The White Coats Are Coming!

Text: Genesis 1:1-28

Since Charles Darwin first penned his book “Origin of Species” in 1859 (full title: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”), there has been a vicious, unrelenting attack on Genesis 1-11. Yet, the truth of God’s word stands. Jesus affirmed Genesis as literal history and our very salvation rests on its foundation. Here’s why?

Macro and Micro Evolution: Know the Difference

Some Quotes by Russ Miller:

The next time you’re asked if you believe in evolution, correctly respond, “I believe in Biblically and scientifically correct micro-evolution.” Let me explain. Darwinists show kids pictures of brown moths and yellow moths; then discuss how they’ve descended from a common ancestor over ‘millions of years.’ Well, drop the ‘millions of years’ and I agree they have a common ancestor, it was a moth. They’ve simply ‘brought forth after their kind’ as God’s Word tells us will occur and as real science always finds. This is micro-evolution, not never-observed Darwinian-macro evolution. The ability to micro-adapt was placed in their gene pool from the start by their Creator who gave His created kinds a tremendous range of genetic variation which allows them to adapt to various climates & conditions.

I always cringe when I hear Christians say they don’t believe in ‘evolution.’ I realize they mean in Darwinian-style change but they’re putting themselves in a position that is opposed to observable science, science that shows God’s Word is true, and thus in a position to be factually shot down.

The word ‘evolution’ has many meanings. Darwinian change would be ‘macro-evolution’ which has NEVER been observed. Micro-evolution (adaptations, variations within the same ‘kind’) occur in the same kind of plant or animal and are both Biblically and scientifically correct.

Darwinists show Biblically correct micro-evolution then switch the discussion to never-seen macro-evolution and mislead billions of people.

Ten times in Genesis we’re told kinds will bring forth after their kind. Real science confirms this, observing that ‘kinds only bring forth after their kind.’ Variations, adaptations and micro-evolution are all the same thing – kinds bringing forth after their kind. If you believe in one you believe in the other. When you tell someone that you don’t believe in ‘evolution’ you hand the victory to Darwinists as they can show millions of examples of Biblically correct micro-evolution while leading them to think these are examples of Darwinian macro-changes. If you define the difference between micro and macro you win the debate while showing everyone the Bible is right.

When you say there’s no proof of evolution, Darwinists show micro and mislead many. When you say adaptation, variation and micro-evolution are the same thing, resulting from the loss of genetic data; while Darwinian macro evolution requires the addition of massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic data, you leave them nowhere to go.

Macro requires the addition of massive amounts of both new and beneficial genetic data (real science knows of no way for this to occur) to cause one kind to evolve/change to another. Micro is caused by the sorting or loss of already existing genetic data (Gene Depletion) and is the only thing real science observes. Breeders use Gene Depletion to get rid of traits they don’t want.

Breeders breed out information to get purebreds by selecting traits to breed for, gradually eliminating non-wanted traits. Though this is helped by intelligently selecting the traits, this is akin to what we call adaptation-variation-micro evolution. Darwinian macro-evolution requires massive amounts of new and beneficial information being added to a gene pool and science know of NO WAY for this to occur in nature.

Real science is a Believer’s true friend. Always has been; always will be. False science, such as Darwinian macro-evolution is another issue and is anti-Biblical.

Jonathan Wells Presents Zombie Science

Jonathan Wells Presents Zombie Science at National Book Launch:

“In his new book Zombie Science, biologist Jonathan Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Wells gave a presentation about Zombie Science at the book’s national launch party recently in Seattle. Watch as Wells explores a new wave of icons walking the halls of science while putting some familiar corpses back in the grave. New topics include DNA, the human eye, vestigial organs, antibiotic resistance, and cancer. Looking past the current zombie outbreak, Wells offers a hopeful vision of science free from the clutches of materialist dogma. Wells himself is something of an iconoclast, railing against the tyranny of science’s Darwin-only advocates. His first book, Icons of Evolution, became an international hit by dismantling the outdated and underwhelming ‘proofs’ of evolution that have littered textbooks for decades. For doing so, he was attacked by Darwin’s defenders and became one of the most hated figures of the intelligent design movement.”

What You Probably Were Not Told About Charles Darwin

Article: What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin by Phil Moore (original source here)

Phil Moore leads Everyday Church in London. He also serves as a Bible teacher and evangelist within the Newfrontiers family of churches. He is the author of the Straight to the Heart series of devotional commentaries. Phil is married to Ruth, and they have four young children. Together, they love eating strange and exotic food, watching movies with lots of popcorn, and reading books by Roald Dahl.

Charles Darwin is a great British hero. That’s hardly surprising, since he was one of the most influential thinkers of the past 200 years. I happened to live opposite Darwin’s former lodgings when I was a student at Cambridge University, so I looked out each morning on a blue plaque hailing him as one of the greatest Britons who ever lived. I’m not saying he didn’t deserve that commemorative plaque, but I should point out that he wasn’t a British hero but a British villain. You don’t need to be a Bible-thumping evangelical to question whether Darwin’s thinking deserves to be given a bit more thought.

Whatever your views on origins and evolution, we can hopefully all agree that, at present, we give far too much honor to the British thinker who justified genocide.

Devaluation of Humans

Darwin didn’t hide his view that his evolutionary thinking applied to human races as well as to animal species. The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:

The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.

Thankfully, most British people today are embarrassed by the racist rhetoric that undergirded the late-Victorian British Empire. What’s astonishing is how little they understand that Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution provided the doctrine behind its white supremacism. Whereas the British Empire of the early 19th century had been dominated by Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce, who sold slave badges that proclaimed, “Am I not a man and a brother?”, Darwin’s writings converted an empire with a conscience into an empire with a scientific philosophy.

Four years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, James Hunt turned it into a justification for slavery. In his 1863 paper, “On the Negro’s Place in Nature,” he asserted: “Our Bristol and Liverpool merchants, perhaps, helped to benefit the race when they transported some of them to America.”

Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.

Enabling Genocide

Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”

Meanwhile, several thousand miles away, Cecil Rhodes was gleefully embracing Darwin’s thinking as justification for white expansion across southern Africa. He was so inspired by Darwinian evolutionist Winwood Reade’s The Martyrdom of Man that he later confessed, “That book has made me what I am.”

What it made him was the architect of one of the most brutal and immoral acts of European expansion and genocide in history. Rhodes wrote in 1877:

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. . . . It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses.

If what Rhodes believed sounds shocking to you—and I hope it does—then understand that he was simply stating what he drew from the works of both Darwin and Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, who extrapolated his cousin’s thinking to pioneer racial eugenics.

Select Your Choice

I’ve used British examples because I’m British, and it seems more polite to point out the errors in my own national worldview than in that of other nations. I could’ve pointed out how Darwin’s thinking was used by late 19th-century Americans to justify acts of genocide against Native Americans. I could’ve pointed out how Hitler and his Nazi philosophers used it to justify wars of expansion and horrific holocaust. I could’ve pointed out how Communist Russia used Darwinian evolution to justify its liquidation of non-Russian people groups within the Soviet empire. I could’ve pointed out how it was used by Serbs to justify their genocide against Croatians and Kosovans.

But I don’t have to. The British example is enough to make us question whether Charles Darwin was truly a British hero at all. At least we should strip him of his place on our £10 banknote and stop protecting his thinking from the scrutiny it deserves in school classrooms, in TV documentaries, and in the corridors of power.

Because whether or not you agree with his thoughts on evolution, you should at the very least want to discover he was wrong.

Whom would you rather discover was right all along? The Christian reformers of the early 19th century, like William Wilberforce and the Earl of Shaftesbury, who argued from belief in divine creation that slaves should be freed and that children shouldn’t be forced to work themselves to death in factories for having been born to the wrong parents? Or Charles Darwin, who argued from belief in a godless beginning to the universe that natural selection is a virtue and that, consequently, acts of genocide are part and parcel of the way the world was always supposed to be?

In the words of Jesus himself, “By their fruits you will be able to judge their teaching.”

Darwinism is a federally sponsored religious belief about our origins

“Since 1859 Darwinism has been undermining scientific education, research & the saving faith of billions of people. When real science refutes a theory, the idea’s thrown out; yet scientists today are forced to accept Darwinism despite: 1) the Law of Biogenesis says it never began; 2) mathematical odds show it never could’ve occurred; 3) it’s in conflict with the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics; 4) the fossil record shows no viable missing links; 5) living creatures reveal no transitional kinds & 6) Gene Depletion + Selection make it a genetic impossibility. The truth is that Darwinism is a federally sponsored religious belief about our origins; not a scientific theory. So beware of science falsely so-called and have a blessed day.” – Russ Miller


Natural Selection

ken-ham“…natural selection is not “molecules-to-man evolution” (hereafter referred to as evolution)! It is true that evolutionists will use the term evolution for natural selection, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who believes in natural selection believes in Darwinian evolution!

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise. But this isn’t evolution! It’s really just an outworking of the phenomenal amount of genetic variability God built into each kind of organism.

Evolution requires an addition of brand-new information so that novel traits (never seen before) can arise. You can’t change an amoeba into an astronaut without adding new information and new features! But natural selection can’t do that. It can remove or reshuffle information, but it can never create brand-new information. Because natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution, it can’t be a mechanism for this unobserved process. And mutations don’t add new information either.

We always see organisms reproducing according to their kind, just as it says in Genesis (Genesis 1). There is a huge amount of variety within a kind (think of poodles, Great Danes, wolves, dingoes, and boxers), but one kind has never been observed to turn into another kind, nor is there a mechanism for this imagined evolution.”

– Ken Ham

Full article here.