<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

Evolution

Joe Crews

Evolution Part 1

Some astonishing similarities have been noted between monkeys and some human beings.

How close is the relationship and do they stem from the same ancestors?

In a moment with the amazing facts about man's origin.

Hello, this is Joe Cruz from the Amazing Facts broadcast, facts which affect you.

Now, I believe most of us know that Protestantism is not making the progress it did in earlier days.

Somehow, there's been a strange lessening of enthusiasm for Reformation principles.

Issues that were once so very, very clear have now been clouded by modern Protestant theology and interpretation.

In fact, the historic principle of the Bible and the Bible only is now being questioned as the real source of emphasis for Protestantism today.

Now we want to study some of these subtle changes that have been taking place to steal away the power of that gospel message of old.

We'd like to know why churches have turned away from the clear Bible preaching and put their main emphasis now upon the social gospel and social matters.

You know, really, there are just 2 mighty issues facing Protestantism today, evolution and modernism.

We're going to be taking these matters up 1 by 1 and see what fearful inroads these heresies have made into Protestant theology.

First of all, we think about evolution, the theory of evolution.

You know, friends, 1 of the great marvels of this age is how this philosophical theory became acceptable on a scientific basis.

Now this is something we just can't understand because really there's nothing scientific about it.

You know we all recognize that science insists upon laboratory methods to verify and prove its propositions.

Science always says, we've got to prove it, we've got to go to the laboratory, we must be sure of everything, put it in the test tube.

And yet when science begins to deal in theories of the origin of things, France, there can be no laboratory proof, There can be no scientific test.

After all, nobody was here when the world came into existence.

No 1 was audience to those billions of years which the evolutionists claim for the progression of mankind.

Now there are only 2 ways that a person can deal with this matter of the origin of mankind.

First, by philosophy, and second, by revelation.

Now I have chosen the door of revelation to be the surest and the best.

I think God has given us in the Bible a revelation of how things came to be.

Now philosophy, on the other hand, instead of having any kind of authority such as the Bible, simply speculates on how it might have happened.

If they want to imagine how things could have taken place, I don't object.

But when these speculations are presented as scientific facts, I do object strenuously.

Now what is this theory that philosophy instituted and science adopted?

Well, it's the idea that way back in the beginning of things there was just a little one-celled organism and the whole world, or a tiny monad as it's been called by some people.

And this little monad or one-celled organism, without any intelligent design, without any external force applied over a period of millions of years, simply evolved through a series of spectacular species changes until it turned from a little one-celled thing into an upright man.

Now really when I say these things it's almost with a smile because it's impossible to even imagine an accidental development of a little one-celled animal into an upright individual with all the complexities of his makeup.

Yet this is what evolutionary science has now adopted and which it now teaches as fact.

But let me give you a fantastic illustration of this word evolution as it's used to describe the doctrine of organic evolution.

Now when I use this illustration, friends, please don't understand that these things could ever happen.

It's utterly impossible, but nevertheless this is a parallel of what the evolutionists really is teaching.

Just imagine that the first tiny two-cylinder gas buggy that was ever made was never really used by mankind at all.

It was simply placed in an open field and left there.

Now according to the theory of evolution, if you just leave something long enough, it's bound to change.

And so, if you leave this little two-cylinder gas buggy there long enough and a few million years pass by, it's supposed to change also.

Without any outside pressure, without any external force applied, without any intelligence at all, it's going to change from that little two-cylinder thing into a four-cylinder improvement.

Then, if you leave it there long enough, it will also develop into a six-cylinder and finally it will grow into a modern twelve-cylinder automobile.

Actually, if this process continues And you still leave this modern car out there long enough.

If it sprouts wings and then takes off flying as an airplane, that would be evolution.

You say, is it really this preposterous a theory that's being taught?

Listen, friends, It's absolutely no more improbable, the thing that I've told you, than the theory which is being taught by a lot of scientists.

It's no more improbable than to think that an amoeba could become a worm, and a worm become a fish, and a fish an amphibian, and that turn into a reptile, and that into a bird, which changes into a mammal, which finally becomes a man.

Now that's precisely what the evolutionists teach.

All those changes are supposed to take place by pure accident.

By simply letting nature and time operate upon the little monad, It develops at last into a fully developed complex human being.

So you see, the illustration is not altogether without parallel.

And the problem still remains, where did the little monad come from in the beginning?

And that's quite a problem, because many scientists don't want to admit that God had anything to do with creation at all.

In fact, for a long time scientists believed in what we call spontaneous generation.

That is, they thought that if you put a pile of old rags in a corner and left them there, after a while a chemical reaction would take place, and suddenly out of those rags life would emerge.

Now this really was modern science some years ago.

This was taught by some of the most learned men in the world, spontaneous generation, life just coming into being out of nothing.

Well, that became a little unscientific because they finally realized and proved that life comes only from life.

But now the scientist is in a quandary if he doesn't believe in the Bible story of creation and I'm sorry to say that some modern scientists are going back to that old theory again.

Some of them are actually falling back on the idea of spontaneous generation because they have nothing else to believe in.

They have no other explanation as to how that first little monad came into existence or how it arrived on the scene.

That is, unless they take the actual teaching of the Scripture about creation.

But perhaps the greatest problem of all is to prove how that little monad became a man.

Now there is a real problem to the scientist who believes in evolution.

And you know science has been combing the world looking for some tangible scientific evidence of the change they believe takes place in that progression of organisms.

They've been searching for a missing link, for some integrating forms to show that species will change from a smaller form into a higher form of life.

But you know, friends, they have never found a single shred of evidence to prove that it ever took place or that it ever could possibly take place.

Every bit of evidence supports the story of the Genesis record, that God spoke the world into existence, that God created man as he is now in an upright form.

But still, they say these people are hard to convince and they don't want to give up their cherished theories.

Now let's go back to the book of Genesis for a moment.

So God created man in his own image, and the image of God created he him.

It says that God created man in God's image.

Man was made upright, we're told in the Scriptures, created after the image of God.

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.

Now how did everything reproduce, friends?

The grass brought forth grass, the trees brought forth trees.

Nothing changed its family lines, in other words.

There's no such thing as a changing of species.

Pansies will always be pansies, monkeys will always be monkeys, men will always be men.

There are no integrating forms to reveal any change from 1 family to another.

Now notice, if the theory of evolution were correct, we should be able to find many, many varied forms of life changing from 1 family to another.

For example, we should be able to find fish who are turning into mammals and mammals who are turning into birds, etc.

But in all the records of civilized man there's no proof of such a change.

The scientists will dash madly all over the world if they think some missing link has been discovered.

They found some new strange-sounding fish over in Malaya.

Immediately the scientists booked a plane to fly over there to see that fish, to see if maybe it didn't have some arms or if it didn't look like some other kind of creature except a fish.

Evolution Part 2

A great variety of marine fossils have been located on top of the highest mountains in the world.

How did fish once live on those barren peaks?

I'll be back in a moment with the amazing facts about the age of the earth.

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

In our last broadcast, we introduced the subject of evolution.

Now we're going to continue that strange subject today.

I say strange because it has been accorded the status of scientific fact when actually it's only a theory.

Now right here I'd like to introduce 2 arguments of the evolutionist based on geology and biology.

Now I have no argument with these sciences friends because there is true science.

Biology is a wonderful science and so is geology.

But I object to taking facts and perverting them into theoretical fancy as sometimes has been done in the name of these sciences.

You know, Sir Charles Lyell is called the father of modern geology and he developed the theory of uniformity, which has now become very, very popular in certain scientific circles.

Now the theory of uniformity assumes that every change in nature has always taken place at the very same rate of change that we see it now.

In other words, they look back over past history and say that anything that we observe today had to be brought into being through the same changes that are taking place right now.

Now you can understand how this is pure assumption.

This man, Sir Charles Lyell, began to dig down into the earth and he found that there are layers or strata of Earth.

He noticed that the farther down he dug, the older the layers seem to be.

In fact, he discovered older and older articles and those layers, artifacts and pottery and things like that.

So immediately he assumed that the farther down you go, the older the layers of earth become and the older the civilization which it represents.

Now the scientist eagerly grabbed hold of that idea and modern geology has been based on the assumption that the older civilizations are always represented by the lower strata.

They discovered in many areas these layers simply have been reversed.

They've been turned upside down as though by some violent cataclysmic action of the earth.

They've discovered that older beds are right on top with the older artifacts and pottery, and the newer layers are down underneath.

For example, down in Florida they found some human bones side by side with animal fossils which were supposed to have become extinct long before man ever appeared on the earth.

Well, the evolutionist doesn't have any answer for this.

He doesn't understand how those human bones got in with all those older articles which supposedly came before man even existed.

Now, up in the Rocky Mountains, all the way from Montana to Canada, there is a 20, 000 square mile area where the so-called old strata is resting on top of the new.

And this, of course, flatly contradicts the theory of geology that's usually propounded.

But now what caused this upheaval, friends?

What caused 20, 000 square miles to just be turned upside down so that the older things came to be left on the surface of the earth?

This is something, of course, the scientists, the evolutionary scientists, don't believe.

They won't recognize that a flood ever took place.

And yet upon the very highest mountains, even in the Alps range, they found marine fossils.

Now, how did those marine fossils get there?

Shellfish, starfish, and all the rest of them.

There was a universal flood at 1 time which left seashells on the mountains.

Now this also explains those layers of earth as well.

I'm sure all of you have seen those strata in the sides of the hills.

How did they get laid down as they appear in the side of the mountain like that.

According to geology, it took several million years for each 1 of those little layers to be put down.

But now, friends, that would be true if the theory of uniformity is true.

If those layers were put down at the same rate that the earth is being built up at the present time by sedimentation, then it would have had to take, of course, millions of years.

But if you take the flood into account, those layers could have been put down very quickly, because when the water is assuaged from off the earth, as the Bible describes it, naturally all this debris and the dead bodies and so forth would have been deposited according to their specific weight and would have been laid down in layers.

This, of course, would have formed the strata that we now see in the sides of hills.

The evolutionary scientists, of course, won't accept this.

But friends, in some places on the face of the earth they found great piles of bones as though there was a tremendous deposit made at some time of dead bodies of animals.

In the Grand Canyon and in some of the caves, they have found paintings and carvings of dinosaurs.

Now, evidently, at 1 time, man lived side by side with these huge animals.

Surely the dinosaurs didn't do the drawing, did they?

And yet, according to the theories of evolution, the dinosaurs disappeared millions of years before man ever came on the stage.

Well, then how could those men draw pictures of those dinosaurs if they'd never seen 1?

It certainly appears that these men and dinosaurs were here at the same time before the dinosaurs became extinct.

What a strange merry-go-round we find in the world because the Bible story of creation is rejected.

In 2 Peter 3, 3-6 I read these words, 2 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last day scoffers, walking after their own lust, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." Now notice Peter says here that a lot of men are willingly ignorant of the flood.

They won't believe that once upon a time water covered the earth.

And so today we have this strange situation of the geologist assigning millions and even billions of years in order to give time for evolution to take place and the evolutionist assigning billions of years to allow those strata to build up so that the geologist won't be embarrassed.

They just go around in a circle, each 1 defending the other and neither really having a scientific basis for their conclusions, except theories that are based upon uniformity, which is also an assumption.

Well I'll say this, it takes a lot more faith to believe those theories than it does to believe the Word of God.

Now, what do you think God thinks of all this as he looks down from heaven?

But, and I say this reverently, I think sometimes there are things that must try the patience of God.

Now understand, I'm using that word in the human sense.

I think there are some things that must be difficult as God looks down and sees not our ignorance, because He can tolerate that, but it's the pretended wisdom of a man that must be hard.

God is not often sarcastic in speaking to mankind, but I want you to look at something here in the book of Job.

Poor Job went through some very hard times, as we all know.

He suffered a lot, and sometimes he even argued a little with God.

And often, when Job spoke, he did not know exactly what he was saying.

And 1 day God talked back to Job in the 38th chapter, verses 1 to 4.

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man, for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

God said, Job, I'm going to ask you a few questions.

Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?

God said, all right, Job, you think you know so much?

You've been talking as though you have all the answers.

Where were you hiding when I created this world?

Were you around the corner somewhere watching?

Is this why you talk so boldly, because you were there?

Well that's quite a question, isn't it, friends?

And I think God could ask the very same question of some men today.

1 day God looks down and sees a little baby lying in a crib waving its rattle and gurgling, and almost the next day, as far as God is concerned, He sees this same little baby standing up and giving a scientific lecture, waving his arms and telling the people exactly how the world came into existence billions of years ago.

To that pitiful man God must desire to say, listen, where were you?

And yet, you think you've got all the answers?

You know exactly how it took place and how many billions of years it's been since creation?

Evolution Part 3

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.

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.

The Bible declares of itself, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

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 a 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.

Back to Menu

Series

Evolution

Evolution Part 2

Transcript

Parent Series

Sponsor

Recorded

Parts

Evolution Part 1

13m

Evolution Part 2

13m

Evolution Part 3

13m

Sound Doctrine