In Isaiah 5:20, 21, we read, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!"
During an interview on the origin of life, the talk-show host insisted that there was a lot of evidence for evolution that millions of years ago life arose by chance random processes in some primordial soup. Somehow, he explained, life arose from chemicals. He insisted that the evolution of life was a scientific theory--but to believe in creation, as I did, was just religious idea.
EVOLUTION IS BELIEF—I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, "science" is defined as "knowledge," and that which can be "observed and repeatedly tested." I insisted that evolution was belief—not science.
A rather irate professor from a local university called in to say that evolution is science because you can investigate it in a laboratory. He went on to say that one can set up apparatus in a laboratory to simulate the original atmosphere and oceans (the presumed original conditions on the primeval earth) to show how life may have formed millions of years ago. I then told the professor that in doing this experiment he could never prove life evolved by chance because he was obviously putting intelligence into his experiments. He then yelled at me over the telephone, "we are not putting intelligence into our experiments!" In a sense, I was inclined to agree with him. However, I believe the talk-show host (and, I hope, the listeners) got the point. Even if scientists did make some form of life in the laboratory, this would have nothing to do with chance, but everything to do with intelligence. If it took intelligence the second time, then, obviously, it took intelligence the first time.
When professors start insisting that using their intelligence to design experiments can help them understand how chance and randomness produced life one starts to wonder if we are speaking the same language. This reminded me of John 1:5, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 3:19 states, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
Even though everything we observe fits with what the Bible says about the origin of life and the history of the world, the evolutionists insist that evolution is a scientific fact. What we observe in the present does not fit with evolution, but does fit with the Bible. The Bible then must be the basis of true science. Why is it that the courts are ruling in the evolutionists' favor? Why is it that evolution can be taught as science but creation is considered to be religion in the public education system? Is science no longer interested in truth?
GOD ELIMINATED—What has happened is that the evolutionists have changed the definition of science. It was once accepted that a scientific explanation was the same as a feasible explanation. For example, if the evidence fitted with there being a Designer (God), then that explanation was accepted as a possibility. However, because many scientists want nothing to do with God, they have determined that science must be defined in terms of explanations that can have nothing to do with God. In other words, an arbitrary decision has been made by fallible humans to insist that to be scientific, God cannot be a part of the explanation. The reason for this should be obvious. If there is a God and the Bible is true, then men and women would have to obey His rules for their lives.
WARNING—It is not just that these people want evolution accepted—they want a total man-centered philosophy. And yet the Scripture tells us that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Man is redefining words to make them fit his anti-God philosophy, even though the evidence is obviously totally opposite to what he is saying. Don't be led astray by "science falsely so called" (l Timothy 6:20). Don't be led astray "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). Help ICR to warn the nation of America "that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" (Ephesians 4:17,18).
Woe to those who have redefined science, to those who want evolution presented as fact: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
HOW CAN THE PANDA EAT BAMBOO?
Have you ever seen the giant pandas on display in some of our zoos? You will notice that their diet is basically bamboo. Of course, if a human being tried to munch on bamboo, he probably wouldn't have many teeth left at the end of the meal! The reason the giant panda is able to have such a diet is because it has strong, sharp teeth.
It was fascinating to hear the evolutionist guide at the San Diego Zoo explain to the public the panda's teeth. She said that the panda had obviously evolved to be a carnivore (thus it has sharp teeth), and now it is able to use those sharp teeth to eat bamboo. Because the panda had sharp teeth, she assumed from evolution that it had to be a meat eater to start with. This is because evolutionists equate particular types of teeth with food rather than function.
The thing to consider, of course, is this: How do the evolutionists know that the panda used to be a carnivore? They were not there to see the supposed evolution occur. In fact, how do they know that it wasn't a vegetarian originally and that its teeth were designed specifically for eating such things as bamboo? According to the Bible, in Genesis 1:29, 30, the original animals were created to be vegetarian. If this is the case, then the panda was created with sharp teeth to eat such things as bamboo—but now (because of the entrance of sin and death) on rare occasions it eats small animals.
This is exactly the opposite of what the evolutionists say.
It is important to realize that just because the evolutionists talk of evolution over millions of years, it doesn't mean this is a true scientific statement. Evolution is just a belief. There is no scientific reason why creationists can't insist that the panda was designed with sharp teeth specifically for eating plant material such as
DID YOU KNOW?
Did you know that in 1844 a medical doctor named Ignas Phillip Semmelweis, who was assistant director at the Vienna Maternity Hospital, suggested to the doctors that the high rate of death of patients and new babies was due to the fact that the doctors attending them were carrying infections from the diseased and dead people whom they had previously touched?
Semmelweis ordered doctors to wash their hands with soap and water and rinse them in a strong chemical before examining their patients. He tried to get doctors to wear clean clothes and he battled for clean wards. However, the majority of doctors disagreed with Semmelweis and they deliberately disobeyed his orders. In the late nineteenth century, on the basis of the work by Semmelweis, Joseph Lister began soaking surgery instruments, the operating table, his hands, and the patients with carbolic acid. The results were astonishing. What was previously risky surgery now became routine. However, the majority of doctors criticized his work also. Today we know that Lister and Semmelweis were right; the majority of doctors in their day were wrong. Just because the majority believe one thing does not necessarily mean it is true. It is good to remember this when the evolutionists insist that because the majority of scientists accept a theory it has to be right.
Cite this article: Kenneth Ham. 1989. A Modern Babel? Confusion in America. Acts & Facts. 18 (2).