Thursday, February 28, 2013

What does it mean to "Receive Jesus"? How do I do this? Do I have to say the sinner's prayer? Should I "accept Jesus into my heart"?

If you have ever attended a church service or listened to a religious program, you have probably heard the speaker tell the audience they needed to "receive Jesus" to be saved.  Most churches teach you need to "receive Jesus", but differ on how this is done. Many churches teach that you have to say what is called "The Sinner's Prayer".

The so-called "Sinner's Prayer" usually sounds something like this:
Dear God,
Thank you for making a way for us to turn from the wrong things that we have done. I know I have done wrong things, but right now I want to look upon Jesus so that you will forgive me for the things I have done. Please let me receive Jesus into my heart. I want to live forever with God. Thank you for loving me.
In Jesus Name I Pray,
Amen
The "Sinner's Prayer" is NOT in the Bible.
Although the people who are saying the "Sinner's Prayer" are doing it with a sincere heart and are trying to do what is right, what they are doing does not result in receiving Jesus. In fact, the "Sinner's Prayer" or the idea of "Accepting Jesus into Your Heart" is not found in the Bible at all. The Bible Answer Show always wants to provide "Bible Answers" to questions. With this thought in mind we will examine what the Bible teaches about "How One Receives Jesus" and "Why We Need to Receive Him".

Why do I need to Receive Jesus?

Almost all religious people agree that mankind is plagued with a SIN problem. The only one who has never committed a SIN is Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:15). We, however, have sinned! (Rom. 3:23) "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Our sins make us deserving of eternal spiritual death (Romans 6:23). Our sins separate us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2).

Since all have sinned, all need salvation. Because of our sins we deserved the punishment of death, but Jesus died for us so that if we "receive Him" we could have eternal life.

How do I Receive Jesus?
The passage in the Bible that mentions "receiving Jesus" is (Colossians 2:6-7).
"Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude".
The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the Greek word for “received” is the  paralambano which means "to join oneself with" (Perschbacher Greek Lexicon). To "receive Jesus" is the same as being "joined with Jesus".

How is one Joined with Christ?
Galatians 3:27 answers this question, it states: “...for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ". The Bible teaches that when a person is baptized into Christ they "clothe" themselves with Christ. This would be the equivalent to joining yourself to, or "receiving" Jesus.

Why Baptism?

Getting dunked under water alone does nothing special. But when one acts in faith, placing their trust in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and is baptized, they:
  • Put on Christ (Gal. 3:27).
  • Get “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3-4)
  • Receive the “forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38).
  • This gets rid of the sin problem!
  • When one is baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:3-4) they become partakers of every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places that is only found “in Christ”.
    • (Eph. 1:3-14) Grace, redemption, forgiveness, inheritance, hope, the Holy Spirit and more are found "in Christ".
Everyone Can Receive Jesus!
  • When one truly believes in Jesus (John 8:24).
  • Repents of their sins (Luke 13:3,5).
  • Confesses the Lordship of Christ (Rom. 10:9-10)
  • Baptism then becomes that final point where one acts in faith and puts to death the old life, washes away sin, receives Christ and is born again. (Acts 2:38, 22:16, etc.)
What do I do After Receiving Jesus?
  • It is time to rejoice for your sins are forgiven and eternal life with God awaits you (Acts 8:39)
  • You are added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:41,47)
  • You shall then live your life for Him. 
    • Serving Him daily (Rom. 12:1).
    • Worshipping and fellowshipping with other Christians (Heb. 10:25, 3:13).
    • Avoiding sin while walking in the light till you go on to your reward (1 John 1:7)
Please email us if you would like to learn more about receiving Jesus
By CS - Scripture references from the NASB and ESV. Quotes from Perschbacher Greek Lexicon

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

What does it mean to "know God"? How do I know if I "know" Him?


“Do you know Jesus?” is a phrase that is often repeated amongst Christian circles. Depending on who you ask, it can mean a variety of different things. To some, “knowing Jesus” means you are a frequent church goer, to others it may mean that you feel God has in some way providentially impacted your life. Most, Christians will admit that knowing Jesus is paramount to being saved, however, most cannot actually pinpoint what “knowing Jesus” means or entails. 

What does it mean to "know God"?

A Christian should be able to evaluate their commitment to a godly lifestyle and affirm whether or not they know God. John writes, "
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments...whoever keeps His Word, in him the love of God has been truly perfected, by this we know that we are in Him” (1 John 2:5)
Knowing God is synonymous in 1st John with fellowship with God, and true fellowship with God comes from obedience to God’s will. If one doubts their relationship with God, a simple self-evaluation of their level of commitment to obedience will bear testimony to their level of love for God. 

Conclusion:

Practically speaking, if one examines their life, their commitments, their time and their sacrifices, and finds obedience to God is their number one priority, they will know they “know God”. On the other hand, if one claims to know God, but their level of commitment declares otherwise, they are lying to themselves. John writes:
The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:2-4).
One who truly knows God is one who truly obeys. Let’s put into practice what we profess.

CS- NASU95

What does it mean to be "in fellowship" with God?


Fellowship is a word that is thrown around a great deal in Christian circles. It is a word that often conjures up several different images in our minds. To some “fellowship” represents potluck lunches, to others it may bring to memory teenage devotionals and to some it may remind them the close friendships they enjoy in a local congregation.'

What is "fellowship"?

The word translated fellowship in our New Testaments is the Greek word koinonia and it can be defined as a “relationship, communion, community, common purpose or sharing”. God desires to have fellowship with His children and we likewise should desire fellowship with Him. In fact, God sent His apostles to preach the message of Christ so we could have fellowship with Him (1 John 1:3). This relationship with God brings great “joy” (1 John 1:4).
Great blessings accompany fellowship with God. 

Fellowship with God means Spiritual Communion

First, when we have fellowship with Father, we have fellowship with the Son, the apostles and all others who follow God. When we have fellowship with God we should never feel alone, because we share in spiritual communion with past and present believers (1 John 1:3,7). 

Fellowship with God means Being Cleansed of Sins

Secondly, when we are in fellowship with God we have the benefit of continual cleansing of sin. As long as we are in a relationship with God, as His children we can be constantly be made pure by the cleansing ability of Christ’s blood. God cannot have fellowship with sin, He is light and in Him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). Light is the absence of darkness, when we abide in the light (ie. fellowship with God), darkness is removed and we are found pure.

Great Blessings are Associated with Being "In Fellowship" with God

These blessings we have examined are wonderful representations of God’s care and concern for His creation. These blessings, however, are conditional upon us maintaing real fellowship with God, His Son and His church. We cannot declare to have a relationship with God and still be living in darkness. God who is light cannot be in the presence of darkness. (1 John 1:6) May we always abide in the light and reap the benefits of real fellowship with God. 

CS- NASU95

Can a person be forgiven if they won't admit they need forgiveness?


We have all  known someone who would never admit when they were wrong? No matter how insurmountable the evidence is against them, they will not confess to making a mistake. A follower of God cannot have this kind of mentality!  One cannot become a child of God if they wont admit sin. The apostle John wrote,  “If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

God will not forgive the person who does not admit his need for forgiveness. 

Before one can become a follower of God, they must admit to themselves that because of sin they need God. Sadly, too many people adopt the “to big to fail” mentality and will never believe they have fallen. These people are deceiving themselves and can never be forgiven. God will not forgive the person who does not admit his need for forgiveness. 

God will forgive the person who admits sin.

On the other hand, if we are honest with ourselves, identify the sins in our life and confess our sinfulness before self and God, we can be forgiven. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness”  (1 John 1:9).

God is Truth and cannot be in fellowship with lies. Those in the light (1 John 1:7) understand that all have sinned and have no problem admitting it. From the admission of guilt comes the blessing of forgiveness. We all have all sinned, continue to sin, and will continue to sin. Even when we fail time after time again, there is still hope in Christ, for redemption and salvation.

How do I receive forgiveness?

The steps to receiving these blessings are simple. First, admit to self that you are not perfect, you sin and you need God. Second, seek out God and acknowledge His gracious and forgiving character. Third, with great joy and humble thanksgiving accept the forgiveness He continually offers. 
Depending on your relationship with God, the third step may take different forms. 

For those outside of a covenant relationship with Christ, accepting God’s forgiveness requires turing from sin, to God, and putting on Christ in baptism (Acts 2:38). For those already in Christ, accepting God’s forgiveness comes from prayer and an effort to turn from sin and back to Him.

Thanks be to God for continually forgiving us as we fall. Let’s not be so big, proud or self righteous that we never admit we need God’s grace. God will forgive you, if you are willing to admit your need for forgiveness. 

If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us”
 (1 John 1:10).

CS- Scripture references from NASB

Does history always repeat itself? Are we doomed to repeat the sins of those in the Old Testament?


The proverb “History Repeats Itself” is recorded as being stated all the way back to around the 1500s. Although the English phrase itself is only 500 years old , the principle is one that has been around long before. How many children do we often see making the same mistakes their parents made?  It often seems that we are doomed to commit the very same mistakes of those who have gone on before us. 

 We Can Learn From History

One of the beautiful things about history is we can read of the mistakes that were made, and learn from them. Paul had this in mind when he wrote in 1 Corinthians (10:11-12):
“Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall”
Paul knew that we will often make the same mistakes of the past, but at the same time if we are wise, we will observe what happened in the past and learn from it. 

The Old Testament Was Written For Our Learning

One of the key purposes of the Old Testament today, is for us to read through it, and learn from the many mistakes that God’s people made. We are not so far removed from them to think that we do not struggle with the same things. They struggled with immorality, materialism and pride in the same way that we do. We need to be wise and utilize the tools that God has given us to overcome temptation. 

Conclusion: History Does Not Always Have to Repeat Itself.

We can learn from the Old Testament. History DOES NOT always have to repeat itself. Immediately after discussing the purpose of Old Testament history, Paul writes, 
“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). 
We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. May we always learn from those who have gone on before us, and grow because of the lives they lived.

CS - Scripture quotes from NASB

Most Popular Posts In February

The Bible Answer show has been blessed with an explosion of new visitors to our website. We are working to add new content all the time, but we NEED your questions. Keep sending in questions and we will keep giving Bible answers. Our most popular posts during the month of February were:

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Was Darwin right about Evolution?

The following article is used with permission from Apologetics Press. The original article may be viewed here - http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1148

Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error
by 
Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Kyle Butt, M.A.
If the latter part of 2009 is anything like its beginning, this year will go down in secular history as the year of Charles Darwin. The scientific establishment is rallying virtually its entire arsenal of resources to celebrate the life and writings of Charles Darwin. Scientific American’s January cover story is titled: “The Evolution of Evolution: How Darwin’s Theory Survives, Thrives, and Reshapes the World.” In his editor’s note that introduces the issue, John Rennie wrote: “Today, 200 years after his birth and 150 years after Origin of Species, Darwin’s legacy is a larger, richer, more diverse set of theories than he could have imagined” (300[1]:6). Contributing writers to NewScientistpenned an article titled “The Years of Thinking Dangerously” in which they polled scientific heavy-hitters, such as Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, and Michael Ruse, to decide who deserves 2009’s “anniversary crown”—Charles Darwin or Galileo. The article stated: “In the end, our panel concluded (with two abstentions) that Darwin has done more to change our view of ourselves. For our rigorous peer reviews, 2009 is Darwin’s year!” (“The Years...,” 200[2687/2688]:70-71, emp. added). The official Darwin Day Web site informs viewers that 128 events are currently scheduled in 21 different countries to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin on February 12, 2009

(“Darwin Day Celebration”). The site gives a description of many of these events, and includes a countdown of the days, hours, and seconds until the big day. (Incidentally, the debate between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia is listed among these events; see “Darwin Day Event Listing.”) In addition, the British Museum of Natural History has organized its “Darwin” exhibit, hailed as “the biggest ever exhibition about Charles Darwin. It celebrates Darwin’s ideas and their impact for his 200th birthday in 2009” (“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition”).

An exhaustive list of all such activities would take hundreds of pages. Needless to say, Darwin and his theory will be in the global spotlight this year. This being the case, it is a good time to analyze Darwin and his ideas. Is it true that Darwin left a legacy worthy to be celebrated? Or is it the case that Darwin’s ideas were not only wrong, but also harmful in that they have provided the basis for racism, devaluing human life, and erroneous scientific study? In truth, when Darwin’s contribution to society is critically considered, the publishing of The Origin of Species is an event that should be marked, not as worthy of celebration, but as an event that will live in infamy. This issue of Reason & Revelation will highlight several of the most glaring deficiencies of Darwin’s theory.

DARWIN’S THEORY IS USELESS
The late Theodosius Dobzhansky remains well-known for a particularly catchy article title that he penned in the 1970s. In fact, the title of his article contains an idea that is accepted and maintained by a large portion of the modern scientific community—“Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973). This idea—that without a “proper” understanding of evolution one cannot understand, much less contribute to, biological studies—has taken a firm hold of many professors and science teaching professionals. Professor Michael Dini of the Department of Biological Sciences at Texas Tech University stated: “The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology” (n.d., emp. in orig.).

Is it true that a proper understanding of evolution is a prerequisite for any person who wishes “to properly practice” in some field of biology? The eminent evolutionist and outspoken Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, offered some interesting thoughts along these lines. In a discussion of one particular group of scientists, Dawkins stated:
They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. That is a defensible position.... A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics (1996, p. 283, emp. added).
According to Dawkins, it is very possible for a person to engage in productive cell research (an extremely important branch of biology) without using evolutionary ideas in any of his procedures. In fact, evolution could defensibly be “irrelevant to his day-to-day research.” Please notice, however, that Dawkins makes sure to include the idea that the researcher believes that the cells are the “products of evolution.”

But let us take Dawkins’ thoughts a step further. Could it be that the researcher would not have to believe that the cells are the product of evolution? Would that belief affect his “day-to-day research”? Dawkins must answer, “No.” Then, according to Dawkins’ line of thinking, a person who does not believe in evolution could be just as (or more) successful in the biological sciences than one who does believe in evolution.

It should not be surprising, then, to hear statements like the one made by Thomas Geelan. Geelan is a teacher of advanced placement biology in Buffalo, New York. His course is titled, “An Interdisciplinary Course in Evolution.” In the abstract that describes the class, the first line states: “Evolution is the central organizing theme in all biology, yet few biology courses are taught that way” (n.d., emp. added). In the introduction to the class, a similar statement is made: “Evolution is the central organizing theme in all biology, but it is ironic that most biology curricula are pitifully deficient in their treatment of it” (emp. added).

What is the primary reason for this deficiency in “most” biology courses? The answer simply is that evolution is of no practical value in day-to-day research. In fact, evolution can be considered an irrelevant idea that has no bearing on the outcome of any scientific experiment. The cell researcher does not need it. The physicist does not need it. The taxonomist not only does not need it, but it gets in his way so much that he is better off if he does not consider it. In truth, not only is evolution a false idea, it is light years away from being the central tenet of biology. It is a counterproductive, anti-knowledge theory that, at the least, is useless, and is often destructive. Dobzhansky’s title would be better worded, “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense in Light of Evolution.”

DARWIN FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE LIMITS OF CHANGE
Charles Darwin did not always believe in evolution. In fact, at one time he believed in God as the Creator. He wrote in his autobiography: “Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality” (1958, p. 85, parenthetical item in orig.). But as he grew older, he changed his view and began to think that natural forces created the world. He described his “deconversion”: “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct” (p. 87). Sadly, one of the reasons for his change in thinking came from a misunderstanding of the Bible.

In Darwin’s day, the Church of England misunderstood the biblical account of Creation. The book of Genesis says that animals multiply “according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21). However, the Church of England confused the biblical word “kind” with the word “species.” The Church of England taught that God had created every separate species in the world. This idea was called the “fixity of species.” The problem with this view was that it simply is not true; they had misunderstood the Bible (Garner, 2009).

Darwin’s Finches
When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he discovered something that greatly interested him. He found several different species of finches which were unique to the islands. The basic differences between these species was the size and shape of their beaks. Some of the finches had short thick beaks, used to crack open seeds, while others had long, thin beaks that could be used to catch insects or drink nectar from flowers. As he studied the birds, he came to the conclusion that the finches were very similar and must have been related. In fact, Darwin believed that the species had originally diverged from a single species of birds. He guessed that long before he had arrived on the islands, a storm must have blown this flock of birds to the Galapagos Islands. To give a very simplified version of Darwin’s hypothesis, he thought the birds with long beaks stayed together and ate insects, while the birds with short, stout beaks were able to survive in different places on the islands where they could find seeds. Eventually, due to drought, climate change, and environmental pressures, each group became its own species through the process of natural selection. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. Here Darwin made a major mistake in his thinking. He did not realize that small changes have limits.

In recent years, two researchers have become well-known for their trips to the Galapagos Islands to study Darwin’s ideas about the Galapagos finches. In the July 14 issue of Science, Peter and Rosemary Grant presented a paper titled “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches.” The thesis of the article is that one particular species of finch (Geospiza fortis) “evolved” a slightly smaller beak due to the arrival of a larger-beaked finch (G. magnirostris) competing for larger seeds of the Tribulus cistoides plant during a severe drought (Grant and Grant, 2006).

Randolph Schmid, an Associated Press author who reviewed the Grants’ article, opened his summary of their findings with these words: “Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it—by evolving” (2006). Notice the subtle maneuver Schmid made in his introduction: he commingled two distinct definitions of evolution into his statement, falsely equating the two. The generally accepted definition for the concept of evolution proposed by Darwin is “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another,” often called Darwinism. But the “evolving” accomplished by the finches on the Galapagos Islands was simply “small changes within the same kind of organism.” Unfortunately, evolutionists often use this type of sleight-of -hand tactic.

Schmid interviewed Robert Fleischer, a scientist who works with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who stated that the Grants merely had documented an instance of “microevolution” (small changes within the same kind of organism). Yet, the titles of the articles by both Schmid and the Grants misleadingly imply that Darwinian evolution has been proven by the finch research—and Schmid goes so far as to assert this bold claim in his introductory paragraph.

What do the finches really prove? They prove that finches stay finches, and the only documented kind of “evolution” is that of small changes within the same kind of organism. The Grants have been studying the finches for 33 years, and this change in beak size, which amounted to about .6 millimeters in beak length and .8 millimeters in beak depth (“Study: Darwin’s...,” 2006), was “the strongest evolutionary change seen in the 33 years of the study” (Grant and Grant, 2006). Even more ironic is the fact that this “evolutionary” change to a smaller beak that allegedly helped the finches to survive might not be so helpful after all. In the same article for Science, the Grants alluded to research done in 1977 when a drought struck the same island and killed many of the finches. The Grants noted: “Most finches died that year, and mortality was heaviest among those with small beaks” (2006, emp. added). Thus, if G. fortis keeps “evolving” a smaller beak size, a major drought in the future could easily spell the bird’s demise.

Scientific observation has never produced a single shred of evidence that proves even the possibility of “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.” In fact, all the observable evidence proves that every living organism multiplies “according to its kind” exactly as stated in Genesis 1:24, small changes in beak size, body weight, or skin color notwithstanding.

The Fruit Fly
According to the prevailing theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon by natural selection provide the driving force behind nature’s production of new creatures. Of course, since mechanisms that reproduce genetic information in organisms are remarkably efficient, genetic modification by mutations are extremely rare. What is more, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so detrimental to the welfare of the mutant organism, the mutant dies or becomes a victim of predation before it has the ability to pass on its genes, and thus nature eliminates the mutation from the gene pool. Allegedly, in the rarest of cases, a “good” mutation that confers an advantage on an organism slips into the gene pool. Since this “beneficial” mutation aids the organism’s survival and reproductive ability, more offspring are produced that have the mutation. Supposedly, myriad millions of these types of mutations have accrued, by which single-celled bacteria have evolved, over billions of years, into humans. When asked why we do not see this process taking place before our eyes, we are told that it simply happens too slowly, is too gradual, and cannot be tested or witnessed in a single human generation, or even in hundreds of years.

What if, however, the process could be expedited? What if we could find some way to introduce exaggerated numbers of mutations into an organism’s gene pool? Could we select the “beneficial” mutations and produce our own, humanly initiated, evolving creatures? If evolution was actually true, and we could find an organism that could be genetically manipulated satisfactorily, then we should be able to “reproduce” evolution in a lab.
Enter Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly. Drosophila maintains several characteristics that make it the perfect specimen for laboratory mutation experiments. First, the female fly is extremely fertile. She can potentially lay 100 eggs a day, up to 2,000 eggs in her life (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Second, Drosophila grows from an egg to an adult in 10-12 days, thus producing up to 30 generations per year (p. 157). Due to these and other ideal traits, the fruit fly has been one of, if not the, most often used organisms in genetic mutation experiments since 1901. Reeve and Black noted: “The exploitation that made Drosophila the most important organism for genetical research was its selection by the embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan for his studies of mutation...” (p. 157).

Since the early 1900s, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred in laboratories across the globe. Scientists performing these experiments have introduced fruit flies to various levels of radiation and countless other factors designed to produce mutations. Sherwin noted that over 3,000 different mutations have been documented in the fruit fly gene pool (n.d.). These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.

So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can occur, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.

What do we see? Fruit flies. That is all we see. After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent, purposeful selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any creatures other than Drosophila. Concerning the fruit fly stasis, the late evolutionist Pierre Grassé stated: “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times (as quoted in Sherwin, n.d.). Norman Macbeth highlighted the late evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt’s thoughts about the fruit fly: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” (1971, p. 33). The bottom line of all experiments ever done on fruit flies is that they stay fruit flies.

The results of such experimentation “fly” in the face of evolution, but they are exactly what one would expect to find if the biblical story of Creation is true. Darwin’s finches, fruit flies, and all other living organisms in the material world have been producing after their own kind since the beginning of creation. Since Darwin refused to recognize that small changes within a kind cannot be used to extrapolate unlimited changes into many different kinds of animals, his theory cannot be maintained in the face of what true science teaches us about the biology of living organisms.

THE FOSSILS HAVE ALWAYS SAID “NO” TO DARWIN
In the May 6, 2002 edition of Newsweek, Fred Guterl wrote a brief article titled “Evolution: Birds Do It” (139[18]:11). The gist of the article centered on the aforementioned Peter and Rosemary Grant, “a married team of biologists from Princeton, [who] have worked for three decades to fill in Darwin’s blanks” (emp. added).

The major problem with Mr. Guterl’s article, and many people’s understanding of Darwinian evolution, hinges on the fact that he apparently was not aware of the true “blanks” that need to be filled in with regard to Darwin’s theory. In the opening paragraph of the article he wrote: “Charles Darwin described how the daily struggle for food and sex ultimately determines the future of a species, be it dinosaur, bird or human. He had plenty of fossil evidence to back him up, but he never actually observed natural selection taking place” (emp. added).
In sharp contrast to this statement, the tenth chapter of The Origin of Species is titled “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” In it, Darwin argued that, due to the process of natural selection, “so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous” (1860, p. 234). However, he went on to admit: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against this theory. The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record” (p. 234).

Darwin most certainly did not have “plenty of fossil evidence to back him up.” He hoped that future geological research would fill in those blanks, due to the fact that fossil evidence was the primary proof needed to verify his theory. Unfortunately for Darwin and his theory, that evidence has been much less forthcoming than he had hoped. In fact, if Mr. Guterl had checked his own publication’s archives before he printed his misleading article, he would have discovered that in the November 3, 1980 issue of Newsweek, Jerry Adler went on record as stating: “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment” (96[18]:95, emp. added). Nothing in this regard has changed in the more than two decades since Mr. Adler made his admission.

The cover of the March 1-7, 2008 issue of NewScientist pictures an illustrator’s attempt at drawing a half fish/half reptilian creature. Above the illustration is the title: “Amazing Missing Links: Creatures that Reveal the Real Power of Evolution.” Allegedly, evolutionists “have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils” (Prothero, 2008, 197[2645]:35). After making half a page of introductory comments, the author, Donald Prothero, listed several alleged transitional fossils, which supposedly “are conclusive proof that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring” (p. 41). Included in this list were a variety of animals—from velvet worms to dinosaurs, and giraffes to manatees. Readers, however, have to go no further than Prothero’s introduction to see the inaccuracy of his assertions.

Prothero introduced his list of “transitional forms” that supposedly prove evolution with two examples to which science dealt a crushing blow long ago. Prothero wrote: “Darwin’s 1859 prediction that transitional forms would be found was quickly confirmed. In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx—a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds—was discovered, and in the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35, emp. added). Of the alleged “numerous fossils and fossil sequences showing evolutionary change,” Prothero chose to begin his article with Archaeopteryx and the “sequence of horse fossils,” both of which are supposedly “documented” proof of evolution. In truth, Archaeopteryx and the horse family tree are light years away from confirming evolution.

Regarding horse evolution, the fossil record simply does not bear out what NewScientist writer Prothero claimed. In fact, due to the glaring lack of fossil evidence linking the various horse “family members” together, even prominent evolutionists have abandoned the “horse evolution” argument. Prothero claimed that as far back as “the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35). Since that time, however, evolutionists such as Dr. George Gaylord Simpson have admitted, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In a 2000 article that appeared in the journal Natural History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould soundly criticized science textbooks’ use of misinformation surrounding the evolution of horses. He wrote:
Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed...) [2000, 109[2]:45, emp. added].
In light of such statements by renowned evolutionists, one wonders how Prothero can be so confident that the evolution of horses was documented by fossils as far back as the 1870s. Is Prothero’s article just another example of how “misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent” in many evolutionary writings?

And what about Archaeopteryx? Is it a “confirmed” transitional form, as Prothero asserted? Simply because Archaeopteryx has teeth in its beak and claws on its wings, does not prove that it was the transitional form between reptiles and birds. Consider that some modern birds have claws on their wings, and yet no one thinks of them as being missing links. The African bird known as touraco has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin of South America when it is young. Both of these birds use their fully functional claws to grasp branches and climb trees. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it, too, has claws on each wing and can use them if attacked. Obviously, simply because a bird in the fossil record is discovered with claws on its wings does not mean that it is a transitional fossil.

In 1993, Science News reported that an odd fossil bird had been unearthed in Mongolia. It supposedly is millions of years younger than Archaeopteryx and, interestingly, had teeth in its beak (Monasterky, 1993, 143:245). As with the claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists cannot prove that the presence of teeth make the animal something more than a bird. What’s more, consider that while most reptiles have teeth, turtles do not. And, some fish and amphibians have teeth, while other fish and amphibians have no teeth. How can evolutionists be so sure that Archaeopteryx’s teeth make it a dinosaur-bird link? Such an assertion is based on unprovable assumptions.

Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—KB/EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding the real alleged transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.

Finally, what makes the suggestion that Archaeopteryx was the missing link between reptiles and birds even more unbelievable is that “[a]nother bird fossil found in the desert of west Texas in 1983, Protoavis, is dated even earlier, 75 million years before Archaeopteryx” (DeYoung, 2000, p. 37, emp. added). Although some paleontologists have questions about the fossil remains of Protoavis (birds, after all, were not supposed to be around with the “earliest dinosaurs”), Dr. Chatterjee of Texas Tech University “has pointed out, the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle” (Harrub and Thompson, 2001). In 1991, Science magazine ran a story titled “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” wherein Alan Anderson wrote: “His [Chaterjee’s—KB/EL] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs” (253:35).

The fact is, the fossil record does not, in any way, demonstrate that dinosaurs evolved into birds or that horses evolved from little, dog-like creatures. Ironically, although Prothero, writing for New Scientist, wrote that a “favourite lie” of creationists is ‘there are no transitional fossils’” (2008, 197[2645]:35), evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote an article for the same journal 27 years earlier and confessed that “no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...” (1981, 90:832, emp. added).

EVOLUTION CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Darwin’s theory of evolution is false for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it cannot account for the origin of life. According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202).

Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals. This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is testable. Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes. This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald, the Harvard professor who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, wrote in Biological Sciences: “If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life—that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation” (1963, p. 42, emp. added). David Kirk noted: “By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent” (1975, p. 7). Even the eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (1965, p. 144, emp. added). And marine biologist Martin Moe stated:
A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (1981, p. 36, emp. added).
In 2005, Dr. Robert Hazen, a well-respected origins-of-life researcher, produced a college-level course titled “Origins of Life.” In that course, he made several telling admissions. He stated: “First, this course is unusual because at this point in time, there is much that we don’t know about how life emerged on Earth” (p. 5). He further declared:
This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials.... Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know how life originated.... If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure (1:6, emp. added).
According, then, to every piece of experimental datum that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals. Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verify this fact (for more information see Thompson, 1989). Biogenesis deals the crushing blow to Darwin’s theory.

EVOLUTION FALSLY IMPLIES THAT THERE IS NO MORAL STANDARD
In grappling with the moral implications of his theory, Charles Darwin arrived at the only conclusion that can be inferred logically. He stated: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added).

William Provine, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, commented on Darwin’s position on morals as they relate to evolution. Eleven years ago, Provine delivered the keynote address at the second annual Darwin Day on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. In an abstract of that speech, on UT’s Darwin Day Web site, Provine’s introductory comments are recorded in the following words: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (1998, emp. added).

Carefully notice the underlying effects of such assertions. If there is no God, as Darwin admitted evolution implies, then humans are not bound by any moral standard other than the instincts that each human desires to follow. Thus, if one person considers it best to beat his children, while another considers it best to lovingly nurture his children, according to evolution, both would be acting in accord with their evolutionary origins, and neither would be guilty of any real, moral right or wrong. [NOTE: cf. two previous Reason & Revelation articles document what happens when Darwin’s thoughts are practically applied to the human experience (see Butt, 2008a, Butt, 2008b).] Heinously immoral actions, such as infanticide, rape, murder, sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, and abortion, have all found justification in Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory implies that humans can act like animals without any moral responsibility.

CONCLUSION
In the creation/evolution debate, 2009 promises to be an eventful year. Darwin will be honored, adored, praised, and worshiped by his faithful followers, in spite of the fact that his ideas were not only wrong, but often detrimental to the moral fabric of human society. In this article, we have provided only a few of the myriad evidences that disprove evolution. We could multiply this material by 100 and still only scratch the surface of all the lines of evidence that “kill” the theory of evolution. As Darwin himself said years ago: “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact” (“The Quotable Darwin,” 2009).

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


REFERENCES
Adler, Jerry (1980), “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, 96[18]:95, November 3.
Anderson, Alan (1991), “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5.
Butt, Kyle (2008a), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3740.
Butt, Kyle (2008b), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3762.
“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/darwin/index.html.
Darwin, Charles (1860), The Origin of Species (New York: The Modern Library, reprint).
Darwin, Charles (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).
“Darwin Day Celebration” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinday.org/.
“Darwin Day Event Listing” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinday.org/events/listing.php?id=12491.
Darwin, Francis (1959), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Basic Books).
Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watch­maker (New York: W.W. Norton).
DeYoung, Don (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dini, Michael (no date), “Letters of Recommendation,” [On-line], URL: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher, March, [On-line], URL: http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dobzhansky_abt_35_125-29.html.
“Fossil Evidence” (2007), NOVA, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html.
Garner, Paul (2009), “Do Species Change?,” Answers In Genesis [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change#fn species-change#fnMark_1_1_1.
Geelan, Thomas (no date), “An Interdisciplinary Course in Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/AEF/1996/geelan_evolution.html.
Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.
Grant, Peter and Rosemary Grant (2006), “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches,” Science, 313[5784]:224-226, July 14, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5784/224.
Guterl, Fred (2002), “Evolution: Birds Do It,” Newsweek, 139[18]:11, May 6.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory [Part 1],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473.
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House).
Moe, Martin A. (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.
MacBeth, Norman (1971), Darwin Retried (Boston, MA: Gambit).
Monastersky, Richard (1993), “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17.
Prothero, Donald (2008), “What Missing Link?” NewScientist, 197[2645]:35-41, March 1-7.
Provine, William (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” [On-line], URL: http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvine Address.htm.
“The Quotable Darwin” (2009), Scientific American, 300[1]:41.
Reeve, E.C. and Isobel Black, eds. (2001), Encyclopedia of Genetics, [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots=V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWN Dqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en.
Rennie, John (2009), “Dynamic Darwinism,” Scientific American, 300[1]:6.
Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?” NewScientist, June 25, 90: 832.
Schmid, Randolph (2006), “Finches on Galapagos Islands Evolving,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution;_ylt= AtMK7RaDjqo_NxNgdj2Hih.s0NUE;_ylu= X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBH NlYwM3NTM-.
Sherwin, Frank (no date), “Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.icr.org/article/2602/.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).
“Study: Darwin’s Finches Rapidly Evolving” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.macnews world.com/story/dP6qz1CRQ QfO4/-Study-Darwins-Finches-Rapidly-Evolv­ing.
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.
Wald, George (1963), Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World).
“The Years of Thinking Dangerously” (2008-2009), NewScientist, 200[2687/2688]:70-71.

Are science and Christian teachings mutually exclusive? What is the Christian understanding of evolution? The creation of the universe? (PART 2)

(See Part 1) 
This part 2 of answer to the above question. In answering this question The Bible Answer show is using an article with permission from Apologetics Press. The original article is available here http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4213

Science Instituted By God
By Jeff Miller Phd

Some contend that science is at odds with religion. They suggest that the scientific method requires empirical testing, but God’s existence cannot be empirically verified. Science supposedly proves the Big Bang, evolutionary theory, a very old Universe, and dinosaurs that never co-existed with humans, while the Bible mistakenly contends that the Universe was created in six literal, 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago, with humans and dinosaurs being created together on day six. Supposedly, science is based on verifiable evidence, whereas religion is based on “blind faith” and ambiguous “tinglies” attributed to the Holy Spirit. For such reasons, it is claimed that science and Scripture cannot be harmonized—that they are diametrically opposed to each another.

In reality, however, true science agrees perfectly with Scripture. Though God’s existence cannot be empirically verified, it can be easily verified through deductive reasoning from the scientific evidence available to us—in the same way forensic scientists use science to investigate events that they did not personally witness. While atheists have successfully created the mirage that science supports their theories, abundant scientific evidence exists which disproves the Big Bang Theory, evolutionary theory, an old Universe, and proves that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (see www.apologeticspress.org for more information on these matters). And yet, no scientific evidence exists that contradicts the true creation model. Rather, the evidence always supports it. The concept of “blind faith,” though championed by many who call themselves Christians, is at odds with Scripture, which defines faith as choosing to believe in something, based on the evidence that has been presented for it, and responding accordingly (see Miller, 2003). Atheistic scientists are simply wrong in their sweeping accusation that science and religion are at odds.

Though some theistic beliefs contradict science, when handled accurately (2 Timothy 2:15), Scripture and science compliment each other perfectly. For instance, science has shown us that matter is not eternal, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and could not have spontaneously generated—popping into existence from nothing—according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. This fact indicates that matter must have been placed here by an Entity outside the physical Universe (see Miller, 2007). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with atheism and much of today’s pseudo-science. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in its very first verse that God—a Being not subject to the laws of nature (i.e., a supernatural Being)—created the heavens and the Earth. Science supports Scripture.

Science has shown us that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind, according to the Law of Biogenesis. Again, this fact indicates that a Being outside of nature must exist Who initiated life (see Miller, 2012). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with atheism and much of today’s pseudoscientific world which must contend, without scientific support, that life popped into existence from non-life. Rather, this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:11,24 and 2:7 that God created life.

Science—the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Genetics—has shown us that living beings produce other living beings of their own kind (see Thompson, 2002). There may be small changes along the way (e.g., beak size, color, size, etc.), but the offspring of a bird is still a bird. The offspring of a fish is still a fish. Therefore, since there is no common ancestor for all living beings from which all species evolved, there must be a supernatural Being Who initially created various kinds of life on Earth. This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with the teachings of atheism and much of today’s pseudo-scientific world, which argues against the evidence, that various kinds of living beings can give rise to completely different kinds of living beings. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:21 and 1:24-25 that God directed living beings to reproduce after their kind.

True science is in harmony with true religion. Why would science lie? It does not have a mind of its own. It has no bias or agenda. It can certainly be misrepresented or its findings misinterpreted, but science is not the enemy of true religion. In fact, according to the Bible, God, Himself, instituted the field of science. When God created human beings on day six and told them to “have dominion” over the Earth and “subdue” it (Genesis 1:28), He was commanding mankind to do something that would require extensive scientific investigation and experimentation. If God founded science, why would science be at odds with religion? When God, through His servant Paul, said in Romans 1:20 that His existence and some of His attributes could be learned from His creation, He was putting His stamp of approval on the scientific study of creation. When He said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “[t]est all things; hold fast what is good,” He was essentially summarizing the scientific method. Bottom line: God founded science. When legitimate scientific findings are interpreted properly and fairly, science supports the Bible and Christianity. It certainly is not at odds with the Bible.
Copyright © 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES
Miller, Dave (2003), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/444.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Are science and Christian teachings mutually exclusive? What is the Christian understanding of evolution? The creation of the universe? (PART 1)

The quick simple answer to this question is “no”, science and Christian teachings are not mutually exclusive. Scientific fact agrees with the Bible. However, scientific theory and the Bible do not always agree. Facts are proven, theories such as the Big Bang and Macroevolution have not been legitimately proven, thus they are still called “theories”.

As for what is the “Christian Understanding of Evolution”? That question cannot be answered for everyone because there are many different “Christians” with many different understandings. If one holds the Bible as their authority, they will find that it teaches that God created the Universe, the Earth, plants, animals and man. Some Christians believe that God created man through evolutionary means, I do not believe this belief is true to the Bible. The Bible teaches that God is able to, and that he did create man instantly. 

One good website that I recommend people check out is www.apologeticspress.org. On that site there are countless articles on the topic of the Bible and Science and they are written by those who are schooled in scientific research as well as the bible. On this website, one of the articles that I came across is by a man named Trevor Major and is titled “Is Creation Science?” In this article he deals with whether or not Faith and Science can be in agreement. He writes:
Faith need not exclude science. Yes, faith involves an emotional or heart-felt response to God, but it also involves an intellectual response. Abraham, Moses, and the other children of God listed in Hebrews 11 were faithful, with no help from modern science. Noah’s building of the ark, for example, was not based on his personal study of marine engineering or hydrology, but rather a decision to obey God’s command. However, surely some of Noah’s faith came from the knowledge that God could and would work in nature to achieve His ends, including sending a worldwide Flood and preserving Noah and his family on the ark. 
Throughout the Old Testament, God invited His people to compare His miracles and prophecies with the claims of pagan religions (e.g., Isaiah 41:21-22). Then in the New Testament, Christ and the apostles sought a spiritual response from a reasonable consideration of what people had seen and heard (John 5:36; Acts 2:14-41; 17:16-34). Peter gave Christians explicit instructions to defend the reason for their hope of eternal salvation (1 Peter 3:15). 
Further, God appealed to the creation as a demonstration of His existence and power (e.g., Job 38-39; Isaiah 40:26; 45:12). That God’s revelation of His will to Moses began with the account of creation is no coincidence, for it established His unique nature and role in the faith of Israel. The apostle Paul told Christians in Rome that unbelievers always have had the opportunity to recognize the existence of a Creator by studying the creation (1:20). Of course, it is not possible to come to a saving knowledge without special revelation (Romans 10:17), but it is possible to understand the need to seek out the Creator by looking at His natural or general revelation. Although salvation by grace is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), it does not follow that faith is irrational—that it has no tangible ground in “right reason,” as Warfield put it (1977, 1:236-237). This “right reason” may include an investigation of natural revelation using the tools of modern science. 
Christians need not fear science. Nature and Scripture have a common Author, which means that the facts of nature will complement the statements the Bible makes about the physical world. It is not a matter of making one the servant of the other, but of interpreting both correctly. Scientists may disagree with theologians, but true science and true religion never should be in conflict (see Thompson, 1984, 1:17). Finally, Christians should understand that science itself is not evil. Rather, the application of science or technology for immoral purposes is evil, although this improper use is not always perpetrated by the original researcher or inventor. 
Thus, science interacts with religion not only through a study of natural revelation, but also through a consideration of broad issues such as philosophy and ethics. This does not mean to say that the relationship always will be harmonious. To say otherwise is to suggest that someone has answered all the questions. What it does mean is that faith and science can interact in useful ways. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=381)
What happens is that in most places, only the theory of evolution is taught and if you bring up the idea of creation you are ridiculed. True science desires to weigh all the evidence and draw a conclusion based upon the evidence. There is a wealth of evidence against the big bang and evolution. There is also a great deal of evidence for creation, but it usually is not presented nor studied.   (Arguments for creation here http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=679)

Many would have you to believe that you cannot believe in God and science at the same time. This is far from the truth, in fact, through true science I believe that one will be forced to admit that their is great evidence for a Creator.
(Part 1)
CS