces of Mt. rushmore, B. a 747, C. your cell phone, d. a worm. If you guessed “worm,” you are right. the DNA structures, digestive system, and reproductive system are far more complex than those other things that obviously had a designer. Maybe, just maybe, someone designed that worm, too.8 DNA Similarities one typical “proof” given for ape-to-man evolution is that chimpanzees and humans have very similar DNA. In previous DNA studies, based on only portions of the chimp genome, scientists announced that humans and chimps were 98–99 percent identical, depending on what was counted. After completing the mapping of the chimp genome in 2005, evolutionists are now hailing the result as “the most dramatic confirmation yet” that chimps and humans have common ancestry. their overwhelming “proof” is the finding that the genetic difference is 4 percent—which is interesting proof, because it’s actually twice the amount that they’ve been claiming for years.9 8 Janet Porter (ne. Folger), “huckabee was right,” June 12, 2007 www. worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ArtICLe_ID=56123. 9 David A. Dewitt, Ph.D., “Chimp Genome Sequence Very Different From Man,” September 5, 2005 <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/ 0905chimp.asp>. Page 18 Origin of Species In addition, even if the difference is only 4 percent of the 3 billion base pairs of DNA in every cell, that represents 120,000,000 entries in the DNA code that are different! In our DNA instruction book, that’s equivalent to about 12 million words—so that seemingly small percentage has a tremendous impact.10 Men and monkeys also have another fundamental difference: humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps have 24, so the DNA isn’t as similar as you’ve been led to believe. More importantly, this claim of evolutionists makes a huge assumption. what is the scientific basis for assuming that similar DNA means a common ancestor? when you see a biplane and a jet—which share common features of wings, body, tires, engine, controls, etc.—do you assume that one must have evolved from the other naturally, without a maker? that’s illogical. It’s more reasonable to conclude that similar design indicates a common, intelligent designer. An architect typically uses the same building materials for numerous buildings, and a car manufacturer commonly uses the same parts in various models. So if we have a common Designer, we would expect to find that a similar “blueprint” was used in many different creatures. After all, DNA is the coding for the way our bodies look and operate, so creatures with similar features or body functions (eyes for vision, enzymes for digestion, etc.) would have similar coding for these things in their DNA. Because human cells have the same biochemical functions as many different animals and even plants, we share some of the same genes. the more we have in common, the more we find similar coding in the blueprints. this is just simple reasoning—not proof of common ancestry! 10 Don Batten, “human/chimp DNA Similarity,” Creation, vol. 19, iss. 1, December 1996, pp. 21–22 <www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/ dna.asp>. Page 19 Introduction So, even though we share 96 percent of our genetic make- up with chimps, that does not mean we are 96 percent chimp. Be careful you don’t fall for the illogic of this “evolutionary proof,” or scientists will not only make a monkey out of you, they’ll make a banana out of you. According to evolutionist Steven Jones, a renowned British geneticist, “we also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas...”11 Transitional Forms when Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he had a lot of ideas and conjecture about how this immense variety of life came about. But what evidence do we now have that his ideas were correct? If evolution were true, and humans and chimps did have a common ancestor, we would expect to find something that is half-monkey/half-man. these intermediate stages where one species supposedly evolves into another species are called “transitional forms.” Because evolution is said to have happened in the past, we have to look to paleontology, the science of the study of fossils, to find evidence on the history of life. well-known French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé explains: Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms.… only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.12 whether the theory of evolution is a fable or a fact should be seen in the fossil evidence. If evolution were true, the 11 Steve Jones, interview on The Science Show, broadcast on ABC radio, January 1, 2002 <www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s456478.htm>. 12 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 82. Page 20 Origin of Species fossil record should reveal millions of transitional forms, as life gradually evolved from one species to another. Darwin understood that evolutionary theory was dependent on these “missing links.” he wrote in Origin of Species: why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?13 Darwin acknowledged that the absence of intermediates put his theory in doubt, but he attributed their lack to the scarcity of fossils at that time—and he had faith that they would eventually be found. however, nearly 150 years later, the situation hasn’t changed. After scientists have searched diligently for a century and a half for evidence, we now have over 100 million fossils catalogued in the world’s museums, with 250,000 different species. Surely this should be enough to give us an accurate picture of our past. remember, paleontology holds the key to whether this theory is true. So do we see the gradual progression from simple life forms to more complex? Did we find the millions of transitional forms that would be expected if evolution were true? excited evolutionists believed that they found one back in 1999. A Chinese farmer glued together the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, and completely fooled the worldwide scientific community (including National Geographic magazine) into thinking that they had found the “missing link” 13 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Mur ray, 1872), pp. 133–134. Page 21 Introduction between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds.14 Called Archaeoraptor, it was quickly exposed as a fraud. Storrs L. olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural history at the Smithsonian Institution, stated that the feathered dinosaur that was pictured is “simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.” he criticized the magazine for publicizing this forgery, saying, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism,” and he added, “the idea of feathered dinosaurs...is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.”15 Aside from “feathered dinosaurs,” many other supposed “missing links” have been debunked. For example, a Berkeley website claims that “there are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.” the only example they cite as proof is 14 Christopher P. Sloan, “Feathers for t. rex?” National Geo graphic, vol. 196, no. 5, November 1999, pp. 99–105. 15 Storrs L. olsen, open letter to Dr. Peter raven, Secretary, Na tional Geographic Society, November 1, 1999 <www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter. asp>. Page 22 Origin of Species Pakicetus. the website, labeled “Understanding evolution for teachers,” describes Pakicetus as an early ancestor to modern whales. how can scientists tell this? According to the website, “Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing.”16 In an accompanying illustration, paleontologist Phil Gingerich shows a swimming creature with its forelimbs on the way to becoming flippers, claiming that it is “perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.” Although the body he drew does look like a very convincing transitional form, his conclusion was based on only a few fragments of a skull. Not a single bone of the body had been found! once a more complete skeleton was discovered, it proved that Pakicetus looked nothing like the creature he imagined.17 Besides, many of God’s creatures have similar hearing (how many different ways can you make an ear that hears sound?). the eyes of many of God’s creatures are very similar. Pigs have skin that is incredibly close to human skin—closer than primates. we both have noses, ears, eyes, liver, kidneys, lungs, teeth, and a brain. Did man evolve from the pig, rather than the primate? It would seem so if we are going to be consistent with the evolutionist’s logic. the pig and man have many features in common. the creatures that Gingerich was looking at were simply different animals with similar hearing ability, created by the same Creator, and his conclusion was nothing but wild and unscientific speculation. Sadly, this happens all too frequently 16 “Understanding evolution For teachers,” University of California Museum of Paleontology <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/ IAtransitional.shtml>. 17 Alexander williams and Jonathan Sarfati, “Not at all like a whale,” Creation, vol. 27, iss. 2, March 2005, pp. 20–22 <www.answersingenesis. org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp>. Page 23 Introduction in the evolutionary world. Many alleged “missing links” are based on only a single fossil fragment and the wishful thinking of evolutionists. After acknowledging that “imaginations certainly took flight over Archaeoraptor,” a U.S. News & World Report writer added: Archaeoraptor is hardly the first “missing link” to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in england’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax.18 Piltdown was a deliberate fraud, as a paleontologist filed down teeth from an orangutan jaw and included it with pieces from a human skull, treated them with acid to make them appear old, and buried them in a gravel pit. As far as man’s supposed ancestry is concerned, the Piltdown Man fraud wasn’t an isolated incident. the famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. the rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it’s similar to that of modern man. And don’t look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. he died of exposure—his skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he also spoke and was artistic and 18 Mary Lord, “the Piltdown Chicken: Scientists eat crow over so-called missing link,” U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000 <www.usnews. com/usnews/culture/articles/000214/archive_032798.htm>. Page 24 Origin of Species 0 religious. In a PBS documentary, richard Leakey, the world’s foremost paleoanthropologist, admitted: If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. to date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy.… If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.19 (emphasis added) even the classic example of horse evolution is fictionalized. evolutionist Boyce rensberger addressed a symposium attended by 150 scientists at the Field Museum of Natural history in Chicago, which considered problems facing the theory of evolution. he describes what the fossil evidence reveals for horses: the popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four- toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. transitional forms are unknown.20 (emphasis added) this is the case not just for horses but throughout the entire animal kingdom. rather than the millions of transitional forms evolutionists would expect to find, all we have at best 19 richard Leakey, in a PBS documentary, 1990 <www.wasdarwinright. com/earlyman-f.htm>. 20 Boyce rensberger, “Ideas on evolution Going through a revolution Among Scientists,” Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, sec. 4, p. 15. Page 25 Introduction are a handful of disputable examples. harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.… All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.21 The Missing Link In May of 2009, scientists claimed that they had found the missing link. headlines boldly stated: “Scientists Unveil Missing Link In evolution: Scientists have unveiled a 47- million-year-old fossilized skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.”22 then they stated: “the search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years—but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.”23 that was a public admission that despite many scientists claiming that Darwinian evolution is a proven fact, they hadn’t found anything for 200 years. the media reported: Sir David Attenborough said Darwin “would have been thrilled” to have seen the fossil and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. “this is the one that connects us directly with them.… Now people 21 Stephen Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: w.w. Norton, 1980), pp. 181, 189. 22 http://news.sky.com 23 Ibid Page 26 Origin of Species can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link.’… the link they would have said up to now is missing— well it’s no longer missing.” 24 All this proves is that some scientists are willing to lie in an attempt to prove their pet theories, and they have a huge incentive to lie. A fossil that’s believed to be millions of years old, and an intriguing theory to match it could be a lucrative book deal, high honorarium speaking engagements, and of course a lasting legacy. But was this the missing link? Not according to CBS news. they said, “So while we don’t know exactly what Ida means to human origins, she’s proof we are endlessly fascinated by where we came from.”25 According to The Wall Street Journal, “the discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn’t been found.”26 Evolution’s Difficult Questions Many have zealously embraced Darwinian evolution without question, as if it were the gospel truth. But can evolution stand the test of close examination? Zoologists have recorded an amazing 20,000 species of fish. each of these species has a two-chambered heart that pumps cold blood throughout its cold body. there are 6,000 species of reptiles. they also have cold blood, but theirs is a three-chambered heart (except for the crocodile, which has four). the 1,000 or so different amphibians (frogs, toads, and newts) have cold blood and a three-chambered heart. 24 http://www.guardian.co (italics added). 25 May 21, 2009 26 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html Page 27 Introduction there are over 9,000 species of birds. From the massive Andean condor with its wingspan of 12 feet to the tiny hummingbird (whose heart beats 1,400 times a minute), each of those 9,000 species has a four-chambered heart (left and right atrium, left and right ventricle)—just like humans. of course, the 15,000 species of mammals also have a pumping, four-chambered heart, which faithfully pumps blood throughout a series of intricate blood vessels to the rest of the body. here are some interesting questions for the thinking evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why? Did the heart in all these different species of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals evolve before there were blood vessels throughout their bodies? when did the blood evolve? was it before the vessels evolved or after they evolved? If it was before, what was it that carried the blood to the heart, if there were no vessels? Did the heart beat before the blood evolved? why was it beating if there was no blood to pump? If it wasn’t beating, why did it start when it didn’t know anything about blood? If the blood vessels evolved before there was blood, why did they evolve if there was no such thing as blood? And if the blood evolved before the heart evolved, what was it that kept it circulating around the body? the only reasonable answer to these questions is that God made the human body (and the bodies of all the other creatures) with a heart, lungs (to oxygenate the blood), kidneys (to filter wastes from the blood), blood vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to hold it all in), etc., at one moment in time, as the Bible states. Scientist Brad harrub sums it up well: the final hurdle that evolutionists have not (and cannot) overcome involves the co-dependence of the respiratory system and the circulatory system. the heart Page 28 Origin of Species top: Charles Darwin as an ape published in the hornet, published in 1871. Below left: Charles Darwin as a monkey on the cover of La Petite Lune, published in the 1880s. Below right: Charles Darwin cartoon, published in 1871 in Vanity Fair. Page 29 Introduction muscle requires oxygenated blood to remain alive. the respiratory system depends on the circulating blood to deliver oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. So which came first, and how was it able to function properly without the other? Yet, another chicken-egg problem for Darwinians! evolution may continue to be taught as a “fact” in the classroom, but it has yet to answer such basic life-dependency questions as these.27 or, consider the human eye. Man has never developed a camera lens anywhere near the inconceivable intricacy of the human eye. the human eye is an amazing interrelated system of about forty individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens, and optic nerve. It has more to it than just the 137 million light-sensitive special cells that send messages to the unbelievably complex brain. About 130 million of these cells look like tiny rods, and they handle the black and white vision. the other seven million are cone shaped and allow us to see in color. the retina cells receive light impressions, which are then translated into electric pulses and sent directly to the brain through the optic nerve. A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses as color, contrast, depth, etc., which then allows us to see “pictures” of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve, and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet together they capture, deliver, and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages per millisecond! think about that for a moment. It would take dozens of computers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task. the eye is an example of what is referred to as “irreducible complexity.” It would be absolutely impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of genetic 27 Brad harrub, Ph.D., “the Breath of Life—Not a Product of evolu- tion,” February 2006 <www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2835>. Page 30 Origin of Species mutation and natural selection, to be able to create forty separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development. Ask yourself how the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing not only appeared from nothing, but evolved into interrelated and working parts. evolutionist robert Jastrow acknowledges that highly trained scientists could not have improved upon “blind chance”: the eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. how could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? Many people in Darwin’s day agreed with theologian william Pauley, who commented, “there cannot be a design without a designer.”28 And this marvelous design occurs not just in humans, but in all the different creatures: horses, ants, dogs, whales, lions, flies, ducks, fish, etc. think about what the theory of evolution claims: the eyes, in working pairs, of all these creatures slowly developed over millions of years. each of them was blind until all the parts miraculously came together and interrelated with the others, because all parts are needed for the eye to function. then each creature had its two eyes work in harmony with the brain to interpret those images. Fortunately, each of these creatures simultaneously evolved whatever matching parts each would need: sockets, skin, eyelids, eyelashes, tear ducts, muscles to blink, etc. You’ve probably been led to believe that the first simple creatures had rudimentary eyes, and that as creatures slowly evolved their eyes evolved along with them. however, that’s not what scientists have found. Not only is there no evidence 28 robert Jastrow, “evolution: Selection for perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 86. Page 31 Introduction of this occurring, but some of the most complex eyes have been discovered in the “simplest” creatures. riccardo Levi-Setti, professor emeritus of Physics at the University of Chicago, writes of the trilobite’s eye: this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. the realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction...the design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure.29 how could the amazing, seeing eye have come about purely by blind chance? Based on the evidence, wouldn’t a reasonable person conclude that the eye is astonishingly complex and could not have evolved gradually, and that each creature’s eyes are uniquely designed? even Charles Darwin admitted the incredible complexity of the eye in The Origin of Species: to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic 29 riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 57–58. Page 32 Origin of Species aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.30 even more incredible, though, is that Darwin went on to say that he believed the eye could nonetheless have been formed by natural selection. he was right on one point. If a Designer is left out of the equation, such a thought is absurd in the highest degree. 30 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1971), p. Darwin’s theory in the Punch almanac for 1882, published at the end of 1881. Page 33 Introduction Vestigial Organs—Leftovers Again? Most likely you’ve heard that “vestigial organs” are proof that we’ve evolved from more primitive forms. Because these organs supposedly have no purpose, evolutionists assume they have outlived their usefulness and are “leftovers” from our less advanced ancestors. But even if an organ were no longer needed, wouldn’t it only prove devolution? this fits well with the Law of entropy— that all things deteriorate over time. what evolution requires, however, is not the loss but the addition of information, where an organism increases in complexity. So “vestigial organs” still wouldn’t help the evolutionist’s case. Besides, it’s not even scientifically possible to prove that something has no use, because its use can always be discovered as more information becomes available. And that’s exactly what has happened. It was claimed at the Scopes trial that there are “no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.”31 today the list has shrunk to virtually zero. Scientists have discovered that each of these organs does indeed have a purpose: for example, the appendix is part of the human immune system, and the “tailbone” supports muscles that are necessary for daily bodily functions. In their zeal to provide “evidence” of evolution, scientists have proclaimed organs as useless simply because they were ignorant of their functions at the time. they were there all along, but evolutionists just didn’t know it. Isn’t it possible that the same could be true with God? Just because you’re ignorant of his presence doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. 31 horatio hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (Dayton, tN: Bryan College, 1925, reprinted 1990), p. 268. Page 34 Origin of Species 0 The Key Is in the Context Charles Darwin has been called a racist. Critics maintain that he referred to black people as “lower animals,” and the black man as “a miserable animal,”32 comparing him to “some ape as low as a baboon,” likening the “negro” to a “gorilla.”33 Are these accusations true? the key is to look at them contextually: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. the break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”34 Critics also say that he looked down on women as being inferior. Again, we need to look at his own words in context: “the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…men are capable of a decided pre-eminence 32 In a letter of 23 May 1833 to his cousin, william Darwin Fox, he wrote: “In tierra del [sic] I first saw bona fide savages; & they are as savage as the most curious person would desire.—A wild man is indeed a miserable animal, but one well worth seeing.” Darwin Correspondence Project-Letter 207. 33 Darwin, C. r. 1871. Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition. 34 Ibid. Page 35 Introduction over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”35 Another Thought If you find it hard to believe that there was an Intelligent Designer, give this some thought. Man, with all his genius, can’t make a grain of sand from nothing. he can’t make a rock, a leaf, a flower, a living singing bird, a croaking frog, or even a grain of dead sand, from nothing. we can recreate, but we can’t create anything material from nothing, living or dead. Not a thing. Did you realize that if we could simply make one blade of grass without using existing materials, we could solve the world’s hunger problem? If we could make a blade of grass, we could then create a lot more grass, feed the green material through a machine that does what the common cow does, and have pure white full cream milk, then smooth cream, delicious yoghurt, tasty cheese, and smooth butter. But we can’t make even one blade of grass from nothing, let alone giving it the ability to reproduce after its own kind, as regular grass does. We have no idea where to begin when it comes to creating. If that’s true, how intellectually dishonest is it to say that this entire incredible creation in which we live, came into existence with no Intelligent Designer? Still, if you are set on believing that some sort of unknown creative force (made up of chaos and probability) brought all this incredible order into being, you will stay with that belief. You will also be offended by the simplicity of Genesis— that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and everything therein. You will also more than likely have a problem with where Cain obtained his wife. But I may have an answer that you could be willing to believe? how about he randomly mutated into a woman, split, and married her? 35 Ibid. Page 36 Origin of Species His Famous Student Charles Darwin said: “we civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. there is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” then Darwin compassionately said: “the aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871-1896), p. 133-134. “Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. every crossing between two breeds which are not quite Page 37 Introduction equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. this means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. the favorable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. the stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. “If the case were different the progressive process would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and for the procreation of their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede into the background. therefore a corrective measure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new and rigorous selection takes place, according to Page 38 Origin of Species strength and health.” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler (1889- 1945)36 “Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider this fact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization which these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to their rigmarole.” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler37 “In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscious of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as ‘instinct.’” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler38 “For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler39 36 http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt (Italics added). 37 Ibid 38 Ibid 39 Ibid Page 39 Introduction “organization is a thing that derives its existence from organic life, organic evolution. when the same set of ideas have found lodgment in the minds of a certain number of people they tend of themselves to form a certain degree of order among those people and out of this inner formation something that is very valuable arises. of course here, as everywhere else, one must take account of those human weaknesses which make men hesitate, especially at the beginning, to submit to the control of a superior mind.” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler40 “But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. these stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler41 The Hit List well-known American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, published an article which provided support for the fact that hitler was an evolutionist.42 In it he introduces Benjamin Kidd, “an english commentator highly respected by both academic and lay circles.” Kidd said that in Germany “Darwin’s doctrine became a justification of war” and is quoted by Gould as follows: “Darwin’s theories 40 Ibid 41 Ibid 42 Stephen Jay Gould, “william Jennings Bryan’s Last Campaign,” Natural History, November 1987, pp. 22-24. Page 40 Origin of Species came to be openly set out in political and military text books as the full justification for war and highly organized schemes of national policy in which the doctrine of force became the doctrine of right.”43 Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) was an atheist and evolutionist author. he said of hitler: “the German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”44 hitler believed that the German people were the superior race that deserved to rule the world. here is his “hit List” which reveals how he distinguished between the different races (notice his evolutionary progression from human to ape): Nordic—close to Pure Aryan. Germanic—predominantly Aryan. Mediterranean—slightly Aryan. Slavic—close to half-Aryan, half-Ape. oriental—slight Ape preponderance. Black African—predominantly Ape. Jewish (fiendish skull)—close to pure Ape.45 Darwin and Atheism You will rarely find an atheist who doesn’t embrace Darwinism with both arms. this is because the theory deals with God and his moral accountability. If evolution is solely responsible for creation, then there is no Creator and no moral responsibility. there are no absolutes of right and wrong, and therefore anything goes as long as it’s within the bounds of civil law. with one change of worldview, any sexual exploits become mere natural instincts to further our animal species. however, Charles Darwin was not an atheist. In Origin of 43 Ibid 44 Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947. 45 The Hitler Movement, James M rhodes (hoover Institution) p. 107. Page 41 Introduction Species he refers to creation as the “works of God,” and calls him the “Creator” an amazing seven times. So the atheist has a problem. If he doesn’t believe (as Darwin did) that there is a Creator, he is saying that nothing created everything, and that’s a scientific impossibility. he will deny that he believes that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment. But if he says of his toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which (again) is a scientific impossibility. So to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that “something” was. So he’s not an atheist—he believes in an initial cause. richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists, can’t claim the title “atheist,” because he understands that something must have created everything. he said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”46 Francis Crick, a Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, noted, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”47 Everything has the appearance of being intelligently designed, from the design of the atom to the harmonious design of the universe. So it’s understandable that he says, “why there almost certainly is no God.”48 his God-given reason won’t let him rule out a Creator. the fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Dawkins believes to be his most persuasive argument that no gods exist. he says: “the argument from improbability, properly 46 richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker (New York: w.w. Norton & Company), p. 1. 47 Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, pg. 138 (1990. 48 Italics added. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why- there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html Page 42 Origin of Species deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist.”49 Again, there is that nagging doubt. Although he is embarrassed by the following words about how the universe could have come into being, he revealed the niggling necessity for some sort of Cause: “It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”50 Do you believe that nothing created everything? If you do, then your “nothing” isn’t nothing. It is something because it had the amazing ability to create everything. So do you then believe that something created everything, although you are not sure what that something was?51 Keeping in mind that the most intelligent of human beings can’t create a grain of sand from nothing, do you think that that “something” that made everything was intelligent? It obviously is; and if you do believe the “force” that made the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars was intelligent, you then believe that there was an intelligent designer. You have just become an unscientific knuckle-dragger in the eyes of our learning institutions that embrace Darwinism. But you are not alone if you believe in God. Many of our greatest scientists believed in the existence of a Creator: Galileo, Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis 49 Italics added. 50 “expelled,” italics added. 51 these thoughts are expounded further in Nothing Created Everything, ray Comfort (wND). Page 43 Introduction Pasteur and Kepler, just to name a few. einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” he also said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” the incredible harmony in creation proves beyond a doubt to any thinking mind that there is a Creator. Now you just have to figure out if this Creator requires moral responsibility from you. Atheist Penn and the Time Bomb Let me tell you why I believe that there is an Intelligent Designer, why the designer is the God of the Bible, and why I believe that he holds each one of us morally accountable. Before I do, I want to quote someone I greatly respect for what he said. Pen Jillette (from Penn and teller) is such a committed atheist, each time he gets a dollar bill he says that he puts a line through “In God we trust.” he said, “only an obsessive nut would not allow the words ‘In God we trust’ in his pocket, and I cross the word ‘God’ off every bill I touch, and I don’t carry change. that’s me.”52 But listen to what he says about Christianity: “If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life, or whatever, and you think that, well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward … how much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you, 52 http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/ roadpenninnogod.html Page 44 Origin of Species 0 and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you—there is a certain point where I tackle you—and this is more important than that.”53 I heartily agree with him, so please stay with me. I deeply care about you and where you will spend eternity. Back in June of 2009, I saw Disney’s Up. I went because a close friend said that it was so good and so funny, he saw it twice (he rarely goes to the movies). the skillful animators were able to show the joy of true love in marriage. In a matter of minutes, a cute kid and his girlfriend grew to adulthood, got married, and loved each other with a deep passion as they grew old together. then she died. Suddenly, every joy-filled memory became unbearably painful for the elderly man, and they captured that deep pain in caricature. I cried my eyes out. I wanted to call my friend and say, “I thought you said this was a comedy!” Up took me down. I cried that night at home also, because I was graphically reminded me of something I carry daily. every loving husband and wife will be torn apart by death. It’s just a matter of time. each of us is strapped to a ticking time bomb. But that’s not the tragedy that drove me to my knees. It’s that God offers eternal life to every dying person, and most refuse his “unspeakable gift.” that’s the real human tragedy. Please think about your sins, then think about the Savior and what he did for guilty sinners such as us. Don’t ask God for “proof.” You don’t need it. You already have the necessary proof through your conscience and because of creation. Ask instead for salvation, while you still have time. every beat of your heart is another tick. Solving Life’s Most Important Question the Choice. Imagine I offered you a choice of four gifts: 53 http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2009/02/atheist- penn-jillette-tells-christians-to-evangelize.html Page 45 Introduction • the original Mona Lisa • the keys to a brand new Lamborghini • A million dollars in cash • A parachute You can pick only one. which would you choose? Before you decide, here’s some information that will help you to make the wisest choice: You have to jump 10,000 feet out of an airplane. Does that help you to connect the dots? It should, because you need the parachute. It’s the only one of the four gifts that will help with your dilemma. the others may have some value, but they are useless when it comes to facing the law of gravity in a 10,000-foot fall. the knowledge that you will have to jump should produce a healthy fear in you—and that kind of fear is good because it can save your life. remember that. Now think of the four major religions: • hinduism • Buddhism • Islam • Christianity which one should you choose? Before you decide, here’s some information that will help you determine which one is the wisest choice: All of humanity stands on the edge of eternity. we are all going to die. we will all have to pass through the door of death. It could happen to us in twenty years, or in six months … or today. For most of humanity, death is a huge and terrifying plummet into the unknown. So what should we do? Do you remember how it was your knowledge of the jump that produced that healthy fear, and that fear helped you to make the right choice? You know what the law of gravity can do to you. In the same way, we are going to look at another law, and hopefully your knowledge of what it can do to you Page 46 Origin of Species will help you make the right choice, about life’s greatest issue. So, stay with me—and remember to let fear work for you. The Leap After we die we have to face what is called “the law of sin and death.”54 we know that Law as “the ten Commandments.” So let’s look at that Law and see how you will do when you face it on Judgment Day. have you loved God above all else? Is he first in your life? he should be. he’s given you your life and everything that is dear to you. Do you love him with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength? that’s the requirement of the First Commandment. or have you broken the Second Commandment by making a god in your mind that you’re comfortable with—where you say, “My god is a loving and merciful god who would never send anyone to hell”? that god does not exist; he’s a figment of the imagination. to create a god in your mind (your own image of God) is something the Bible calls “idolatry.” Idolaters will not enter heaven. have you ever used God’s name in vain, as a cuss word to express disgust? that’s called “blasphemy,” and it’s very serious in God’s sight. this is breaking the third Command- ment, and the Bible says God will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. have you always honored your parents implicitly, and kept the Sabbath holy? If not, you have broken the Fourth and Fifth Commandments. have you ever hated someone? the Bible says, “whosoever hates his brother is a murderer.”2 the Seventh is “You shall not commit adultery,” but Jesus said, “whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart”3 (the Sev- enth Commandment includes sex before marriage). have you ever looked with lust or had sex outside of marriage? If you have, you’ve violated that Commandment. 54 Please see the end of this chapter for detailed “Notes.” Page 47 Introduction how many lies do you think that you have told in your whole life? have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value? If you have, then you’re a lying thief. the Bible tells us, “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord,”4 because he is a God of truth and holiness. have you coveted (jealously desired) other people’s things? this is a violation of the tenth Commandment. Little Jessica So that is God’s moral Law that we each will face. we will be without excuse when we stand before God because he gave us our conscience to know right from wrong. each time we lie, steal, commit adultery, murder, and so on, we know that it’s wrong. So here is the crucial question. on Judgment Day, when God judges you, will you be found innocent or guilty of breaking this Law? Think before you answer. will you go to heaven or hell? the Bible warns that all murderers, idolaters, liars, thieves, fornicators, and adulterers will end up in hell.5 So where does that leave you? Perhaps the thought of going to hell doesn’t scare you, because you don’t believe in it. that’s like standing in the open door of a plane 10,000 feet off the ground and saying, “I don’t believe there will be any consequences if I jump without a parachute.” to say that there will be no consequences for breaking God’s Law is to say that God is unjust, that he is evil. this is why. on February 24, 2005, a nine-year-old girl was reported missing from her home in homosassa, Florida. three weeks later, police discovered that she had been kidnapped, brutally raped, and then buried alive. Little Jessica Lunsford was found tied up, in a kneeling position, clutching a stuffed toy. Page 48 Origin of Species How Do You React? how do you feel toward the man who murdered that helpless little girl in such an unspeakably cruel way? Are you angered? I hope so. I hope you are outraged. If you were completely indifferent to her fate, it would reveal something horrible about your character. Do you think that God is indifferent to such acts of evil? You can bet your precious soul he is not. he is outraged by them. the fury of Almighty God against evil is evidence of his goodness. If he wasn’t angered, he wouldn’t be good. we cannot separate God’s goodness from his anger. Again, if God is good by nature, he must be unspeakably angry at wickedness. But his goodness is so great that his anger isn’t confined to the evils of rape and murder. Nothing is hidden from his pure and holy eyes. he is outraged by torture, terrorism, abortion, theft, lying, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, homosexuality, and blasphemy. he also sees our thought-life, and he will judge us for the hidden sins of the heart: for lust, hatred, rebellion, greed, unclean imaginations, ingratitude, selfishness, jealousy, pride, envy, deceit, etc. Jesus warned, “But I say to you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment”6 (emphasis added). the Bible says that God’s wrath “abides” on each of us,7 and that every time we sin, we’re “storing up wrath”8 that will be revealed on Judgment Day. we are even told that we are “by nature the children of wrath”9 (emphasis added). Sinning against God comes naturally to us—and we naturally earn his anger by our sins. Instant Death Many people believe that because God is good, he will forgive everyone, and let all sinners into heaven. But they Page 49 Introduction misunderstand his goodness. when Moses once asked to see God’s glory, God told him that he couldn’t see him and live. Moses would instantly die if he looked upon God. Consider this: [God] said, I will make all my goodness pass before you … And it shall come to pass, while my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my hand while I pass by.10 Notice that all of God’s glory was displayed in his “goodness.” the goodness of God would have killed Moses instantly because of his personal sinfulness. the fire of God’s goodness would have consumed him, like a cup of water dropped onto the surface of the sun. the only way any of us can stand in the presence of God is to be pure in heart. Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”11 But as we’ve seen by looking at the Law, not a single one of us is “pure in heart.” these are extremely fearful thoughts, because the God we are speaking about is nothing like the commonly accepted image. he is not a benevolent Father-figure, who is happily smiling upon sinful humanity. In the midst of these frightening thoughts, remember to let fear work for you. the fear of God is the healthiest fear you can have. the Bible calls it “the beginning of wisdom.”12 Again, your knowledge of God’s Law should help you to see that you have a life-threatening dilemma: a huge problem of God’s wrath (his justifiable anger) against your personal sins. the just penalty for sin—breaking even one Law—is death and eternity in hell. But you haven’t broken just one Law. Like the rest of us, you’ve no doubt broken all these laws, countless times each. what kind of anger do you think a judge is justified in having toward a criminal guilty of breaking the law thousands of times? Page 50 Origin of Species Let’s See Let’s now look at those four major religions to see if they can help you with your predicament. Hinduism: the religion of hinduism says that if you’ve been bad, you may come back as a rat or some other animal.13 If you’ve been good, you might come back as a prince. But that’s like someone saying, “when you jump out of the plane, you’ll get sucked back in as another passenger. If you’ve been bad, you go down to the economy Class; if you’ve been good, you go up to First Class.” It’s an interesting concept, but it doesn’t deal with your real problem of having sinned against God and the reality of hell. Buddhism: Amazingly, the religion of Buddhism denies that God even exists. It teaches that life and death are sort of an illusion.14 that’s like standing at the door of the plane and saying, “I’m not really here, and there’s no such thing as the law of gravity, and no ground that I’m going to hit.” that may temporarily help you deal with your fears, but it doesn’t square with reality. And it doesn’t deal with your real problem of having sinned against God and the reality of hell. Islam: Interestingly, Islam acknowledges the reality of sin and hell, and the justice of God, but the hope it offers is that sinners can escape God’s justice if they do religious works. God will see these, and because of them, hopefully he will show mercy—but they won’t know for sure.15 each person’s works will be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is saved and who is not—based on whether they followed Islam, were sincere in repentance, and performed enough righteous deeds to outweigh their bad ones. So Islam believes you can earn God’s mercy by your own efforts. that’s like jumping out of the plane and believing that flapping your arms is going to counter the law of gravity and save you from a 10,000-foot drop. Page 51 Introduction And there’s something else to consider. the Law of God shows us that the best of us is nothing but a wicked criminal, standing guilty and condemned before the throne of a perfect and holy Judge. when that is understood, then our “righteous deeds” are actually seen as an attempt to bribe the Judge of the Universe. the Bible says that because of our guilt, anything we offer God for our justification (our acquittal from his courtroom) is an abomination to him,16 and only adds to our crimes. Islam, like the other religions, doesn’t solve your problem of having sinned against God and the reality of hell. Christianity: So why is Christianity different? Aren’t all religions the same? Let’s see. In Christianity, God himself provided a “parachute” for us, and his word says regarding the Savior, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.”17 Just as a parachute solved your dilemma with the law of gravity and its consequences, so the Savior perfectly solves your dilemma with the Law of God and its consequences! It is the missing puzzle-piece that you need. how did God solve our dilemma? he satisfied his wrath by becoming a human being and taking our punishment upon himself. the Scriptures tell us that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. Christianity provides the only parachute to save us from the consequences of the Law we have transgressed. Back to the Plane to illustrate this more clearly, let’s go back to that plane for a moment. You are standing on the edge of a 10,000-foot drop. You have to jump. Your heart is thumping in your chest. why? Because of fear. You know that the law of gravity will kill you when you jump. Someone offers you the original Mona Lisa. You push it aside. Page 52 Origin of Species Another person passes you the keys to a brand new Lamborghini. You let them drop to the floor. Someone else tries to put a million dollars into your hands. You push the person’s hand away, and stand there in horror at your impending fate. Suddenly, you hear a voice say, “here’s a parachute!” Which one of those four people is going to hold the most credibility in your eyes? It’s the one who held up the parachute! Again, it is your fear of the jump that turns you toward the good news of the parachute. In the same way, knowledge of what God’s Law will do to you produces a fear that makes the news of a Savior unspeakably good news! It solves your predicament of God’s wrath. God loves you so much that he became a sinless human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. the Savior died an excruciating death on the cross, taking your punishment (the death penalty) upon himself. the demands of eternal justice were satisfied the moment he cried, “It is finished!” the lightning of God’s wrath was stopped and the thunder of his indignation was silenced at Calvary’s bloodied cross: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”18 we broke the Law, but he became a man to pay our penalty in his life’s blood. Let me put this is a way that in understandable to most of us. God is the perfect Judge. You and I have broken God’s Law, and in his sight we are desperately guilty criminals. But two thousand years ago, Jesus paid our fine in full. that means that God can legally dismiss our case. he can commute our death sentence. God can let us live forever! then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Again, that means that God can now forgive every sin you have ever committed and let you live. If you repent and place your trust in Jesus alone, you can say with the apostle Paul: Page 53 Introduction “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.”19 So you no longer need to be tormented by the fear of death, and you don’t need to look any further for ways to deal with the dilemma of sin and God’s wrath.20 the Savior is God’s gift to you. The gospel is unspeakably good news for the entire, sinful human race! God himself can “justify” you. he can cleanse you, and give you the “righteousness” of Christ. he can make you pure in heart by washing away your sins. he can shelter you from his fierce wrath, in the rock of Ages that he has cleft for you.21 only Jesus can save you from death and hell, something that you could never earn or deserve.22 Do It Today to receive the gift of eternal life, you must repent of your sins (turn from them), and put on the Lord Jesus Christ as you would put on a parachute—trusting in him alone for your salvation. that means you forsake your own good works as a means of trying to please God (trying to bribe him), and trust only in what Jesus has done for you. Simply throw yourself on the mercy of the Judge. the Bible says that he’s rich in mercy to all who call upon him,23 so call upon him right now. he will hear you if you approach him with a humble and sorrowful heart. Do it right now because you don’t know when you will take that leap through the door of death. Confess your sins to God, put your trust in Jesus to save you, and you will pass from death to life. You have God’s promise on it.24 Pray something like this: Page 54 Origin of Species 0 “Dear God, today I turn away from all of my sins [name them] and I put my trust in Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. Please forgive me, change my heart, and grant me Your gift of everlasting life. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.” Now have faith in God. he is absolutely trustworthy. Never doubt his promises. he is not a man that he should lie. the sincerity of your prayer will be evidenced by your obedience to God’s will, so read his word (the Bible) daily and obey what you read.25 then go to www.livingwaters.com and click on “Save Yourself Some Pain.” there you will find principles that will help you grow in your faith. You might like to get The Evidence Bible, which answers 100 of the most common questions about the Christian faith. Its informative commentary will help you to grow as a Christian.26 Please don’t toss this book aside. If it’s been helpful to you, pass it on to someone you care about—there’s nothing more important than where they will spend eternity. thank you for reading this. ray Comfort27