This is the last week in our ‘Christians are wrong about…’ series – see the rest of the series here.

Click here to listen to the sermon

or listen in iTunes here


These are the sermon notes for  ‘Christians are wrong… because Science’


I saw Jurassic World in preparation for today.

This is an interesting topic.. Evolution is largely accepted in academia, but popularly creation is still widely accepted

I think we ALL need to come to this subject like God ‘encourages’ Job to (Job 38-40) – with humility.

Problems I have with this debate:

– Science is humble, it just shows data – naturalists and creationists interpret that data, but often show no humility in their interaction

     – for Christians, we need to be far more concerned with winning people than winning arguments… this hasn’t been entirely representative of how this has gone down.

– When ID advocates interpret data in a way that isn’t strictly scientific (observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion), it’s lambasted by the naturalist community as pseudo-science.. but when creationists point out a problem with evolution, and naturalists postulate a possible solution, made with LESS evidence than the creationists, it’s considered a bridge over the problem, rather than called what it is!

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

Dress for action like a man;

I will question you, and you make it known to me.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements—surely you know!

Or who stretched the line upon it?

On what were its bases sunk,

or who laid its cornerstone,

when the morning stars sang together

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

“Or who shut in the sea with doors

when it burst out from the womb,

when I made clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling band,

10  and prescribed limits for it

and set bars and doors,

11  and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,

and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?

2 chapters God takes it to Job.. then He finishes…

“Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?

He who argues with God, let him answer it.”

Then Job answered the Lord and said:

“Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?

I lay my hand on my mouth.

I have spoken once, and I will not answer;

twice, but I will proceed no further.”

We don’t approach God from a position of superiority, from the judges chair, demanding evidence.. we approach God like we’re His children – “what does that do, daddy?”, “how was that work?!”, “why… why… why…?” – as we experience and explore creation! We don’t back away from science, neither do we simply receive naturalism.. But we see science for what it is.

So, what does the Bible say about creation?

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created…”

Jesus affirmed this in Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ’made them male and female.’”

Paul does too – Romans 1:20 “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Naturalist evolutionists may have a semblance of congruence to their beliefs (publicly, at least), but what about creationists? There are 6 main differing kinds of creationist belief – and let me say from the outset, I firmly believe you can land in any of these 6 camps, and absolutely be a heart transformed, spirit filled, Jesus believing Christian! This should NOT be a point of separation among brothers and sisters in Christ – point of clarification and debate, for sure.. we want to know the truth – but not division.

C. Michael Patton from Credo House Ministries sums them up like this (source):

1. Young Earth Creationism

The belief that the universe and all that is in it was created by God around ten-thousand years ago or less. They insist that this is the only way to understand the Scriptures. Further, they will argue that science is on their side using “catastropheism.” They believe that world-wide biblical catastrophes sufficiently explain the fossil records and the geographic phenomenon that might otherwise suggest the earth is old. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

2. Gap Theory Creationists

Belief that the explanation for the old age of the universe can be found in a theoretical time gap that exists between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. God created the earth and the earth became formless and void. Therefore God instituted the new creation which begins in Genesis 1:2b. This theory allows for an indefinite period of time for the earth to exist before the events laid out in the creation narrative. Gap theorists will differ as to what could have happened on the earth to make it become void of life. Some will argue for the possibility of a creation prior to humans that died out. This could include the dinosaurs. They normally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

3. Time-Relative Creationism

Belief that the universe is both young and old depending on your perspective. Since time is not a constant (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), the time at the beginning of creation would have moved much slower than it does today. From the way time is measured today, the succession of moments in the creation narrative equals that of six twenty-four hour periods, but relative to the measurements at the time of creation, the events would have transpired much more slowly, allowing for billions of years.  This view, therefore, does not assume a constancy in time and believes that any assumption upon the radical events of the first days/eons of creation is both beyond what science can assume and against the most prevailing view of science regarding time today. This view may or may not allow for an evolutionary view of creation. They can allow for in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

4. Old Earth Creationists

(also Progressive Creationists and Day-Age Creationists)

Belief that the old age of the universe can be reconciled with Scripture by understanding the days of Genesis 1 not at literal 24 hour periods, but as long indefinite periods of time. The word “day” would then be understood the same as in Gen. 2:4 “. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” While this view believes the universe and earth are billions of years old, they believe that man was created a short time ago. Therefore, they do not believe in evolution. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

5. Theistic Evolution (with a literal Adam and Eve):

The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. At some time, toward the end of the evolutionary process, God, through an act of special creation, created Adam and Eve as the head of the human race. Some also believe that God did not use special creation, but appointed already existing humanoids as the representatives for humanity calling them Adam and Eve. They may or may not believe in a snake talking and usually believe that the flood was local.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve)

The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. Adam and Eve are simply literary and symbolic, representing the fall of humanity and the ensuing curse.

Problems with the more conservative views:

  • Often does not recognise that the Bible is not a science book and was not meant to answer all our questions.
  • Can create a “believe-this-or-do-not-believe-anything-at-all” approach.
  • Can creates a dichotomy between the Bible and science.

Problems with the more liberal views:

  • Often assumes uniformatarianism for all of human history (i.e. the measurement of things today can be applied to the same in the distant past).
  • Can seem to twist Scripture to harmonise.
  • It is difficult to know when actual (not accommodated history) history in Genesis picks up (i.e. if Genesis 1-3 are allegory or accommodation, where does “real” history start? Genesis 4? Genesis 6? Genesis 12? What is the exegetical justification for the change?)

Important to note is that all of these ideas point to the amazingly creative all-powerful God!

What about evolution? What is it?

Naturalistic Evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

     – This ‘descent with modification’ can be distilled int these principles:

    • Variability: individuals in a population display differences in form, physiology, and behaviour.
    • Differential Fitness: differences between individuals confer different survival and reproduction rates.
    • Heritability: differences in fitness can be passed on between generations.

– requires millions, or even billions of years to operate.

– Has high acceptance among the naturalistic scientific community.

– apart from the problems of ‘required conditions for a life habitable planet’ being astronomically unlikely, and ‘the origin of life itself’, this concept could (and many proponents of evolution certainly advocate for this) do away with need for a creator God in the human story.


What are some of the scientific problems with current theories of evolution?

Here are five key problems(Source):

1. Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.

Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection that has no goals.  Such a random and undirected process is observed to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity.  As National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has said, “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” Similarly, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

– Evolution says the variety of life is due to a gain of genetic information (this doesn’t happen)

– Creation says the variety of life is due to a loss of genetic information (this is what we CAN see)

Not enough time to evolve from common ancestor to chimps and humans to current humans:

– biologist Ann Gauger (senior research scientist): it takes 6 million years for 1 mutation in a DNA binding site to arise… that’s not enough time! we’re different from chimps in hundreds of different ways in thousands of different genes. Coordinated mutations would be required, so it’s not enough to just have thousands of mutations over 6 million years, but groups of mutations forming at the same time – coordinated changes. if they happened individually, the benefit is not there, so they have to happen together. We’ve done work with bacteria, that suggests that you can’t get a simple protein to change it’s function to a new function in longer than the age of the universe!! let alone 6 or more mutations that are coordinated.. it just can’t happen. it shuts down evolutionary theory right there… Naturalists lose their ‘millions of years’ evolutionary god of the gaps. (source)

It is important to note that evolution has several meanings. The micro evolution, or varieties within kinds is real, observable, and scientific; however, this has never been observed or shown in the fossil record to lead to new kinds. The problem arises when evidence for micro evolution is presented for proof of macro evolution. Macro evolution believes that all living things came from a common ancestor; that all living things actually came from rocks. It teaches that all of matter, energy, and time came into being from nothingness (the Big Bang). There is no indisputable evidence for macro evolution! What we have are interpretations of evidence that can also be interpreted for creation 

2. Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.

Our cells contain incredible complexity, like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA.  Darwinian evolution struggles to build this type of integrated complexity.  As biochemist Franklin Harold admits: “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”


biologist and engineer Stephen Larson – “when I look through a microscope at a humble bacterium — by the way its ancestors were on the planet a billion years ago, billions of years ago — I still wonder how it really works. Because the mechanical watch that is life is not like any watch we’ve ever built. It is biological gears and springs, but they fill rooms and buildings and cities of a vast microscope landscape that’s bustling with activity.

On the one hand it’s extremely well organised, but on the other hand the sheer scale of all of this unfamiliar well-organised stuff that happens in there makes me feel that I’ve stumbled onto an alternate landscape of technology that’s built by an engineer a million times smarter than me. The more that I search for principles beyond the ones we’ve already learned, the more I am overwhelmed with the feeling that this stuff was built by aliens.

OK, not literally. I don’t literally mean that I think little green men and women came down to the earth and seeded life here a billion years ago. What we understand of course is that life evolved on the planet over billions of years. But the results of evolution confuse even our smartest engineers when we try to understand how we could build what biology has evolved.”

This is referring to something that is specifically complex – if you reverse-engineered even a single cell organism, you’ll come down to a conundrum… the specifically complex ATP Synthase.

ATP Synthase

– Tiny motor, 20 nanometers in width (1 meter divided into 1 billion is a nanometer) spins at over 9,000 rpm.

– All living things need ATP, often called the “energy currency of life”. ATP is a small molecule with a big job: to provide immediately usable energy for cellular machines. ATP-driven protein machines power almost everything that goes on inside living cells, including manufacturing DNA, RNA, and proteins, clean-up of debris, and transporting chemicals into, out of, and within cells. Other fuel sources can not power these cellular protein machines.

– Each of the human body’s 37 trillion cells performs this reaction about a million times per minute. Over half a body weight of ATP is made and consumed every day!  

– This protein complex contains at least 29 subunits that fit together into two main portions: the head and the base

– ATP synthase manufactures ATP from two smaller chemicals, ADP and phosphate. ATP synthase is so small that it is able to manipulate these tiny molecules, one at a time. ATP synthase must convert some other form of energy into new ATPs. This energy is in the form of a hydrogen ion (H+) gradient, which is generated by a different whole protein system to ATP synthase.

Hydrogen ions pour through ATP synthase like wind through a windmill. This comprises a positively charged electric current, in contrast to our electric motors, which use a negative current of electrons.

Here is the “magic”: When a stream of tiny hydrogen ions (protons) flows through the base and out the side of ATP synthase, passing across the membrane, they force the axle and base to spin. The stiff central axle pushes against the inside walls of the six head proteins, which become slightly deformed and reformed alternately. 

The spinning axle causes squeezing motions of the head so as to align an ADP next to a phosphate, forming ATP … in bucket loads. Many other cellular protein machines use ATP, breaking it down to ADP and phosphate again. This is then recycled back into ATP by ATP synthase. Lubert Stryer, author of Biochemistry adds, it’s a nearly 100% efficient process.

Evolutionary scientists have suggested that the head portion of ATP synthase evolved from a class of proteins used to unwind DNA during DNA replication.

However, how could ATP synthase “evolve” from something that needs ATP, manufactured by ATP synthase, to function? This bizarre suggestion underlines the role of our beliefs in how we interpret origins. Evolutionists are often driven their methodological naturalist bias. This is the assumption that the processes which explain the operation of phenomena are all we can use to describe the origin of those phenomena. This philosophy again excludes God, by decree (not because of science or reason). (Source)

This is why it’s really difficult for evolutionists… consider that ATP synthase is made by processes that all need ATP—such as the unwinding of the DNA helix with helicase to allow transcription and then translation of the coded information into the proteins that make up ATP synthase. And manufacture of the 100 enzymes/machines needed to achieve this needs ATP! And making the membranes in which ATP synthase sits needs ATP, but without the membranes it would not work. This is a really vicious circle for evolutionists to explain. (source)

Michael Behe – 

“The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won’t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a “blind” and “undirected” Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design”.

– Cell biologist Franklin Harold published The Way of the Cell with Oxford University Press. In it he remarked: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

atheist Sir Francis Crick warns in his autobiography that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved”

Stewart et al.:

“Molecular machines, like the rotary ATPases described here, seem to have much in common with man-made machines. However, the analogies hold only to a certain point and are in large parts not fully understood. What is evident is that several billion years of evolution have resulted in biological motors that are unsurpassed in efficiency, fine-tuning to their environment and sustainability.” (Source)

William A. Dembski

– Proponents of intelligent design argue that they now have formulated a precise criterion that reliably infers intelligence while also avoiding Kepler’s mistake— the criterion of “specified complexity.” An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent in the sense of being one of several live possibilities; if it is complex in the sense of allowing many alternatives and therefore not being easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. For instance, a repetitive sequence is specified without being complex. A random sequence is complex without being specified. A functional sequence, like DNA that codes for proteins, is both complex and specified, and therefore designed. (Source)

– Adam Wilkins, the editor of BioEssays, remarked, “The articles included in this issue demonstrate some striking parallels between artifactual and biological/molecular machines. In the first place, molecular machines, like man-made machines, perform highly specific functions. Second, the macromolecular machine complexes feature multiple parts that interact in distinct and precise ways, with defined inputs and outputs. Third, many of these machines have parts that can be used in other molecular machines (at least, with slight modification), comparable to the interchangeable parts of artificial machines. Finally, and not least, they have the 4 cardinal attribute of machines: they all convert energy into some form of ‘work’.” How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures? They don’t.

          – These machines are irreducibly complex: In biology, especially at the molecular level, there exist molecular machines (see last question) that cannot be simplified without losing the machine’s function. In other words, take away parts and you can’t recover the machine’s function. One such irreducibly complex molecular machine that has become the mascot of the intelligent design movement is the bacterial flagellum. This is a tiny motor-driven propeller on the backs of certain bacteria. It is a marvel of nano-engineering, spinning at tens of thousands of rpm. Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls it “the most efficient machine in the universe.” It is irreducibly complex.

              – All evolutionary answers to this problem;

                          – start with the assumption of evolution – ie. it’s there, so it must have evolved somehow.

                          – come out of philosophy, not science – can’t be repeated, tested, observed, etc

                          – or are simply speculative constructions to appease their own cognitive dissonance. (ie. this could be the solution.. so we’ll go with that).. but nothing has been scientifically satisfactory in answering this problem.

     – The more technologically advanced we become, the more it points us to a creative designer: unlike Darwinism, which sees organisms as cobbled together by a trial-and-error process (i.e., natural selection acting on random variations), intelligent design sees real design in organism and thus keeps looking for design even when evolutionary theorists throw in the towel and invoke vestigiality (junk/unneeded left-over DNA from previous evolutionary ancestor). Interestingly, most of the structures regarded as vestigial in humans a hundred years ago are now known to have a function (for instance, the appendix plays a role in the immune system). Similarly, molecular biologists are now finding uses for stretches of DNA previous referred to as “junk.” John Bodnar, for instance, has found “non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes [that] encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.”

“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations – that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted… Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.” 

― Michael J. BeheDarwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution


Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that “[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the “designing” but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, “in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.” (source)

3. Geology/Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils. The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and possible candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception, not the rule.  This has been recognized by many evolutionary biologists such as Ernst Mayr who explained in 2000 that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” Similarly, a zoology textbook observed that “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”

     – This is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution are adaptations and mutations that do effect minor changes within certain species and animals, but these never produce a new family or type. Creationists believe in micro-evolution. You’d have to. But evolution theory demands a belief in macro-evolution: that mutations occur over enough time to create whole new kinds of animals. A frog becomes a bird becomes a slug becomes a televangelist. Never been any evidence of this. Huge blow to the evolutionary theory.

Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God’s decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures – “after its kind.” Gen:1:25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” The word “kind” refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another. This is exactly what the fossil records reveal.

     – in Geology, the general rule is that as you go deeper, you go further back in time (it’s nuanced, especially since Mt St Helen in 1980). Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionary theory: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these 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 the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward. 

Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it: “One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution.”

George Gaylord Simpson, the “Crown Prince of Evolution”, summarized it: “The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy.” The Evolution of Life.

     – Sir Frederick Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, “The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard beside Boeing airplane company accidentally producing a 747 airplane,” 

In an article in Scientific American (February, 1991), Sir Francis Crick wrote, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” 

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. . .exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.”–*Louis Trenchard More

Biologist Jeffrey Schwartz explains: We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. (source)

This does not show evidence of “change over time”; on the contrary, it provides much evidence that species do not change – stasis. Many interpret the fossil evidence as demonstrating speciation but there are major presuppositions in doing so, which do not originate from the actual fossil evidence, but instead are assumed from the theory of evolution itself, so the reasoning is circular


4. Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.” Biologists hoped that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms are clearly related. It hasn’t. Trees describing the alleged ancestral relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological characteristic very commonly conflict with trees based upon a different gene or characteristic.  As the journal New Scientist put it, “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” The eminent microbiologist Carl Woese explained that such “[p]hylogenetic” conflicts “can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.” This implies a breakdown in common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a common ancestor.

5. Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.The mystery of the origin of life is unsolved and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems. Basic deficiencies in chemical evolution include a lack of explanation for how a primordial soup could arise on the early earth’s hostile environment, or how the information required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions. As evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted, “we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.”


What does this mean for us then? Given the many different ways Christians read the creation account, and the gaping holes in evolutionary naturalism, I believe it leads us to these three things:

1. All of this should drive us to humility – Job 38-40

     – I think we should focus our efforts on what scripture is really saying and stop trying to force it to fit science, or force science to fit it. Just let them both be. Imagine Christians in generations past simply following scientific consensus… 

     – In 1959, a survey of scientists showed consensus in belief that the universe was past eternal. (The big bang was resisted by early scientists; some thought it sounded too much like Genesis.) These days, the consensus is that it’s around 13.7 billion years old.. in another 50 years… who knows?

More recently geosynclinal theory was considered unquestionable in the 60s. Here is what two scientists said about it back then:

“The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology. In many ways the role of geology is similar to that of evolution, which serves to integrate the many branches of the biological sciences… Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle of geology.”

Geosynclinal theory is all but abandoned now. 

Scientific consensus reflects many things (worldview, religious commitments, politics, observation). Last I heard, the scientific consensus on the sufficiency of Darwinism to explain the observed phenomena was falling apart. (source [Thomas Clark and Colin Stearn, The Geological Evolution of North America: A Regional Approach to Historical Geology, p.43 (Ronald Press, 1960)])

Let’s pursue humility in how we consider these things, including our interpretation of the Bible (i’m not saying we don’t wholeheartedly believe what Scripture says.. i’m saying that we view our own views with humility!)

2. The world isn’t getting better.. we’re not evolving into better people, or even a better society! We DESPERATELY need the intervention of God – He intervened to create us, and He intervened to save us!

John Gray is one of my favourite atheists. He has this quote which I quite like as well, talking about the secular idea of progress:

“In comparison with the Genesis story, the modern myth in which humanity is marching to a better future is superstition. As the Genesis story teaches, knowledge cannot save us from ourselves. If we know more than before, it means only that we have greater scope to enact our madness. The message of Genesis is that in the most vital area of human life there can be no progress, only an unending struggle with our own nature.” (source)- very interesting read of his first book.

3. It leads us to worship! God is actually amazing!! From creation, we know that: 

     – we are made in the image of God! Humans have a special place in creation – we were made for relationship with God! 

     – we have authority over the animals and the earth

     – God can accomplish whatever He wants to, even with just a word!

     – That’s why the Bible is so powerful, it’s the words of God written for us!

     – God gives life to everything that’s alive, sustains life still, because He is the God of life!

          – and not just this life in the flesh, but of eternal life!!

     – we have confidence that because God was before creation, He will be after creation.

     – He made the universe, He is Lord over it, and He does what He wants with it… He’s made it a particular way for a particular purpose.

     – we know we can trust God – He can do anything!!

     – we know that God is so far above anything we can comprehend.. brings us back to point 1.. we approach God, not in the seat of Judge, waiting for Him to provide a defence for Himself, but as humble worshippers, approaching Him with reverential awe!!


Bonus Stuff

– 2 Kings 19:15 – Hezekiah prayed that God alone is God. He made heaven and earth. [Isaiah 37:16]

– Psalm 86:8-10 – He alone is God. There is none like Him among the gods. All nations should worship Him, because he made them.

– Psalm 95:1-7 – The Lord is the great God and King above all gods. He made the sea and His hands formed the dry land. Worship the Lord our Maker, for He is God.

– Isaiah 45:18 – For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it: “I am the Lord, and there is no other.”

– Jeremiah 10:11,12 – “Gods” that did not make heaven and earth will perish! If the God of the Bible did not make the Universe, then He is a false God! He will perish. Why should we then serve Him as God?

– Jeremiah 32:17 – Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You. If God can create the Universe, He can do anything. No other miracle can possibly prove greater power than did creation.

– [1 Chron. 16:25-35 and Psalm 96:2-10, Neh. 9:6; Psalm 100:3; 8:3-9; Isaiah 17:7; 40:25,26; 42:5-9; Jeremiah 14:22; 51:15-19]

– Acts 4:24 – Disciples raised their voices to God and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them.”

– Acts 14:15 – People who worship idols should be taught to turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.

– Acts 17:24-29 – Again idol worshippers were taught they should not worship idols of gold or silver. The true God who rules heaven and earth is the one who made the world and gives us life. We are His offspring. So we should seek Him, for He is not far from us.

– Romans 1:20 – The things that have been made by God clearly reveal, not just His power, but also His Godhead. They prove that He is God, and those who fail to recognize Him as God are without excuse.

– “The worlds were framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3)


Geology – Mt. St. Helens

Mt. St. Helen’s eruption has done more to disprove the theory of evolution than any event in history. Prior to the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mt. St. Helens it was a beautiful symmetrical cone-shaped volcano covered by old-growth trees 150-200 feet tall. In an explosion the equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT or 1500 atomic bombs, Mt. St. Helens and the surrounding area was changed forever. (See Micah 1:3-4

Mt. St. Helens continued to spew for 15 hours with the force of 400 million tons of TNT or 30,000 atomic bombs. That is the equivalent of one atom bomb exploding every second for 15 hours straight. It took three days for the jet stream to carry ash to the east coast. It had to be shoveled like snow. Street lights turned on automatically in the daytime because the ash blocked the light of the sun all across the eastern seaboard. 

Geologists used to believe layers of volcanic rock were set apart by time. Mt. St. Helens proved to the world forever that sediment is laid down in multiple layers in a matter of hours. In one place 25 feet of sediment was laid down in a single pass of an ash flow forming multiple layers. 

Ash from St. Helens– 550 degrees F, traveled 200 mph down the sides of the mountain taking with it one hundred fifty square miles of timber in a matter of 6 minutes time. Over 20,000 rootless trees were deposited in Spirit Lake. The trees became waterlogged and sank in the upright position. Some rested on top of sediment and others were buried deeply in multiple layers. Some were buried lying sideways. All were deposited there in a matter of a few hours. 

Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone has 27 layers of forests which scientists claimed were deposited millions of years apart. In fact there used to be a sign there that says as much. The 27 layers of trees in Yellowstone look exactly like those deposited at the bottom of Spirit Lake by Mt. St. Helens in a matter of hours. Multiple layers of trees with no roots buried in the same kind of sediment now have been shown that they are laid down all at once. 

God gave us undeniable proof on May 18, 1980, that vast amounts of time were not needed to create things as previously thought necessary. It’s clear that God can do in a moment what it takes evolutionary theory billions of years to imagine. 


“Is the conclusion that the universe was designed – and that the design extends deeply into life – science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters. By far the most important question is not what category we place it in, but whether a conclusion is true. A true philosophical or religious conclusion is no less true than a true scientific one. Although universities might divide their faculty and courses into academic categories, reality is not obliged to respect such boundaries.”

― Michael J. BeheThe Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism


A gorilla in a zoo stood holding a copy of Genesis in one hand and Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in the other hand.  He looked confused.  Someone asked: “What are you doing?”  The gorilla said, “Well, I’m trying to decide if I’m my brothers keeper or my keepers brother.” 


About The Author


is Don is good...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.