<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>

Advent HOPE Sabbath School

Richard Schaefer

Creation and Evolution

My presentation this morning is on a topic I've never spoken of here on this campus.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, and the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." I believe there are millions of people in this world who will not believe in Christ the Creator full of grace and truth because they can't believe the first 4 words of the Bible, in the beginning, God.

I heard of a family who moved to get out of the city.

They moved out to the Pacific Northwest, And 1 of their children attended a public school where he learned about millions of years.

He may be an agnostic, he may be an atheist.

I didn't want that to happen to my 3 sons and my 3 grandsons.

So as an author, this is what I do for a living here, I decided to write a book.

And this book I've been working on for 8 years.

This is a science book written by a non-scientist for non-scientist readers.

I have spent 47 years on this campus trying to make scientific things understandable to lay people.

I tell them that the Judkin's technique of computer-assisted percutaneous transfemoral selective coronary arteriography is simply the x-ray evaluation of the blood vessels of the heart.

It has more than 1, 100 footnotes Because I'm not a scientist.

I have had to rely on scientists to help me critique this.

When I get it back from 2 more scientists, it will be ready to be edited.

I want you to see what the name of it is.

The following statement provides a preview of the focus and introduces the concept of reasonable doubt.

This came from a man named Theo Agard, Ph.D.

The theory of evolution is not as scientifically sound as many people believe.

In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question, which came first, chicken or the egg?

Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken, and every chicken was hatched from an egg.

And you know, another word for evolution, 2 more words, would be materialism and naturalism.

Hence the first chicken or first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least.

I will quotation in the appendix of this book from a news story that came out of England where they determined, scientists over there determined that the chicken came first.

And they gave all the scientific reasons for saying that.

What they did not say was how did the chicken get hurt.

Now I don't really kill anybody's sincerely held belief.

What I've tried to do, you see, I've concluded that scientists on both sides of this controversy look at the same evidence, and they present scientific evidence to support their conclusions.

The differences in their conclusions is based on their different interpretations of the evidence.

And that is based on something academics call presuppositional bias.

If I were to translate that, I would say starting point.

So if you grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist church and you believe that the Bible was the word of God, that would be your starting point.

If you grew up with someone who said there is no God, that would be your starting point.

I've tried to ask the question, is it possible to find scientific evidence in support of the most conservative interpretation of the evidence.

I believe that is 1 of the pillars of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Not all evolutionists agree with each other on every issue, nor do all creationists agree with each other on every issue.

There may be people on this campus who would disagree with some of what I will present here.

I have observed that scientifically documented theories today may be replaced by new scientifically documented theories tomorrow.

I will acknowledge that I don't have all the answers, but I will state my sincerely held belief that nobody has all of the answers.

I have quotations from atheists and evolutionists in what I call honest moments.

I'd like to share with you an honest moment.

We take the side of science In spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

Viewers of a popular 2001 PBS series weren't told that credible scientists harbored significant skepticism for Darwinian theory.

In fact, its one-sided depiction of evolution spurred a backlash from many scientists.

A detailed 151-page critique claimed it failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the evidence for Darwinian evolution and even systematically ignored disagreements among evolutionary biologists themselves.

Richard Hutton, executive producer of the controversial PBS TV series Evolution, was asked, what are some of the larger questions still unanswered by evolutionary theory?

That's 1 of the reasons we didn't cover it in the series.

Now in 1953 there was a man named Stanley Miller.

Have you heard of, anybody here heard about Stanley Miller?

He was a graduate student at the University of Chicago.

He attempted to simulate Earth's early conditions.

During his experiment, he took 4 gases, methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen.

He thought that was probably the early atmosphere on Earth.

Ran them through some tubes and into a spark chamber supposed to simulate lightning.

Because a red goo containing some amino acids formed in the bottom of the apparatus, he concluded he had created the beginning elements of life.

Miller's work at the University of Chicago has become an icon for advocates of the spontaneous generation of life.

Biology teachers and textbooks have taught millions of students about the experiment and scientists and teachers have hailed it around the world as evidence of how life could have originated by itself.

Amino acids produced in Miller's apparatus are both right-handed and left-handed amino acids.

But right-handed amino acids are poisonous to living organisms.

Right-handed amino acids render proteins non-functional.

In 1994, a doctoral candidate claimed that he had solved the problem of mixed left and right-handed amino acids.

Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form.

At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate the results, always unsuccessfully.

Later he admitted he manipulated his data.

In an interview with Jonathan Wells, the author of Icons of Evolution, Lee Strobel, who's been on this campus, he was an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, asked what scientists would get if they repeated the Miller experiment today with an accurate atmosphere.

Most creationists believe embalming fluid.

Most creationists believe in microevolution.

Evidence is evolutionists present for evolution are mostly evidence for microcreation.

Microcreation, another way of saying that would be variants.

We have 400 species of dogs now, but they're all dogs.

They declare that macroevolution is just microevolution over longer periods of time.

And that is an assumption, a major leap in logic.

Schoolchildren are being indoctrinated to believe that microevolution demonstrates that all evolution is true.

I have a quotation from Science Magazine.

This is not a Creation Science publication.

Back to Menu

Creation and Evolution

Transcript

Sponsor

Recorded

Sound Doctrine