Alright well we’re there in Genesis 1. Keep your place there and go with me to the book of 1st Timothy. 1st Timothy Chapter 6. Today we are in our 2nd part of the series on “Creation vs. Evolution”. If you remember last week, we started off with the famous verse “The fool hath said there is no God”. And we’re talking about the foolishness of atheism. And just real quickly for review, we talked about the fact that if there is no God, we weren’t trying to prove there is or isn’t a God. We’re just saying that if there is no God then there are no moral absolutes, conscience, soul, value to life and no purpose to life. We talked about that last week. If you weren’t here for that sermon then I encourage you to listen to it so you can kind of catch up to where we are.
This week we’re going to be talking about “Science Falsely So Called”. If you’re there in 1 Timothy 6, look at verse 20. “20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”. Here the Apostle Paul is warning Timothy that there would be oppositions of so called science. He says they’ll call it science but it’s science falsely so called. Today we will talk about the false science of evolution. See, evolution promotes this lie and the lie that it promotes is that evolution is proved by science. And they will try to teach children in school that when it’s creation vs. evolution, it’s religion vs. science. But I want you to understand and what I hope you will get from the sermon this morning is that evolution is not based on science at all. They call it science but it’s a science falsely so called.
And I want to start the sermon by just giving you some definitions of the word science. I want to start with the biblical definition. The word science is found twice in our Bible. 1 in the New Testament – 1 Timothy. The other time in the Old Testament – The Book of Daniel. But I want you to notice that the word science is also translated in our King James Bible, the same Greek or Hebrew Word that is translated science here in 1 Timothy 6 and also the book of Daniel, that same word is translated knowledge throughout the rest of the Bible. And the Biblical definition of the word science is knowledge. The word science means knowledge. Not just in the Greek and the Hebrew. But the English word science means knowledge. And the Bible teaches that. But I also want to just give you some textbook definitions of science. So the Biblical definition of science is knowledge. Let me give you some textbook definitions of science. I just went to 3 different dictionaries and I want to read you their definition of science.
#1 – Dictionary.com – Science is defined as the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
So I want you to notice, according to Dictionary.com, science is the knowledge we gain through observation and experimentation.
#2 – Merriam Webster Online – The term science or scientific method is defined as principals and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiments. And the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
They define science to dictionary.com. Very similar to the word of God. It’s knowledge that is gained through observation, experiments, and through testing.
#3 – Oxford Dictionary – The intellectual and practical activity encompass the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
I want you to notice the key words that keep coming up throughout the textbook definition of science. But also the biblical definition of science. And those words are this – Knowledge, Observation, Experimentation, Testing. Here’s what I want you to understand, science by definition is knowledge that we can gain through observation, experiments that are made, testing which is experiments. You have a hypothesis. You have an idea. You predict an outcome and then you text that outcome and you observe that it is either accurate or inaccurate.
Now you say, what is science falsely so called. Science falsely so called is when someone will promote something as science but yet it’s never been observed. Or as science and yet it’s never been tested. As science, and yet there is no experiment. There is nothing that we can look at. That is science falsely so called. And I’m going to prove to you today that the so called science that they push today to try to prove evolution – And if you’re a guess this morning, please understand this is not like our Hobby Horse. We don’t talk about evolution every week. We’re in the middle of a series called creation vs. evolution. But I want you to gather from the sermon this morning that the science they promote is not science at all. Because you cannot observe it. You cannot test it. You cannot hold an experiment that will prove your hypothesis.
And I want to give you 5 examples this morning. 5 examples of faulty science. If you are a child today you need to pay attention. Whether you’re in public school, private school, homeschool, Christian school or whatever. But especially if you’re in public school then I want you to pay close attention this morning. You need to learn this because these are the kinds of things that they will teach you. If you’re a parent or grandparent then you should pay attention because you will probably need to answer some of these things and be able to explain them. And by the way, it’s good for our children to know the other side and what they teach and what’s wrong with it. So that they can learn to defend their faith. So I want to give you 5 examples of faulty science used to prove evolution today.
#1 – The primordial soup theory accounting for the origin of life. See, before we can even get in to the evolution of life, we have to talk about the origin of life. Where does life begin? Where does life come from? Go to John 1. And while you go there, I’m going to read to you this morning from several books and articles this morning. And I’m going to start off by reading to you from an article from a website called discovery.org. And I want to explain to you, the evolutionists theory of the primordial soup. You may or may not have ever heard of that. But let’s learn about that so you can have an understanding of what we’re talking about. In this article it says, according to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on early earth some 3 or 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life. But the very first step involved the production of a primordial soup, a water based sea of simple organic molecules out of which life arose. So what they teach is that after the big bang theory and after the earth was formed however that happened. You have all these rocks and it rained on the rocks for millions of years. And that rain eventually created an ocean. And that ocean had all sorts of organic molecules. And it was this primordial soup and different theories depending on what you read. Some people think lightning struck and life came out of this primordial soup.
Now, before we go any further, let’s just look at where the Bible teaches life came from. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word,” Notice this. “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So that’s the Trinity there. We have the Word with God. Different from God and then he was God at the same time. Notice verse 2 “2 The same was in the beginning with God.” Who was in the beginning with God? The Word. Notice verse 3. “3 All things were made by him;” All things were made by who? By the Word. “and without him” the Word “was not any thing made that was made.” So according to the Bible, who was the creator? Who was the one that made everything? It is the Word. And if you keep reading there in John 1 you will find that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. So, the Word became flesh. That’s the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is God and the creator. All things are made by him. And without him was not anything made that was made. Notice verse 4 “4 In him” In who? In the Word. “was life; and the life was the light of men.” So according to the Bible, where does life come from? It comes from God. It comes from the Word. In him was life. He’s the one who gave life. We talked about it last week. That it is the Word. That it is God who breathed in to man and gave him a soul.
Go back to the book of Genesis where we read this morning. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” We believe in a God who created the Universe. Who created the world. And who created us. Evolutionists have a theory that there was an ocean. A huge primordial soup that had all the right ingredients and millions and millions of years later, everything happened to line up. And you had life. But there are some scientific problems with this theory. And I want to give you a couple this morning as to why life could not have formed in a primordial ocean millions of years ago.
The first reason is this, that amino acids which is the first step that they say had to come together. And then that became protein and eventually that became a living cell. And amino acids would not be able to come together in the sea. I’ll read for you from the article here “The National Academy of Sciences acknowledges 2 amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored. In other words, water breaks down protein chains in to amino acids or other constituents making it very difficult to produce proteins in the primordial soup. Materialists lack good explanations for these first simple steps which are necessary to the origin of life. Chemical Evolution is literally dead in the water.”.
In 2010, the University College of London biochemist Nick Lane stated “The primordial soup theory doesn’t hold water and it’s past it’s expiration date”. By the way, it’s an evolutionist who said that. But here’s the point, the amino acids would not be able to form in water because the water actually breaks them down and would not allow them to be able to form. And they know this. And you say, why do they continue to push this agenda? Because they don’t have anything better yet. So they will continue to push this one until they come up with something better. So just scientifically thinking, we cannot observe amino acids joining in waters now. We cannot test that. In fact, the test proved otherwise. The test proved it’s not possible. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that it happened millions and millions of years ago. Can you prove it? No. Can you test it? No. Can you observe it? No. “But it’s science”. No, it’s science falsely so called. Also, it is extremely improbable that amino acids would come together at all.
Here’s a different article from AmazingFacts.org “What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell. The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man made thing on earth. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance of a proper combination of molecules into amino acids and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic.” American Scientists magazine made this admission in January 1955 “From the probability standpoint the ordering of the present environment in to a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbably in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life”.
There is a biologist from the Discovery Institute named Jonathan Wells. And he said this and I thought it was a good quote “If I were to take a sterile test-tube and I put in it a little bit of fluid with just the right amount of salt and just the right balance of acidity and alkalinity, just the right temperature and the perfect solution for a living cell, and I put in 1 living cell and the cell is alive and has everything that it needs for life. Now I take a sterile needle and poke that cell and all of its stuff leaks out in to the test tube. You have in this nice little test tube all the molecules you need for a living cell. Not just the pieces of the molecules but the molecules for themselves. And you cannot make a living cell out of them. You can’t put a Humpty Dumpty together again. So what makes you think that a few amino acids dissolved in the ocean are going to give you a living cell. It’s totally unrealistic”.
And again the idea is this, if we can’t guide the process in experimentation, if we can’t take a living cell and we know we have all the molecules that create a cell and put it back together, what makes us think that it would just randomly happen in the ocean while the proteins and amino acids are dissolving anyway. It just doesn’t work. So when you hear about the primordial soup, and we talked about these vast oceans and the lightning hits and the methane. Just realize, that that is not science. Because science is this, something you can observe. Something you can test. Something you can perform an experiment on and say, I’ve got this theory. I have a theory that these amino acids joined together, turned in to protein which eventually became a living cell and we can test it and they tried to test it.
They’ve tried to recreate the environment of what they call the millions of year old earth in science and labs and they’ve never been able to do it. One time they so called did it and then they found that all of the environment was completely wrong as to what it should have been. And here’s all I’m telling you, they’ll tell us this stuff and act like it’s science but it’s not science. No one ever saw it in nature and they can’t duplicate it in the lab. It cannot be observed or tested. Therefore it is not science. So the primordial soup theory accounting for the origin of life is not science. Now I’ll tell you what it is, it’s wishful thinking. I’ll tell you what it is. It’s a belief system. You can say I believe that there was an ocean and these amino acids came together and created protein and this and that. You can believe that. You can say that’s my belief system. That’s what I hope happened. That’s what I wish happened. Because I don’t want to believe there is an actual God. But you can’t call it science because no one has observed it, you can’t test it, you can’t predict it. It’s not something that you can experiment with. So the first example this morning is the primordial soup theory accounting for the origin of life. And what does the Bible say is where life comes from? It comes from the Lord Jesus Christ. In him was life. He’s the one who gave us life.
#2 – What’s another example of faulty science which is used to try to prove evolution is fake. The 2nd point I want to make is this, the use of Microevolution to prove Macroevolution. The use of Microevolution to prove Macroevolution. Now let me kind of explain these terms. Because there are all sorts of different types of evolution that you need to understand. And the 2 that I want to talk about right now is Macroevolution vs. Microevolution. Micro is referring to something small like a Microchip.
Macro is in regards to something big. Let me give you the definition for Macroevolution. Macroevolution – Major evolutionary transition from 1 type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species or higher taxa. What is that referring to? Macroevolution is what we think of when we talk about evolution. About 1 animal turning in to another animal. 1 simple animal turning in to a more complex animal. That’s what we think of when we talk about evolution. Microevolution however, is possible. And I’m not even going to say that we should call it that but that’s the term they give it in science. I don’t even think we should call it Microevolution because that’s very misleading. Simply just variances within kinds. But microevolution is possible and is observed in nature today.
Let me read to you from this article discovercreation.org “Microevolution is the occurrence of small inherited changes in a population. The classic example is Darwin’s finches”. When Darwin was in the Galapagos Islands, he observed these finches. He loved birds and the fact that they had different types of beaks depending on where they lived, the types of fruit they had, they had different types of beaks. Because he observed that some of those finches had adapted to their environment, or had changed a little bit to be able to eat or whatever it was depending on where on the island it was, he determined that was evolution. Now he uses that to prove microevolution to prove macroevolution. But he’s using an example of microevolution.
Because here’s the thing, whether the bird had a long beak or a short beak. Whether the beak was larger or smaller, the thing is that it was still a bird. It hadn’t changed into another animal. It was a small variance within the actual kind of animal. Let me keep reading the classic example is when Darwin’s Finches which show variation in size and shape over successive generations depending on the nature of their food supply. Many other similar examples could be regularly cited like the breeding of dogs or types of wheat. So what we can observe microevolution today. You can take 2 generic dogs and mess with breeding and mess with breeding and you can get big dogs and small dogs and all sorts of different types of dogs but it will always be a dog. And the Bible teaches this.
And here’s the major belief system where biblical based Christianity goes away from evolution. And it is this, no animal can produce another type of or another kind of animal. The Bible teaches this. Look at Genesis 1:11 “11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed” Notice this term “after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,” Notice these 3 words “after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Skip down to verse 24 “24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth” Notice “after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And by the way, things bringing forth after their own kind is the only type of reproduction that has ever been observed by anybody. And look, not only has it not happened in the past. Why are we not today seeing animals produce different types of animals. Because the Bible says that animals will only produce after their kind. And by the way, if they can produce and reproduce then they’re the same kind. You know a dog can produce and reproduce different types of dogs. Different types of canines. But it won’t reproduce with a turtle. With a pigeon. If they’re not the same kind. That’s what the Bible is teaching. That makes microevolution possible but makes macroevolution impossible.
See microevolution is possible and observed in nature today. But here’s what you need to understand. Microevolution, small amounts of variances within a kind can never lead to macroevolution. You can never change an animal so much that eventually it becomes a different animal. See when Darwin wrote the origins of species book. Their understand book at that time about genes and how DNA was inherited and all of that, was not understood. They did not understand those concepts at that time. He just didn’t have the science needed to be able to really look at his theory in a scientific way. Today we have the science but it is ignored. If you want to push an agenda and they want to push theories.
Let me read for you from this article. “Genes can impart great variety by combining in different ways but genetic change can be pushed beyond a certain point. From generic dogs we can breed big dogs or little dogs. But we can’t turn a dog in to an alligator. The important thing to remember about microevolution is that it always involves recombination for loss of existing genes. It never creates totally new genes from scratch. Microevolution makes variations within already existing kinds of creatures, not totally new kings”. See, if you’re going to turn an animal in to another animal, then you can’t do it. But in theory, if you were going to do it then you would have to add new genes in to that gene pool. But what microevolution does, it just shuffles up the genes that are already there. See, the chihuahua has all the genes that a dog has but it is just using a lot less of them since it’s just this big, you know. Obviously, bigger dogs are going to have a much bigger gene pool set to come out of but it’s still a dog. It will never just change the genes.
So, microevolution is true. And here’s what they’ll do at school. They’ll teach the kids about microevolution. They’ll get examples of microevolution. But then they’ll just have them believe that macroevolution is somehow connected to that but it’s not. And we should probably start calling it that at least as Christians. We should stop calling it microevolution and just call it variances within kinds. We get that. Obviously we have all different types of dogs and cats and birds and you know, probably all dogs I’m sure just descended from the same generic dog that came off of Noah’s Ark. Or all cats descended from the cats that came off of Noah’s Ark.
So we’re not against microevolution. And by the way microevolution is science. It can be observed. It can be tested. But microevolution will not and cannot lead to macroevolution which is this belief system that you know a cell turned in to a fish. And a fish turned in to a reptile. And a reptile turned in to a bird and whatever. And then it became an ape and a human. Whatever it is. So here’s what you need to understand, the use of microevolution to prove macroevolution is not science. Now I will say this. It’s deceitful. It’s extremely deceitful to teach children about microevolution, to give them evidence about microevolution and then throw in macroevolution with it. That’s deceitful. It’s lying but it’s not science. So the evolution today, you know the primordial soup. Is that science? It’s wishful thinking but it’s not science. The microevolution used to prove macroevolution today. Ya it’s deceitful but it’s not science.
Let me give you a 3rd one. The 3rd one is this – The hope that mutations might explain evolution. The hope that mutations might explain evolution. Let me give you the hypothesis of mutations in regards to evolution that they give. This is from a website, amazing facts. The article says this “One of the most necessary parts of evolution which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba in to a man is mutations. This refers to abnormal changes in the organisms that are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factor within the chromosomes of each species. The assumption is that these genes which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors occasionally become affected by unusual pairings, chemical damage or other influences causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutations, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned in to an invertebrate which became an amphibian then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form and finally a man. So what they are teaching is that if you get enough mutations going, it can turn 1 kind of being in to a different kind of being.
Now, here’s the thing, are mutations real? They are. Can we observe them in nature? We can. In fact the Bible talks about mutations. 1 Chronicles 20:6 “6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty,” Now is that normal? To have 24 fingers & toes? “six on each hand, and six on each foot and he also was the son of the giant.” So here you’ve got a giant who has got 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot. And that’s a mutation. That’s not normal. And here’s the thing. And today there are people born with 6 fingers today. Usually they cut them off or have surgery or whatever but those types of things do happen. And by the way, we’ve been conditioned by the media to believe these things. When I was a kid, there was a famous comic book and cartoon called X-Men. I think there have been movies made now or whatever. And what was that comic book teaching? That humans were turning in to these mutants. But they were never these freaks right. They had these cool superpowers. What were they becoming? Gods. It’s teaching evolution. It’s saying that mutations will eventually turn a person in to something greater than itself.
Now let me give you some reasons why mutations are an unlikely vehicle for evolution. Mutations will not work for evolution but I’ll keep reading to you from this article. It says “Keep this clearly in mind. Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the improbable upgrading in species that changes the simple form in to complex forms. But the scientific fact is that mutations can never accomplish what evolution demands of it for several reasons. #1 – All scientists agree that mutations are very real. #2 – When they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead towards extinction instead of evolution. They make the organism worse instead of better. Darwin himself conceded that most mutations are recessive and degenerative. Therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than in fact any significant improvement in the organisms.”. Here’s the thing, mutations generally hurt. They destroy genes or they are a lack of genes. They are not a superiority to genes. And the funny thing is that evolutionists themselves give us an example of mutation and the fact that it can happen. But it does not promote their theory.
I’ll read to you from a different article from the Creation Studies’ Website. It says this “Researchers by means of genetic breeding, changed a 2 winged fruit fly in to a 2 winged fruit fly. The 4 winged fruit fly always produces a 4 winged fruit fly. But although a new species has been produced, it is not a new king. The mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. As a matter of fact, the 4 winged fruit fly is a weakened form. The 2nd set of wings do not help the fruit fly. They actually get in the way. It’s ability to take flight is usually being hindered. The bottom line is that mutations always weaken an organism and never change it in to something else. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly”.
So this idea that they try to teach that mutations can somehow explain evolution or mutations can be the vehicle by which evolution comes from is not scientific. And quite honestly, it’s just grasping at straws. It’s not science. You can’t observe it. You can’t observe something turning in to a mutant and say this is a better version. It’s usually a worsened version. It may be a different version but it’s not a better version. And there’s no science to prove that. But today they’ll teach that to children. And of course what are all these X-Men watching kids thinking? Cool. I want to be a mutant. And they are teaching them that they are a mutant. And it’s not science at all. So we’ve seen the primordial soup theory accounting for the origin of life. It’s wishful thinking but not science. We’ve seen the use of microevolution to try to prove macroevolution. It’s deceitful but not science. We’ve seen the hope that mutations might be the vehicle by which evolution can work. And that is just grasping at straws but it’s not science.
Let me give you the 4th one. And to me this is probably the most interesting one. And this is the use of fossil records as evidence for evolution. The use of fossil records as evidence for evolution. Now I would say that some of these things I’ve told you are wishful thinking, deceitful, grasping at straws. I would say that this one is arrogant and ironic. That they would even use the fossil record to try to prove evolution. And I think it’s silly. And I think if they’re smart then they’ll ignore the fossil record altogether. And let me explain to you why. There’s a problem for the evolutionist called the Cambrian Explosion.
I’ll read for you from Discover.org here “One biology textbook explains major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record fully formed and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their apparent group.” They go on “Probably the most famous instance of abrupt appearance is the Cambrian Explosion where nearly all the major living animal phyla appear in the Cambrian Period. An invertebrate, biology textbooks explain. Most of the animals groups that are represented in the fossil record first appear fully formed and identifiable as their phylum in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago”. And of course that is their belief system not mine. They go on “The Cambrian layer is full of all of the major kind of animals found today except the vertebrate. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of the most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is where are their ancestors?
Where are all of the evolving creatures that should have led up to these creatures. According to evolution, the Pre-Cambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward”. Now let me ask a question. Who has ever heard of the term the missing link? We’ve all heard that or I think we all have. You know they’re searching for the missing link. And here’s what they want you to believe alright. They want you to believe that these fossils can be lined up and they can start from that first fish that crawled out of the water or whatever. And they can line these fossils up and they’ll put pictures. You’ve seen those pictures where they start like a chimp and end up as a human being or whatever. And they will have you believe and kind of put this in the minds of children. They’ve got all these fossils.
And the fact that they even use the term missing link makes you think that if you have them all lined up that you will see real clearly where it started at Point A and became more complex and became a human being. But that there is just 1 missing link. And if we can just find the bones of that one Bigfoot. If we could just that one missing link and put it in there then the link will be complete. And you say why would they admit to a missing link? Here’s why they admit to a missing link. The problem is not a missing link. The problem is that the entire chain is missing. It’s not that they’re missing a link. They are missing the whole thing. Now if they can have you think that they’ve got it all but just the link, it seems pretty scientific. But they don’t admit that they don’t have any of it. There is no missing link. There is a missing chain. There is no proof in the fossil record that this happened. And here is the thing. Their big problem is this Cambrian Explosion because they have this strata that supposedly gives you the history of earth. And we’ll talk about that in a different sermon.
But you know, here’s the idea. If evolution is true, if evolution is true, then we should be able to look back at these fossils and find hundreds of thousands. I mean of evidence of these animals turning in from one kind to another kind of animal. See the fact that they’ve got 2 or 3 or 4 missing links that they argue is part of the missing link, ought to tell you how ridiculous it is. Because there should be no argument. If evolution is true then there should be an overwhelming amount of half human, half apes bones found. We shouldn’t be arguing about a few bones saying is this evidence or is this not. I mean it should just be an overwhelming amount of half fish, half reptile, half reptile, half bird. There should be an overwhelming amount of this in the fossil record. But here is the thing. There is not.
In fact, when you go further in to the Pre-Cambrian strata, it’s virtually fossil less. There are virtually no fossils. I mean virtually there is nothing found in the strata but then when you get in to the Pre-Cambrian strata, all of the sudden, all of the animals appear in their basically complex form the way they are now. Of course we know that with animals there is Microevolution where they vary within kind but they all appear. So here’s the thing, so what does the Cambrian Explosion hint towards? Here’s what it hints toward? The Cambrian explosion hints to 1 fact, a sudden event that brought all of the major creatures in to existence at the same time. I mean when you’ve got strata after strata and there’s no virtually nothing on it and then all of the sudden you get to this stage and all of these animals appear. The Cambrian Explosion. It’s hinting toward the fact that all of these animals appeared all at the same time.
I’ll show you the Cambrian Explosion in scripture. Genesis 1:20 “20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Look down at verse 24 “24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” Notice verse 25. “25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
You see, the Bible teaches that the entire world was created in a period of 6 days. That all animals came into existence relatively at the same time. So the fact that you see them all explode into the history of strata at the same time, makes perfect sense with the creation theory. It makes sense with the evolution theory. And the fact that they would use fossils to try to show these fossils to these children to say “See, the fossil record proves evolution”. It’s not only arrogant. It’s ironic. You would think that they would just not want to talk about the fossil record at all. You would think they would just want to make up a lie like after a billion years or whatever fossils disintegrate or something like that. They just think we are so stupid. And here’s the thing, most Americans are so caught up with watching their little X-Men, and watching their stupid Super Bowl or whatever and don’t want to read and learn these things. They just think that people are stupid. Just tell them anything. Just show them this fake Lucy or show them this fake fossils and tell them that we’ve got all of those links but just missing 1 link. You’re not missing 1 link, you’re missing the whole chain. You’re missing all of it. It’s not there.
And here’s what you need to understand. And Kent Hovind said this in his Seminar and I thought it was a good quote and agree. A fossil can’t prove anything. You can’t look at a fossil and prove that thing ever had a child or ever produced anything. And here’s the quote I like from Kent Hovind. “Why would you think that a bone in the dirt could do something that animals can’t do today. Produce something that is not in their own kind”. Here’s the thing, you can’t look at a fossil and say this fossil, this dinosaur gave birth to a bird. Bones don’t show you that a dinosaur had any children and much less that it gave birth to anything else. But we don’t see animals.
The only thing we observe today in nature is animals bringing forth after their own kind. That’s science. We can observe it. We can test it. We can look at it. We can try to make animals reproduce something else and it doesn’t work, doesn’t work, doesn’t work. Somehow magically it did happen with this fossil record. It’s like “This record proves….”. You don’t know that fossil had any children or much less anything different than itself. It’s not science. Because what is science? Science is something that we can observe. Science is something that we can experiment with. Science is something that we can test and say here’s our theory. We tested it. We proved it. And using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is extremely arrogant and ironic. Because you’re missing a lot of links. You’re missing the entire chain altogether.
Let me give you the last one. So what is the point of this sermon? The point of this sermon is just to show you that the theory of evolution is not science. And the science that they are quote on quote giving you is not science. Primordial soup is not science. It’s wishful thinking but it’s not science. The microevolution to prove macroevolution. Microevolution is science. Using that to prove macroevolution is deceitful. It’s not science. The hope that mutations might be the vehicle by which evolution can come is just grasping at straws. It’s not science. The fossil record is arrogant. It’s arrogant and ironic to use that.
It’s not science #5 – The idea that natural selection, who has ever heard that term before. The idea that natural selection can somehow produce evolution is not science. See they’ll teach children, how does evolution work? How can evolution exist? Well it exists because of natural selection. It exists because of the law of the survival of the fittest. Natural selection may explain, and I got the quotes from Kent Hovind’s Seminar. And I’m just paraphrasing. “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest but it does not explain the arrival of the fittest”. “Natural selection may” Now I use the word may. “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest but it does not explain the arrival of the fittest”. Natural selection does not give us an explanation of the origin of life. Natural selection only gives the theory for how species survive. But it does not tell us how they got there.
Let me read “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest but it does not explain the arrival of the fittest. The survival of the fittest however, may not be accurate. The survival of the fittest may not be accurate.” And again, in Kent Hovind’s seminar he gives this point. If a whale crosses through a school of fish and eats 80% of them, the ones that survived is not really the survival of the fittest but the survival of the luckiest. Now you can say that this fox was more fit but if that fox broke his leg and got eaten up by another animal, was it more fit? It may have been but it didn’t have any good luck. So survival of the fittest may not even be that accurate to begin with. It tends to be the survival of the luckiest. It may just be survival of the fortunate. But let’s say that survival of the fittest is true. Let’s say the law of natural selection was a natural law of nature. Let’s say that that is true.
The survival of the fittest does not account, and let me read for you from this article on amazing facts. “For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex, there must be an increase of genetic information. For organisms to go from a single cell organism to something more complex. From an animal that’s not as complex (although even a single celled organism is far more complex than anything that man has created including all our cities and technology. So calling them things that are not complex is not really accurate since they are really complex). In order to go from something less complex to more complex then you would have to add to the gene pool. That’s why microevolution will never lead to macroevolution since you need to add to the gene pool.
So here’s the thing about natural selection or survival of the fittest. Because if you ask most people how this works then they think these things go hand in hand. How does evolution work? They say survival of the fittest or natural selection. Here’s the problem with that thought. Because natural selection will never add genes to the gene pool. It will never have the genes needed to turn one animal to a different kind of animal. If natural selection is true or survival of the fittest, it’s nature quality control. Do you understand that? It may allow for the worst or weakest or sickliest of a species to die down but it will never allow a certain kind of animal to turn in to a different kind of animal. It may give you the strongest, most fit of that kind but it will never turn that kind into a different kind. Does that make sense?
Here’s an example from the Seminar. If you were to be put in charge of quality control for an auto manufacturer. Your job is to sit there at the assembly line and make sure that everything that is inaccurate, inappropriate, that doesn’t work or is wrong, you’re going to make this assembly line the fittest ever. There will be no mistakes. Nothing will ever happen. And you do the best job you can at it. You remove lazy people. You remove processes that are complicated. You remove all the problems with that assembly line. You make that assembly line the fittest assembly line in the United States of America. How long will it take for that assembly line to stop producing vehicles and producing airplanes instead? It will never happen. You might produce vehicles more efficiently or effectively. But you will never just get so fit that you will start accidentally producing jet airplanes. Because in order to do that, you would have to add parts, processes to that assembly line.
Natural selection may give us the fittest cheetah, may give us the strongest lion, may give us the best of whatever kind or species we have. But it’s never going to turn that animal in to a different animal. If survival of the fittest is true, it will never account for evolution. So the fact that today they are teaching evolution works because of Natural Selection. Evolution works because of the Survival of the Fittest. Because of the fact that the most fit survive, that’s why we’re able to evolve. That is a lie. It’s not true. It could never happen. Because you have to be able to add genes, genetic information to that being in order for it to turn into something else. So again, what’s the point of this sermon this morning?
You say Pastor Jimenez, I thought you were going to try to prove God from the Bible. You must not have been here last week. Because the point of this series is not to try to prove God scientifically. The Bible says that the only way to please God is to come to him in faith. The only way to be saved by the way is to come to him in faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We’ll never be able to scientifically prove to you there is a God. That’s not the point of this series.
The point of this series is to show you that #1, the science that they supposedly have that proves evolution is not science at all. Because if you notice these 5, and I read a lot of articles from the 5 major points they push. And I’m sure there are others. And by the way, you know a lot of times people will look at the same evidence and just look at it differently because of their worldview. You’ll look at evidence that can be observed in nature and you’ll come up with a different conclusion because of the fact that you believe we came from God in 6 literal days and they believe we came from an ape like being millions of years ago.
But here’s the point we’re trying to tell you. The science they are using is not science because we can’t observe it, test it, predict it, or issue an experiment that says look, right here. I created life. There was nothing. There was salt water and amino acids and I threw a battery in there and look, a single celled organism. No one has ever done that. And like the quote read, we can’t even take a single cell organism apart. Put it in the most perfect environment and put it back together by our own intelligence and guiding it. We can’t even put it back together. Look, well what is it? It’s religion. They’re teaching you something that cannot be proven. And there asking us to accept it by faith but they’re lying. They’re lying because they’ll say it’s science. It’s not science at all.
Primordial soup is not science. Wishful thinking is not science. Microevolution is not science. But to use it to prove macroevolution is lying. The hope that mutations might explain or might be the vehicle that evolution use to bring us to the place we are is not science at all. We’ve never seen mutations produce anything. You say, the take a fruit fly and they zap it and radio activate it and do all sorts of terrible things and makes lots of different types of fruit flies but they never made a hummingbird. They never made anything else. It’s still just a fruit fly. So it’s grasping at straws. The fossil record. I think it’s arrogant and ironic that they even go there. Because they are not just missing links but they are missing the whole thing.
And of course the idea of natural selection, when people say “How can evolution happen?”. You know the survival of the fittest. The survival of the fittest can make us the most fit. It can make us the most effective and efficient beings on earth, whatever we are. But it will never add genes to the gene pool needed to be able to produce a different animal. A different kind of animal. You say how do you know that? Because that’s what the Bible says. And you know what’s interesting, that everything in the Bible says, everything in the Bible says, I’m not telling you that it can be proven. But it can be predicted, tested and observed in nature.
For example, creationists can say “Hey you know what, I bet you, I bet you that not all beings on earth came back from a common ancestor because we did not. But I bet you that all the dogs and types of different dogs on planet earth have a common ancestor”. And you know that genetics have proven that all the dogs, the breeds of dogs that we have today can all be traced back to a common ancestor? Which was a dog. You say, well how can you make that prediction based on the Bible? Well because of the flood. Because of the fact that we know there was a flood and all of the creatures died off except the ones on the ark.
And we can make a prediction and say I bet that all of the dogs came from the same common ancestor of a dog from the ark. We can make the prediction that since God created Adam and Eve and because all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, that all humans have a common ancestor which should be Adam and Eve. And you know that science has proven that? Genetics have proven that. That there is no other type of race or human. All races, red and yellow, black and white, they all come back to Adam and Eve. Science has proven that. We can look at something with Scripture, predict it.
You know what a creation scientist would be able to predict? They would be able to say that I bet you that the fossil record would show you that all animals came in to existence at the same time. Oh wow! It does! That’s science. You can have a hypothesis. You can test it. You can observe it. You can experiment with it and show it to be true. So don’t be lied to. Don’t let them lie to you. You say what’s evolution? It’s a religion. You have to accept it by faith. And if you want to accept it that’s fine. But can you be honest and not call it science? They mock us “Well you want us to accept God by faith”. I’d rather accept God by faith than a primordial soup by faith. Let’s bow our heads and have a word of prayer.