<p>Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/">BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)</a> license.</p>

Amazing Facts

Joe Crews

Evolution and Glands

Evolution teaches that man has an animal ancestry.

Does this explain the cruel behavior of many human beings?

I'll be back in a moment to talk about individual responsibility and our glands.

Hello this is Joe Cruz and the amazing facts broadcast, facts which affect you.

You know, 1 of the greatest forces working against true religion today is the growing strength of humanism.

In simple language, this is the doctrine that seeks to explain everything on the basis of natural law and human effort.

It denies the supernatural acts of God as far as both material and spiritual worlds are concerned.

Perhaps this doctrine could be expected from materialistic scientists who insist on laboratory proof for all its propositions, but, friends, we are facing a world of religion which is largely turning away from the biblical concept of God as the Creator.

High-place theologians have generally rejected the authority of God's Word, that is, the claims of its own inspiration and infallibility.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3.16.

But what about the book of Genesis with its clear-cut account of creation and the flood.

If all scripture is inspired, then this story of man's origin must be inspired by God also.

Why is there such reluctance to agree with the simple recital of God's power in calling all things into existence?

A few years ago there was scarcely a disagreement among religious leaders concerning the origin of life.

Nobody was skeptical enough to challenge the authenticity of the book of God.

Everybody recognized it as the only source of absolute truth, except for the most defiant atheist or agnostic, of course.

Now, true, many scientists of the day were looking for some other explanation of life than that offered by the creationists, but most Christians, at least, were secure in their Bible-based faith in Genesis 1.

Suddenly, the speculative theories of Darwin sprang into view, and the unbelievers grabbed desperately for an explanation of existence that did not involve God.

The idea that long ages of time could produce all the complexities of plant and animal life was used as an argument against the special creation spelled out in the Bible.

When Darwin took his famous trip on the Beagle along the coast of South America, he noticed that species of animal life on certain of the Galapagos Islands were a little different from the species on other islands, and that sparked the thought that given enough time and enough geographical separation plus other factors, entirely different species would be developed, then different genera and different families and so on.

Without becoming involved in the endless intricacies of his theory, we may say that Darwin needed only to add the factors of favorable variation and survival of the fittest in order to account not only for different kinds of life but for rising levels of life as well, even right on up to the complex nature of man.

Now conservative Christians can agree that Darwin dealt with the fact of nature when he declared that species often varied.

What we question is the enormous superstructure of conclusions from these facts.

There was a day when men proved to their complete satisfaction under the confusion of their few opponents that if the world is round, the sailor foolhardy enough to sail endlessly westward would ultimately slip over the side and fall off.

Probably no argument could be more easily proved than that.

We can just visualize their proof, by the way, even today by holding up a ball and watching what finally happens to an object on its surface as it moves in any direction from what we call the top side.

The only thing lacking in their simple demonstration in logic was a knowledge of the law of gravity.

They thought they understood nature, and they did, in part.

They thought their conclusion was unassailable, but we only smile as we look back on the matter and muse on the fact that an apparently unanswerable argument can suddenly become pointless by the addition of a single new fact, in this case, of course, the fact of gravity.

For many decades after scientists began to endorse evolution, liberal-minded theologians endeavored to harmonize the Genesis creation record with the theory of evolution.

At last they were able to rationalize that if enough time could be allowed, there would be room enough for evolution in the Bible both.

They reasoned that God could have done the work in the slow 4000000000 year span designated by evolutionary science.

It's amazing that this tragic compromise has leavened the whole structure of modern Christianity to this day.

It's even more astonishing when we consider the implications of it.

What does the so-called Christian evolutionist believe about creation?

Listen, this is the heart of his position.

He believes that the great God, presumably infinite in power and wisdom, saw fit to employ the stumbling method of trial and error in creating our world.

In other words, God tried 1 procedure that worked, and carried the world a certain distance upward.

Then after more ages He discovered further procedures that carried the world a little higher still, and so on finally up to man.

And all during this long period of trial and error there were endless exhibits of, as Darwin describes it, the survival of the fittest.

For example, an animal with a little longer neck could eat a little higher on the green leaves of the trees, thereby having a better chance of survival when food was short.

Hence the world would be favored with taller species, or a certain strain of animal might be fleeter afoot and thus escape the clutches of predatory animals.

The net result would be a species of animal with longer legs or stronger muscles or possibly with both.

Now, according to the evolution theory, man is the end product of the whole evolution chain that began with microscopic creatures back in the swamps.

He inherits all the past, meaning that in his blood and nervous system run endless urges of the animal kingdom.

In other words, it has been hard for man to suddenly break away from all the evil past.

The very first man must have started out under a tremendous handicap.

And with all this animal nature, perhaps man shouldn't be blamed too much for his brutality and violence.

Maybe this explains the unprecedented juvenile crime wave, too.

Can we blame them for rioting and killing if they have inherited the urges of an animal past?

What a perfect setup for the modern rationalist and theologian who fears to call sin by its right name.

If our glands are at fault, plus a poor environment, Then there can be no personal responsibility for wrongdoing.

Believe it or not, this is the basis for a major school of psychology today, and the Christian evolutionist provides the doctrine that makes it sound so scientific and reasonable.

Still, he believes it rather than to believe the simple logical account of the Bible.

And what has been the result of such unscriptural ramblings, friends?

The result has been the most overwhelming revolution in Christian thinking in the 2, 000 years since Christ.

The evolution theory, of course, allows for no perfect man named Adam at the beginning of the way, and no perfect earth either.

Hence there is no place for Moses' account of the fall of man, or for the promise of 1 who would come to lift man from his fallen state?

Nor is there any place for the prophecy of John the Revelator that God will finally destroy this evil world, and create a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

In fact, there is no place for the word sin as the Bible defines it from Genesis to Revelation, nor for the earlier biblical ages of verse history.

Amoeba, you see, do not sin, nor do frogs, fishes, monkeys, or any other segment of what evolution describes as man's ancestors.

Nor does evolution even suggest when man began to sin as he slowly struggled upward.

Though theologians of our day still use biblical terms, Those terms do not have the same meaning they had in all past time.

Little did these men realize that by interpreting the days of creation as long periods of time, they were playing right into the hands of the evolutionists, who think of time, of course, as a substitute for the miraculous.

Given enough time, plus a dash of imagination and speculation, almost anything can happen.

1 of the very reasons scientists have tended through the years to give a longer and still longer span to the history of our world is that a longer period is needed in order to have a natural basis for the origin and development of the world and all the inhabitants without the aid of God.

Scientists can never be quite sure even in their own minds.

Having committed themselves to harmonizing their theology with scientific beliefs, theistic evolutionists have trustingly gone along with the scientists back, back, back through the rolling years and have accepted the present 4000000000 year estimate for the age of the world.

But what such churchmen evidently forget is that the scientists have rolled time back into the oblivion of the past in order to find what they feel is a rational, non-supernatural explanation for the world, that is, an explanation that calls for no action by God at all in the process of making the earth and its inhabitants.

Their dilemma is how to insist that He is keeping God squarely in the picture through those long ages when scientists have set up those years in order to keep everything exclusively within the framework of natural phenomena, meaning God is not even in the picture at all.

Nor has the churchman any way of escaping from this dilemma.

For him to attempt to inject any evidence of God's taking a part in making the earth on the assumption that natural processes cannot account for it all is to part company with the scientist who insists that all we need to do is add a billion or so or more years to encompass everything within the natural framework.

Well, what can we say of the theologian who calls himself a theistic evolutionist?

Every stride he takes back through the ages in an endeavor to walk in step with the scientist is a stride away from a truly theistic explanation of our earth.

If the scientists with whom he wishes to agree have finally carried him back with them to the point where they say it is possible to explain all the phenomena without bringing God into the picture, why not agree with them on that point also?

It seems a little tragic for a religious man to travel back trusting that for billions of years thinking the scientists have the truth and that he is watching his great God at work only to discover in the infinity of the past that the scientists took him back there in order to explain everything without God.

Let modernist theologians protest, friends, as they most certainly will, that they still believe in God.

And I'll ask again, what kind of a God do you believe in?

Surely not a God who is very important to all the processes of the world.

And if God is so unnecessary that everything can be explained on a naturalistic basis, given enough time, Why be concerned about promoting belief in God or giving obedience to His will or indeed doing anything about God?

The answer to that question is painfully evident.

And in that answer, I believe, is found the chief explanation for our present secular age.

By the very logic of the evolutionist-believing theologians, God has become so secondary, even so incidental, as to seem a wholly unimportant force in the universe.

Why not let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die?

Surely a God so unimportant to our lives will not bring us into judgment, nor can He be expected to provide for us a life in the world beyond.

Obviously, the classic idea of God, of being all-wise and powerful, personally concerned about our lives, simply cannot be harmonized with a whole evolution philosophy.

And I think, friends, that that just about brings us to the end of our message today, and the basis that we've been talking about here is simply that these theistic evolutionists who claim to also believe in God and in the Bible have put themselves in an indefensible position.

There is no way that they can believe in evolution as is taught by the scientists today and also believe in the Bible as inspiration has given it to us in the book of Genesis.

Well in closing today let me urge you to write for my little booklet entitled How Evolution Flunked the Science Test.

It's free for the asking and I hope you'll sit down right now and drop that card or letter.

Remember the name of the little booklet is How Evolution Flunked the Science Test.

And now this is Joe Cruz saying goodbye for today.

Back to Menu

Evolution and Glands

Transcript

Sponsor

Recorded

Related

Five Minutes After Death, Then What?

Five Minutes After Death, Then What? Part 2

14m

Power of God

Power of God Part 1

14m

Five Minutes After Death, Then What?

Five Minutes After Death, Then What? Part 1

14m

The Millennium

The Millennium Part 2

14m

Demanding God

30m

Country Wisdom Season 2

A New Heart

28m

Two Covenants

Two Covenants Part 1

14m

Say my Name

58m

Constantine’s Bible

30m

Understanding the Bible

14m

Change of the Sabbath

A Change of the Sabbath, Part 1

14m

Grace or Disgrace

Grace or Disgrace Part 1

14m

Sound Doctrine