Storage.googleapis.com



WISDOM IS JUSTIFIED BY HER CHILDRENThe context of the title comes from the ending statement by Jesus Christ. He was comparing those opposing His teachings to the children in “this generation,” by saying in Matthew 11:11-19,For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children (KJV).Then, like now, opposition to truth is unrelenting, especially when Jesus called Himself the Truth in John 14:6. The teaching and lifestyles of Jesus and John the Baptist proclaimed God’s will that all accept what everyone needed to do: repent of their sinful lifestyle and accept the Way and the Life through Jesus Christ.However, the deeds and conduct of those who worshipped God in spirit and truth (John 4:24) are called fools by those who side with foolish wisdom. The accomplishments of God’s followers are considered foolish and oppose the philosophies of the modern man.Claiming to have superior wisdom by those considered to be elite in their scientific disciplines is a mantra heard in the classrooms of academia. Any mention of creation science by any atheist professor is ridiculed and consigned to the topic of mythology. Those who advocate a young earth created by the biblical Creator in six literal days are contemptuously labeled as followers of a “bloody God” whose archaic rituals and legalistic demands have no place in higher education.Prior to founding Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, wrote an article, while still on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). His subject was the passing of an extremely influential figure in the scientific world, namely Isaac Asimov (1920-1992). This truly prolific author wrote or edited more than 500 books, including “Asimov's Guide to the Bible” (1969).In his article, “Asimov Meets His Creator”, Ham writes. “Isaac Asimov, President of the American Humanist Association, science fiction writer, ardent evolutionist, and active anti-creationist, died recently. Ham quotes Asimov thusly:Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" (Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, p. 9).Asimov is a believer now…and a creationist. He was one of the billions of souls who is referred to in Psalm 14:1, which says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” He failed to see the ultimate truth in life: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”He, like so many learned scientists, considered himself a wise man. His boast was knowledge; his target was prestige; his god was self. One of his quotes could sum up his egotistical nature: “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.”And like so many other anti-creationists, Asimov opposed the teachings of Jesus Christ, who is presented as the creator who, as the Word of God, described when and how He made the universe and everything in it in the first chapter of Genesis.The collective accomplishments of Asimov have been exhibited by his peers as one whose wisdom exceed that of ancient compilers of Scriptural teachings, including a contrived cosmology fashioned by an outdated god. Atheists reject any notion that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Creator of the universe; these doctrines are clearly stated in the first chapters of John, Colossians, and Hebrews.Evolution has been scientifically proven, has it not? Many illustrations and data in textbooks, journals, doctrinal papers, and acceptance by American court judgments attest to their mutual conclusions. Commonly restated in textbooks, scientific journals. and social media is a recurring theme:In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.The secular evolutionist/scientist community condemns biblical creation is false; their wisdom derived from scientific advancement is proof. Secular philosophers believe that increased knowledge and logic have relegated six-day creation under the topic of “Mythology.” In short, the evolution of human intellect has outgrown the need for God.The scientific community would agree with this assessment. French biochemist, Jacques Monod (1910 – 1976), made the following statement:It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all living systems in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.”At the end of his book, Monod concludes,Man, at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.Even pastors in major Christian denominations and religious scientists teach God’s use of evolution in the creation of our universe. They preach the scientific merits of evolution, declaring the validity of Darwin’s theory from their respective pulpits.Economic and social theorist, Jeremy Rifkin (1945-) would concur, having lectured on environment development. His philosophical rational for a Third Industrial Revolution paradigm has attracted followers that include current Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Li Keqiang.Rifkin incorporates evolutionary thoughts in his philosophy. His aversion to a biblical Creator has prompted him to write in his book, Algeny (1983),We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.This anti-God/creation statement could easily be the sacrilegious, if not an outright blasphemous, declaration for his followers. They would sing this refrain after every stanza of anti-God tirades proclaimed from evolutionary podiums. They would rather sing praises to the utterance of geneticist Richard Lewontin:It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.The biblical God is not to be found as part of secular curriculum when origins is being taught. Students are being taught (many would use the word, “brainwashed”) that science is to be kept within the realm of naturalistic processes. No transcendent intervention by any deity is allowed. Thus, it is written in the documents of court decisions regarding public schools: teaching a young earth creation is banned from any cosmogony curriculum in the science classroom!Accordingly, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a leading organization that has an overall purpose to teach evolution in the public-school system, is equally antagonistic against a literal Genesis creation. We read in the article entitled, "Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience.In light of the foregoing [that “we can never say of any existing theory that it has been proven in any absolute sense”—p 26], it is in a very basic sense illogical or reflective of a deep ignorance of the modern philosophy of science to demand that any theory must be proven before it can be considered legitimately scientific. Yet, one of the most persistent claims to be found in the literature of "scientific" creationism is the contention that the theory of evolution is not a valid scientific theory because it has not been "scientifically proven (see, for example, Morris et al. 1974:4; Wysong, 1976:44).In other words, creation scientists are ignorant, because they claim that evolution theorists cannot prove their theory (e.g., Darwinian evolution). It is most relevant to note that [philosopher] Popper [Karl, 1902-1994] explicitly recognizes that a legitimate scientific theory may be falsifiable, the secular community acknowledges that a legitimate scientific theory may be falsifiable in principle but, due to limitations of time, space, or technology, unfalsifiable in practice [emphasis in original].The article emphasizes the point that, “no legitimate scientific theory can be proven in any kind of absolute sense.”Even though the above article’s author (Leon) provides a cushion to soften the critics of evolution, he nevertheless argues that creationists provide themselves with a spiritual crutch to lean on when confronted with impossible events in the Bible: By definition, "scientific" creationism is irrevocably grounded in an appeal to the existence and operation of an obviously omnipotent supernatural being—that is, a being that by its very nature is capable of virtually anything. It therefore follows that there is literally no conceivable observation that cannot be reconciled with the virtually limitless actions of such a being. "Scientific" creationism thus lacks the central defining characteristic of all modern scientific theories. It is absolutely immune to falsification.It should be stressed that believing what, how, and when the Creator made all things is not founded on blind faith, but reasonable faith. Creation scientists use the essential steps of observation, hypothesis, experiment/test, conclusion/law and/or theory to verify or falsify a model.The scientific method (SM) incorporates established scientific laws, including Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's law of gravitation, Laws of thermodynamics, First Cause, Universal Gravitation, Motion, Conservation of Mass and Energy, and a host of others. One need only insert, “scientific laws” into any search engine to find an abundance of substantiated laws that scientists—both creationists and secular—use in their research.Creation scientists thus use the same laboratory equipment and scientific methodologies to analyze the same objects seen in the world by secular scientists. They have conclusively shown, for example, that what caused many geological and geographical formations were catastrophic events and not the result of the evolutionary process of uniformitarianism. What is uniformitarianism? According to Bates and Jackson,Uniformitarianism is defined in the authoritative Glossary of Geology as "the fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth's crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classical concept that 'the present is the key to the past'."According to the Bible, mankind’s vital spiritual link with his Creator was severed by Adam’s transgression against God’s command in the garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 3). Thus, the inability of natural man’s finite mind to fathom the infinite mind of their Creator is adrift in the ocean of uncertainty. They rely on a combination of ill-logic, inventive imagination, and vain wisdom to answer questions about their cosmological origins, purpose, meaning, and destiny of humanity.Unfortunately, agnostic and atheistic scientists—and everyone else who rejects the Creator—does not have the catalyst that will reestablish the spiritual vitality that will enable the repentant sinner to accept the teaching of their Creator: The Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is replete with verses about God’s immense power and unfathomable, creative mind:For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).The natural man, therefore, rejects God’s literal Genesis creation, because it is foolishness to him. The evolution-countering acts of God, according to His concise timeline, are implausible. Scripture emphasizes this inability of a natural mind to accept God’s Genesis narrative about the origins of everything can be summed up in 1 Corinthians 1:18-21.For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.God declares that He will provide a spiritual unification with His redeemed children with an oath in 2 Corinthians 5:17. “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”Just how did the Infinite Creator communicate with finite humans? One may compare this profound inquiry with asking Einstein to teach a toddler to comprehend his laws of relativity. The solution to both problematic enquiries is a common denominator: Einstein, the toddler could communicate as humans. Say what? God was a man?Affirmative; this is what Christmas is all about: Emanuel means, “God with us.” This is a simple truth, but one that is impossible to comprehend, and no one in history can understand it.Nevertheless, the duel nature in one being is substantiated with biblical interpretation. The God/Man, Jesus Christ, was able to give us the basics as the Word of God and through His Holy Spirit. Scripture calls Christ’s incarnation the hypostatic union (Lit. one thing on top of another).1 John 4:2 says, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris, cites this verse to comment on the merger of God and human essence in part by writing,Unless Jesus Christ was perfect man, He could not die for our sins. Unless He was God, He could not defeat death and thus could never save us. Any doctrine less than that of Jesus Christ as the God/Man, God and Man perfectly, united in the hypostatic union, is deadly heresy.Dr. Morris’ statement contains an inherent teaching about God’s character: If Jesus is not the Creator God, then He did not make all things in six, solar days. If not, then Jesus lied. And if He lied, then His death on the cross was meaningless and He was not raised from the dead. Paul summed up his presumptuous proclamation—and our lamentable predicament in 1 Corinthians 15:12-12.Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.The only alternative to a literal, six-day creation is Darwin’s evolutionary process (NO God) or some theological construct that included some form of evolution.These theological cosmologies include theistic, day-age, gap theory, gap, progressive (proponents saying evolution is not involved). The disastrous results of decisions made in human wisdom are abundant; does anyone remember the Titanic?Can the collective abilities of wisdom in secular thinking scientifically explain the origin of what we are and see in our universe? To the point: science sides with either evolution or a literal Genesis creation; neither can incorporate the other.It can be theologically argued that “God made foolish the wisdom of this world” by creating the universe and everything in it in ways that conflict with evolution. But what scientific evidence exists that nullifies the theory of evolution? Several significant examples will suffice:THE FOSSIL RECORDEvolutionists use the fossil record to prove their case. Both sides see the apparent development of simple to more complex animals in the upward succession of geological strata. This so called “geologic column” is often depicted in textbooks. The wisdom of secular theorists dismisses the Genesis flood as the cause for the layers.Instead, the model of evolution uses the universal timeline calculation of uniformitarianism (see definition above), or. "The Present is the Key to the Past,” as summarized by Charles Lyell (1797-1875) in his three-volume set of Principles of Geology (1830–1833).There is a common saying that can be applied to this and other evolutionary assertions: Appearances can be deceiving. And when God is taken out of the equation, the secular evolutionist is unrestrained to develop an idealistic scenario of stratification by forcing millions of years, logic, and imagination in their calculated age for multi-strata formations, such as the Grand Canyon.Using the uniformitarian model, fossils, ranging from the simple to the complex found within a specified stratum are dated accordingly. In large part, guesswork is used to date the time it took the layer to form. Unique fossils that are associated with a distinct geological layer are labeled as “index” fossils, with a given age. Thus, index fossils found in any layer automatically date that layer to be a specific age.Conversely, a stratum is given a calculated age, determined by how long it took to form. However, such calculations tend to contradict the ages of index fossils found within them, as ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris points out in his article entitled Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology:The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks. No wonder the evolutionary system, to outsiders, implies circular reasoning.Although the “Geologic Column” is still illustrated in textbooks, the idealized process of lower to higher forms of life within it is no longer a valid argument for evolutionists. Regarding this assumed geologic structuring, Morris says, “The fiction that the geological column was actually represented by real rock units in the field has long been abandoned, of course.Morris again uses another quote from geologist, Dr. J. E. O’Rourke who is used to illustrate the frustrating contradictions evolutionists see in the fossil and geologic records:"By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous."14 [Morris’ ref.]If the supposed geologic column was real, then its accumulated thickness would exceed the normal limits of evolutionary calculations. A featured paper in presents the unrealistic construct of an imagined geological column. In it, John Woodmorappe (pen name) discusses the findings of this mythological column, quoting from ICR scientists, Drs. Morris and Parker in their book, What is Creation Science? under the paper’s subheading, “How is the Geologic Column Defined?”There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! … almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all…geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile… (Emphasis in original).Within the sphere of the fossil record is a stark fact: there are no transitional fossils! ICR geologist, Dr. John Morris, writes that,the fossil record of even terrestrial vertebrates is seen to be remarkably complete. But far less than 1% of all fossils are terrestrial vertebrates. Approximately 95% are marine invertebrates, with the rest being mostly plants, fish, and insects.Of the trillions of fossilized clams that have been found, not one has been identified as coming from or becoming another kind of aquatic animal. For that matter, no invertebrate (e.g., clam, mollusk, snail, etc.) has been found that transitions into a vertebrate (e.g., having a backbone or spinal column, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes). Not ONE!Dr. John Morris has the following to say in one of his articles:When we look at the invertebrates, we see separate and distinct categories (i.e., clams, corals, trilobites, etc.) existing in the earliest strata with no hint of ancestors or of intermediates. We find clams by the trillions, with a lot of variety among them, but no evolution. Furthermore, we have no idea how vertebrate fish could have arisen from any invertebrate. Where there are good data, we see no RMATIONWhat is the source of information? This question confounds evolutionists. Multiple attempts to produce evolution in the laboratory have had just as many failures. For example, a Nobel Prize-winning experiment began in 1980, with the use of Drosophila (fruit flies). ICR researcher, Dr. Brian Thomas, sums up this study:The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.Thomas presents a similar fruit fly study in same article: Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.Thomas sums up the dismal findings saying that, “In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative.”Thomas concludes his assessment of such experiments:Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.Thomas notes the importance of necessary information in another creation update review regarding a 1988 bacteria experiment saying that, “researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.To the researchers’ credit, they found that, this does represent new information acquired by the bacteria. However, the kind of information is critical to the question of whether Darwinian evolution has taken place. There is a difference between originating new information that is less specified and originating new information that is more specified (italics in original).This is a critical observation by Thomas: A biological entity can use what is within the existing information it possesses. However, NEW information must be provided to transform/evolve one kind into a higher kind. The lack of additional information is stressed by Thomas:The “new” information in this example is not both specified and complex—it is complex but unspecified. It is not the kind of specified, complex information necessary to evolve a dinosaur into a bird, for example. This bacteria’s mutated “new information” would be useless for building new features such as hollow bones, continuous lungs, and flight feathers (with emphasis in original).ORIGIN OF LIFEForget about fossils and information; both are relegated to only academic debates if there is no animal could form! The epitome of evolution’s failure is its inability to produce a reasonable, let alone scientific, scenario as to how life began. For that matter every evolution cosmology and cosmogony utterly fail to have a scientific model for the origin of anything.In his classic article, “Evolution—A House Divided,” ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris presents several of many dilemmas evolutionists face when trying to substantiate their faith in the Darwinian process that supposedly explains how all things came to exist.The standard evolutionary concept for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory, but many eminent astronomers flatly reject it.Both the 'Big Bang' model and the theoretical side of elementary particle physics rely on numerous highly speculative assumptions.1 But if there was no Big Bang, how and when did the universe begin? ... (Hannes) Alfven replies: "It is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being....Regarding the Darwinian theory (or any evolutionary theory) for the origin of life, Morris writes,It is commonly asserted that life evolved from non-living chemicals by purely naturalistic processes. However, a leading scientist in this field says:At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known.4The Institute for Creation Research and other creation scientists in their respective creation organizations have documented blistering data that disqualifies evolution in virtually every discipline. One noted scientist was former Senior Vice President, Dr. Duane Gish (1921-2013). Dr. Gish had the alias of “Creation Bulldog,” being acknowledged by creationists and evolutionists alike for his extreme knowledge about both sides and powerful deliveries in over 300 debates. This writer took several apologetic college apologetic courses taught by Dr. Gish and found his debating tactics most helpful.One outstanding article written by Dr. Gish is entitled, “Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)”. It presents a study of the creation and evolution models, addressing main topics, including origins, cosmology, biology, geology, etc. His articles are still some of the finest testimonies for creation science in ICR’s inventory and can be read by entering his name in the ICR search engine.ADVOCATES OF A LITERAL CREATON ARE STILL FOOLSHowever, Dr. Gish and other young earth creationists are still considered as fools in the circles of elite evolutionists in the scientific community. Highly qualified creationists—many with multiple doctorates from leading universities and authors of countless peer-reviewed secular scientific papers, are nevertheless distained by secular, atheistic scientists.Why? Because they have personally accepted Jesus Christ’s claim that He was “The Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6). Those rejecting the scientific finding of creation scientists also reject the Creator who died for them on the cross and rose from the dead three days later, according to Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). They will ultimately face their Creator, whose judgment will consist of, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power… (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).Creation scientists, and young earth creationists in general, are still considered fools in the eyes of the secular scientific world. Notwithstanding, research based on Scriptural narratives pertaining to science disciplines (e.g., Genesis creation and flood) have produced substantial evidence that verifies the creation model and invalidates the model of evolution.Thankfully, millions of people around the world have chosen to follow One who paid the price for their redemption on the cross. They have received eternal salvation, citizenship in Heaven (Philippians 3:20), and place in the family of God, for “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.”Christians continually act in ways that contradict the wisdom of the world. Their works testify to the biblical truth that Wisdom is justified by Her children. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download