This Paper was an assignment that asked us to:
Write a 3 page typed paper refuting erroneous ideas concerning the origin of mankind.
Support the doctrine of Creation by raising strong theological and scientific arguments against the concept of evolution.
Explain how one’s view of origins affects the doctrines of Revelation, God, Man, and Sin.
Write a 3 page typed paper refuting erroneous ideas concerning the origin of mankind.
Support the doctrine of Creation by raising strong theological and scientific arguments against the concept of evolution.
Explain how one’s view of origins affects the doctrines of Revelation, God, Man, and Sin.
I enjoyed the research portion of this assignment very much. I personally believe that in light of the fact that the theory of evolution is taught as fact in our schools, then Pastors should be well acquainted with there theories and refutations. This class was also a Blended class so I got to go on campus for a couple of days, and spend time with my fellow classmates.
W10 Assignment: Creation Paper “Christianity verses Evolution”
I. Introduction
Some of the most basic and common questions that man has ever contemplated are questions such as; who am I, how did we get here, and where do we go after here? Depending on your worldview on creation you may answer these questions in one of two ways. If you believe in God and the Bible, you would say that I am a man, I was created by God, and when I die I either go to Heaven or a place called Hell. If you believe in evolution, then you would answer these questions by saying that I am a product of chance, I have survived by being the fittest of my kind, and after this life there is nothing.
Needless to say these views can greatly affect your major life decisions. In addition, your self-esteem will be greatly influenced by your worldview of creation. Randy Alcorn writes of the contrast between these two views basis for self-esteem. Alcorn writes:
“The Secular Basis for Self-Esteem:
You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm that washed up on an ocean beach ten billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance and natural forces. Your closest living relatives swing from trees and eat crackers at the zoo.
In short, you came from nothing, you are going nowhere, and you will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that is you will become food for bacteria and rot with worms. And now, kids . . . doesn’t that make you feel good about yourselves?” (Alcorn, 1991)
Alcorn goes onto write of the Christian Basis:
The Christian Basis for Self-Esteem:
You are a special creation of a good and all powerful God. You are the climax of his creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist in the universe. You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree, but in kind.
Your destiny is to live forever in a magnificent kingdom, to reign with Christ over the universe. You will forever enjoy the wonders of his presence and the marvels of his creations. You will spend eternity in intimate and joyful fellowship with your beloved Lord and your precious spiritual family. Now, kids . . . how does that make you feel about yourselves? And how does it make you feel about your God?! (Alcorn, 1991)
Needless to say, one worldview is clearly more appealing than the other. The second view leaves the individual with a sense of purpose and accountability to someone bigger than themselves; whereas the first worldview does not. As previously touched on this sense of accountability and purpose is largely responsible for the kind of major life choices you will make in addition, to how you live your day to day life. However, just because something makes you feel better about yourself or your circumstances, this is by no means a reason to accept it as fact. Therefore, let us now turn our attention to the facts
II. Scientific arguments against the concept of evolution
You may be surprised to know that evolution is a reality and has actually taken place and that the evolutionist are telling the truth when they say that “evolution is possible, and we can prove it.” However, what they have failed to mention is that there are two kinds of evolution. These two forms of evolution are called “macroevolution” and “microevolution.” Although they seem to be the same in name and in character they are not.
Macro & Microevolution
In addition to this, one of these two have been documented and observed on numerous occasions by scientist, and most likely even by yourselves, whereas the other has never been observed. Therefore, these same evolutionists who are telling the truth about evolution being possible are also selling you a lie when they lump these two forms of evolution into the same category. However, do not take my word for it; let us turn to some simple scientific facts:
The Institute for Creation Research or (ICR) had this to say of the difference:
“Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types.”
“Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor.” (Morris, 1996)
To elaborate; an example of macroevolution would involve a sea creature turning into a land animal, or a primate turning into a human. An example of microevolution would be if a dog breeder were two take to different kinds of dog and breed a mix-breed puppy. The first example is impossible and has never been observed, whereas the second example happens all the time with pets, and flowers.
The major point of difference is that living organisms do not evolve from one type into a completely different type or species. Dogs do not become birds, and birds do not become humans. They can evolve just as the evolutionist claim, but this evolution can only occur within their own species and only to a certain degree, and yet the evolutionist are quick to say that evolution happens all the time, and they claim that Christians are close minded and refuse to accept the truth.
Transitional Forms
Another argument that the evolutionist must answer is the lack of transitional forms to prove their theory of evolution. I would also like to emphasize at this point that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact, even if it is being taught as fact. Charles Darwin himself went to the grave without seeing any of these transitional forms that his theory of evolution hung on.
Charles Darwin predicted that sometime in the future that we would uncover these transitional forms, or to put it another way, he believed that you would eventually find fossils that were half monkey, and half man, or fossils, that were part bird, and part reptile. Charles knew that his theory hung on these transitional forms or “missing links.” In his book The Origin of Species Charles shared his own doubts about his theory; Darwin writes “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Darwin)
Darwin’s worries turned out to be valid; over 150 years have passed and we have not found these transitional forms. The idea of these transitional animals is highly unlikely do to Darwin’s own survival of the fittest theory. Let’s just say that there was a half reptile, half bird. Since it was not fully a bird, then it could not fly away, and since it was not fully a reptile it could not move very fast. An animal like this would not last long in the animal food kingdom, because it would be eaten by an animal that was not going through any evolutionary change.
Therefore, this transitional animal would never evolve, and the survival would depend on the slowest to evolve not the fastest, as Darwin suggested. It is also noteworthy to consider the fact that male and females would have had to evolve at the same time, for the reproduction of their species.
Time plus Chance
Our final scientific proof centers around the evolutionist claim that time plus chance produces evolution. They say that given enough time (billions of years) and the right amount of conditions then an evolutionary change will occur. However, this theory as well does not hold water.
From the moment a baby is brought into the world its daily crawling closer and closer to its death. To put it another way, all things start dying the second that they are born. Nothing gets better over time. If I were to take a new car and park it in the woods for ten years the car would not all of a sudden be a better, newer, and cleaner car within ten years. I would come back to a rusty car that does not start. Or if I were to take all the parts to an alarm clock and put them into a box and shake them, an assembled alarm clock would not be there when I open the box. In addition, the alarm clock would not be assembled if I were to shake the box multiple times (chance) for multiple years (time). Life does not work this way.
In addition, to all of this, evolution scientists have tried to recreate the evolution process, to many times to count. They use controlled substances, controlled conditions, and controlled variables only to come up empty handed. If they cannot recreate the evolution process by manipulating controlled environments, how can they possible come to the conclusion that time plus chance produces evolutionary change.
III. Theological arguments against the concept of evolution.
The Bible says that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1). We have already seen that the very scientific evidence that evolution points to in order to prove itself turns out to be its very own anchor and drowns it. However, what does the Bible say to disprove the concept of evolution?
In the Beginning God created
As opposed to the evolutionist claim that we were the product of chance, the Bible says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2). This is in direct contradiction to the evolutionist claim that “All life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.” (Wikipedia, 2015)
This leads us to our next contradiction; through various dating techniques and genealogies the Bible claims that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Answers in Genesis claims that “Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:
5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
~6,000 years” (Hodge, 2007)
Answers in Genesis goes onto conclude that “When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.
Cultures around the world give an age of the earth that confirms what the Bible teaches. Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error.
The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?” (Hodge, 2007)
Now that we have seen the Biblical dating and that the Bible claims that the earth is not millions of years old, let us turn our attention to the number of days for creation. The Bible says that “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (Genesis 2:2). Once again in contrast to the evolutionist belief we see that the bible says that earth is a young earth.
The biblical account teaches that the earth was made in days, as opposed to millions and millions of years. Taking a view of scripture that allows for millions of years undermines the authority of God’s word. Ken Ham of AIG writes that “If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people” (Ham, 2007). Now that we have taken a brief look at the contrast between the biblical account and the evolution account, let us turn our attention to the implications for our day to day life.
IV. How one’s view of origins affects the doctrines of Revelation, God, Man, and Sin
If I were to believe that I could fly; that would have a major impact on my life. For example, if I was absolutely convinced that I could fly I might perhaps jump off of the roof to my house, or the side of a building. Needless to say, this belief would affect me in a very negative or perhaps fatal way. What we believe is of the utmost importance; however, it is more important that what we believe is built upon truth and fact. To use my flying analogy again, I could believe all that I want that I had the ability to fly; regardless of my belief that does not make the reality change that I cannot fly. Therefore, what we believe, and the truth to what we believe is of the utmost importance.
Although having a wrong belief in ones ability to fly can be fatal, having a wrong belief in relation to our origin can be eternally fatal. Much like Ray Combs talked about our self-esteem at the front end of this paper, the way that I view my origin will greatly affect my external behavior as well as my internal self.
If I carry the belief that I am here by chance, and there is nothing to come after this life, than I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by living this life like there is no tomorrow. I might as well go out and do whatever I want and not worry if my enjoyment brings others pain and suffering; because after all, you only live once! If I believe that I am a product of evolution, then I would also miss out on a personal and loving relationship with the very God who created me, because I would not be making myself available to hear the voice of God though General or Special Revelation. If I believed that there was no God, then I would have no need to try to get to know Him. However, by believing in God I am able to receive this revelation of Himself that He has provided for me, and at the same time I find out about who I am (Man), why I am here, and who He created me to be.
Most importantly, if I were to have an evolutionary view of origin, then I would miss out on what God has to say about my inner condition, and my need for a savior to save me from myself (Sin). The bible teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). It also teaches that all sin is against God and God alone, (Psalm 51:4) and that the payment or penalty for sinning is death (Romans 6:23). The bible also teaches that “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). In addition, to all of this the bible says that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13). Finally the bible teaches that whoever does not have a relationship with God, will perish; “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).
In light of the clear teachings of scripture, if I do not have a relationship with the very God who created all things, then I will perish. However, if I were to hold an evolution worldview then I could live in a way that I wanted with nothing to fear. But if I am wrong about my belief in evolution (which might I add the majority of evidence does not point to) then, I run the risk of eternal punishment.
In closing, the scientific evidence that evolution stands on is also its hangmen’s noose. An evolutionary worldview is almost like a false religion, with Charles Darwin as its savior. The object of our beliefs is of the utmost importance, and a false religion that cannot save us such as evolution will not do. Time and time again, the evolutionist turns a blind eye, and closed ear to the very science that disproves their beliefs. Whereas the biblical account has proven itself time and time again.
Although neither account can be proven with 100% accuracy, it is smarter to wager on Christianity. I close with a quote from Blaise Pascal “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”
Bibliography
Alcorn, R. (1991, October 01). Two Sources of Self-Esteem: Secular & Christian. Retrieved Jan 23rd, 2015, from EPM Eternal Perspective Ministries: http://www.epm.org/resources/1991/Oct/1/two-sources-self-esteem-secular-christian/
Darwin, C. (n.d.). The Origin of Species Page 379. Retrieved 2015, from Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=411&itemID=F387&view
Ham, K. (2007, September 27th). Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/
Hodge, B. (2007, May 30th). How Old Is the Earth? Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/
Morris, J. D. (1996). What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution? . Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from The Institute for Creation Research or (ICR) : http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/
Wikipedia. (2015, January 17th). Evolution. Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Wikipedia the free online Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I. Introduction
Some of the most basic and common questions that man has ever contemplated are questions such as; who am I, how did we get here, and where do we go after here? Depending on your worldview on creation you may answer these questions in one of two ways. If you believe in God and the Bible, you would say that I am a man, I was created by God, and when I die I either go to Heaven or a place called Hell. If you believe in evolution, then you would answer these questions by saying that I am a product of chance, I have survived by being the fittest of my kind, and after this life there is nothing.
Needless to say these views can greatly affect your major life decisions. In addition, your self-esteem will be greatly influenced by your worldview of creation. Randy Alcorn writes of the contrast between these two views basis for self-esteem. Alcorn writes:
“The Secular Basis for Self-Esteem:
You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm that washed up on an ocean beach ten billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance and natural forces. Your closest living relatives swing from trees and eat crackers at the zoo.
In short, you came from nothing, you are going nowhere, and you will end your brief cosmic journey beneath six feet of dirt, where all that is you will become food for bacteria and rot with worms. And now, kids . . . doesn’t that make you feel good about yourselves?” (Alcorn, 1991)
Alcorn goes onto write of the Christian Basis:
The Christian Basis for Self-Esteem:
You are a special creation of a good and all powerful God. You are the climax of his creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist in the universe. You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree, but in kind.
Your destiny is to live forever in a magnificent kingdom, to reign with Christ over the universe. You will forever enjoy the wonders of his presence and the marvels of his creations. You will spend eternity in intimate and joyful fellowship with your beloved Lord and your precious spiritual family. Now, kids . . . how does that make you feel about yourselves? And how does it make you feel about your God?! (Alcorn, 1991)
Needless to say, one worldview is clearly more appealing than the other. The second view leaves the individual with a sense of purpose and accountability to someone bigger than themselves; whereas the first worldview does not. As previously touched on this sense of accountability and purpose is largely responsible for the kind of major life choices you will make in addition, to how you live your day to day life. However, just because something makes you feel better about yourself or your circumstances, this is by no means a reason to accept it as fact. Therefore, let us now turn our attention to the facts
II. Scientific arguments against the concept of evolution
You may be surprised to know that evolution is a reality and has actually taken place and that the evolutionist are telling the truth when they say that “evolution is possible, and we can prove it.” However, what they have failed to mention is that there are two kinds of evolution. These two forms of evolution are called “macroevolution” and “microevolution.” Although they seem to be the same in name and in character they are not.
Macro & Microevolution
In addition to this, one of these two have been documented and observed on numerous occasions by scientist, and most likely even by yourselves, whereas the other has never been observed. Therefore, these same evolutionists who are telling the truth about evolution being possible are also selling you a lie when they lump these two forms of evolution into the same category. However, do not take my word for it; let us turn to some simple scientific facts:
The Institute for Creation Research or (ICR) had this to say of the difference:
“Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types.”
“Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor.” (Morris, 1996)
To elaborate; an example of macroevolution would involve a sea creature turning into a land animal, or a primate turning into a human. An example of microevolution would be if a dog breeder were two take to different kinds of dog and breed a mix-breed puppy. The first example is impossible and has never been observed, whereas the second example happens all the time with pets, and flowers.
The major point of difference is that living organisms do not evolve from one type into a completely different type or species. Dogs do not become birds, and birds do not become humans. They can evolve just as the evolutionist claim, but this evolution can only occur within their own species and only to a certain degree, and yet the evolutionist are quick to say that evolution happens all the time, and they claim that Christians are close minded and refuse to accept the truth.
Transitional Forms
Another argument that the evolutionist must answer is the lack of transitional forms to prove their theory of evolution. I would also like to emphasize at this point that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact, even if it is being taught as fact. Charles Darwin himself went to the grave without seeing any of these transitional forms that his theory of evolution hung on.
Charles Darwin predicted that sometime in the future that we would uncover these transitional forms, or to put it another way, he believed that you would eventually find fossils that were half monkey, and half man, or fossils, that were part bird, and part reptile. Charles knew that his theory hung on these transitional forms or “missing links.” In his book The Origin of Species Charles shared his own doubts about his theory; Darwin writes “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Darwin)
Darwin’s worries turned out to be valid; over 150 years have passed and we have not found these transitional forms. The idea of these transitional animals is highly unlikely do to Darwin’s own survival of the fittest theory. Let’s just say that there was a half reptile, half bird. Since it was not fully a bird, then it could not fly away, and since it was not fully a reptile it could not move very fast. An animal like this would not last long in the animal food kingdom, because it would be eaten by an animal that was not going through any evolutionary change.
Therefore, this transitional animal would never evolve, and the survival would depend on the slowest to evolve not the fastest, as Darwin suggested. It is also noteworthy to consider the fact that male and females would have had to evolve at the same time, for the reproduction of their species.
Time plus Chance
Our final scientific proof centers around the evolutionist claim that time plus chance produces evolution. They say that given enough time (billions of years) and the right amount of conditions then an evolutionary change will occur. However, this theory as well does not hold water.
From the moment a baby is brought into the world its daily crawling closer and closer to its death. To put it another way, all things start dying the second that they are born. Nothing gets better over time. If I were to take a new car and park it in the woods for ten years the car would not all of a sudden be a better, newer, and cleaner car within ten years. I would come back to a rusty car that does not start. Or if I were to take all the parts to an alarm clock and put them into a box and shake them, an assembled alarm clock would not be there when I open the box. In addition, the alarm clock would not be assembled if I were to shake the box multiple times (chance) for multiple years (time). Life does not work this way.
In addition, to all of this, evolution scientists have tried to recreate the evolution process, to many times to count. They use controlled substances, controlled conditions, and controlled variables only to come up empty handed. If they cannot recreate the evolution process by manipulating controlled environments, how can they possible come to the conclusion that time plus chance produces evolutionary change.
III. Theological arguments against the concept of evolution.
The Bible says that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1). We have already seen that the very scientific evidence that evolution points to in order to prove itself turns out to be its very own anchor and drowns it. However, what does the Bible say to disprove the concept of evolution?
In the Beginning God created
As opposed to the evolutionist claim that we were the product of chance, the Bible says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2). This is in direct contradiction to the evolutionist claim that “All life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.” (Wikipedia, 2015)
This leads us to our next contradiction; through various dating techniques and genealogies the Bible claims that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Answers in Genesis claims that “Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:
5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
~6,000 years” (Hodge, 2007)
Answers in Genesis goes onto conclude that “When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.
Cultures around the world give an age of the earth that confirms what the Bible teaches. Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error.
The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?” (Hodge, 2007)
Now that we have seen the Biblical dating and that the Bible claims that the earth is not millions of years old, let us turn our attention to the number of days for creation. The Bible says that “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (Genesis 2:2). Once again in contrast to the evolutionist belief we see that the bible says that earth is a young earth.
The biblical account teaches that the earth was made in days, as opposed to millions and millions of years. Taking a view of scripture that allows for millions of years undermines the authority of God’s word. Ken Ham of AIG writes that “If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people” (Ham, 2007). Now that we have taken a brief look at the contrast between the biblical account and the evolution account, let us turn our attention to the implications for our day to day life.
IV. How one’s view of origins affects the doctrines of Revelation, God, Man, and Sin
If I were to believe that I could fly; that would have a major impact on my life. For example, if I was absolutely convinced that I could fly I might perhaps jump off of the roof to my house, or the side of a building. Needless to say, this belief would affect me in a very negative or perhaps fatal way. What we believe is of the utmost importance; however, it is more important that what we believe is built upon truth and fact. To use my flying analogy again, I could believe all that I want that I had the ability to fly; regardless of my belief that does not make the reality change that I cannot fly. Therefore, what we believe, and the truth to what we believe is of the utmost importance.
Although having a wrong belief in ones ability to fly can be fatal, having a wrong belief in relation to our origin can be eternally fatal. Much like Ray Combs talked about our self-esteem at the front end of this paper, the way that I view my origin will greatly affect my external behavior as well as my internal self.
If I carry the belief that I am here by chance, and there is nothing to come after this life, than I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by living this life like there is no tomorrow. I might as well go out and do whatever I want and not worry if my enjoyment brings others pain and suffering; because after all, you only live once! If I believe that I am a product of evolution, then I would also miss out on a personal and loving relationship with the very God who created me, because I would not be making myself available to hear the voice of God though General or Special Revelation. If I believed that there was no God, then I would have no need to try to get to know Him. However, by believing in God I am able to receive this revelation of Himself that He has provided for me, and at the same time I find out about who I am (Man), why I am here, and who He created me to be.
Most importantly, if I were to have an evolutionary view of origin, then I would miss out on what God has to say about my inner condition, and my need for a savior to save me from myself (Sin). The bible teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). It also teaches that all sin is against God and God alone, (Psalm 51:4) and that the payment or penalty for sinning is death (Romans 6:23). The bible also teaches that “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). In addition, to all of this the bible says that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13). Finally the bible teaches that whoever does not have a relationship with God, will perish; “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).
In light of the clear teachings of scripture, if I do not have a relationship with the very God who created all things, then I will perish. However, if I were to hold an evolution worldview then I could live in a way that I wanted with nothing to fear. But if I am wrong about my belief in evolution (which might I add the majority of evidence does not point to) then, I run the risk of eternal punishment.
In closing, the scientific evidence that evolution stands on is also its hangmen’s noose. An evolutionary worldview is almost like a false religion, with Charles Darwin as its savior. The object of our beliefs is of the utmost importance, and a false religion that cannot save us such as evolution will not do. Time and time again, the evolutionist turns a blind eye, and closed ear to the very science that disproves their beliefs. Whereas the biblical account has proven itself time and time again.
Although neither account can be proven with 100% accuracy, it is smarter to wager on Christianity. I close with a quote from Blaise Pascal “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”
Bibliography
Alcorn, R. (1991, October 01). Two Sources of Self-Esteem: Secular & Christian. Retrieved Jan 23rd, 2015, from EPM Eternal Perspective Ministries: http://www.epm.org/resources/1991/Oct/1/two-sources-self-esteem-secular-christian/
Darwin, C. (n.d.). The Origin of Species Page 379. Retrieved 2015, from Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=411&itemID=F387&view
Ham, K. (2007, September 27th). Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/
Hodge, B. (2007, May 30th). How Old Is the Earth? Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/
Morris, J. D. (1996). What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution? . Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from The Institute for Creation Research or (ICR) : http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/
Wikipedia. (2015, January 17th). Evolution. Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Wikipedia the free online Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution