an_unshakeable_faith.. - Holy Bible Institute

CONTENTSCopyright and Distribution Policy ................................................... 4Suggestions for Teachers/Private Study .......................................... 5The Bible Critics Were Wrong ......................................................... 7Introduction ...................................................................................... 9The Bible ........................................................................................ 21The Bible’s Nature ............................................................. 22The Bible’s Proof ............................................................... 35The Dead Sea Scrolls ......................................................... 44The Bible’s Difficulties ...................................................... 47Jesus Christ .................................................................................... 59Historical Evidence for Jesus ............................................. 60Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection .................................... 64Israel in Prophecy .......................................................................... 75Archaeology ................................................................................... 83Introduction to Archaeology .............................................. 84Important Old Testament Dates ....................................... 100Archaeological Treasures ................................................. 101Evolution ...................................................................................... 166Introduction to Evolution ................................................. 167History of Evolution ......................................................... 193Icons of Evolution ............................................................ 207Icons of Creation .............................................................. 302Predictions ........................................................................ 316Summary of Evidence against Evolution ......................... 330Suggested Material on Creation Science .......................... 332Noah’s Ark and the Flood ............................................................ 333Soul Winning and Apologetics ..................................................... 344Miscellaneous Questions Answered ............................................. 365Summary of “An Unshakeable Faith” Apologetics Course ......... 3863

COPYRIGHT AND DISTRIBUTIONPOLICYThis apologetics course is distributed in both print and eBookeditions and is part of a package that includes severalPowerPoint/Keynote presentations. The eBook and PowerPointsare not for free distribution to one’s friends or for posting to theInternet, etc.Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable andnon-sharable.Things that we encourage you to share include the audiosermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and thehundreds of FBIS articles that we place for free access at theweb site. You are welcome to make copies of these at your ownexpense and share them with friends and family. You are alsowelcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that yougive proper credit.Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are itemslike the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, the print edition ofour books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken yearsto produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we usethe income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry.We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrityof this policy.4

SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHERS ANDPRIVATE STUDYThis apologetics course is sold as a package consisting of the course itself (in both print andeBook editions) and a series of PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. (Keynote is the Apple versionof PowerPoint. The presentations were created in Keynote and some quality was lost in theconversion to PowerPoint. If possible we advise using the Keynote editions on a Mac.)The 1,850 professional PowerPoint slides deal with archaeology, evolution/creation science, andthe prophecies pertaining to Israel’s history.Archaeology 1 Introduction and Writing (95 slides)Archaeology 2 Ur of the Chaldees (152 slides)Archaeology 3 Egypt (52 slides)Archaeology 4 Babylon (197 slides)Archaeology 5 Assyria (212 slides)Archaeology 6 Medo-Persia (70 slides)Archaeology 7 Israel (103 slides)Archaeology 8 Luke’s Writings (Luke and Acts) (37 slides)Israel in Prophecy (100 slides)Icons of Evolution 1 - Intro Natural Selection Mutations (139 slides)Icons of Evolution 2 - Fossil Record (118 slides)Icons of Evolution 3 - Homology Peppered Moth Finch Fruit Fly (106 slides)Icons of Evolution 4 - Lucy Laetoli (73 slides)Icons of Evolution 5 - Vestigial Embryo (70 slides)Icons of Evolution 6 - Miller Experiment (75 slides)Icons of Evolution 7 - Horse Whale Bird (187 slides)Icons of Evolution 8 - Billions of Years (76 slides)Icons of Creation (147 slides)We suggest that when teaching these sections of the course, the teacher first go through theprinted material and then use the PowerPoint or Keynote slides for the actual presentation to thestudents, since the graphics are a great aid in grasping this particular type of material. Aftershowing the PowerPoints, the teacher can use the Sectional Summaries and Review Questions tomake sure that the students took proper notes and got a handle on the material. Since there ismore information in the printed material, the teacher will be better prepared to describe the slidesand answer questions if he goes through the book’s outlines before showing the PowerPoints.The majority of the photos in the PowerPoint slides were taken by the author during visits tomajor museums and on research trips to locations in America, England, Europe, Australia, Asia,and the Middle East.5

The material in the course is extensive, and the teacher can decide whether to use all of it or toselect only some portion of it for his particular class and situation.The section “Tips for Using Apologetics in Evangelism” is a brief course on soul winning.After most sections there are summaries and review questions as teacher’s aids and to help thestudents focus on the most important points. The teacher can go through these with the class orhe can assign the students to go through them on their own. Selections can be made from thereview questions for sectional and final tests.There is also a summary of the entire course at the end of the book. This section emphasizes themajor points that the students should master so well that they can use them effectively inapologetic and evangelistic situations.There is an introduction to the course itself, and there are introductions to the sections of thecourse on archaeology and evolution. These introductions are as important as the material itselfand we strongly suggest that they not be skipped over.The course can be used for private study as well as in a classroom setting. In the case of privatestudy, the student can go through the printed and PowerPoint material and then use thesummaries and review questions to test himself/herself.6

THE BIBLE CRITICS WERE WRONGIt is the early 20th century, and the Bible is under attack as never before.It is under attack by theological modernists with impressive credentials. They say that the Bibleis filled with myths. They claim that Ur of the Chaldees, the Hittites, Nebuchadnezzar and hisBabylon, Belshazzar, Sargon, King David, and Solomon were mythical. They say that Mosescouldn’t have written the first five books of the Bible since writing was unknown in his day.They say there were no ancient complex law codes and no Babylonian captivity. They say thatparts of the New Testament were not written until at least 100 years after the events and werebased on mythical stories passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Theysay that the book of Acts is filled with historical inaccuracies. A chorus of voices have joined thatof the infidel Thomas Paine who wrote in his popular book The Age of Reason that Genesis is“an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downrightlies.”The Bible is also under attack by Darwinists. Charles Darwin claimed that his doctrine of naturalselection explains the origin of species. Thomas Huxley claimed that Archaeopteryx is evidencethat birds evolved from small dinosaurs. Ernst Haeckel, one of the world’s most influentialscientists, claims that the doctrine of recapitulation proves that evolution is true and he hasimpressive embryo charts to demonstrate it. He says that life is continually formed at the bottomof the sea through simple lifeforms called monera and that these primitive lifeforms are thefoundation of the “tree of life.” He has given monera a scientific name and has drawings of themin his books. Othniel Marsh at Yale’s Peabody Museum claims that his horse chart provesevolution. Evidence is growing for the doctrine that man ascended from apes. There isNeanderthal Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Nebraska Man. Why, we evenhave drawings and models of them and their families and entire books describing their cultureand habits!What would you do in such a time as this, confronted with such an onslaught of apparentevidence against the Bible’s authenticity?Those who held fast to their faith in God and in the Bible as God’s Word were vindicated, whilethe skeptics and the Darwinists were proven wrong.Archaeologists have unearthed evidence for Ur, the Hittites, Nebuchadnezzar and his gloriousBabylon, Belshazzar, Sargon, King David, Solomon, and so much more. They have proven thatwriting was prevalent at least 1,500 years before Moses and that complex law codes were wellknown in ancient times. They have unearthed evidence for the Babylonian captivity and havedemonstrated that the book of Acts is historically accurate.7

As for the Darwinist claims, it is obvious that natural selection has no creative power and thuscould not possibly account for the origin of species, that Archaeopteryx was just a bird and notany type of missing link, that Haeckel’s doctrine of recapitulation was as bogus as his embryochart and his monera. Marsh’s horse evolution was based on assumption rather than scientificevidence and all kinds of horses have been found in the same time and place in the fossil record.Neanderthal was just a man. Piltdown was a hoax. Java Man was a myth based on a fossil of anape intermingled with that of a man. Nebraska Man was a myth based on a pig’s tooth. PekingMan was an ape that was the unfortunate meal of an enclave of limestone workers.New skeptical challenges and Darwinian myths have been proposed to replace those that havebeen disproven, but how many times do skeptics and Darwinists have to be refuted before peoplerealize that they are the emperor without clothes? It is high time that God’s people give thecritics the respect they deserve, which is no respect at all!This course contains powerful evidence against skepticism and Darwinism and for the Bible andJesus Christ, and for that reason it is entitled “An Unshakeable Faith.”8

INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE1. What research went into the creation of this course?The author doesn’t include this information in order to boast but simply to explain the type ofresearch that has gone into the creation of the course so that the teacher and student can havesome level of confidence in the material.First, the course is built upon nearly 40 years of serious Bible study. The author has producedBible study materials such as the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity, ThingsHard to Be Understood, and the 20-volume Advanced Bible Studies Series.Second the course is built on 30 years of apologetics research and writing. This has been a majorthrust of the author’s ministry since he began publication of the monthly O Timothy magazine in1984. Many of his books also reflect this emphasis. The author’s personal library of 6,000volumes includes hundreds of titles on evolution and archaeology and general apologetics.Third, the course is built on visits to many major museums, including the Museum of Man in SanDiego, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, the American Natural History Museum, theYale Peabody Museum, the Chicago Field Museum, the Burke Museum of Natural History inSeattle, the Pennsylvania University Museum, the Michigan State University Museum, theOriental Institute in Chicago, the Australia Museum, the National Archaeological Museum ofAthens, the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum, the British Museum of Natural History, theIstanbul Archaeology Museum, and the homes of Charles and Erasmus Darwin.Fourth, the course is built on archaeological and historical research trips to England, Europe,Turkey, Greece, and Israel.Fifth, the course is built on experiences prior to conversion when the author pursued the NewAge and Hinduism, plus 20 years of experience as a missionary in the Hindu/Buddhist culture ofSouth Asia and many years of experience in preaching to prisoners and university students.Most of the photos and video clips used in the course were taken in the context of this research.2. What are the objectives of this course?To protect youOur first objective in this apologetics course is to familiarize the student with commonly-heldarguments against the Bible and to prepare him to answer those arguments. The first use ofapologetics is not to convince the unbeliever but to protect the believer, his family, and fellowbelievers. Because we are grounded in apologetics, we are not confused when we hear arguments9

y evolutionists, atheists, new agers, and cultists, either in person, in print, on the radio ortelevision, or on the Internet. When we visit natural history museums we can see through theerror of the displays. Our objective is to provide the student of this course enough knowledge toprotect him.Churches must prepare the people to face the onslaught of end-time skepticism and apostasy.Many have become confused and have even lost their faith in God’s Word after being confrontedwith theological modernism, atheism, and evolution.The average Baptist church, whether Southern or Independent, is simply not preparing youngpeople to face the skepticism of the hour.The experience of Edward O. Wilson is all too typical. He is a prominent evolutionist, aprofessor in Entomology at Harvard University, a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,and a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism. He grew up in Alabamaand joined a Southern Baptist congregation at age 15 with “great fervor and interest in thefundamentalist religion.” He “lost his faith” at age 17 when he “got to the University of Alabamaand heard about evolutionary theory” (Wilson, The Humanist, September/October 1982, p. 40).An ABC World News report in November 2010 focused on two Southern Baptist ministers whoare agnostics. They “lost their faith” when confronted by the writings of the “new atheists” suchas Richard Dawkins. The minister identified as Adam said, “I realized that everything I’d beentaught to believe was sort of sheltered, and never really looked at secular teaching or otherphilosophies ... I thought, ‘Oh my... Am I believing the wrong things? Have I spent my entire lifeand my career promoting something that is not true?’” (“Atheist Ministers Struggle with Leadingthe Faithful,” ABC World News, Nov. 9, 2010).The reason for this type of thing is that, first, churches are often careless about trying to makesure that young people are genuinely converted to Christ as opposed to just going through themotions of “believing” and “praying a prayer.” Then, too, young people are being coddled andentertained, but they are not being seriously discipled. As a result, children growing up in Baptistchurches are being devoured either by the world or the contemporary church philosophy. Biblicalfaith is not a blind leap in the dark. It is established upon solid historical evidence which Lukedescribed as “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). It is not difficult to defend the Bible and the gospelagainst the railings of the “new atheists,” but most churches aren’t even trying.To prepare you to help other believersGod wants every believer to be a teacher (Heb. 5:12-14). We are to exhort one another (Heb.10:25). Every child of God should have the objective of growing in Christ and learning His Wordso that he can help disciple others.10

To prepare you to challenge unbelieversWe are instructed to be ready to give an answer to the unbeliever (1 Peter 3:15). Paul believed ingiving a defense of his faith in Christ (Philippians 1:7, 17). His practice was to dispute with bothJews and Gentile (Acts 17:17). He reasoned and persuaded (Acts 18:4). His message on MarsHill in Athens was a masterly example of the use of biblical apologetics in evangelism (Acts17:18-34).We live in a needy world. And apologetics can prepare the soil of the unbeliever’s heart so thathe or she will listen to God’s Word. That is what happened to the first friend God gave me after Iwas saved. Richard Tedder had grown up in a skeptical environment and was educated at asecular university. He assumed evolution is true. It was after he read a booklet exposing some ofthe scientific errors of evolution that he began to rethink his philosophy of life. He decided toread the Bible, and there he found truth and salvation. The exposure of evolution was a step inhis conversion. Dr. Carl Werner was an evolutionist when he was in medical school, and throughthe challenge of a fellow student he decided to investigate evolution to see if it is true. Throughthat process he became a creationist. Dr. Jobe Martin, who was once an evolutionist, became acreationist after some of his students challenged him to study the design of nature. Argumentsagainst evolution are effective for those willing to listen. The book Icons of Evolution byJonathan Wells (who has a Ph.D. in religion and a Ph.D. in cell biology) which was published in2000, has changed the thinking of many highly educated people, including those who have goneon to become Christians as well as those who have adopted some type of Intelligent Design ortheistic evolution position.We deal with this in the chapter “Tips for Using Apologetics in Evangelism.”3. The Bible warns of an explosion of unbelief and skepticism at the end of the age and wemust be prepared to face it.See Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13; 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:3-7; Jude 3-4.2 Timothy 3:13 says apostasy and error will grow throughout the age, and we can see this inchurch history, but the Bible also indicates that there will be an explosion of apostasy at the endof the age. The 19th century witnessed this explosion, and this is made plain in 2 Peter 3:3-7.Here Peter identifies the “last days” with a widespread rejection of the Bible’s teaching aboutcreation and the global Flood. This occurred in the late 19th century.Skepticism was in the air. The 19th century witnessed the birth of theological modernism,humanistic philosophy, Unitarianism, Marxism, Darwinism, Mormonism, Psychology, and NewAge.Consider some descriptions of the skeptical atmosphere of that time:11

“Every thinking man I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious faith.And the unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief” (Thomas Huxley, cited fromAdrian Desmond, Huxley, p. 160).“[It was a time] when speculations about the origin of species were most rife, when even the orthodoxdoctrines were being modified and complicated until it was hardly possible to know where orthodoxy endedand heresy started” (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p. 234).“The unspiritual condition of the churches … and the alarmingly prevalent skepticism, infidelity, and atheismamong the masses of the people in Germany, Switzerland, and Holland is, without doubt, almost whollyattributable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large majority of the prominent pastors and theologicalprofessors in those lands. The same condition of affairs is measurably true in England, Scotland, NewEngland, and in every community where this criticism is believed by any very considerable number of peopleand openly advocated” (L.W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, 1896).“The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us” (George Romanes, 1878,cited from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 371).“Attendance at places of worship is declining and reverence for holy things is vanishing. We solemnlybelieve this to be largely attributable to THE SCEPTICISM WHICH HAS FLASHED FROM THE PULPITAND SPREAD AMONG THE PEOPLE” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, November 1887).Since the late 19th century, apostasy and skepticism has spread like wildfire, both in secular andChristian circles.(We document this in the book The Modern Version Hall of Shame, which is available from Wayof Life Literature in print and eBook formats.)The bottom line is that we live in an age of terrible apostasy, and we must not hide our heads inthe sand. Individual believers must wake up and be informed and alert. Christian mothers andfathers must protect their families. Pastors and teachers must protect the flock.It is for this purpose that we are publishing this apologetics course. It is not just for youngpeople. It is for every age group from youth to “senior citizens.”4. The evidence for God’s existence is irrefutable and only willful blindness accounts for itsrejection.The Bible does not argue for God’s existence, and I believe that we should follow this example.The Bible simply begins with a statement of God’s existence as the Almighty Creator (Genesis1:1).The Bible twice says the atheist is a fool (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). This is because the evidence forGod is written in nature and in man’s own heart. See Romans 1:19-20.The only thing that we should do with the atheist is point him to creation. If he doesn’t believethe evidence that God has put before his very eyes, nothing but prayer will help him. He cannot12

e reasoned into belief in God through human philosophy. It won’t work and it is a waste oftime.5. Some things that are necessary for effective apologetics.SalvationSalvation is the helmet that protects the believer’s mind and heart as he stands against the devil.“And take the helmet of salvation...’ (Eph. 6:17).Knowledge alone won’t protect the individual from Satanic lies. Knowledge is important, butmany knowledgeable people have fallen. Judas knew everything the other disciples knew, but hefell away. Many professing believers have set out to defend the Bible only to fall to Satan’s lies,because they were not grounded in a saving relationship with Christ. When the crowds turnedaway from Christ and believed the lies of their religious leaders, Peter and the apostles remainedbecause they knew Him personally and were sure that He was the only Lord and Saviour (John6:66-70).Many today have prayed a sinner’s prayer without repentance and without casting themselvesupon Christ from the heart. They have joined the church, but they don’t have a real personalrelationship with Christ.Knowledge of God’s Word“Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts ofthe wicked. And take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:16-17).The Word of God is both the shield of faith (see Romans 10:17) and the sword of the Spirit; it isboth defensive and offensive, and it is the chief weapon in the believer’s arsenal against Satan.Each believer should become a teacher by being skilled in the Word of God (Hebrews 5:12-14).The pursuit of Bible knowledge should be a major objective of every believer’s life. Without this,he cannot know God’s will or defend himself properly against the wiles of the Devil. It is notnecessary to go off to a Bible College. What one needs is a good church, a habit of daily Biblestudy, and the judicious use of study tools. Some churches offer Bible classes in the evenings,and there are many courses that can be used for private study, such as Way of Life’s AdvancedBible Studies Series (ABSS). The ABSS titles “How to Study the Bible” and “Give Attendance toDoctrine” are good starting places in this pursuit.I recall with great fondness the man who led me to Jesus Christ in the summer of 1973. His namewas Ron Walker, and he knew his Bible. That was the thing that first impressed me about himand that is the reason I was willing to travel with him and hear more.13

I told him my religious and philosophical views, and he replied with Scripture.I said, “I believe in reincarnation.”He replied, “In Hebrews 9:27 the Bible says, ‘And as it is appointed unto men once to die, butafter this the judgment.’ Since the Bible says we die one time and then the judgment, I don’tbelieve in reincarnation.”I said, “I believe a man should follow his heart.”He replied, “The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, anddesperately wicked: who can know it?’ We cannot trust in our own hearts.”I said, “I believe that as long as a man is sincere in his beliefs God will accept him.”He replied, “Proverbs 14:12 says, ‘There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the endthereof are the ways of death.’ According to the Bible, a man can be sincerely wrong and bejudged by God.”I said, “If a man can’t trust his own heart and sincerity, how is it possible, then, to know thetruth?”He replied, “Jesus Christ said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto theFather, but by me.’ Also God has given us His revelation in the Bible. It is the divinely inspiredWord of God.”I got so interested in the conversation and so impressed with his knowledge of Scripture that Itraveled with him for about four days and on our last night together I repented and cast myselfupon Christ and His Word.FaithHebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. We must practice evangelismand apologetics from a position of convinced faith and not be moved by the doubt of those towhom we minister. We must have the testimony of Peter in John 6:69: “And we believe and areSURE that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”When we show an unbeliever the argument of design from nature, how that the incrediblecomplexity of the 11 major systems of the human body, for example, point to an Almighty God,we must not be moved by a skeptical response. Richard Dawkins can mock the “design theory”and claim that life could come about by chance, but I know in my heart of hearts that this isnonsense. My heart resonates with the truth of Romans 1:20 -- “For the invisible things of him14

from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” And all of the mockingand scoffing in the world will not discourage me from my faith in God and His Word. Withoutthis unshakeable faith in God’s Word, the apologist is in danger of being shaken like a leaf in thewind by the Devil’s attacks.Further, faith in God keeps us from being dragged down to the skeptic’s level on various issuessuch as questions pertaining the six-day creation and Noah’s Ark. Though we can answer manyquestions, we cannot answer all and we don’t have to. The answer to many questions is“Almighty God”! This is the answer to questions about how light could travel so far so quickly atthe beginning of the creation week and how all of the animals could be brought into the Ark andmaintained. We can show that the ark was large enough to hold all of the “kinds” of landcreatures but there is no reason to assume that God didn’t do miracles in relation to Noah’s Ark.The global Flood used natural processes but it was far from a “natural” event. The same is truefor the maintenance of creation. Though the Bible says God ceased creating at the end of thecreation week, He did not cease to be involved with creation at every level. We are told thatChrist upholds all things by the power of His Word (Heb. 1:3) and “by him all thingsconsist” (Col. 1:17). To me, this is the answer to such puzzles as how the monarch butterfly canknow how to fly 2,500 miles from Canada to a place in the Mexican mountains without a guideand how its offspring know how to fly back to Canada even though they are born at some pointalong the migration route and their parents are dead. All of that might be built into its geneticcode, but then again the omnipresent Christ might just guide the butterflies as part of Hisupholding and consisting work.Humility“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12).Humility is another necessity in the defense of the faith. Consider the case of Peter. He boastedto Christ, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended” (Mat.26:33). He was doubtless sincere in his profession, but he was trusting in the arm of flesh ratherthan in the Spirit of God, and his fall was great. If an apologist is trusting in his intellect and hisknowledge or his debating skills, he is in danger of falling.Conviction and Courage“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world wouldlove his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the worldhateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they havepersecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also” (John15:18-20).15

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; ofhim also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holyangels” (Mark 8:38).“... if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12).To stand in defense of God’s truth in this wicked world we have to be ready to withstand fierceresistance and persecution. We must not be ashamed of Christ and His Words. We must endurepersonal attacks, lies, unjustified discrediting of evidence, irrational statements.I recall how embarrassing it was for me in public school at the very thought that someone mightthink I was a Christian. I would not have dreamed of carrying a Bible. There were a few godlybelievers who really stood out and let their light shine, but I had nothing to do with them in orderto be accepted by the crowd.Walt Brown, who has a Ph.D. from MIT, came to a creationist position in his 30s. In lookingback on his youth he says one of the reasons he didn’t look into the issue earlier was thefollowing:“Those who accepted the biblical version of creation and a global flood were a little embarrassing to bearound. I became a Christian in high school, but held the above attitudes until my early 30s” (In the Beginning,p. 316).I think that the desire to be one of the crowd, to be in the majority, is one of the greatest reasonswhy people don’t submit to the truth. In fact, they don’t even want to examine it. This is not asmall thing. Fear of man probably sends more people to hell than any other one thing.“But THE FEARFUL, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, andsorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).Those who have the aforementioned things--salvation, knowledge of God’s Word, faith, humility,conviction and courage--need not be intimidated by any scientist. Most believers don’t have aPh.D. in the hard sciences but we have something that is much more important for the pursuit ofthe truth, and that is spiritual enlightenment and faith in God’s Word. You can have a dozenPh.D.s from the most world’s prestigious universities, but if you aren’t saved and don’t believeGod’s Word, you will never know the truth. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:and the knowledge of the holy is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10).Wisdom in dealing with the devilI want to mention another thing that is necessary for effective apologetics, and that is wisdom indealing with the devil. When it comes to defending the Biblical faith, we are entering intospiritual warfare. The devil is real and he is a clever deceiver. He was perhaps the highest, mostexalted angel that God created. He has blinded the whole world of unbelievers. He is notsomeone to treat lightly. We must not think that we are capable in ourselves of defeating him and16

of gaining the release of his captives. Those who trust in themselves are heading for a fall, likePeter who boasted, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never beoffended” (Mat. 26:33). The reason that I have never fallen even though I have done extensiveresearch into heresy and unbelief and have had four decades of experience in apologetics andevangelism is that I know that I can fall, so I do my work in fear and trembling and in completedependance on the Lord for protection.The arm of our strength is the Lord Himself and His Word. Even Jesus defeated the devil by theWord of God and not by human argumentation and striving (Luke 4:1-12). We must approachapologetics in fear and trembling lest we be devoured ourselves, as has happened to many. TheInternet is filled with testimonies of “former Christians.” We must put on the whole armor ofGod (Ephesians 6:10-18). We must heed God’s warnings about the danger of evil associations(Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14-17). It is dangerous to delve deeply into the waters ofskepticism and infidelity. We must refuse to walk in the counsel of the ungodly or sit in the seatof the scornful but rather meditate in God’s Word day and night (Psa. 1:1-3). We must walk inclose fellowship with Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit.6. We must understand the limit to apologetics.God gives enough proof to satisfy any reasonable person who is willing to submit to the truth,but not enough to convince the proud skeptic who is bent on unbelief.People are not the same when it comes to the reception of the truth (Acts 13:7-8; 17:11).Renowned Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf observed:“Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to thedaring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless andperverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man’s responsibility. All that Christianity professes,is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer” (TheTestimony of the Evangelists).The believer must not be discouraged by the willful skeptic and must not waste a lot of time withhim. Jesus instructed us not to cast pearls before swine (Mat. 7:6).7. We don’t have to answer every question.It is not necessary to answer every question and every challenge to the faith. All we have to do isstand on God’s truth and on solid evidence. The fact that I can’t answer every question about theBible or God or evolution doesn’t discourage me. I can answer the major ones, and that is all thatis necessary.8. We must not lose sight of the reality of spiritual blindness.17

When dealing with unsaved people, we must not forget that these are spiritual issues and theycannot be understood without spiritual eyes. We must try to reach beyond the intellect to theheart and soul. We must aim for spiritual conversion.“... and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand” (Daniel 12:10).“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neithercan he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the oldtestament; which vail is done away in Christ. ... Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall betaken away” (2 Corinthians 3:14, 16).“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the gloriousgospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:4).9. Man’s will is the real battleground.The Bible says that man guides his own heart and mind (Prov. 23:19). Man chooses what he willbelieve, regardless of the evidence. 2 Peter 3:5 speaks of willful ignorance. Peter says that menscoff because they want to walk after their lusts (2 Pet. 3:3). Their motive for rejecting the holyGod is their desire to disobey His laws.Aldous Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin’s “bulldog,” wrote, “For myself,the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual andpolitical” (Ends and Means, p. 270). Huxley loved atheism because it allowed him to live as hepleased.It is not enough to convince an individual that the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ is Lord andSaviour; we must strive to reach the will and we must trust God to do the miraculous work ofspiritual conviction and conversion.Josh McDowell testifies how that even after he became convinced that the Bible is true, he didnot want to believe in Christ because he did not want to give up his partying lifestyle.“I began to realize that I was being intellectually dishonest. My mind told me that the claims of Christ wereindeed true, but my will was being pulled another direction. I had placed so much emphasis on finding thetruth, but I wasn’t willing to follow it once I saw it. I began to sense Christ’s personal challenge to me inRevelation 3:20: ‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I willcome in and eat with him, and he with me.’ But becoming a Christian seemed so ego-shattering to me. Icouldn’t think of a faster way to ruin all my good times” (McDowell, “He Changed My Life,” The New EvidenceThat Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, 1999, pp. xxv).Lee Strobel tells of a man who listened to the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. At the endof the presentation, the man told Strobel that he was convinced that the resurrection is ahistorical event but refused to do anything about it because, “I don’t want a new master.”18

The Bible says that to be saved a man must believe with his heart (Rom. 10:10). Philip told theEthiopian eunuch that he must believe with all his heart (Acts 8:37). This refers to more than amere mental ascent to the truth of the gospel; it refers to a heart-felt certainty and surrender.10. We must focus on God and Christ (Genesis 1:1; Acts 1:8).The foundational issue in apologetics is to introduce men and women to God through Christ, andwe must never lose sight of this objective.If you believe in the Almighty God of Scripture, it is a simple matter to accept what the Biblesays, whether it is a six-day creation, Christ’s virgin birth, bodily resurrection, Second Coming,or anything else. The fact is that these are all things that pertain to the supernatural and theycannot be tested by natural science.D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry and D.Sc. from the University of London, writes:“It was about this time, in the mid-1960s, that my ideas of the greatness of God were transformed. No longerwas He a ‘pocket’ God who did things as I could imagine from my ‘human viewpoint,’ but He had staggeringlygreat power, far beyond anything I could possibly comprehend. If God is so great, then there is nothing Hecould not do” (In Six Days, p. 266).Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century, divided meninto two categories: big-godders and little-godders, and that pretty much sums it up.“One of the students of Princeton Theological Seminary professor Robert Dick Wilson had been invited topreach in Miller Chapel 12 years after his graduation. Dr. Wilson came and sat near the front. When chapelended, the old professor came up to his former student, cocked his head to one side in his characteristic way,extended his hand, and said, ‘I'm glad that you're a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see ifthey're big-godders or little-godders. Then I know what their ministry will be.’“His former student asked him to explain. Wilson replied, ‘Well, some men have a little God, and they'realways in trouble with Him. He can't do any miracles. He can't take care of the inspiration and transmission ofthe Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of His people. Then, there are those who have a greatGod. He speaks and it is done. He commands and it stands fast. He knows how to show Himself strong onbehalf of them that fear Him. You have a great God; and He'll bless your ministry.’ He paused a moment,smiled, said, ‘God bless you,’ and turned and walked out” (John Huffman, Who’s in Charge Here?).The Christian apologist’s objective is to make “big-godders” of people.This comes through knowing God personally by faith in Jesus Christ. We are separated from Godby our sin, both inherited and personal, and Christ died to pay the price God’s Law demands sothat we can be reconciled to Him. When a sinner repents of his sin and puts his faith in JesusChrist as only Lord and Saviour, a dramatic change occurs. He is born again and receives theindwelling Holy Spirit as his Teacher. His thinking is changed. This happened to me in 1973when I was 23 years old. Before that I was antagonistic toward the Bible. I doubted the Bible’steaching on things such as creation, judgment, salvation, and the future, but those doubts wereresolved by my new relationship with God in Christ.19

Christ instructed us to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8). We must inform people of who He is andwhy He came to earth. Apologetics can remove barriers that have keep people from consideringChrist, but our goal is not to win arguments about evidences; our goal is to introduce people toChrist.20

THE BIBLE21

THE BIBLE’S NATUREMEMORY VERSES: Deuteronomy 29:29; Psalm 119:89; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21A Christian apologetics course needs to begin with the Bible, because without a properunderstanding of the Bible as the infallible Word of God, we don’t have an absolute spiritualauthority. Without an infallibly-inspired Revelation from God, we are adrift on the seas of lifewithout a sure anchor, a perfect chart, a divine compass. We are left with a human opinion ratherthan a “Thus saith the Lord.” We will not be able to refute philosophy and science falsely socalledin an effectual manner. Without faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, we aresusceptible to the wiles of the devil and the hurricane force winds of false doctrine that areblowing in these last times.1. THE BIBLE WAS GIVEN BY DIVINE INSPIRATION.The foundational doctrine that we need to deal with is that pertaining to the Bible itself. If it isonly another religious book, then the New Ager and others have every right to pick and choose,but if the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind then it must be accepted as the sole authority forfaith and practice. Believing that the Bible is the sole divine revelation changed my life in 1973and put me on the path of truth and life. It is the Bible that teaches me about Christ and salvationand enables me to discern truth from error.The following is what the Bible says about itself, what it claims to be:The Bible was predetermined in heaven (Psalm 119:89).The Scripture is not a man-made collection of religious writings. It is an eternal, supernaturalbook from beginning to end. God chose the words in heaven before they were given to holy menon earth. John Wycliffe, who translated the first English Bible in the fourteenth century, believedthat the Scripture is “a divine exemplar conceived in the mind of God before creation, and beforethe material Scriptures were written down” (quoted from Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy:Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 1998, p. 230).The Bible was written by divine inspiration through men chosen by God.This was the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Consider four key passages:2 TIMOTHY 3:13-17 — “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which areable to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is givenby inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction inrighteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”22

This is the foundational passage on the inspiration of the Scriptures, and it teaches manyimportant truths. Note that the apostle Paul wrote these verses. Paul was utterly dedicated to theLord Jesus Christ and suffered great persecution and hardship because of his faith. He waspersonally called by Christ to be an apostle and he had the signs of an apostle as evidence (2Corinthians 12:12). Let us see what the apostle Paul taught concerning the nature of the Bible.a. The Bible is holy (2 Timothy 3:15). The term “holy Bible” means it is “set apart by God,”different in character from other writings. According to Paul’s teaching, the Bible cannot becompared with other books because it is the divinely inspired Word of God. Other books mightcontain the truth, but the Bible is the truth.b. The Bible was given by divine inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). This verse literally says theScriptures are God-breathed. Though written by men, the Bible is a product of God. This is thebiblical doctrine of divine inspiration. When discussing its own inspiration the Scripture does notfocus on the mechanics of inspiration but on the product. God spoke in many diverse ways(dreams, visions, angels, directly as on Mount Sinai and on the Mount of Transfiguration, etc.)but the result in all cases was that the writings were God breathed. L. Gaussen rightly said of 2Timothy 3:16: “This statement admits of no exception and of no restriction ... All Scripture is insuch wise a work of God, that it is represented to us as uttered by the divine breathing, just ashuman speech is uttered by the breathing of a man’s mouth. The prophet is the mouth of theLord” (Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1850).c. The Bible is from God in its entirety (2 Timothy 3:16). All Scripture is said to have come fromGod. The word for Scripture here, graphe, means “writing” or “book.” This is referred to as“plenary inspiration.” Plenary means full, complete, entire.d. The Bible is from God in its smallest detail (2 Timothy 3:15). The word for Scripture here isgramma, referring to a letter. This teaches us that even the smallest details of the Bible are fromGod. This is called “verbal inspiration.” Jesus taught that even the jots and tittles of the OldTestament Hebrew words are authoritative and preserved by God (Mat. 5:18).e. The Bible is one book with an all-encompassing theme: Salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy3:15). The Bible is not just a group of disconnected religious writings. It is a unified Book thatwas planned and delivered by God to teach God’s plan of the ages and to show man the way ofsalvation through Jesus Christ. (Compare Luke 24:44-45; John 1:45; 5:39; Ephesians 3:11.)f. The Bible can protect the believer from error (2 Timothy 3:13-15). If the Bible contains myths,mistakes, and untrue claims concerning authorship, miracles, and prophecies, it certainly is not abook that can give sure protection from false teachings!g. The Bible is sufficient to make the believer perfect (2 Timothy 3:17). An imperfect book couldnot produce perfection, and since the Bible is able to make the man of God perfect it is obvious23

that nothing else is needed. The Scripture is thus the sole authority for faith and practice. Itcontains everything we need to equip us for God’s service.2 PETER 1:19-21 — “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well thatye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arisein your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any privateinterpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of Godspake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”This is another key passage that describes the divine inspiration of the Bible.a. Scripture is a light shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19). The dark place is the world. Thoughcontaining some truth mixed with the error, the world is described as dark because man is notable to know spiritual truth in any absolute sense without a sure revelation from God. The Bibleis that infallible revelation which is shining in the midst of the darkness.b. God selected certain men as prophets and He gave them His words. The expression “holymen” refers to men who are chosen and set apart for God and His business.c. The Bible is not a product of man’s will (2 Peter 1:21). Other books are products of the will ofthe human author, but not the Bible. God chose certain men and moved in them to deliver Hismessage. As the Holy Spirit moved them, the things they wrote were the words of God.This passage explains the method by which the Bible was given. God used men, but He usedthem in such a way that what they wrote was God’s Word. When the Bible touches on inspirationand revelation, it says very little about the actual mechanism of how God accomplished thismiracle. It was accomplished mysteriously by the Holy Spirit.The phrase “private interpretation” refers to the writers of the Bible. In the context this isreferring to the giving of revelation, rather than to the understanding of it. The Bible writers didnot personally interpret God’s revelation to mankind; they were given God’s revelation by theHoly Spirit. They did not always even understand what they were writing (1 Peter 1:10-12).1 CORINTHIANS 2:9-13 — “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither haveentered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. ButGod hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deepthings of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is inhim? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received,not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that arefreely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdomteacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”In this passage we see what Scripture is according to apostolic doctrine:24

It is God’s revelation (v. 10). Revelation concerns those things which man cannot know by hisown investigation and intellect (v. 9). God, by His Spirit, has chosen to reveal things aboutHimself, salvation, and His plans (vv. 10-12).It is the deep things of God (v. 10). Theological modernists claim that the Bible is merely man’sattempt to write his thoughts and impressions about God, but Paul says the Bible contains thedeep things of God that were revealed supernaturally to men and is not bound by man’s naturallimitations.It is the very words of God (v. 13). In verse 13 we are told that this revelation extends to the verychoice of the words used to relate it. God did not merely give the Bible writers the generalthoughts they were to write; He gave them the very words. Paul claimed this verbal inspirationfor his own writings.It is the mind of Christ (v. 16). We cannot know Christ or His will apart from the Scriptures.1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 -- “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because,when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men,but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”The first churches knew that the apostolic teaching was the Word of God and not just the word ofmen. A plainer testimony of the divine inspiration of the apostolic epistles could not be made.The Word of God is effectual. It has the power to sanctify the believer and to fully equip him forGod’s service.2. THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.The canon of the Bible refers to the authoritative list of the 66 books that comprise the Old andNew Testaments. The word canon means “a reed,” referring to a measuring stick, and describesthe process of testing something by a set rule or standard.The Canonization of the Old TestamentIt was to the Jews that God assigned the task of collecting and preserving the Hebrew OldTestament (Romans 3:1-2). In Romans 3 Paul describes the Old Testament as the very “oracles ofGod,” and these oracles were committed to the Jews. Even though they did not always obey theScriptures, the Jews held them in reverence and believed that each jot and tittle was the inspiredWord of God.In particular, it was the Jewish priests who were responsible to care for the Scriptures(Deuteronomy 31:24-26; 17:18).25

Though there were periods of spiritual backsliding in which the Scripture was almost unknownamong the Jews (2 Chronicles 15:3), God preserved His Word in spite of man’s failure (2 Kings22:8).After the Babylonian captivity there was a revival within the Jewish priesthood (Ezra 7:10) andthe Old Testament Scriptures continued to be preserved. “By Ezra and his successors, under theguidance of the Holy Spirit, all the Old Testament books were gathered together into one OldTestament canon, and their texts were purged of errors and preserved until the days of our Lord’searthly ministry. By that time the Old Testament text was so firmly established that even theJews’ rejection of Christ could not disturb it” (Edward Hills, The King James Bible Defended,4th edition, p. 93).The Canonization of the New TestamentThe canonization of the New Testament is part of the process of preservation that is theresponsibility of the churches. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).The Scriptures were canonized and preserved through the church age by congregations that havefulfilled the Lord’s Great Commission to teach all things by His power and abiding presence(Matthew 28:18-20). This process has been led by the Spirit of God (John 16:13; 1 John 2:20).The New Testament believers knew they were receiving God’s Words from the Lord and Hisapostles and prophets (John 17:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).Canonization was not the haphazard process that is described in most books on the history of theBible. Though the details of this history are largely hidden behind the mists of time, we know byfaith that the Spirit of God guided the believers unfailingly in this matter because this is what theLord Jesus promised.Theological modernists beginning in the 19th century claimed that the New Testament writingswere not penned until long after the time of Christ, but this has been debunked.In his book Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson concluded that the whole of theNew Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.We also have the testimony of two of the foremost archaeologists:“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NewTestament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the moreradical New Testament critics of today” (William Ramsay, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p. 136).“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and theeighties of the first century A.D.” (Ramsay, Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963).“Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed tobe: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D.” (William Albright, FromStone Age to Christianity, p. 23).26

Beginning with the first century itself we have solid historical evidence that the New Testamentwas commonly recognized as Scripture by the believers. We have the extant writings of men whoknew the apostles personally. These include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Thusthere is absolutely no gap between the writing of the New Testament and the historical recordthat exists of it.Dr. Don Bierle observes:“[The Gospels] did not go through a long period of oral transmission during which they took on legendarytraditions. No other ancient writing can trace its manuscript copies all the way back to the generation of theeyewitnesses and its original authors” (Surprised by Faith, p. 33).Consider some of the early historical evidences witnessing to the authenticity of the NewTestament:Clement of Rome. “Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the Corinthians is usually dated aboutA.D. 96, made liberal use of Scripture, appealing to its authority, and used New Testamentmaterial right alongside Old Testament material. He clearly quotes from Hebrews, 1 Corinthiansand Romans and possibly from Matthew, Acts, Titus, James and 1 Peter. Here is the bishop[pastor] of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing an official letter to the church atCorinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are recognized and declared by episcopalauthority to be Scripture, including Hebrews” (Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the NewTestament Text). Clement was writing only a few years after the New Testament gospels andepistles were written.Ignatius (c. A.D. 110) referred to “all the epistles of Paul.”Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippian church in about 115 A.D., “weaves an almost continuousstring of clear quotations and allusions to New Testament writings. ... There are perhaps fiftyclear quotations taken from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1John, and many allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, and 2 and 3 John. (The only NTwriter not included is Jude!)” (Pickering).Justin Martyr (died 165 A.D.) testified that the churches of his day met on Sundays and “read thememoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets” (Apology, I, 67).Irenaeus (died in 202 A.D.) left many works which are still extant. Their translation into Englishcovers between 600-700 pages in the Ante-Nicene Library. “Irenaeus stated that the apostlestaught that God is the Author of both Testaments (Against Heretics IV, 32.2) and evidentlyconsidered the New Testament writings to form a second Canon. He quoted from every chapterof Matthew, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians, from all but one ortwo chapters of Luke, John, Romans, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, from most27

chapters of Mark (including the last twelve verses), Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation, andfrom every other book except Philemon and 3 John. These two books are so short that Irenaeusmay not have had occasion to refer to them in his extant works--it does not necessarily followthat he was ignorant of them or rejected them. Evidently the dimensions of the New TestamentCanon recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we hold today” (Pickering).Even some naturalistic textual critics have concluded that the New Testament in its current 27-book canon existed in Greek no later than the middle of the 2nd century. See David Trobisch,The First Edition of the New Testament, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.From the second century we have evidence that it was customary for each church to have its owncopy of the writings of the apostles that they might read and preach from them. “And on the daycalled Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and thememoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. Whenthe reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of thesenoble things” (Justin Martyr, Apology).Wilbur Pickering observes: “Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus claimed that the Church was spreadthroughout the whole earth, in their day ... IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE MUST HAVEBEEN THOUSANDS OF COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS IN USE BY 200A.D.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text).In about the year 208, Tertullian mentioned churches founded by the apostles and indicated thatthe “authentic writings” were still extant and were the absolute standard by which the truth wasmeasured in the believing churches. He urged heretics to “run to the apostolic churches, in whichthe very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, IN WHICH THEIR OWNAUTHENTIC WRITINGS ARE READ, UTTERING THE VOICE AND REPRESENTINGTHE FACE OF EACH OF THEM SEVERALLY. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you findCORINTH. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have PHILIPPI; (and there too) you havethe THESSALONIANS. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get EPHESUS. Since,moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have ROME, from which there comes even into our ownhands the very authority (of the apostles themselves)” (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics,36, cited from Pickering).Pickering observes: “Some have thought that Tertullian was claiming that Paul’s Autographswere still being read in his day (208), but at the very least he must mean they were using faithfulcopies. Was anything else to be expected? for example, when the Ephesian Christians saw theAutograph of Paul’s letter to them getting tattered, would they not carefully execute an identicalcopy for their continued use? Would they let the Autograph perish without making such a copy?(There must have been a constant stream of people coming either to make copies of their letter orto verify the correct reading.) I believe we are obliged to conclude that in the year 200 theEphesian Church was still in a position to attest the original wording of her letter (and so for theothers)...”28

The Bible was multiplied and went into all the world.See Acts 1:8; 12:24; 19:20; Romans 10:18; 16:25-26; Colossians 1:5-6.This great multiplication worked to safeguard the text of Scripture from the efforts of heretics tocorrupt it. The fact that the Gospel was preached to all nations and tongues reminds us that theNew Testament was translated into other languages at a very early period (e.g., Syriac and oldLatin date to the 2nd century).The popular modern idea that things were taken out of the Bible after it was completed isridiculous. Even by the second century the Bible had been multiplied by the thousands of copiesand distributed throughout the world. It had gone throughout the Middle East, as well as to Asia,Africa, Asia Minor, and to Europe, as far as England. No “council” could have effectivelyremoved anything from the Bible.“F.E. Peters states that ‘on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christians’ NewTestament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity’ (The Harvest ofHellenism, 1971, p. 50). As a result, the fidelity of the New Testament text rests on a multitude of manuscriptevidence” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 34).There are more than 5,600 Greek manuscripts of the Bible and portions thereof that date from thesecond to the 15th centuries. There are another 10,000 copies in Latin and more than 9,000 inother languages.We have portions of the New Testament written on papyri that date to the early second century.This is only about 50 years after the New Testament was written, and there are many otherportions in existence that date to the third century. There is a nearly complete New Testamentthat dates to about 250 A.D.The New Testament is also preserved in the writings of early church leaders. There are tens ofthousands of quotations of the New Testament in the writings of church leaders that date to theearly centuries after Christ. J. Harold Greenlee observes, “These quotations are so extensive thatthe New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testamentmanuscripts” (Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 54).John William Burgon, one of the greatest scholars of the 19th century, indexed 86,000 quotationsfrom ancient church writings, 4,383 of which date to before 400 A.D. The index resides in theBritish Library. Burgon and his co-worker Edward Miller demonstrated that the text quoted mostfrequently is the Greek Received Text which was published in the 16th century and formed thebasis of all of the old Protestant versions such as the English King James and the German Luther.(See our book Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions for documentation of this.)29

Compare this wealth of ancient manuscript evidence for the Bible with that of other famousbooks of antiquity.date written earliest copy time span # copiesPlato 350 B.C. 900 A.D. 1250 years 7Herodotus 450 B.C. 900 A.D. 1350 years 8Euripedes 450 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1500 years 9Caesar 50 B.C. 900 A.D. 950 years 10Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 years 20Aristotle 350 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1450 years 49Sophocles 450 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1550 years 193Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643N.T. 50-90 A.D. 110-125 A.D. 20-30 years 5600The same is true for the Hindu scriptures. The Vedic texts, such as the Upanishads, weretransmitted orally for hundreds of years before being committed to writing, and there isabsolutely no way to know if the extant texts are accurate representations of the originalstatements. It isn’t even known for sure who created them.J. Harold Greenlee observes:“Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliestMSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances sosmall, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the N.T. is likewise assured” (Introduction to New TestamentTextual Criticism, p. 16).(For more on canonization and preservation see Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, which isavailable from Way of Life Literature.)3. THE BIBLE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY APART FROM THE NEWBIRTH AND RIGHT LIVING.The reason that the aforementioned evidence is not more widely appreciated is the spiritualblindness that has come upon the human race.Paul refers to three types of men in 1 Corinthians 2:14 - 3:2.There is the natural man, the spiritual man, and the carnal man.The natural man is the unsaved person. He is spiritually dead and blind because of sin (Ephesians2:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:4). He cannot understand the things of God. When the heart turns to theLord, though, in repentance and faith and receives Jesus Christ, the blindness is lifted (2Corinthians 3:14-17).30

The reason that unbelievers cannot understand the Bible properly is that they are not born againand do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit as their teacher. They try to understand it by theirown natural thinking, and that is impossible.That was my condition before my conversion the summer of 1973. I didn’t understand most ofthe Bible, and the parts I did understand I didn’t agree with! As Mark Twain said, “It’s not thethings in the Bible that I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the things I do understand.”The spiritual man (1 Cor. 2:15-16) refers to the born again believer who is walking with the Lordin obedience to His Word and depending upon the Spirit rather than the flesh (Gal. 5:16-25).The carnal man is the worldly believer who is walking in the flesh rather than the Spirit. Hecannot understand the more difficult teaching of Scripture. He can take milk but not meat. This iswhat Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:2, and it is confirmed in Hebrews 5:12-14.If we want to study the Bible fruitfully, we must make certain that we are born again throughrepentance and faith in Jesus Christ and we must walk in close fellowship with the Author of theBook. This is the first and foremost requirement.Studying the Bible is something like tuning to a radio channel. Heaven is far away, but Godbroadcasts His glorious message to earth on a clear and powerful station with the call lettersBIBLE. If the believer is in fellowship with Christ, he has an open channel to Heaven throughthe Scriptures. The closer one’s fellowship with Christ, the sharper the reception and the moreplainly the Bible speaks. If, on the other hand, a believer walks in carnality and in fellowshipwith the world and in spiritual and moral compromise, the reception becomes poor, because theHoly Spirit is grieved (Ephesians 4:30). Fleshly lusts war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11). Thestatic of the flesh and the things of this world hinder the reception of the spiritual broadcast.SUMMARY OF “THE NATURE OF THE BIBLE”1. The Bible claims to be the divinely-inspired Word of God. Four key passages are 2 Timothy3:13-17, which says all Scripture was given by inspiration of God; 2 Peter 1:19-21, which saysthe Word of God was given to holy prophets chosen by God; 1 Corinthians 2:9-13, which saysthat God chose the words that the prophets wrote; and 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which says that theearly churches recognized the apostolic writings as the Word of God.2. Though we don’t know all of the details of how God’s people selected the books that make upthe canon of the Bible, we know that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. The Jewish priestswere responsible to organize and keep the Old Testament, while the apostles and early churcheswere responsible for organizing and keeping the New Testament. Jesus promised that the HolySpirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).31

3. The New Testament was written during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events and thebooks of the New Testament were quoted as Scripture by preachers in the late first and earlysecond century. In A.D. 96 Clement of Rome quotes many books. In A.D. 110, Ignatius quotesall of Paul’s epistles. In A.D. 115, Polycarp, who was a personal disciple of the apostle John,quoted from and alluded to most of the books of the New Testament. In A.D. 208 Tertullian saidthat the churches founded by the apostles were still in possession of the original writings of theNew Testament.4. The books of the New Testament were the most widely circulated books of antiquity; theywere copied and translated more than any other writings by far. This multiplication served toprotect the text of the Bible from corruption.5. The New Testament is preserved in more than 5,600 Greek manuscripts that date from thesecond to the 15th centuries, as well as in 10,000 copies in Latin and more than 9,000 in otherlanguages.6. The New Testament is also preserved in the writings of early churches leaders. From the tensof thousands of quotations that have survived, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed.7. Other ancient writings don’t have the powerful textual evidence that the Bible has. Betweenthe original writing of works such as Homer’s Iliad and Plato’s philosophy and the earliestcopies that exist there is a gap of hundreds of years. The number of surviving copies of these isalso very small compared to those of the New Testament.8. The reason that the aforementioned evidence is not more widely appreciated is the spiritualblindness that has come upon the human race. Paul says the natural man receiveth not the thingsof the Spirit of God because he doesn’t have spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14).REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE BIBLE'S NATURE1. What does Psalm 119:89 mean when it says that God’s Word was settled in heaven?2. What passage says all Scripture is given by inspiration from God?3. What does “holy Bible” mean?4. What does Paul mean when he says the Scripture is given by inspiration?5. What is the meaning of plenary inspiration?6. What is the meaning of verbal inspiration?7. How do we know that the Bible is not merely a collection of disconnected religious writings?8. What is the theme of the Bible?9. How can the Bible make the child of God perfect?10. In what passage did Peter say that the Bible is a light shining in a dark world?11. According to Peter, how did God give His revelation to mankind?32

12. What did Peter mean when he said that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will ofman”?13. What did Peter mean when he said that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any privateinterpretation”?14. In what passage did Paul say that God has given His revelation in “words”?15. How do we know that the Bible contains the deep things of God?16. Where can we find the mind of Christ?17. What Bible passage says the early churches considered the writings of Paul as “the word ofGod”?18. What did Paul mean when he said that the word of God “effectually worketh in you”?19. What does “canon” mean?20. What passage says that God committed the Scriptures to the Jews for safekeeping?21. When was the Old Testament collected together in its final canon?22. What verse says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth?23. What does Matthew 28:18-20 have to do with the preservation of Scripture?24. In what verse did Jesus promise that the Spirit of God would guide the apostles into all truth?25. In what verse did Jesus say that He had given his words to the apostles?26. In what verse did John say that the early churches had the unction of the Holy Spirit to teachthem?27. William Albright said the New Testament was written between when and when?28. What is the significance of the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp in regard to thecanon of the New Testament?29. What man said in A.D. 208 that the writings of the apostles still existed in Philippi,Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome?30. Why is it impossible that things were removed from the Bible after it was completed?31. In what verse did Paul say that the words of the gospel went unto the ends of the earth?32. In what verse did Paul say that the Scripture had gone to all nations?33. What were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity?34. How many ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek still exist? How many inLatin?35. How old is the oldest portion of the New Testament?36. How old is the oldest complete New Testament?37. If all of the ancient New Testament manuscripts did not exist, the New Testament could bereconstructed through what means?38. What scholar indexed 86,000 quotations from ancient church writings?39. What did his research prove about the Greek Received Text?40. A gap of how many centuries exists between the writing of Homer’s Iliad and the earliestexisting copies?41. A gap of how many centuries exists between Plato’s writings and the earliest existing copies?42. How long were the Hindu scriptures transmitted orally before being committed to writing?43. What New Testament passage divides men into three categories?44. What are these categories?45. What is the “natural man”?33

46. Why can the “natural man” not understand the things of God?47. Why does the “carnal man” only understand simple Bible teaching?34

THE BIBLE’S PROOFMEMORY VERSES: Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Hebrews 11:1, 6; 2 Peter 1:16The individual must accept that the Bible is the Word of God by faith, for “without faith it isimpossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is arewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).At the same time, Bible faith is not a blind leap into the dark. It is confidence in the Record thatGod has given, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).The writers of the Bible explain to us that they were not delivering cunningly devised fables buta divinely-inspired record based on “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3; 2 Peter 1:16).Following are some of the objective, time-proven reasons why we can have complete confidencein the Bible:1. The Bible’s unique construction proves that it is the Word of God.The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors representing some 19 different occupations(shepherd, soldier, farmer, fisherman, tax collector, medical doctor, king, etc.) who lived during aperiod covering some 1,600 years. That is approximately 50 generations. The first 39 books ofthe Bible were written in the Hebrew language over a period of about 1,000 years. There wasthen a 400-year gap when no Scriptures were written. After that, the last 27 books of the Biblewere written in the Greek language during a period covering roughly 50 years. The writers of theOld Testament could not have collaborated with one another and the writers of the NewTestament could not have collaborated with those of the Old Testament.Yet the product is one book that fits together perfectly, has one all-encompassing message, andcontains no contradictions or errors. There is nothing else remotely like this in all of man’shistory. The one message of the Bible from beginning to end is the eternal plan of God in JesusChrist. The earliest books of the Bible teach the same doctrine about God, creation, man, sin,life, death, salvation, and judgment as the last books of the Bible. The genealogy of Jesus Christappears in the first book and can be traced throughout the rest of the Bible.Some have claimed to have found mistakes in the Bible, but I have studied it for 38 years andeach time I have examined a supposed error or contradiction, I have found that the Bible is trueand the critic is wrong. (See our book Things Hard to Be Understood: A Handbook of BiblicalDifficulties.)35

2. The confidence and sincerity of the Bible’s authors prove that it is the Word of God.The Bible testifies that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter1:21), and an examination of the lives of the Bible’s writers proves this testimony. These wereholy, serious men. They came from all walks of life. They were men of good reputation andsound mind. They were not enriched by the prophecies they gave. Far from it; some wereimpoverished and many were viciously persecuted and killed for the testimony they held. Moses,the author of the first five books of the Bible, chose to live a life of terrific hardship in theservice of God as opposed to the millionaire’s life he could have lived as the adopted son ofPharaoh. Many Bible writers made similar choices. Their motivation certainly was notcovetousness and worldly advantage. These were not perfect men, but they were holy men. Theyall claimed that God had put His hand upon them to speak His Word. The lives they lived, andthe testimonies they held, and the deaths they died gave evidence that they were telling the truth.3. Fulfilled prophecy proves the Bible is the Word of God.The Bible contains a vast amount of prophecy, much of which has been fulfilled. TheEncyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies by J. Barton Payne lists 1817 specific prophecies, 1239 inthe Old Testament and 578 in the New. The predictions are precise and detailed, and thefulfillment is exact.Isaiah says that fulfilled prophecy is evidence of divine inspiration, and this should be obvioussince only God knows the future (Isaiah 41:21-23).The God of Israel challenges the idols to prove their divinity by foretelling the future. No paganreligious book has ever done this. The so-called prophecies of Nostradamus, for example, are sovague that they could mean almost anything. The same is typically true for astrological forecasts.Bible prophecy, on the other hand, is clear and precise, and its prophecies have never failed.Prophecies Pertaining to Jesus ChristJesus’ entire life was written down in the Old Testament before He was born. There are 191Messianic prophecies. The following examples are from three great prophecies: Psalm 22; Micah5:2; and Isaiah 53:born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 - Luke 2:4-7)rejected by his own people (Isa. 53:3 - Mark 15:12-14)not resisting arrest and death (Isa. 53:7 - Mat. 26:51-54)justice perverted (Isa. 53:8 - Mat. 26:59)numbered with transgressors (Isa. 53:12 - Mat. 26:57-60; 27:11-14)death by crucifixion (Psa. 22:14-16 - Jn. 19:16-18)soldiers gambling for His robe (Psa. 22:18 - Mat. 27:35)words he would speak from the cross (Psa. 22:1 - Mat. 27:46)36

mocked by the people (Psa. 22:6-8 - Mat. 27:39, 41-43)people sitting and staring at Him (Psa. 22:17 - Mat. 27:36)no bones broken (Psa. 34:20 - John 19:32-33)burial in a rich man’s tomb (Isa. 53:9 - Mat. 27:57-60)We know that these prophecies were written before Christ was born, because copies of the OldTestament books were found in the Dead Sea caves dating to at least 100 and more years B.C.Prophecies about IsraelThe continued existence of Israel is one of history’s most amazing stories, and the last 2,000years of her history was described in ancient Scripture in great detail. The fulfillment of theseprophecies is irrefutable evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. We deal with this in aseparate chapter.4. The Bible’s factualness and scientific accuracy prove that it is the Word of God.Everything the Bible says is true and factual.For example, the Bible says man is a sinner, and that is not difficult to confirm. Just look at theworld! When asked for his opinion on original sin, Samuel Johnson, the famous Britishlexicographer, replied, “With respect to original sin, the inquiry is not necessary, for whatever isthe cause of human corruption, men are evidently and confessedly so corrupt, that all the laws ofheaven and earth are insufficient to restrain them from crimes.” David Berlinski, a Princetoneducated“secular Jew,” says, “One need hardly be a Christian to appreciate the wisdom in theseremarks” (The Devil’s Delusion, p. 33).The Bible is true not only in its statements about man, but also in its statements about everything.Though the Bible is not a scientific manual, it is scientifically accurate, even from its earliestpages, which were written nearly 4,000 years ago. Though the Bible contradicts evolutionarytheories, it does not contradict any established scientific fact.Following are some examples of the Bible’s scientific accuracy, beginning with statements fromthe pages of Job, probably the oldest book in the Bible. The late Henry Morris, who had a Ph.D.in geology, said:“These references are modern in perspective, with never a hint of the mythical exaggerations and errorscharacteristic of other ancient writings ... perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that in a 4000-yearoldbook filled with numerous references to natural phenomena, there are no scientific mistakes orfallacies” (The Remarkable Record of Job).Job said the earth is hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). This is obvious to our modern generation, aswe have seen the actual pictures of the earth hanging in space, but to previous generations it was37

not obvious and there were many commonly-held myths about the earth sitting on the back ofAtlas or a turtle or an elephant, etc.Job said the air has weight (“the weight for the winds,” Job 28:25). It was not until the 17thcentury that Galileo discovered that atmosphere has weight, and the modern science ofaerodynamics is based on this scientific fact. Further, the weight of air is important in thefunction of the earth’s weather. “The ‘weight of the winds’ controls the worldwide air massmovements that transport the waters evaporated from the oceans inland over thecontinents” (Morris, The Remarkable Record of Job).Job described the springs of the sea (Job 38:16). Man had no way to know about the fresh-watersprings on the ocean floor by firsthand observation until recent times. Modern science hasdiscovered that there are thousands of underwater springs that add millions of metric tons ofwater to the oceans each year.Job understood that light has a way and that darkness has a place (Job 38:19). “That is, light isnot to be located in a certain place or situation. Neither does it simply appear, or disappear,instantaneously. Light is traveling! It dwells in a ‘way,’ always on the way to someplace else.Though usually traveling in waves, sometimes it seems to move as a stream of particles, but it isalways moving. When light stops, there is darkness. Thus, darkness is static, staying in place; butlight is dynamic, dwelling in a way” (Morris).The Bible says that the light creates wind (Job 38:24), but it is only in recent times that modernweather science has discovered that wind is created as the sun heats up the surface of the earth,causing the hot air to rise and cooler air to fall, creating weather systems.Job describes the amazing hydrological cycle (evaporation, atmospheric circulation,condensation, precipitation, run-off) (Job 36:27-28; Ecc. 1:7; Jer. 51:16). The process ofevaporation and condensation was not discovered until the 17th century and not well understooduntil the 20th.The Bible says plants and animals reproduce after their kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thisis in perfect harmony with everything that can be observed and tested by modern science. Thereis great variety within kinds, different types of roses and dogs, but there is no reproductionbetween kinds, between roses and dandelions or dogs and penguins. Breeding experiments havedemonstrated that there are genetic barriers that restrict change. The fruit fly has been used ingenetic experiments since the early 1900s. Tens of millions of fruit flies have been bombardedwith x-rays, doctored, and poisoned. The result has been a variety of mutant fruit flies but noevidence that the fruit fly could evolve into some other type of insect or animal. This is proof ofthe Bible’s 3500-year-old statement that all creatures reproduce according to kind.The Bible says the heavens cannot be measured and the stars are without number (Genesis22:17; Jeremiah 31:37). Before the invention of the telescope, man could see only a few hundred38

stars with the naked eye, but the very first book of the Bible says they are without number. Thishas been confirmed by modern science. There are 300 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxyalone. In 1999, observations by NASA astronomers, using the Hubble Space Telescope,suggested that there are 125 billion galaxies in the universe. The most up-to-date star count wasannounced in July 2003 as 70 sextillion observable stars (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Thiswas the conclusion of the world’s largest galaxy study, the Two-Degree Field Galaxy RedshiftSurvey, which is considered 10 times more accurate than previous ones. The team of scientistsdid not physically count the stars. Instead they used some of the world’s most powerfultelescopes to count all of the galaxies in one region of the universe and to estimate how manystars each galaxy contained by measuring its brightness. They then extrapolated these figures outto the whole universe visible through telescopes. This massive figure, of course, probablyaccounts for only a tiny percentage of the actual stars.The Bible says there are paths in the sea (Isaiah 43:16; Psalm 8:8). Since the 19th century theocean currents or paths have been charted and ships travel these paths just as trucks travel onroads. Writing in the mid-1800s, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Superintendent of the U.S. Navy’sDepot of Charts and Instruments in Washington, D.C., observed, “There is a river in the ocean: inthe severest droughts it never fails, and in the mightiest floods it never overflows; its banks andits bottom are of cold water, while its current is of warm; the Gulf of Mexico is its fountain, andits mouth is in the Arctic Seas. It is the Gulf Stream” (Maury, The Physical Geography of theSea, 6th ed., 1856, p. 25). Since then, other sea paths have been discovered.The Bible says the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). This was written about 3,500 years ago,but it was not understood scientifically until recent times. For centuries doctors used“bloodletting” as a healing method. George Washington, America’s first president, probably diedprematurely because of this bogus practice. Modern medicine has learned what the Bible hastaught all along, that the life of the flesh is in the blood. The amazing system of vessels andcapillaries transports the marvelous blood cells with their life-giving oxygen and other necessaryelements to every part of the body. The blood also forms a major part of the infection fightingand clotting systems, which are necessary for the “life of the flesh.”The Bible is not a book of science, but wherever the Bible touches on science it is accurate. Thisproves its divine origin, because all other ancient books are filled with gross scientific blunders.Even science books written a mere 100 years ago are filled with errors.5. The Bible’s candor proves that it is the Word of God.When men write biographies of their heroes, they commonly omit or whitewash their faults; butthe Bible exhibits its divine quality by showing man as he is. Even the best of men in the Bibleare described with all their faults. We read of Adam’s rebellion, Noah’s drunkenness, David’sadultery, Solomon’s apostasy, Jonah’s pity party, Peter’s disavowal of his Master, Paul andBarnabas’ petty strife, and the disciples’ unbelief in the face of Christ’s resurrection. The Biblewas written by Jews, yet it candidly describes the faults of the Jewish people: their stubbornness39

and unbelief that caused them to have to wander in the wilderness for 40 years; their idolatryduring the period of the judges; their rebellion that caused them to be rejected from the land andscattered throughout the earth for two millennia; their rejection of the Messiah.6. The Bible’s indestructibility proves that it is the Word of God.Above all other books combined, the Bible has been hated, vilified, ridiculed, criticized,restricted, banned, and destroyed, but it has been to no avail. As one rightly said, “We might aswell put our shoulder to the burning wheel of the sun, and try to stop it on its flaming course, asattempt to stop the circulation of the Bible” (Sidney Collett, All about the Bible, p. 63).In A.D. 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict to stop Christians from worshippingJesus Christ and to destroy their Scriptures. Every official in the empire was ordered to razechurches to the ground and burn every Bible found in their districts (Stanley Greenslade,Cambridge History of the Bible). Twenty-five years later his successor, Constantine, issuedanother edict ordering fifty Bibles to be published at government expense (Eusebius).In 1778, the French infidel Voltaire boasted that in 100 years Christianity would cease to exist,but within 50 years the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press and house to publish Bibles(Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1986, pp. 123, 124).Robert Ingersoll once boasted, “Within 15 years I’ll have the Bible lodged in a morgue.” ButIngersoll is long dead, and the Bible is alive and well.The communist regimes in Russia and China tried to destroy the Bible and its influence, but theyhave been completely unsuccessful. There are more churches in Russia today than ever before inits history, and the presses cannot print enough Bibles to satisfy the insatiable demand incommunist China.In fact, many who set out to disprove the Bible have been converted, instead. The following are afew examples:Gilbert West, an English poet who was included in Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the Most EminentEnglish Poets, while a student at Oxford set out to debunk the Bible’s account of Christ’sresurrection. Instead he proved to his own satisfaction that Christ did rise from the dead andpublished Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.George Lyttelton, an English Statesman, author, and poet who was educated at Oxford,determined to prove that Paul was not converted as the Bible states. Instead, Lyttelton wrote abook providing evidence that Paul’s conversion was real and that it is evidence that Jesusactually rose from the dead. The book was titled Observations on the Conversion andApostleship of St. Paul.40

Frank Morison, a lawyer, journalist, and novelist, set out to write a book to disprove theresurrection of Christ. Instead he was converted and wrote a book in defense of the resurrectionentitled Who Moved the Stone?Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and one of the most celebratedlegal minds of America, determined to expose the “myth” of the resurrection of Christ once andfor all, but his thorough examination forced him to conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead. In1846 he published An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules ofEvidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.William Ramsay, a renowned archaeologist and New Testament scholar, began his historicalresearch in Asia Minor with the assumption that he would find evidence to disprove the Bible’shistoricity. He concluded, though, that the book of Acts was written during the lifetime of theapostles and that it is historically accurate. His discoveries led to his conversion to Christianity.Josh McDowell was a skeptic when he entered university to pursue a law degree, but he accepteda challenge by some Christians to examine the claim that Jesus Christ is God’s Son. He says, “Idecided to write a book that would make an intellectual joke of Christianity.” He traveledthroughout the U.S. and Europe to gather evidence to prove his case, but instead he wasconverted to Christ and wrote a book defending the Bible entitled Evidence That Demands aVerdict. McDowell concluded: “After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of theScripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible asbeing unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity. ... I believe we can holdthe Scriptures in our hands and say, ‘The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable” (The NewEvidence, p. 68).Dr. Richard Lumsden, professor of parisitology and cell biology, was dean of the graduate schoolat Tulane University and trained 30 Ph.D.s. When he was challenged by a student about theevidence for evolution, he sought to refute the student by demonstrating evolution’s scientificevidence. Instead, he became convinced that the evidence is lacking. This led to an examinationof the Bible, which led to his conversion to Jesus Christ.“Down through the years, the Bible has been a mighty anvil that has worn out the puny hammersof the scoffers” (Christian Home Bible Course).7. The Bible’s universal appeal proves that it is the Word of God.In spite of the aforementioned attacks, the Bible is the most popular book in the world, by far.Some books have been translated into a few dozen languages, but the Bible in whole or in parthas been translated into every major language of the world, plus most minor ones--more than2,450 so far. Translation work is progressing in another 2,000 languages. Compare this withother religious books. The Hindu scriptures have been translated into 46 languages, and theMuslim Quran into about 40.41

8. The Bible’s doctrine of salvation proves it is the Word of God.The Bible is the only religious Scripture that teaches the doctrine of salvation by grace. Everyother one teaches salvation by works. Hinduism says salvation is attained by practicing dharmaand working out one’s karma. Islam says salvation is by surrender to Allah and obedience to hiscommands. Buddhism says salvation is by reaching nirvana through life works and meditationand asceticism. If you visit the Buddhist monastery at Boudha in Kathmandu any time of the dayyou will find Buddhists walking clockwise, fingering their prayer beads and twirling their prayerwheels. They do this because they are trying to work out their salvation.The Bible, on the other hand, says that salvation is God’s free gift to sinners. This gift was verycostly for the Giver. It was purchased with a great price, which was the atoning sacrifice ofGod’s Son on the cross. But for the sinner it is free.“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest anyman should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).The Bible says there is nothing that the sinner can offer God in order to atone for his sins. Whatcould we offer? Righteous works? The Bible says our righteousness is as filthy rags before God’sgreat holiness (Isaiah 64:6). Money? What would the God of creation do with our patheticcurrency? A pure heart? The Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperatelywicked (Jeremiah 17:9). How, then, could we purchase our own salvation?“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf;and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).No, salvation is the free unmerited gift of a loving and deeply compassionate God. As theChristian hymn says, “We owed a debt we could not pay; He paid a debt He did not owe.”“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should notperish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).The Bible! What a Book!REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE BIBLE'S PROOF1. What verse says that without faith it is impossible to please God?2. What verse says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God?3. What verse says that the Bible is based on many infallible proofs?4. In what verse did Peter say that the Bible does not contain cunningly devised fables?5. How does the Bible's unique construction prove that it is the Word of God?6. What is one of the books and chapters in the Old Testament that says predictive prophecyproves that the prophets were of God?7. What are three great Messianic prophetic passages?42

8. What are five specific things about Jesus’ first coming that were prophesied?9. What are five details of Jesus death that were foretold by the prophets?10. What are some of the scientifically-accurate statements in the Bible?11. What does the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" mean?12. In what way does the Bible's candor prove that it is the Word of God?13. In what way does the Bible's doctrine of salvation prove that it is the Word of God?43

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSThe facts about the Dead Sea ScrollsThe Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered between 1947 and 1956 in 11 caves near the northwestshore of the Dead Sea, 13 miles southeast of Jerusalem. They were preserved by the dry climateof the caves, which are 1,300 feet below sea level.Four-fifths of the scrolls are written in Hebrew, and 25% of them are books of the Bible. Thereare 15 copies of Genesis, 17 of Exodus, 13 of Leviticus, 8 of Numbers, 29 of Deuteronomy, 2 ofJoshua, 3 of Judges, 21 of Isaiah, 6 of Jeremiah, 6 of Ezekiel, 36 of Psalms, 2 of Proverbs, and 4of Ruth.Advanced dating tests in the early 1990s found that the biblical scrolls date to the two centuriesbefore Christ (George Bonani, “Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,” BiblicalArchaeology Review, November/December 1991, p. 72).The most important and complete O.T. book among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Great IsaiahScroll, which contains all 66 books of Isaiah. It was found in the first cave and was written on 17pieces of sheepskin sewn together to form a scroll measuring about 24 feet in length. It has beendated at least four times by the carbon-14 method and the results have ranged from 335 to 107B.C. Other techniques (e.g., writing material and style, associated coins and other artifacts) havedated it to 150-100 B.C. Thus it was written at least a century before Christ.The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Christian apologetics1. The scrolls confirm the traditional canon of the 39 books of the Old Testament.There are portions of every Old Testament book except Esther, thus confirming the traditionalcanon of Scripture.2. The scrolls provide evidence that Bible prophecy was pre-written.The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament were writtenbefore the birth of Jesus and thus authenticate their divine origin!3. The scrolls authenticate the Masoretic Hebrew Bible.The Dead Sea Scrolls provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Masoretic Hebrewtext that was the basis for the great Reformation Bibles such as the Luther in German, the KingJames in English, and the Reina Valera in Spanish.44

The Masoretic Hebrew text was preserved by the meticulous labor of Hebrew scribes prior to theinvention of printing by moveable type in the 15th century. (The first printed Hebrew Bibleappeared in 1488.)The word “masoret” refers to the faithful transmission of the Bible. The Masoretic scribesactually counted each word of the manuscripts, and if a mistake was made that section had to bedestroyed. Sixty to sixty-five percent of the Bible scrolls found at the Dead Sea represent thesame text reproduced by the Masoretic scribes. This is amazing since more than 1,000 yearsseparate the earliest Hebrew codexes of the Masoretic text (such as the Aleppo) and the Dead SeaScrolls. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll dates to 100-150 B.C., whereas the Aleppo Codexdates to about A.D. 920.The differences between the Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text are extremely minor, largelypertaining to spelling or grammar, the omission or addition of a word, or the mixing of Hebrewletters. For example, one of the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 leaves out one “holy” fromIsaiah 6:3, obviously a scribal oversight.Comparing Isaiah 53 in the Great Isaiah Scroll to the Aleppo Codex, there are only three lettersthat differ significantly. Dr. Ernst Wurthwein calls the agreement of the Great Isaiah Scroll andthe Masoretic text “striking” and Adolfo Roitman calls it “extraordinarily close” (Wurthwein,The Text of the Old Testament, 1979, p. 144; Roitman, The Bible in the Shrine of the Book, 2006,p. 43).The Shrine of the BookIn light of Paul’s statement in Romans 3:1-2 that God committed the keeping of the Scripture tothe Jews, it is fascinating that the two greatest historical witnesses to the authority of theMasoretic Hebrew Bible are located in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem, an arm of the IsraelMuseum. They are the keepers of both the Great Isaiah Scroll, found in the Dead Sea caves, andthe Aleppo Codex, which is the most important ancient complete Masoretic Old Testament.The Aleppo Codex (known in Hebrew as Ha-Keter, meaning the Crown) was made in the 10thcentury A.D. in Tiberias, which was a center of Jewish scholarship after the razing of Jerusalem.This was also a center for the creation of the Talmud, which is a collection of Jewish traditionthat was raised (in practice) to an authority equal to that of the Scripture, something that Jesuscondemned in Matthew 15 and 23. The Aleppo manuscript is the Masoretic Text. It was copiedby Shlomo Ben Boya’a, and the vowel markings were added by renowned master scribe Aaronben Asher. (The Masoretic Text is also called the Ben Asher Text.) For nearly 1,000 years it “wasused as the standard text in the correction of books” while “generations of scribes madepilgrimages to consult” it (Roitman, p. 62). It resided at the synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, fromabout A.D. 1099 to 1375, when it was moved to the synagogue in Aleppo, Syria, where it residedin a double-locked metal box in “the Cave of Elijah.” (According to their tradition, Elijah theprophet was exiled there.) The keys were held by two prominent men and the box could only be45

opened in the presence of both men on the authority of the synagogue’s leaders. On December 2,1947, after the adoption of the UN resolution to establish a Jewish state, the Aleppo synagoguewas destroyed by rampaging Muslims during the riots that broke out all over the Arab world. Therioters broke into the iron box and ripped pages from the Codex and threw it on the floor. Mostof the Pentateuch was lost, as well as some other portions. Someone recovered the damagedCodex and it was hidden for the next several years. In 1958 the Aleppo Codex was smuggled toTurkey hidden in a washing machine, and from there brought to Jerusalem (Roitman, p. 65). Itwas laboriously restored over a six-year period by the Israel Museum and today is on display inthe Shrine of the Book.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS1. When were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered?2. Where were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered?3. In what language were most of the scrolls written?4. What percentage of the scrolls are books of the Bible?5. The biblical Dead Sea Scrolls date to when?6. What is the most important book among the Dead Sea Scrolls?7. How long is this scroll?8. What are the three ways that the Dead Sea Scrolls are significant for Christian apologetics?9. There are portions of how many of the Old Testament books?10. How many years separate the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Masoretic Hebrew text?11. How many letters differ between Isaiah 53 in the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Aleppo Codex?12. What did Paul say about the advantage of the Jews in Romans 3:1-2?13. In what century was the Aleppo Codex made?14. In what city was the Aleppo Codex made?15. Why was the Codex named “Aleppo”?16. Who was Aaron ben Asher?17. What is the Hebrew name for the Aleppo Codex and what does this mean?18. Where does the Aleppo Codex reside today?46

Introductory PointsTHE BIBLE’S DIFFICULTIES1. Peter stated that the Bible contains some “things hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Hewas specifically referring to Paul’s epistles, but the same is true for the whole Bible. These arethe types of difficulties that skeptics use in their attempt to discredit the Bible.2. We should not be surprised at the great assault upon Scripture today.When the devil tempted Eve, he questioned the authority of God’s Word, and this has been oneof his major tactics ever since.In fact, the broad assault on the Bible today is a fulfillment of prophecy and is therefore anevidence that the Bible is true. The Lord and His apostles warned of the coming of many falseteachers and of a great apostasy or falling away from the New Testament faith. See Matthew7:15; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 13-15; Ephesians 4:14; Philippians 3:17-19; Colossians 2:8; 1Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:4-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3-4.2 Timothy 3:7-8 warns that apostates will be ever learning and never able to come to theknowledge of the truth, and in fact, they will resist the truth. This is a perfect description ofChristian higher education today, even among “evangelicals” (as we have documented in thebook New Evangelicalism). The typical seminary takes a syncretistic approach, entertaining anendless stream of ancient and end-times heresies, while despising a dogmatic approach todoctrine and attacking those who hold the Bible as the infallibly inspired Word of God.2 Timothy 4:3-4 says end-time Christians will trade sound doctrine for fables and will be led inthis diabolical business by heaps of teachers who are willing to scratch people’s ears with newthings.In 2 Peter 2:1-2, Peter warned that many will teach damnable heresies, even attacking the personand character of Christ; and by their false teaching and sensual lifestyle they will bring greatreproach upon Christianity. A damnable heresy is a heresy that a true believer cannot hold. It is aheresy that damns the soul to eternal judgment. Examples are works gospels and false christs.In 2 Peter 3:3-6, Peter further warned that at the end of the age there will be widespread unbelieftoward the global flood and the second coming of Christ; there will be scoffing and flagrantrejection of God’s moral laws.2 Timothy 3:13 teaches that this apostasy, which began in the days of the apostles, will grow inintensity as the church age progresses.47

3. The scoffing unbeliever is unreasonable in treating the Bible differently than other books.While he gives other books the benefit of the doubt and tries to find a solution to apparentproblems, he treats the Bible with disdain and suspicion and often refuses to accept the mostreasonable solution to a difficulty. George DeHoff rightly observes, “Even when there are severalexplanations for an alleged discrepancy (any one of which could be the truth) skeptics claim tobe unable to find any of them.”“When we meet with seeming discrepancies in other writers, we try to find some way of explaining themwithout charging the author with inaccuracy, especially if he has shown himself generally trustworthy. Withregard to many matters in ancient history which cannot be satisfactorily explained, we suppose that if otherfacts were known to us, the difficulties would be cleared away. But, unfortunately, it is the habit of many totreat the Scriptures in exactly the reverse way. They magnify the difficulties; they ignore or reject all attemptsat explanation; they jump at once to the conclusion that the writers are mistaken. Now, surely this is mostunscientific. If it is possible to find a way of explaining the difficulty, we are bound to do so; and if, after all, weare not sure that the difficulty is removed, we surely ought, in view of the general trustworthiness of the Biblehistorians, to believe that if we knew other facts, which are now hidden from us, all would be clear” (A.McCaig, The Grand Old Book, 1923).4. Typically, the scoffing unbeliever has not made the necessary effort to understand the Bibleproperly.We don’t expect to be able to pick up a training manual for an F-16 fighter jet and understand itwithout the proper education, but scoffing unbelievers pretend that without any serious trainingand without proper experience in handling the Bible, they are capable not only of understandingit but also of infallibly finding its imperfections.Requirements for understanding the BibleTo understand a book of mathematics requires the development of a mathematical mindset, andto understand the Bible requires the development of a spiritual mindset. The Bible tells usexactly how this is done.First, the new birth is required (1 Cor. 2:12-16; 1 John 2:27). Those who are unregenerate cannotinterpret the Bible correctly; they will find conflicts and problems because they do not have theindwelling Holy Spirit and therefore do not have a spiritual mind. Before I can understand theBible properly, I must humble myself before God as a needy sinner and receive Jesus Christ asmy only Saviour and Lord. This is how one is born again, and at that time spiritual life isimparted; the darkened mind is enlightened; and the individual is sealed with the Holy Spirit whobecomes his spiritual Teacher (Ephesians 1:13; 2:2). “The deepest biblical scholar, if he fails tofind Christ, knows less of the real meaning of the Gospel than the humblest Christian who isliving in the faith of the Son of God” (Pulpit Commentary).Second, faith is required (Heb. 11:6). Many of the emerging church teachers glorify unbelief, butGod rewards faith.48

Third, obedience is required (John 7:17). The Bible is not merely a book to study as anintellectual exercise; it is first and foremost the Word of God to obey. Unless I am saved andwalking in obedience to the will of God, I will not grow in knowledge and truth. The Christiansat Corinth did not grow properly in understanding because of their carnality and worldliness (1Cor. 3:1-2). The same was true for the Christians addressed in the book of Hebrews (Heb.5:11-14). “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even THOSE WHO BYREASON OF USE HAVE THEIR SENSES EXERCISED to discern both good and evil” (Heb.5:14). The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the one whose heart is set to obey God is the one whowill know true doctrine (John 7:17). A Christian who is worldly and spiritually careless, who isunfaithful to the house of God, who is not busy in the service of the Lord, will not have a strongunderstanding of biblical truth. Such a one is also vulnerable to the wiles of false teachers, who“by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:18).Fourth, diligence is required (2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 2:1-5). If you desire to understand the Bibleproperly, you must set out to obtain a thorough knowledge of it from beginning to end. You mustlearn to rightly divide it. You must learn to exercise spiritual discernment. You must obtain thenecessary tools and use them diligently. It is one thing to own concordances and dictionaries andcommentaries; it is quite another thing to use them! You must apply great diligence in thisendeavor. You must be willing to read and study a passage repeatedly. The practice of reading theBible through at least once per year is important because it keeps the Scriptures fresh in one’smind.Fifth, patience and persistence is required (Proverbs 25:2; John 8:31-32). The Bible is the Wordof the eternal God, and it is not possible that we will understand all of it in a short time. It isdesigned to be the Book of a man’s entire life, and no man will ever exhaust its treasures.Sixth, humility is required (Luke 10:21). “What will a pious, obedient, loving child do when hehears the father make a remark which on the surface appears objectionable? Instead of criticizinghim and condemning his utterance as wrong, the child will ask him for an explanation. If we findstumbling blocks in the Holy Scriptures, let us take the attitude of such a loving child” (WilliamArndt).Seventh, spiritual passion is required (Prov. 2:3-6). To understand the Bible properly, one mustseek God and His truth passionately, “crying out” for understanding.The reason for Bible difficulties1. The Bible is God’s Word. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways myways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher thanyour ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). It is not surprising that theBible contains things hard to be understood, because it is the revelation of the omniscient,omnipotent, eternal God. “A revelation coming down from an infinite Mind to finite minds mustnecessarily involve difficulties. This is true of all Christian doctrine. Take for instance the49

doctrine of God, or immortality, or the incarnation. There is no Christian doctrine altogether freefrom intellectual difficulties. ... Once we begin to reject the doctrines of Christianity becausethey involve some intellectual difficulty, then we shall finally reject them all. But when we havedone this, when we have sought refuge in atheism, we shall find ourselves no better off thanbefore. For the intellectual difficulties of unbelief are immensely greater than those of Christianfaith. Let us settle one thing right here—we live in a universe of thought, and there is no place inthis universe of thought where we can escape from all intellectual difficulties” (Alva J. McClain,The “Problems” of Verbal Inspiration).2. We are separated from Bible events by thousands of years and by vast cultural and linguisticdifferences. God gave the Scriptures for all people of all centuries and He was in control of thetime and context of its giving, but it is not reasonable to expect there will be no problems inunderstanding the Scriptures.3. Some things are purposely hidden from the scoffer. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did notspeak in parables to make the truth clear to simple people; He spoke in parables to hide the truthfrom willful unbelievers (Mat. 13:13-17). God is not mocked; He has ordained that men reapwhat they sow (Gal. 6:7). He has designed His Word in such a way that those who willfullyreject Him are unable to discern the truth properly.4. Proper Bible understanding requires spiritual perception (1 Cor. 2:12-15; Heb. 5:11-14). It isthe unsaved, the spiritually immature, and the carnal who find inconsistencies in the Bible. Godhas ordained that it be so.5. God requires man to study (2 Timothy 2:15; Prov. 2:1-6; 25:2). The Bible does not read like amorning newspaper because it is not a morning newspaper! It is the eternal Word of God, andGod has ordained that a man must dig into it diligently or he will not understand it properly. Thechief solution to Bible difficulties is diligent, believing STUDY of the Holy Scriptures!6. The Bible is for all men and all times. It is possible that some things are difficult for me tounderstand because they are intended to be better understood by someone else in anothersituation. Some of the prophetic discourses fall into this category (Dan. 12:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).Sound Principles of Bible InterpretationTo deal with difficulties in the Bible requires at least a basic knowledge of the principles of Bibleinterpretation. We will look at four of these.1. Context is essential in defining words and interpreting passages.The first and foremost rule of Bible interpretation is to define its meaning according to context.Absolutely nothing is more important than this. It is therefore necessary to know the theme andmessage of the immediate passage, chapter, and book. The Bible is a self-interpreting Book if we50

allow the context to rule. False teachers, on the other hand, twist verses out of their contexts andforce pre-determined meanings upon them. For example, there are Korean false teachers inNepal who are aggressive in having home Bible studies with people, but they don’t let the peoplewrite down the verses they use and they don’t let them look at the verses before and after theones they are discussing. That is a recipe for spiritual disaster!Following are some examples of how to interpret the Bible according to context:a. Consider the phrase “judge not that ye be not judged” in Matthew 7:1. This is frequentlytaken out of context today to support the doctrine that it is wrong to judge sin and doctrine,but if we honor the context we see that Jesus was warning against only one type ofjudgment--hypocritical judgment (see Matthew 7:1-5). That He was not warning againstevery type of judgment is evident by the fact that in the same passage He commanded Hislisteners to “beware of false prophets” (Mat. 7:15). The way to beware of false prophets isto carefully judge or examine a man’s life and teaching by comparing it to Scripture.b. Consider the phrase “foolish questions” in Titus 3:9. What is this? The context provides thedefinition. Foolish questions are questions (1) that produce only strife and do not edify (v.9), (2) that are unprofitable (v. 9), and (3) that are used by false teachers (v. 10). Foolishquestions are used insincerely by false teachers to bring doubt to people’s minds aboutsound doctrine so they can lead them away from the truth.c. Consider the phrase “that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” in 2Peter 1:20. This has been interpreted in several ways, but the meaning is clearly given inthe context. See the next verse. It means that the words written by the human authors of theBible were given by the Holy Spirit.d. Consider the phrase “all things are lawful unto me” in 1 Corinthians 6:12. If we ignore thecontext, we might be led to think that the believer is free from all laws and is therefore atliberty to live as he pleases. This statement is so used by the “Christian rock” crowd. Butthe context corrects this interpretation. In the next verse, we see that Paul is talking aboutthings such as dietary matters. He is saying that all things are lawful that are not forbiddenin Scripture.2. Scripture must be compared with Scripture.Another important rule of Bible interpretation is to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor.2:13). That is why it is good to have a Bible with cross-references. Even more important is theTreasury of Scripture Knowledge, which has hundreds of thousands of cross-references. Goodcomputer Bible software packages such as Swordsearcher have the Treasury of ScriptureKnowledge built into the search system so it is very easy to run down cross references.51

Comparing Scripture with Scripture is essential for developing sound doctrine. If Scripture isinterpreted in an isolated fashion, the result will often be a wrong interpretation. False teacherslove to isolate verses. Arthur T. Pierson wisely warns: “No investigation of Scripture, in itsvarious parts and separate texts, however important, must impair the sense of the supreme valueof its united witness. There is not a form of evil doctrine or practice that may not claim apparentsanction and support from isolated passages; but nothing erroneous or vicious can ever findcountenance from the Word of God when the whole united testimony of Scripture is weighedagainst it. Partial examination will result in partial views of truth which are necessarilyimperfect; only careful comparison will show the complete mind of God.”Not only does the proper meaning of a verse or passage become clear by comparing it with otherScriptures, but Bible difficulties often melt away by this means.Consider Luke 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, andchildren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Whatdoes it mean to “hate” one’s own loved ones? This is explained in a companion passage inMatthew 10:37, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he thatloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” It means we must love Christ farmore than anyone else and we must obey Him in all things.3. Clear passages must interpret the obscure.A third important principle of Bible interpretation is that clear passages must interpret the lessclear. False teachers disregard this principle by building their peculiar doctrines from difficultand obscure passages and using such verses to overthrow the teaching of many clear ones.For example, Seventh-day Adventists build their doctrine of “soul sleep” on a few verses in theOld Testament. They point to Job 27:3, for example, which says that the breath is the spirit. Theythen say that since the breath is the spirit, man does not have a spirit that can live after he dies.Thus, when man dies, he is simply dead and non-existent until the resurrection. But when welook at the clear teaching of other verses, we see that man is a three-part being (body, soul, andspirit) and the spirit of man lives after he is dead. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and James 2:26.The Seventh-day Adventists also use Ecclesiastes 9:5, which says the “dead know not any thing.”They claim that this supports their doctrine that the dead merely sleep in the grave until theresurrection, but they ignore the rest of the Bible which teaches that the dead are conscious. Forexample, compare Luke 9:28-33; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; and Revelation 6:9-11.4. The literal sense of Scripture must rule.Dr. David Cooper said, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no othersense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning unless the facts of the immediatecontext clearly indicate otherwise.”52

Following are three reasons why we must use the literal method of interpretation:a. God gave the Scripture to reveal truth to man, not to hide it or confuse it (Deut. 29:29). Hetherefore used the normal rules of human language.b. If the literal sense is not followed, no one can be certain of the meaning. By the allegoricalmethod the mind of the interpreter becomes the authority. Consider Revelation 20:1-3. Ifthis passage does not mean that a literal angel binds a literal devil in a literal bottomless pitfor a literal thousand years, we have no way of knowing what it does mean. If it does notmean what it says, it could mean anything that any interpreter says it means. Thus, theteaching of the Bible is thrown into complete and permanent confusion by the allegoricalmethod.c. The Bible’s prophecies have been fulfilled literally. Consider the prophecy of Christ’s firstcoming in Psalm 22.Psa. 22:1 – Jesus’ words on the cross (Mat. 27:46)Psa. 22:6-8, 12-13 – The people reviled Jesus (Mat. 27:39-44)Psa. 22:11 – There were none to help Him (Mk. 14:50; Heb. 1:3)Psa. 22:14-16 – They crucified Him (Mat. 27:35)Psa. 22:17a – They did not break his bones (Jn. 19:33)Psa. 22:17b – They stared at Him (Mat. 27:36)Psa. 22:18 – They gambled for his garments (Mat. 27:35; Jn. 19:24)In contrast to the literal approach to Bible interpretation is the ALLEGORICAL METHOD,which finds a “deeper meaning.” The allegorical method of interpretation is particularly appliedto the prophetic portions of Scripture.a. For example, the Geneva Bible note at Revelation 9:11 identifies “the angel of thebottomless pit” as “Antichrist the Pope, king of hypocrites and Satan’s ambassador.” Thereis no reason, though, to see the angel of the bottomless pit as anything other than a literalfallen angel in a literal bottomless pit.b. Harold Camping, founder of Family Christian Radio, came up with the followingallegorical interpretation of Revelation 11:7. He says the two witnesses represent thechurch. The church has been in the great tribulation but has now been killed. Therefore, thechurch is dead; God is through with churches and pastors and they have no more Scripturalauthority.Of course, the Bible contains types and figures of speech, but even these must be interpreted bythe normal rules of language.53

We explain how to do this and many other such things in the Advanced Bible Studies Seriescourse “How to Study the Bible,” which is available from Way of Life Literature.Examples of how scoffers misuse the Bible to create problems and errorsFollowing are a few examples of how scoffers misuse the Bible. We have dealt with hundreds ofthese in the book Things Hard to Be Understood: A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties, which wewould recommend to each student as an apologetics resource.1. The alleged two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2Many scoffers claim that there is a contradiction between the accounts of creation in Genesis oneand Genesis two. They point out, for example, that Genesis 1 says the animals were created onthe sixth day before the man was made (Gen. 1:24-31), whereas Genesis two seems to say thatGod made the man and then made the animals and brought them to him to be named (Gen.2:18-19).The apparent contradiction disappears when one understands that the two accounts are meant tobe complementary. They give two different perspectives of the account of creation. Genesis 1 isthe floodlight, whereas Genesis 2 is the spotlight. Genesis 1 gives the big picture and describesthe general events that occurred in the six days of creation. Genesis 2 focuses on man’s creation.Genesis 1 tells us when the animals were made, whereas Genesis 2 shows the associationbetween the animals and man and tells us what happened after the animals and man were made.Genesis 1 tells us that God made man male and female, and Genesis 2 tells us how this wasdone.2. The alleged mistake in the statement that Adam would die the day he ate of the tree (Gen.2:16-17)Since Adam did not die physically that day, it has been alleged that this is a mistake in the Bible.In fact, though, Adam did die that day. Death means separation, and there are three deaths spokenof in Scripture. There is spiritual death, which is separation from God. There is physical death,which is separation of the spirit from the body. And there is eternal death, which is eternalseparation from God and punishment in the lake of fire. Adam died spiritually the very day thathe disobeyed God. His spirit died and he became separated from God (“dead in trespasses andsins,” Ephesians 2:1), and every individual who is born into the world is born in this frightfulcondition. This is why Jesus said that we must be born again in order to be saved (John 3:3). Wemust be born spiritually and receive spiritual life from God.3. The alleged injustice and cruelty of God in the Old TestamentUnbelievers have long used Israel’s destruction of pagan nations in Canaan as evidence that theGod of the Old Testament is unjust and cruel (Deut. 7:2). What they refuse to take into54

consideration are the following facts: First, God waited 400 years before judging these wickednations, which reminds us that He is longsuffering with man (Genesis 15:13-16). These nationshad the light of creation and conscience and had prophetic light as well (e.g., Noah’s sons,Melchisidek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and could have repented as Nineveh did. Second, thenations in question were devoted to every sort of vile moral perversion, including incest,homosexuality, bestiality, and the burning of their children. It is not morally wrong for a holy,lawgiving God to punish those who willfully, flagrantly, and unrepentantly break His laws.Those who charge God with injustice and cruelty for punishing wicked nations are hypocritical,because they themselves believe in law and order and support the punishment of those whocommit crimes such as rape and child molestation and murder. Third, God was merciful to thoselike Rahab who believed (Joshua 2). The whole tenor of Scripture teaches that God delights inmercy more than in punishment. He “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any shouldperish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He wants all men to be saved (1Timothy 2:4). Fourth, it was necessary for those wicked pagan nations to be overthrown so thatIsrael could be established in that land as a light to the world. Had they been left alone, Israelwould have been corrupted morally and religiously within a very short time (Deut. 7:2-6).Through Israel God gave the world His divine revelation in the Bible, and through Israel Hebrought the Saviour into the world to provide salvation (John 3:16). Those who charge God withinjustice and cruelty ignore the fact that God Himself paid the price demanded of His own holylaw so that men can be saved. The heart of God was revealed in the amazing words that Jesusspoke from the cross in regard to the people who had so terribly, unjustly abused him: “Father,forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The God revealed in the Bible is the mostcompassionate Person in the universe. In fact, He is the source of all true love and compassion,but He is also a thrice holy, lawgiving God, and He cannot be judged by man’s puny, inconsistentstandards.4. The alleged contradictions in the BibleFollowing are a few examples of these:The alleged contradiction about God’s anger (Jeremiah 3:12 vs. Jeremiah 17:4)Jeremiah 3:12 says God will not keep His anger forever, whereas Jeremiah 17:4 says God’sanger will burn forever. By examining the contexts we see that there is no contradiction.Jeremiah 3:12 refers to God’s anger being appeased by repentance; whereas Jeremiah 17:4 refersto God’s anger unappeased burning forever in punishment. The satisfaction of man’s sin debtwas paid by Jesus Christ on the cross, but salvation is obtained through repentance and faith andthose who neglect God’s salvation will suffer God’s wrath forever. God’s wrath does burnforever, but in the case of the believer it fell on Christ and thus was quenched.55

The alleged contradiction about the earth’s future (Psalm 78:69 vs. Psalm 102:25-26)Psalm 78:69 says the earth is established forever, whereas Psalm 102:25-26 says the earth will beburned up. As any Bible believer knows, there is no contradiction here, because Psalm 78:69refers to the earth in general, whereas Psalm 102:25-26 refers to the burning up of this presentearth, which will be replaced by a new earth (2 Peter 3:12-13).The alleged contradiction about rejoicing when one’s enemy falls (Proverbs 24:17 vs. Psalm58:10)Proverbs 24:17 refers to rejoicing at a fellow man’s misfortune, whereas Psalm 58:10 refers torejoicing at God’s righteous judgment upon sinners in the day of wrath. Psalm 58:10 makes thisplain. We have to interpret the Scripture dispensationally (according to the prophetic timeelement). Another example of this is seen in comparing Luke 9:54-56 and Revelation 11:4-6.Jesus did not allow James and John to call down fire on Christ rejectors, because in this presentdispensation He is offering salvation to sinners. But the Two Witnesses who will preach inJerusalem during the Great Tribulation will burn their enemies up with fire, because that is theDay of the Lord, the Day of God’s vengeance.The alleged contradiction about the efficacy of sacrifices (Numbers 15:25 vs. Hebrews 10:11)Numbers 15 says that Israel was “forgiven” through the offering of sacrifices, whereas Hebrews10:11 says those sacrifices “can never take away sins.” The seeming contradiction is solved byunderstanding the purpose of the Old Testament sacrifices and their relationship to Christ’ssacrifice. The sacrifices under the Law of Moses were types and pictures which pointed to theultimate fulfillment in Christ. This is clearly explained in the book of Hebrews 9-10. See 10:1-3.God forgave those who offered the sacrifices in faith, but He forgave them on the basis ofChrist’s sacrifice and not on the basis of the animal sacrifices themselves.The alleged contradiction between Christ’s genealogy in Matthew and LukeRichard Dawkins says, “Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’sdescent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-onegenerations? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists!” (The GodDelusion). The following are the facts which the skeptic overlooks. First, the genealogies havetwo different purposes. Matthew traces Christ’s ROYAL GENEALOGY to Abraham (Mat. 1:1),whereas Luke traces Christ’s NATURAL GENEALOGY to Adam (Lk. 3:28). Second, thegenealogies are traced through different men. Matthew traces Christ’s genealogy throughJoseph’s father Jacob (Mat. 1:15-16), whereas Luke traces it through Mary’s father Heli (Lk.3:23). While Jacob was Joseph’s natural father, Heli was his adopted father. “Mary was the onlychild and heir of Heli (see the Talmus) hence when Joseph married her he became the only sonand heir of Heli” (George DeHoff, Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained). Third, it is bymeans of Mary’s genealogy that Christ’s lineage bypassed Jechonias, because he was cursed so56

that his seed could not inherit the throne (Jer. 22:30; Mat. 1:12). This problem was solved bytracing Christ’s genealogy through another of David’s sons, Nathan, to Mary’s father Heli (Lk.3:31). Therefore, instead of being evidence against the Bible’s divine inspiration, the twogenealogies provide wonderful evidence FOR it!The alleged contradiction about the sign on Jesus’ crossSome claim that the Gospel writers give contradictory accounts as to what was written on thesign that Pilate hung on Jesus’ cross:Matthew 27:37 - “This is Jesus the king of the Jews”Mark 15:26 - “The king of the Jews”Luke 23:38 - “This is the king of the Jews”John 19:19 - “Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews”Actually, the accounts are complementary rather than contradictory. The full title was “This isJesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews,” and the individual Gospel writers focus on various partsof the sign according to their individual purposes and objectives.This is like four witnesses to a hit and run traffic accident which involved a blue Ford Mustangwith wire rim wheels, a white racing stripe down the center, an air foil in the rear, and fog lightson the front. One witness says he saw a Ford Mustang. Another says he saw a blue car. Anothersays he saw a blue car with fog lights on the front and a white racing stripe. Another said he sawa blue Ford Mustang with wire rim wheels. There is no contradiction between these testimonies.Each of the Gospels was written to show a specific aspect of Christ’s life and character andministry, so the Gospel writers were led by the Holy Spirit to emphasize various aspects of thesame accounts. Matthew emphasizes Christ as King; Mark, Christ as Servant; Luke, Christ asMan; John, Christ as God. Most of the seeming contradictions can be solved with thisunderstanding, as we have demonstrated in the book Things Hard to Be Understood.SUMMARY OF “THE BIBLE’S DIFFICULTIES”1. The attack upon the Bible was prophesied by the apostles and prophets in passages such as 2Timothy 3-4 and 2 Peter 2-3.2. The Bible cannot be understood properly apart from salvation, sanctified Christian living, anddiligent study.3. Four great principles of Bible interpretation are honoring the context, comparing Scripturewith Scripture, interpreting obscure passages with clear, and using a literal rather than anallegorical approach.57

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE BIBLE'S DIFFICULTIES1. In which book and chapter in Paul’s epistles does one of the Bible writers say that there are“things hard to be understood”?2. When did the attack upon God’s Word begin?3. What does “apostasy” mean?4. What passage says that apostates will be “ever learning, and never able to come to theknowledge of the truth”?5. What passage says end-times Christians will reject sound doctrine and be turned unto fables?6. What passage describes preachers who will scratch the tickling ears of apostates?7. In what book and chapter did one of the New Testament writers warn of false teachers whowill teach “damnable heresies”?8. What is a “damnable heresy”?9. In what chapter and book does the New Testament warn about mockers who will deny theglobal flood and the second coming of Christ?10. In what way does the scoffer treat the Bible differently than other books?11. What seven things are required to develop a spiritual mindset so that we can understand theBible properly?12. Why is it necessary to be born again in order to understand the Bible?13. What are six reasons why there are difficulties in the Bible?14. What are four great principles of Bible interpretation?15. How do the Seventh-day Adventists build their doctrine of soul sleep?16. What are three reasons why the Bible must be interpreted by the literal method?17. What is the allegorical method of Bible interpretation?18. Why are there two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2?19. In what way did Adam die the day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?20. How was God justified in having the Israelites destroy the pagan nations in Canaan?58

JESUS CHRIST59

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUSSome of the more radical skeptics deny that Jesus was an historical person. This is an ignorantposition for the following reasons:1. The historicity of Jesus was not disputed until recent times.The Encyclopedia Britannica says:“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubtedthe historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors atthe end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries” (“Jesus Christ,” EncyclopediaBritannica, 1974).Jaroslav Pelikan observes:“Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been thedominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries” (Jesus Through the Centuries, p.1).D. James Kennedy adds:“All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kingsthat ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that one solitarylife” (What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? p. 8).2. The New Testament, which is the major witness of Jesus, is an historical record of thehighest authority, even from a secular standpoint.The evidence that the New Testament was written soon after Christ’s death is irrefutable. Wehave already examined this evidence in the section on the Bible’s Nature.In his book Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson concluded that the whole of theNew Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.William Ramsay, one of the most renowned archaeologists, wrote:“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NewTestament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the moreradical New Testament critics of today” (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p. 136).“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and theeighties of the first century A.D.” (Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963).William Albright, another influential archaeologist, stated:“Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed tobe: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D.” (From Stone Age toChristianity, p. 23).60

The New Testament is the most copied and quoted document in the history of man.As we have seen, portions exist that date to the late first and early second century, only a fewdecades after the books were written. And the great multiplicity of copies that exist are unique inhistory. No other ancient book even comes close to having such extensive manuscript authority.3. There is early evidence for the existence of Jesus from extra-biblical, secular sources.The following examples are from Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict:Cornelius Tacitus, a first century Roman historian“Christus, from whom the name [Christianity] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign ofTiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...” (Annals XV, c. 115 A.D.).Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian (who reigned from A.D. 117-138)“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them fromRome” (Life of Claudius, 25:4).Werner Keller observes:“The writer Orosius mentions that this expulsion took place in the ninth year of Claudius’ reign, i.e., A.D. 49.That means that a Christian community is attested in Rome not more than fifteen to twenty years after theCrucifixion. There is, in the Acts of the Apostles, an amazing corroboration of this Roman evidence. WhenPaul came from Athens to Corinth he found there ‘a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately comefrom Italy, with his wife Priscilla: because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome’ (Acts18:2)” (The Bible as History, pp. 390, 391).Josephus (A.D. 37-100)He was a Jewish leader who served under Roman emperors and wrote two histories about theJews: Jewish Wars and Antiquities of the Jews. In the following passages he acknowledges theexistence of Jesus, of John the Baptist and his baptism, and of Jesus’ brother James and hismartyrdom.“... he [Ananias the high priest] assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brotherof Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed anaccusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Antiquities, 20.9.1).“Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and very justly, as apunishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a goodman, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and pietytowards God, and so to come to baptism” (Antiquities, 28.5.2).61

ThallusThallus wrote a history in about A.D. 52 in which he describes the darkness and earthquake thatfollowed Christ’s resurrection.Mara Bar-SerapionHe was a Syrian philosopher who wrote about A.D. 70. In a letter to his son he said:“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdomwas abolished” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, p. 114).Pliny the YoungerHe was a Roman author and administrator. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan in about A.D. 112 hementions Christ and the worship practices of early Christians.“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternateverses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds,but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they shouldbe called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake offood--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”TalmudThe Jewish Talmudic writings dating from A.D. 70 to 200 mention Jesus. If there were any doubtabout Jesus’ existence, we can be sure that the Jewish rabbinical writers would have said so!“It has been taught: On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. ... not having found anything in his favor, theyhanged him on the eve of Passover“ (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a).Lucian of SamosataLucian was a second-century Greek writer who ridiculed Christians.“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novelrites, and was crucified on that account ... [they] worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”Norman Geisler summarizes the evidence as follows:The primary sources for the life of Christ are the four Gospels. However there are considerable reports fromnon-Christian sources that supplement and conform to the Gospel accounts. These come largely from Greek,Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources of the first century. In brief they inform us that:* Jesus was an historical man from Nazareth.* He lived a wise and virtuous life.* He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time,being considered the Jewish King.* He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later.* His enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called ‘sorcery.’62

* His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome.* His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as Divine.This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels (Geisler, BakerEncyclopedia of Christian Apologetics).Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University, says that we have more and betterhistorical documentation for Jesus than for any other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha,or Mohammed) (“Jesus Outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?” Jesus Under Fire,edited by Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, 1995).There are scoffers who reject all of this evidence, but this is the result of self-willed blindness.The human heart is so corrupt and deceitful that it is possible to persist in unbelief in the face ofa mountain of evidence (Jeremiah 17:9). On the other hand, many men and women who set outto discredit the Bible and to disprove that Christ is God have accepted the evidence as irrefutableand have bowed before Christ as Lord and Saviour. We have given some examples of this in thereport “Men Who Were Converted Trying to Disprove the Bible,” available at the Way of Lifeweb site -- www.wayoflife.org.For more on this subject see the following:Norman Geisler -- Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, When Critics Ask, WhenSkeptics AskGary Habermas -- The Historical JesusJosh McDowell - The New Evidence that Demands a VerdictREVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS1. What are three reasons why we do not doubt the existence of Jesus?2. When did scoffers first begin to express doubt about the historical existence of Jesus?3. Name four secular writers who mentioned Jesus before the end of the first century.63

EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST’SRESURRECTION“The tomb was empty; and the foes of Christ were unable to deny it” (Ernest Kevan, The Resurrection ofChrist, 1961, p. 14).“I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never beenbroken down yet” (Lord Lyndhurst or John Singleton Copley, Attorney General of Great Britain, LordChancellor of England, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, original source probably from TheodoreMartin, A Life of Lord Lyndhurst).“Let it simply be said that we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actualdeath of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancientworld” (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 360).“Non-miraculous explanations of what happened at the empty tomb have to face a cruel choice: either theyhave to rewrite the evidence in order to suit themselves or they have to accept the fact that they are notconsistent with the present evidence. The only hypothesis that fits the evidence is that Jesus was reallyresurrected. Could the Man who predicted His death and resurrection, only to have it come to pass exactly asHe had said, be anything but God?” (Winfred Corduan, No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity, p. 227).Introduction1. The Bible says there are “many infallible proofs” of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:3). In fact, itis one of the best documented events of ancient history. Bible-believing Christianity is notBLIND RELIGIOUS FAITH!2. Jesus and the Bible and Christianity rise or fall on Christ’s resurrection!The Bible’s accounts of Jesus claim to be historical, eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter1:15-16; 1 John 1:3). If the accounts are not historically accurate, then they can rightly berejected.Christ staked His authority on the resurrection (at least seven times He said He would die andrise from the dead -- Matthew 16:11; 17:9, 22-23; 20:18-19; 26:32; Luke 9:22-27; John 2:18-22).Paul said that the Christian faith depends on Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14-17).Three great evidences for the resurrection of Christ:1. The character of the Gospel accountsThe Gospel accounts themselves give every evidence that they were written by eyewitnesseswho believed what they wrote and who were speaking the truth without embellishment andmyth-making.Consider the details of the accounts.64

“John’s Gospel is characterized throughout by the personal touch; it has all the marks of the evidence not onlyof an eyewitness, but of a careful observer ... The running of the disciples, the order of their arrival at thesepulchre and their entry, the fact that John first stopped down and looking through the low doorway saw thelinen clothes lying, while Peter, more bold, was the first to enter ... the description of the position of the linenclothes and the napkin ... this can surely be nothing else than the description of one who actually saw, uponwhose memory the scene is still impressed, to whom the sight of the empty grave and the relinquished graveclotheswas a critical point in faith and life” (E. Day, On the Evidence of the Resurrection, pp. 16-17).Consider the candor of the accounts. When someone invents a religion, he glorifies its leaders,but the Gospels paint the founders of Christianity as very weak (e.g., Peter having to be rebukedby Christ as Satan--Mat. 16:23; Peter denying Christ thrice; the disciples fleeing and hiding;Thomas and others doubting Christ even after He appears to them).Further, if men had made up the accounts of Christ’s resurrection, they would not have said thatthe women were the first to believe. In that day women had no authority in the eyes of society.They could not even testify in a court of law in those days, except in rare occasions (J.P.Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 168). The account of the women believing first is notsomething that would have been written unless it actually happened and the writers werecommitted wholeheartedly to recording the truth and nothing but the truth. This striking candoris powerful evidence that the Gospels are true, unvarnished accounts.2. The empty tombThat the tomb of Jesus was empty is proven by two facts:First, the Jewish leaders had to invent the lie that the disciples had stolen His body (Mat.28:11-15). If Jesus’ body was located anywhere, they would have searched it out and produced it.Second, just weeks after the crucifixion, only a stone’s throw from the empty tomb itself, Peterpublicly proclaimed the resurrection and 3,000 believed, followed a little later by “a greatcompany of priests” and “a great number” more (Acts 2:37-42; 6:7; 1:21). If anyone could haveproduced the body or come up with a reasonable account for it being missing, they would have!The following are theories that have been proposed to account for the empty tomb:“The field of biblical criticism resembles a vast graveyard filled with the skeletons of discarded theoriesdevised by highly imaginative skeptics. ... One might think that so many repeated failures ... would lead theopposition to abandon their efforts, but not so. They continue unabated, and men are still wracking theirbrains, working their imaginations overtime, and parading a vast amount of erudition and ingenuity in their, tous, futile attempts to destroy the impregnable rock of historical evidence on which the Christian faith in theresurrection stands proud and unshaken” (John Lilly).Some say Jesus just swooned and recovered in the cool of the tombThis is refuted by the fact that the professional soldiers had ascertained that he was dead (John19:31-34).65

Further, how could a near-dead man remove the heavy stone and convince his followers that hehad risen from the dead? Consider what Christ endured: severe beating; nails piercing His handsand feet; spear piercing His side (John 19:34); great loss of blood and bodily fluids.Some say that the women went to the wrong tombIn The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Kirsopp Lake claimed that thewomen were confused in the dark and went to the wrong tomb. Not only is this contrary to whatthe Gospel accounts say, it makes no sense whatsoever. If the women had gone to the wrongtomb and reported that Christ had risen based on that mistake, the matter would soon have beencleared up. First, the disciples were not stupid. They would not have given their lives for thetestimony of a few geographically-challenged women. They would have checked out the storythoroughly and would have come to the truth of the matter. Further, the Jewish leaders wouldhave made certain that the matter was cleared up by producing the right tomb, and the body!Some say the disciples were hallucinatingIf they were hallucinating, it was a mass hallucination, because Paul said that the resurrectedChrist was seen by above 500 people at once (1 Cor. 15:5-8)!When Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthians, most of these eyewitnesses were still alive. Paulwas not writing about things that had happened long ago.Josh McDowell observes: “Let’s take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after Hisdeath and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 peoplewere to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and youwould well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history” (“Evidence for the Resurrection”).It has been rightly said that “this theory makes Christ a fraud and his disciples near idiots.”“Somehow the rugged fisherman Peter and his brother Andrew, the characteristically doubting Thomas, theseasoned and not too sensitive tax gatherer, Matthew, the rather dull Philip, intensely loyal but a little slow ofapprehension, do not fit easily into the conditions required for an absolutely unshakable collectivehallucination. And if it is not both collective and unshakable it is of no use to us. The terrors and thepersecutions these men ultimately had to face and did face unflinchingly, do not admit of a halfheartedadhesion secretly honeycombed with doubt” (Morison).Some say they saw someone disguised as Jesus (Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot)This is too ridiculous to waste time refuting. Having spent three years with Jesus, wouldn’t thedisciples know Him? They might be confused for a moment or even a short while, but eventuallythey would recognize that the individual was an impostor.66

Some say the body was stolenThis was the story invented by the Jewish leaders. They paid the guards to lie and to say that thedisciples stole Jesus’ body (Mat. 28:11-15). This is an impossible story.First, if they were asleep how could they know what happened to the body, or if stolen, who stoleit?Second, sleeping on guard duty brought the death penalty in that day. That one of the guardsmight fall asleep is perhaps conceivable, but that all of them would fall asleep is not. As RichardDickinson observes: “That without an exception all should have fallen asleep when they werestationed there for so extraordinary a purpose, to see that that body was not stolen, lest it shouldbe said that the crucified Jesus had risen from the dead, may be possible; but it is not credible:especially when it is considered that these guards were subjected to the severest discipline in theworld. It was death for a Roman sentinel to sleep on his post. Yet these guards were notexecuted; nor were they deemed culpable even by the rulers, woefully chagrined and exasperatedas they must have been by the failure of their plan for securing the body” (The Resurrection ofJesus Christ Historically and Logically Viewed, 1865).(That the guard was a Roman guard is clear from the passage. The Greek word for “watch” inMatthew 27:65, koustodia, is the word for a Roman sentry. A.T. Robertson says that “ye have awatch” is present imperative and refers to “a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police.”In Matthew 28:12 they are called “soldiers,” which would not be the case if they were templepolice. Further, Matthew 28:14 indicates that they were Roman guards, because they were afraidof what Pilate would do if he heard of the matter.)Third, by their actions it is evident that the Jewish leaders didn’t believe their own story. Theydidn’t call the disciples to examine them when they found out the body was missing, and theymade no effort to find the body. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century, observed that the storyof the stealing of the body actually establishes the resurrection. “For this is the language of menconfessing, that the body was not there. When therefore they confess the body was not there, butthe stealing is shown to be false and incredible--by their watching by it, and by the seals, and bythe timidity of the disciples--the proof of the resurrection even hence appearsincontrovertible” (The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 264).Further, who could have stolen Christ’s body?The Jews certainly didn’t steal it, because they wanted to prove that He did not rise.The Roman government certainly didn’t steal it, because the government sealed the tomb and hadno reason to steal it and thus allow the Christians to say He had risen.67

Joseph of Arimathea certainly didn’t steal it. He was Jesus’ disciple and had no motive to stealHis body. Further, he couldn’t have stolen it alone, because he couldn’t have removed the greatstone, so he would have needed help, and doubtless someone would have reported the deedsooner or later.The disciples certainly didn’t steal it. First, they were hiding in fear for their lives. Second, theyhad no opportunity, because the tomb was sealed and guarded. Third, they had no leader whocould have envisioned and accomplished such a thing. Their leader, Peter, was a broken man atthat point and had given up his discipleship to Jesus to go back to fishing (John 21:3). Fourth,they would have been fools to have suffered and died for a lie! The disciples didn’t suffer forwhat others had seen, such as Muslims who die for the Koran, but they died for what they hadprofessedly seen themselves (Acts 4:18-20). Fifth, it would have been impossible for such a largenumber of people to have kept the secret hidden. “Even if it had been possible, and the disciplesthe men to do it, the subsequent history of Christianity would have been different. Sooner orlater, someone who knew the facts would have been unable to keep them hidden” (FrankMorison, Who Moved the Stone?). Sixth, a great moral religion like we find in the NewTestament, which exalts truth and honesty, could not have been founded upon a despicabledeception.“It is the complete failure of anyone to produce the remains, or to point to any tomb, official or otherwise, inwhich they were said to lie, and this ultimately destroys every theory based on the human removal of thebody” (Morison).We must not forget exactly what the early Christians suffered for their testimony that Christ hadrisen from the dead.They were denounced by family and friends, hated by and considered the enemies of society,tortured, kept imprisoned for years in dark, rat-infested cells. Their property confiscated; theywere crucified, burned alive, torn apart by wild beasts, chopped into pieces, roasted on racks;their tongues were torn out and their eyes put out. The also had to endure the torture and death ofbeloved family members.“Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought tooverthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of Hisdisciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. Thefashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peacefulmanner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes,imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseriesthey endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivorsonly prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcelyan example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motiveto review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which theyasserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrificfrequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they havenarrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly a theyknew any other fact. ... If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for itsfabrication” (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules ofEvidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, 1846).68

Some say the disciples made up the accountsThis would mean that they all suffered and died on the basis of a lie, which makes no sense. It isone thing to found a religion or cult when you will benefit from it materially, but it is quiteanother thing to invent one if you will only suffer for it.Further, as we have already noted, it is obvious from their very nature that the Gospel accountswere not made up. They are filled with lifelike detail and they are too candid to be mythical.Some say Jesus rose spiritually but not bodilyJesus specifically refuted this by eating and letting the disciples touch Him (Luke 24:37-43).Frank Morison set out to discredit the Gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection, and instead heconcluded that the only thing that can satisfy the historical facts is that Jesus actually did risefrom the dead.We agree and we find it much easier to believe in Christ’s resurrection, than to believe in theattempts to discredit it.“The simple faith of the Christian who believes in the resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of theskeptic who will accept the wildest and most improbable romances rather than admit the plain witness ofhistorical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater” (GeorgeHanson, The Resurrection and the Life).The reason why there are so many theories that attempt to discredit the Gospel accounts is thatmen are willfully blind sinners who do not want to submit to God (2 Corinthians 4:4).Further, the unbelief of “Christian preachers” such as Kirsopp Lake was prophesied in Scripture(2 Peter 2:1-2).3. The changed lives“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut whereTHE DISCIPLES WERE ASSEMBLED FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS, came Jesus and stood inthe midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (John 20:19).Something dramatic happened to turn the disciples from fear to courage.Consider the testimony of PeterAfter denying Christ the night of His arrest, Peter was a defeated man. He determined to go backto fishing (John 21:3). A few weeks later, the man who had denounced Christ before a handful ofJews on the eve of Christ’s crucifixion, preached boldly to a multitude of them on the day of69

Pentecost and 3,000 were converted. What could have wrought such a mighty change other thanthat he had become convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead?Consider the testimony of James, Jesus’ half brotherJesus’ brothers were opposed to Him during His lifetime (John 7:7), but after Jesus rose from thedead, James believed and became a leader in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18;Gal. 1:19). James’ conversion was prompted by Christ’s resurrection appearance to him (1 Cor.15:7).Consider the testimony of PaulWhat converted Paul from being a bitter enemy of Christ to being one of His most zealousfollowers? From an earthly perspective, Paul had absolutely nothing to gain and everything tolose by following Christ. He admitted that he had “profited in the Jews’ religion abovemany” (Gal. 1:14). Paul testified that it was the resurrected Christ who convinced him (Acts22:3-21).As a zealous Pharisee and leader of Christ’s enemies among the Jews, Paul was in a position toknow all about the story about the disciples stealing the body. Had he thought that Jesus’ deadbody actually lay hidden somewhere, he would never have believed in the resurrection. It isobvious that even he did not give any credence to this story.Consider the testimony of lawyers and judgesThomas Sherlock wasn’t a lawyer but he was trained in law. He was a Cambridge-educatedtheologian in the Church of England, and he wrote a classic book that examines the evidence forthe resurrection of Christ from a courtroom perspective. It is titled The Trial of the Witnesses ofthe Resurrection of Jesus (1729). Sherlock wrote the book to rebut Deist Thomas Woolston’sskeptical book Discourses of the Miracles of Jesus Christ.“Within the framework of a courtroom proceeding in which the Apostles are on trial for faking the Resurrection,Sherlock pits Woolston’s own arguments against his own powerful defense of the ‘accused.’ Applying the logicand reason of the law to the Bible, this is a provocative and original interpretation of the story of Jesus' life anddeath” (Bookkilden.no).Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the most celebratedlegal minds of America. He is the author of the three-volume A Treatise on the Law of Evidence,which is “still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legalprocedure” (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, 1972, p. 463). After a thorough examination,Greenleaf concluded that Jesus did rise from the dead. In 1846 he published An Examination ofthe Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts ofJustice.70

“All that Christianity asks of men is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat itsevidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors andwitnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals.Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surroundingfacts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side ofthe adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidentlybelieved, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth” (An Examination of the Testimonyof the Four Evangelists).Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, said:“The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surelydepend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to havefaith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual andcircumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story istruth” (cited from Michael Green, Man Alive, 1969, p. 54).Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, testified that,“an overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence. ... [Christ’s]Resurrection has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyonddispute” (cited by Irwin Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible, p. xxiv, xxv).Edmund Hatch Bennett was dean of the Boston University School of Law for more than 20years, as well as a judge in the Massachusetts Probate Court. In 1899 he wrote The Four Gospelsfrom a Lawyer’s Standpoint. He begins by saying:“... this paper is the result of an effort, on my own part, to ascertain whether or not, independently of theexercise of a devout Christian faith, independently of any appeal to our religious sentiments, the truth of thestory told in the four Gospels could be satisfactorily established by a mere reasoning process, and by applyingthe same principles and the same tests to the Gospel narratives that we observe in determining the truth orfalsity of any other documents, or any other historical accounts.”Bennett makes the following argument:“These stories began to be published not long after the alleged crucifixion. Many persons were then living whocould have easily refuted the statements of the evangelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus werestill alive and active. The Scribe and the Pharisee, the Priest and the Levite, still smarted under his repeateddenunciations. They had the disposition, the opportunity, and the incentive to deny the story of the miraculousbirth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the sublime death, the astounding resurrection, and the gloriousascension of our Lord, had the then published description of these events been totally fabulous. But so far aswe know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, and for two thousand years theyhave been received and treated as veritable history.”Irwin Linton, a Washington D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, publishedA Lawyer Examines the Bible: An introduction to Christian Evidences in 1929.“Lawyers regularly sift through testimonies in order to separate falsehood from truth. A unique feature of thisbook is its weighing of testimonies in support of the Bible. Linton points out that lawyers ask witnessesseemingly trivial details because, while the main outlines of false testimony can be agreed upon in advance,the innumerable trifling details cannot. Apparent contradictions between the Resurrection accounts prove theabsence of collusion, and the fact that they can be resolved adds credibility to the testimonies. So, far frombeing fatal, the apparent contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection turn out to besupport for the authenticity of the event. On this, Linton cites Paley: ‘The existence of the difficulty proves thewant or absence of that caution which usually accomplishes the consciousness of fraud; and the solution71

proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread oftruth winds through the whole, which preserved every circumstance in its place’” (A Lawyer Examines theBible, 1949 edition, p. 75).J.N.D. Anderson (Sir Norman Anderson) is dean of the faculty of law in the University ofLondon and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He wrote Christianity theWitness of History: A Lawyer’s Approach (1969).“The most radical theory of all is to dismiss the whole story as deliberate invention. But there is scarcely asingle intelligent critic who would go so far. The adverse evidence is overwhelming. Think, first, of the numberof witnesses. Paul tells us that in 56 A.D. the majority of some 500 original witnesses were still alive; and wemust remember that most of the early records went out, as it were, with the collective authority of the primitiveChurch. Think, too, of the character of the witnesses. Not only did they give the world the highest moral andethical teaching it has ever known, but they lived it out, as even their opponents were forced to admit. Again,think of the phenomenal change which these men underwent because of this alleged invention. Is itconceivable that a deliberate lie would change a company of cowards into heroes, and inspire them to a life ofsacrifice, often ending only in martyrdom? Surely psychology teaches that nothing makes a man more proneto cowardice than a lie which preys on his conscience? Is it likely, moreover, that even in disillusionment oragony not a single one of these conspirators would ever have divulged the secret?” (Anderson, “The Evidencefor the Resurrection,” London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950).Albert Roper was a prominent Virginia attorney, a graduate of the University of Virginia lawschool, and one-time mayor of Norfolk. He made a thorough investigation into the evidence forthe resurrection of Christ, asking the question, “Can any intelligent person accept theresurrection story?” At the end of his research he concluded, “Can any intelligent person denythe weight of this evidence?” He wrote the book Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?In this age of science, how is it possible to believe in a bodily resurrection from the dead;isn’t this biologically impossible?Without doubt the resurrection from the dead is biologically impossible from the standpoint ofwhat is natural and observable, but Christ’s resurrection wasn’t natural; it was a divine miracle.The Creator is not limited by or subject to natural things that He Himself created.If the evidence is so strong, why doesn’t everyone believe?1. Many have never heard the evidence. I have had the privilege of preaching on the resurrectionof Christ to hundreds of university students in Nepal who had never before heard anything aboutit.2. Many are willfully blind; they refuse to believe in miracles (“willfully ignorant,” 2 Pet. 3:5).3. Many do not want to submit to God. Lee Strobel tells of an acquaintance who agreed that theevidence for Christ’s resurrection is overwhelming but he refused to believe, saying, “I don’twant a new master.”72

4. Many have believed. The Bible is the most popular book in world. It is expected that by 2020at least a portion of it will be available in every language, which testifies mightily to itspopularity and to the fact that multitudes do believe that Christ rose from the dead.Conclusion1. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the heart of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-8), and this isthe gospel we are to preach to every person (Mark 16:15).2. All men will be resurrected, either to eternal life or eternal punishment (John 5:28-29; Acts24:15). An individual’s destiny depends on his relationship with Jesus Christ. Man’s existence iseternal, and he cannot escape the reality of this fact by not believing.SUMMARY OF “EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST’S RESURRECTION”1. Christ staked his claim as the Son of God on the resurrection, repeatedly stating that He woulddie and rise from the dead.2. Three proofs of the resurrection are the following: First, the character of the Gospel accountsas to their lifelike detail and candor. Second, the empty tomb which can only be explained by theresurrection. Third, the changed lives, such as that of Paul who had nothing to gain andeverything to lose, humanly speaking, by claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE CHRIST’S RESURRECTION1. What verse says there are “many infallible proofs” of Christ’s resurrection?2. Why do Jesus and the Bible and Christianity rise or fall on Christ’s resurrection?3. In what book and chapter did Paul say that the Christian faith depends on the reality ofChrist’s resurrection?4. What are three great evidences for the resurrection of Christ?5. What are two facts that prove that Jesus’ tomb was empty?6. What are seven theories that have been proposed to account for the empty tomb?7. What are two reasons why we believe that the tomb guard was composed of Roman soldiers asopposed to temple police?8. Why is it impossible for Jesus to have merely swooned on the cross and to have recovered inthe tomb?9. In what passage did Paul say that the resurrected Christ was seen by more than 500 people atone time?10. Why is it unreasonable to think that the guards fell asleep while guarding Jesus’ tomb?11. What tells us that the Jewish leaders didn’t believe their own story about Jesus’ body beingstolen?12. What type of things did the early disciples suffer for their testimony that Jesus rose from thedead?73

13. How did Jesus prove that He had risen bodily and not merely as a spirit?14. How do Peter’s actions before and after the resurrection prove that Christ rose from the dead?15. Humanly speaking, what did Paul have to gain by testifying that he had seen the resurrectedChrist?16. Name three lawyers and judges who examined the evidence for Christ’s resurrection anddeclared it to be a fact of history.17. Name three men who were converted trying to refute the Bible.18. What are four reasons why men do not believe in Christ’s resurrection?74

ISRAEL IN PROPHECY☛ A PowerPoint presentation of this material on Israel in Prophecy is included in theUnshakeable Faith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and PrivateStudy” at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.The Bible’s amazing prophecies are evidence of its divine inspiration. They are clear and detailedand unfailing.This is in contrast to extra-biblical prophecies, which are typically vague and inaccurate.Consider the Sibyl prophetesses in the fourth century. When Maxentius consulted these beforemeeting Constantine in the battle on the banks of the Tiber, he was told, “On that day the enemyof Rome will perish.” This prophecy is so vague that it would apply to whoever won!The prophecies of Nostradamus were “cryptic” and “obscure.” Consider the following prophecythat is alleged to describe Hitler: “Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers: Thegreater part of the region will be against the Hister. The great one will cause it to be dragged inan iron cage, when the German child will observe nothing” (centuries #2, quatrain #24). This isso vague that it is meaningless.Consider astrology. The forecasts are usually very vague, such as, “Some friends may have thefeeling that you’ve been ignoring them.” And when the astrological forecasts are more precise,they are usually wrong. Two famous astrologers in Britain predicted that Hitler would not startWorld War II. Edward Lyndoe said, “The Nazis attacking Britain? Don’t make me laugh! Not asign in my charts” (June 25, 1939).Consider Jean Dixon. She prophesied that the Soviets would beat the U.S. to the moon, thatWorld War III would begin in 1958, and that a cure would be found for cancer in 1967.Consider Edgar Cayce. He prophesied that China would be converted to Christianity in 1968 andthat Armageddon would occur in 1999.Consider Islamic prophecy. The following refers to the “Dajjal” or the Islamic messiah. “TheDajjal will come forth having with him water and fire, and what mankind see as water will befire which burns and what they see as fire will be cold, sweet water” (Hadiths of Bukhari).Consider Hindu prophecy. The following describes the Age of Kali: “When deceit, falsehood,lethargy, sleepiness, violence, despondency, grief, delusion, fear, and poverty prevail, that is theKali Yuga.” This is so vague that it could describe any time since the fall of man.75

In contrast, Bible prophecy is clear and detailed and detailed, and it has never failed. Forexample, the prophecies about Christ’s first coming described the exact time of His coming, theexact place of His birth, the piercing of His hands and feet on the cross, the words that He spokefrom the cross, the soldiers gambling for His garments, and His burial in a rich man’s tomb,among many other details.The prophecies about Israel are equally precise.It is said that Frederick the Great once demanded proof in one word that the Bible is divinelyinspired. The answer provided by his chaplain was “the JEW, your majesty” (Robert Newman,“Israel’s History Written in Advance,” Evidence for Faith, edited by John Montgomery, pp.193-201).At the dawn of Israel’s experience as a nation, before she entered the Promised Land, Mosesprophesied her complete history. God warned that if Israel turned from His Law, He would judgeher.See Deuteronomy 28:25-32, 36-37, 63-67; 30:1-6.This prophecy was written in about 1450 B.C., or nearly 3,500 years ago.The prophecy describes Israel’s defeat at the hands of foreign powers, her eviction from the landand dispersion to the ends of the earth, and her return.1. Desertification of the LandMoses said Israel would become a desert. The rain would be powder and dust (Deut. 28:23-24),and the land would become “brimstone, salt, and burning” (Deut. 29:23).When Israel entered the land in the 15th century B.C. it was fruitful like a garden, and God gavethe land the early and latter rains. In Abraham’s day, 400 years earlier, the plain of Jordan insouthern Israel was “well watered every where ... even as the garden of the LORD” (Gen. 13:10).God described it as a land “flowing with milk and honey,” which speaks of a well-watered landfull of cattle and flowering plants (Deut. 31:20). The tribes of Reuben and Gad stayed on theeastern side of the Jordan because they “had a very great multitude of cattle” and they saw that“the place was a place for cattle” (Num. 32:1).They were describing a place in the southern part of the modern nation of Jordan that is harshdesert today. Obviously it was not a desert then, but because of Israel’s sin and idolatry, Godstopped the rains and the land became a barren desert, and most of it remains that today. Cropscan be grown in most parts of Israel only through irrigation. You can eke out a living with a fewsheep today (apart from irrigated ranches), but not with multitudes of them.76

Israel’s very land is a powerful witness to the accuracy of ancient Bible prophecy. Modern Israelhas performed an agricultural wonder through technology, but she has not been able to changethe fact that 80% of the land remains arid or semi-arid. And this was God’s judgment infulfillment of Bible prophecy.2. Dispersion and PersecutionMoses prophesied that Israel would “be plucked from off the land” and scattered “among allpeople, from the one end of the earth even unto the other,” and there she would “find no ease,neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart,and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thoushalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life” (Deut. 28:63-67).The prophecy began to be fulfilled with the destruction of Israel’s First Temple and her 70-yearcaptivity to Babylon in 586 B.C., but that was only the beginning. Moses said that theDeuteronomy prophecy would be fulfilled “in the latter days” (Deut. 31:29), which did not beginuntil the first coming of Christ.In 70 A.D. Israel’s Second Temple was destroyed by Roman armies and 65 years later Jerusalemwas razed after Rome put down the Bar Kokhba revolt. A pagan city was built on the site,dedicated to Jupiter. The Emperor Hadrian changed Judea’s name to Syria Palestina. Multitudesof Jews were slaughtered and most of the rest were carried away captive or fled to other parts ofthe world.For 1,900 years Israel has been dispersed, and she has been persecuted and tormented wherevershe has wandered.She has been hated by the Romans, the Greeks, the Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church, theByzantines and the Orthodox Church, the Spanish (the Jews were evicted from Spain in 1492),the Venetians (Jews were forced to live in the ghetto), the English (Jews were expelled fromEngland in 1290), the Russians (Jews were driven out of Russia in the 1880s), the Germans, theearly Lutherans, and many others. And anti-semitism is on the rise again today.The Holocaust of World War II was another fulfillment of the ancient prophecy in Deuteronomy28. The Holocaust museum in Jerusalem witnesses to the bitter sorrow that Israel experienced atthe hands of the Germans. The nine galleries in the main museum are devoted to differentchapters of the Holocaust, from the rise of Hitler to his death. There are hundreds of disturbingphotos and artifacts. Arrests in the middle of the night. Destroyed synagogues. Jews marked witharmbands and the star of David. Jews mocked, beaten, spit on, burned, shot, poisoned. Heaps ofcorpses. Frightened children. Pathetic faces peering out of cattle cars. Starved men.Yet Israel remained a distinct people through the long centuries of her dispersion. In 1754 BishopThomas Newton wrote of the Jews:77

“Their preservation is really one of the most illustrious acts of Divine Providence. They are dispersed amongall nations, yet not confounded with any. ... They can produce their pedigree from the beginning of theworld. ... After wars, massacres and persecutions they still subsist; they are still quite numerous. What but asupernatural power could have preserved them in such a manner as no other nation on earth has beenpreserved?” (Dissertation on the Prophecies, VIII, section 2).Walter Scott wrote:“The once mighty monarchies of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome have risen, flourished,and fallen, leaving no permanent results behind. But the Jews, whose reliable history goes further back thanany of those ancient kingdoms, are with us today. In physiognomy and national characteristics the Jew isunchanged in a history of nigh four thousand years. ... The Jews as a people cannot be destroyed. God istheir keeper and preserver, even while under His governmental judgment as they are today. The Jews, withouta home, without a country, without a government, without a head, are yet a people as distinct from theGentiles in national faith, feeling, and hope, as in the days of David and Solomon” (Walter Scott, At Hand, Or,Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, 1910)3. The Return to the LandBible prophecy not only described Israel’s dispersion and trouble, it foretold that Israel would bebrought back into her land (Deuteronomy 30:1-5).Many other prophecies describe Israel’s return.Bible believers knew that Israel was going to be restored because the prophecies required it. In1910, for example, when the Ottoman Empire still ruled the land of Israel and only a few Jewslived there, Walter Scott wrote:“The Restoration of the Hebrew Commonwealth is the first and indispensable necessity for the arrangement ofthe situation to suit the requirements of the prophetic orderly system mapped out in the Word. The wholeprophetic future depends on that primary fact. The Jew, and not the Gentile, is the centre of God’s governmentof the earth; hence all take shape and colour from the settlement of Judah in her land. This will be the greatpolitical event of the centuries, and one which will attract universal attention. ... whenever, and bywhomsoever, the return of Judah is effected, the result will be to change the whole political government of theworld. ... The Restoration of Israel to Palestine is the first and fundamental necessity demanded byprophecy” (Walter Scott, At Hand, Or, Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, 1910).What Walter Scott and other Bible believers long envisioned because of their faith in Bibleprophecy, happened in 1948. Israel was not only restored to the Holy Land, but she announcedthe establishment of a modern state.Restoration in two stagesIsrael’s return is described in the amazing prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14.Here Israel is described as a valley of dry bones. Verse 11 gives the interpretation: “these bonesare the whole house of Israel.” Dry bones was her condition for the past 2,000 years. She wasscattered to the ends of the earth, and it appeared that she was dead and finished.78

Ezekiel is told that Israel will be brought to life and restored in two stages. First, she will bebrought back to the land but in a spiritually dead condition. Verse 8 says the dead bones wereraised but “there was no breath in them.” Then, she would experience spiritual revival. This willhappen during the Great Tribulation just prior to Christ’s return.This is where Israel stands today. At midnight on May 14, 1948, the new state of Israel wasannounced. The official declaration said:“We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Medinath Yisrael (TheState of Israel). ... The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of theirdispersion ... Our call goes out to the Jewish people all over the world to rally to our side in the task ofimmigration and development and to stand by us in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream ofgenerations for the redemption of Israel. With trust in Almighty God, we set our hand to this Declaration, at thisSession of the Provisional State Council, on the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel Aviv, on this Sabbatheve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth of May, 1948.”Eleven minutes later U.S. President Harry Truman, a Baptist, announced his recognition ofIsrael.The Jews celebrated throughout the world. Thanksgiving services were held in synagogueseverywhere. In Rome the Jews paraded under the Arch of Titus, which memorializes thedestruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They were saying, “We’re back from the dead!” It was a mostdramatic fulfillment of Ezekiel 37. The ancient Roman Empire with all of its glory is gone, butIsrael remains.Immediately the new Jewish state was plunged into the War of Independence as the Jews wereforced to defend itself against large, well-supplied Arab armies. The Arab League was composedof Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Britain had done everything it could to arm the Arabsand to disarm the Jews. Israel’s enemies not only attacked from outside the country; they werealready entrenched within the country when the fighting started.Israel won the War of Independence against all odds, but that was only the beginning of herstruggle. In 1956 the Suez War was fought to force Egypt to allow access for Israel’s shipsthrough the Suez Canal. Then there was the Six-Day War in 1967 against the coalition of Egypt,Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, with Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria contributingtroops and arms. The Six-Day War was followed by Egypt’s War of Attrition against Israel from1968-70. Then there was the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Israel was attacked on YomKippur, or the Day of Atonement, by Egypt in the south and Syria in the north. These twoMuslim nations were joined in a support role by Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Uganda, Cuba, Morocco, and Pakistan. The Soviet Unionprovided planes, tanks, and armaments of all sorts, including thousands of missiles targetingIsrael’s air force. Israel was massively outgunned.79

These major wars against Israel are only the tip of the iceberg. There has been continual militaryconflict with Muslim groups such as the Palestine Authority, the Palestine LiberationOrganization, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Jihad.Thus, it is in the face of great opposition that Israel is back in the land, and her continuedpresence there has been a constant miracle.But Israel is spiritually blind and dead, just as Ezekiel prophesied.The signs are all too evident.Israel’s spiritual blindness is evident in her stubborn rejection of the Messiah. We were told byour Jewish guide that it is against the law in Israel to preach Christ publicly or to distributeGospel tracts. When we tried to talk to him about Jesus the Messiah, he refused to listen, curtlyending the conversation with the statement, “That is your opinion.” This exemplifies the frightfulcondition of the vast majority of Jews today.Israel’s spiritual blindness is evident in Israel’s overweening pride. For the most part, Israel ispuffed up and does not glorify God even for the miracle of her restoration and the winning of hermodern wars. While throwing a few crumbs of thanksgiving and acknowledgment to God forthese great miracles, Israel’s leaders and military heroes and technology typically get the bulk ofthe credit. Nothing has changed since Gideon’s day, when God had to take away the vastmajority of Israel’s army and leave only 300 fighting men so that she would not glorify herselffor the victory.Israel’s spiritual death and blindness is evident in that a large percentage of Jews today are“secular,” meaning they care little or nothing about the Old Testament Scripture. They follow afew religious traditions and rituals, but their hearts are far from God. They talk about God, butthey don’t obey Him. Many of Israel’s most revered modern war heroes were adulterers andsabbath breakers.Israel’s spiritual death is evident in that she has exalted rabbinic tradition to an authority aboveGod’s Word. Even the ultra-orthodox are no better than the Pharisees of old. They pray, but theirprayers are vain showy rituals. They visit the Wailing Wall to be near the old Holy of Holies andmake a great show of putting on their phylacteries in just the right manner and praying in acertain posture and with certain movements. They keep dietary laws (kosher), but they go farbeyond what the Bible commands. For example, the Bible says you must not seethe a kid in hismother’s milk (Deut. 14:21). Jewish tradition adds to this by concluding that it is wrong to mixmeat with any dairy product such as cheese. (No cheeseburgers!) God’s Law does not requirethis. It is vain human tradition that has been added to God’s holy Law. As in Jesus’ day, the Jewsstill strain at gnats and swallow camels (Mat. 23:24).80

Israel’s spiritual blindness is evident in the field of archaeology. Jewish archaeologists, whoshould be at the forefront of finding evidence for the truth of the Bible, are among its fiercestenemies. We are told that the archaeologists in Tel Aviv are at the forefront of biblicalskepticism. Adam Zertal, who has excavated Joshua’s Altar at Mt. Ebal, told Steve Rudd that“the most anti-Biblical forces in archeology are the professors in the various universities inIsrael” (“Joshua’s Altar,” http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm).In spite of her blindness, Israel is fulfilling Bible prophecy. She is back in the land and she ispreparing for the building of the Third Temple, which is prophesied in Scripture. A $2 milliongolden candlestick sits just across from the Temple Mount, waiting for the Third Temple, as mutewitness to the divine inspiration of the Bible. The Bible says this temple will be occupied by theAntichrist (Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).The revival of Israel will occur during the Great Tribulation after the Rapture of church-agesaints.SUMMARY OF “ISRAEL IN PROPHECY”1. In contrast to pagan prophecies, Bible prophecies are clear and detailed and unfailing.2. The great prophecy in Deuteronomy 28 described Israel’s entire 3,500 year history before sheeven entered the land of Canaan. It says that she would disobey God’s Word and be evicted fromthe land and be dispersed among the nations where she would have continual trouble. It says herfertile land would become a desert. It says she would eventually return to the land and berestored to the place of God’s blessing, but her return would occur in two stages: first in unbelief,then in spiritual revival. Every part of this ancient prophecy has been fulfilled except for the finalrevival.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ISRAEL IN PROPHECY1. What is the difference between Bible prophecy and pagan prophecy?2. In what book of the Bible was Israel’s entire history pre-written before she entered thePromised Land?3. When was this prophecy written?4. What three major events did this prophecy foretell?5. How is Israel’s land different today than it was when she entered it under Joshua’s leadership?6. God said that if Israel sinned against Him her rain would become what?7. Moses prophesied that after Israel was plucked from the land, what would happen to her?8. When and with what event did the dispersion of Israel from the land begin?9. When was the Second Temple destroyed and by whose armies?10. Why is it miraculous that the Jews have survived as a people through 2,000 years ofdispersion and persecution?11. Why did Bible believers in the 19th century know that Israel would return to her land?81

12. What chapter in Deuteronomy prophesies the return of Israel?13. What prophet described the return of Israel in two stages?14. What is the name of this prophecy?15. In what chapter of his book does he describe this?16. What are those two stages?17. In what year did Israel announce her new statehood?18. What U.S. president recognized Israel’s new state?19. Name three major wars that Israel has fought with her Muslim neighbors.20. What is Yom Kipper?21. What is the first reason that we know that Israel is spiritually dead today?22. Who are the “most anti-Biblical forces in archaeology” today?82

ARCHAEOLOGY☛ NOTE TO TEACHERSWe recommend that you first go through the introduction to evolution with the class and thenuse the PowerPoint/Keynote presentations for the section on Archaeological TreasuresConfirming the Bible. After each PowerPoint presentation use the summary and review questionsfrom the book.83

INTRODUCTION TO ARCHAEOLOGY1. The explosion of archaeological research in the last 150 yearsIn 1784, German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder wrote:“In the Near East and neighboring Egypt everything from the ancient times appears to us as ruins or as adream which has disappeared ... The archives of Babylon, Phoenicia and Carthage are no more; Egypt hadwithered practically before the Greeks saw its interior; thus, everything shrinks to a few faded leaves whichcontain stories about stories, fragments of history, a dream of the world before us” (Johann Gottfriedvon Herder, Ideas for the Philosophy of History of Humanity, 1784-91, cited from M. Larsen, “Orientalism andthe Ancient Near East,” Culture and History 2, 1987, p. 96).As we will see, this is no longer the case. Today we know a great deal about ancient nations andkingdoms described in the Bible’s earliest pages. We don’t have just “a few faded leaves” ormere stories about stories; we have museums and libraries full of historical information. We haveentire ancient cities that have been earthed.2. The major benefits of archaeology for the ChristianFirst, archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible and thus encourages faith ineverything the Bible states.Beware of archaeologists who want to separate historical from theological evidence. Forexample, consider the following statement by Alfred Hoerth, retired director of archaeology atWheaton College, where he taught for almost 30 years:“Some people mistakenly use archaeology to confirm, authenticate, or prove the Bible. ... Even if everyhistorical statement in the Bible could be proven true--confirmed--this would still not prove the theologicalmessage of the Bible. There is a tendency by some Christians to assume too much from archaeology.Sometimes the words confirm, prove, authenticate, and substantiate can be employed. ... It must berecognized that there is a clear separation between historical and theological proof” (Hoerth,Archaeology and the Old Testament, pp. 18, 20).This is actually a sap toward liberalism. It is a half-truth that tends to be a smokescreen for thefact that the author does not believe in the infallible inspiration of Scripture and holds to theisticevolution.While it is true that historical evidence does not absolutely prove the theological message of theBible, the Bible itself leads us to expect historical evidence. The Bible claims to be an historicalrecord. It claims to be founded upon infallible historical proofs (Acts 1:3). Thus, history andtheology are friends. Every historical evidence for the Bible confirms its theology.It is true that archaeology cannot prove that Christ was born of a virgin or that He walked on thewater, but it can demonstrate that the Bible’s history is accurate and can thus give us confidencethat whatever the Bible says is true.84

The Bible is like a very old friend with vast knowledge and experience. Since he has proven tobe honest and faithful in all of his dealings with us and accurate in all of the statements that hehas made, we have no reason to suspect him of fabricating things or creating myths. To thecontrary, we have every reason to believe whatever he tells us.Second, archaeology provides background information to better understand the Bible.For example, archaeology has thrown great light on the ancient civilizations such as Egypt,Babylon, and Assyria. Knowledge of these discoveries is a great aid to understanding thebackground of Old Testament times and events.Consider the excavations of Ur. Today we know a lot about the city that Abraham grew up in, theeducation he received, perhaps even the type of house that he lived in. In fact, at thearchaeological site of Ur in Iraq, we can see the very streets on which he might have strolled anddoorways through which he walked and the temples upon which he gazed.Consider the excavations of Shushan (Susa). At the Louvre in Paris we can see actual artifactsfrom the throne room of the Palace of Shushan, articles that would have been seen by Esther andDaniel and Nehemiah. We can much better understand the environment in which the events ofthe biblical book of Esther transpired.3. The sufficiency of evidenceGod gives enough evidence to prove that the Bible is true for the unbiased, but enough is leftunproven and enough questions remain to give the willful unbeliever rope to hang himself.As the renowned Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf stated:“Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to thedaring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless andperverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man’s responsibility. All that Christianity professes,is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer” (TheTestimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence).In His story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, Jesus warned that no amount of evidencewill convince a committed skeptic. The Word of God itself is the ultimate evidence, and men arerequired to believe it (Luke 16:27-31).A committed skeptic would not be convinced if he saw Noah’s ark with his own eyes and if Noahhimself rose from the dead to tell the story.85

4. The limitations of archaeologyArchaeology is a friend to the Bible as long as its evidence is not misinterpreted throughevolutionary bias and as long as its limitations are clearly understood.Kaveh Farrokh, a historian of ancient Persia, has likened archaeological findings to “shadows inthe desert.” This is an apt description. We can learn something from a shadow, but we cannotlearn everything. The archaeological shadow of ancient times should never be used to overthrowthe sharp details of reality found in Scripture!Of archaeological dating systems, the renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley said:“Archaeological excavation provides us with a relative sequence ... but it does not of itself offer an absolutechronology in years ... Even when written records provide information upon which such an absolutechronology can be constructed, the further this goes back in time the greater grows the possible margin oferror. Any system we adopt still has to be regarded as tentative and liable to revision, possibly major onesbefore the middle of the second millennium B.C.” (Ur of the Chaldees, revised by P.R.S. Moorey, p. 16).In his biography of King Hammurabi of Babylon, Marc Van De Mieroop admits that the dates hegives for Hammurabi’s reign (1792-1750 B.C.) are not certain and adds, “The chronology ofearly Mesopotamian history and how it relates to the Common Era is not fully clear...” ThoughHammurabi is one of the best known rulers of the ancient Mesopotamian world, actually little isknown about him. Van De Mieroop says, “the material on Hammurabi is so fragmentary that itleaves much of his life in the dark.”Alexander the Great built one of the greatest ancient empires and left his name everywhere, butonly a few archaeological documents have survived that actually contain his name. If this is sofor someone like Alexander, how much more is it true for someone like Abraham, Moses, orDavid.It is ridiculous to allow such an inexact science to correct the Bible!Consider some of the specific limitations of archaeology:First, archaeology is limited by the material it has to work with.Some of the following is adapted from Edwin Yamauchi:a. Ancient pagan empires did not record their defeats.“The peoples of the ancient Near East kept historical records to impress their gods and also potentialenemies, and therefore rarely, if ever, mentioned defeats or catastrophes” (Charles Aling, Egypt and BibleHistory from Earliest Times, p. 103).86

Thus, we would not expect to find extra-biblical evidence of such things as Israel’s exodus fromEgypt or the destruction of Sennacherib’s army outside of Jerusalem.b. Only the minutest fraction of what has been made or written has survived.“The marvel was that any ancient Egyptian monuments were left at all, for such destruction and dispersionhad been practiced both by the ancient Egyptians themselves and for several thousand years thereafter bythe Greeks, Romans, Copts, Turks and Arabs, not to mention frequent European vandals” (Charles Breasted,Pioneer to the East, p. 191).“The ancient written documents we read today survive by accident. Often they are not ones which modernscholars would have chosen if they had had any say. ... Even when a wide variety of documents is available,as in Egypt or Babylonia, they are still a selection, and they give incomplete and unbalanced pictures” (AlanMillard, Treasures from Bible Times, p. 25).Consider, for example, the fact that hundreds of years of ancient Egyptian records are missingentirely.Consider the fact that for the reign of the Persian king Cyrus the Great, his rise to power, and thefall of Babylon, a MAIN SOURCE of information is the Nabonidus Chronicle at the BritishMuseum, which is a mere fragment of a tablet. “It provides a rare contemporary account ofCyrus’s rise to power and is the main source of information on this period. Amelie Kuhrtdescribes it as ‘the most reliable and sober account of the fall of Babylon’” (“NabonidusChronicle,” Wikipedia).How pathetic that a mere fragment of a tablet would be called “the main source of information”for that period, but this is the reality of archaeology.Consider the Stele of Ur-Nammu. Dating to about 2100 B.C. it is the oldest known tabletcontaining a law code. Originally 10 feet high, what exists today is just fragments. Evenreconstructing portions of it has been difficult and some parts of the reconstruction arequestionable. Yet countless reports and some entire books have been written about thisfragmented item, and the reason is that as pathetic as it is as a solid historical document, it is oneof the best witnesses we have of that era.Vast numbers of ancient documents were written on perishable material such as parchment andwax boards, which survive from ancient times only in extremely unusual circumstances such asthe dry caves of the Dead Sea region. Even there, most of the ancient scrolls had degeneratedinto a bewildering jumble of parchment scraps by the time they were discovered in the 1940s.Only a pathetic pittance of such documents dating before Christ have survived from Egypt,Israel, and neighboring lands.“Palestine has a damp climate in winter on account of its rainfall. In such a climate ink is very quickly washedoff hard clay, and papyrus soon disintegrates. Greatly to the distress of archaeologists, scientists andhistorians, all of them thirsting for knowledge, practically the sum total of Canaan’s records and documentshas been lost to posterity for this reason” (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, p. 202).87

What we have from ancient times are a few scraps, fragments. The British Museum, the Louvrein Paris, and other prominent museums display the most important ancient documents, andthough they are great treasures, they are also pathetic broken scraps of things. Of the ancientrecord, we have only bits and pieces.c. Only a fraction of archaeological sites have been surveyed or excavated, and only a fraction ofan excavation site is actually examined.“The Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin once estimated that at the rate he was excavating the 200-acre biblicalsite of Hazor it would take eight thousand years to finish. How long would it take to completely excavate theeight thousand acres of Caesarea Maritima!” (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology,d. Only a fraction of what excavators find actually survives.Many of the materials unearthed by Botta and Layard, the first excavators of Babylon andAssyria, perished when exposed to the air.“M. Botta was not long in perceiving that the building which had been thus partly excavated, unfortunatelyowed its destruction to fire; and that the gypsum slabs, reduced to lime, were rapidly falling to pieces onexposure to the air. No precaution could arrest this rapid decay; and it was to be feared that this wonderfulmonument had only been uncovered to complete its ruin. The records of victories and triumphs, which hadlong attested the power and swelled the pride of the Assyrian kings, and had resisted the ravages of ages,were now passing away for ever. They could scarcely be held together until an inexperienced pencil couldcopy them, and thus secure evidence of their existence. Almost all that was first discovered thus speedilydisappeared; and the same fate has befallen nearly everything subsequently found at Khorsabad” (Ninevehand Its Remains, p. 9).“The colours, particularly the blues and reds, were still fresh and vivid when first discovered; but on exposureto the air they faded rapidly” (p. 95).“Several helmets of other shapes, some with arched crests, were also dug out; but they fell to pieces almostas soon as exposed to the air; and I was only able to collect a few of the fragments” (p. 241).e. Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published.“This increasing fractional improbability creates odds that are extremely heavy against tradition interlockingwith inscriptions or materials” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament).Second, archaeology is limited by the fact that it is an evolving science.“Archaeological interpretations are in a constant state of flux and often wither as grass, but God’s Word abidesforever” (Garry Brantley, “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Christianity,” ApologeticsPress.org).The books A Century of Biblical Archaeology by P. Moorey and Shifting Sands by Thomas Davisdocument the fact that each generation of archeologists since the early 19th century has sharplycriticized the previous generation. The title “Shifting Sands” does not refer to actual sand but tothe shifting theories and methodology of archaeology.That archaeology is not an exact science is evident by the fact that archaeologists disagree, oftenvehemently, among themselves on a large number of points. For example, the original excavators88

of Ebla, Paolo Matthiae and Giovanni Pettinato, so strongly disagreed on the interpretation of theartifacts that their friendship and scientific cooperation was destroyed (Hoerth, Archaeology andthe Old Testament, p. 74).Third, archaeology is limited by its unreasonable predilection to doubt the Bible.The skepticism that is rampant in the field of archaeology deeply colors its interpretation of theevidence. The unwillingness to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt is unreasonable and iscontrary to the way that archaeologists typically treat extra-biblical material.Dr. Bryant Wood observes:“Secular scholars are generally of the opinion that any aspect of the early history of Israel prior to the kingdomperiod cannot be taken at face value unless the veracity of the events described can be validated by means ofindependent witnesses. This approach is strongly biased and nonscientific. Other ancient documentsare assumed to be accurate unless there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. These documentsare just as religious as the Bible, as the writers of ancient texts regularly mention their pagan gods andwhat the gods did on their behalf” (“Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Conquest,” Bible and Spade, Fall 2005).Garry Brantley adds:“We must be aware [of archaeology’s] limitations, and deficiencies. The dating methods employed (e.g.,radiocarbon, dendrochronology, pottery, and others) are imperfect, and are always based upon certainassumptions. Further, we should be aware of the current anti-biblical trend among many archaeologists.As with any scientific discipline, we need not sift God’s Word through the sieve of archaeological inquiry.Archaeological interpretations are in a constant state of flux and often wither as grass, but God’s Word abidesforever” (“Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Christianity,” ApologeticsPress.org).5. The skepticism that permeates the field of archaeologyThe Bible warns that skepticism will be rampant before the return of Christ.Psalm 2 describes the entire world in open rebellion to God and Christ and to God’s Word.In his second epistle, Peter described scoffers in the last days who will deny the worldwide Floodand hold to the evolutionary doctrine of uniformitarianism (2 Peter 3:3-6). Verse three indicatesthat the scoffers are motivated by their desire to live according to their own lusts instead of insubmission to God’s Word. They are “willfully ignorant,” meaning that they refuse to believeeven when confronted with the truth.It is not surprising, then, that the field of archaeology has been rife with unbelief since itsinception and this skepticism has increased steadily.Consider Randall Price’s account of his first day at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:“On my first day in a course on the history of early Israel, the teacher, who was one of Israel’s foremosthistorical archaeologists, stated with complete conviction: ‘Abraham never existed, but his cousins did!’ Theprofessor went on to explain that the biblical stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were simply campfire89

accounts that had been passed down through the centuries and had grown into legends (he used the wordsaga). He said the Patriarchs were only a backward projection created by nationalist Jews during the mid-firstmillennium (600-400 B.C.). These nationalists were seeking to create a glorified though nonhistoricalpast” (The Stones Cry Out, p. 90).Archaeology grew up in an atmosphere of theological and spiritual skepticism. In the 19thcentury, theological modernism, unitarianism, evolution, and humanistic philosophy weremaking great strides both in church and society. From its inception, archeology was influencedby this skepticism.Consider some prominent examples:James BreastedHe was founder of the Oriental Institute in Chicago where many artifacts from ancient Assyria,Babylon, and Egypt are housed, and he occupied the first chair of Egyptology in America. Hisexpeditions to Egypt were funded by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.The following information is from Pioneer to the Past: The Story of James Henry Breasted byCharles Breasted, 2009:James Breasted’s mother believed in the infallible inspiration of Scripture. “Like all her family,she had been brought up to respect the Scriptures as infallible, the one perfect thing in a sinfulworld” (p. 22).In his youth, James felt called to preach “... it suddenly flashed into my mind as if conveyed byan electric spark, that I ought to preach the gospel. From that time to this, this consciousness hasnever left me. ... I could hardly think of a verse of scripture but it was fraught with some occult[hidden] message to me, and one followed me continually, ‘The Lord hath need of me’” (p. 16).His sense of divine calling and his faith in God’s Word was ruined by the skeptical environmentinto which he was immersed at Chicago Theological Seminary, Yale University, and theUniversity of Berlin. He came to believe that “man himself had created the concepts he attributedto divinity...” (p. 29)Eventually he subscribed “almost militantly” to “a new humanism” (p. 85). He believed that manhas entered a new age. His communion with devils led to a belief in pantheism. He believed thatdeath is the end of the soul, saying to his son that he was content to “go out like a spark forever.”Breasted accepted Darwinian evolution and promoted an evolutionary “theory” of human historyin his influential textbook Ancient Times. It became a classic in its field and was translated inChina, Japan, Malay, Palestine, Syria, and Iraq (p. 231). Of his own evolutionary history, H.G.Wells said he had “stolen a lot from Breasted” (p. 245). Breasted’s book was even cited byClarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial. Darrow’s opponent, William Jennings Bryan, rightly90

“pilloried the book as a consummate example of the kind of iniquitous falsity which he insistedwas destroying American religious faith” (p. 230).Breasted said of himself, “I am a proud fellow, proud as Lucifer, and my pride and my will, willcarry me through almost anything” (p. 241).Frederic KenyonKenyon treated the Bible in a very naturalistic fashion, denying its divine inspiration andpreservation. He claimed that the Pentateuch was written by unknown authors and was not puttogether in its present form until the time of Ezra or even later (Our Bible and the AncientManuscripts, p. 32). He theorized that the author of the book of Acts was some unknowncompanion of Paul who edited Luke’s history by his own authority.Edward RobinsonThe son of a clergyman, Robinson came under the influence of Moses Stuart at AndoverSeminary. Stuart is called “the father of modern biblical study in America,” referring to the factthat he introduced German critical scholarship to the U.S. Stuart “had serious reservationsregarding the accepted doctrine of verbal inspiration” (Shifting Sands).William AlbrightThe “The Albright School” of archaeology is named after William Foxbright Albright.Thoughreputed to have been very conservative, it was quite liberal when viewed from a Bible-believingperspective.Albright was trained at Johns Hopkins University under Paul Haupt, who held the evolutionarydoctrine of the formation of the Old Testament. His view, known as pan-Babylonianism, heldthat the authors of the Bible were influenced by paganism. Haupt was a follower of JuliusWellhausen and held the documentary doctrine of the Pentateuch. He was a contributor to thePolychrome Bible, which was color-coded to identify the alleged source documents that werepieced together to form the first six books of the Bible.Albright eventually rejected Wellhausen’s position on the almost complete non-historicity of theOld Testament, but Albright also denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. His opposition toWellhausen’s work was “not with the purpose of supporting the Bible as the Word ofGod” (Shifting Sands).Albright claimed that “the theory of verbal inspiration--sometimes miscalled a doctrine--hasbeen proved erroneous” (The Archaeology of Palestine, 1954 edition, p. 128).91

As soon as one gives up the infallible inspiration of Scripture, the battle has been lost. TheScripture can be defended successfully only on the basis of what it claims to be and what JesusChrist and the apostles said it was: the infallible Word of God. Any other position is unbelief, andwithout faith it is impossible to please God or to defeat the devil (Hebrews 11:6; Ephesians6:16). Christ said the Word of God cannot be broken (John 10:35) and He defeated the devil bythe absolute authority of Scripture (Luke 4:4, 8, 12).We must understand that those who defend a partially-inspired Bible are not the friends of truth.Their writings should be used only with great caution.Albright helped Bible believers in many ways through his research, but he also hurt them greatlywhen he led the charge to re-date the conquest of Palestine by Israel.“Initially, both Garstang and Albright held to the early date of the conquest (1400 B.C.). However, duringexcavations at Beitin, which he assumed was Bethel, Albright faltered and finally moved to a later date for theconquest (c. 1250 B.C.; Albright, 1957, p. 13). ... Due to this evidence, and similar finds at other sites, coupledwith Albright’s pervasive influence, the date of 1220-1230 B.C. for the conquest has prevailed since the1950s” (Garry Brantley, Digging for Answers, p. 52).Eventually, Albright was influenced by neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth, and hiswife converted to Roman Catholicism.Archibald SayceSayce, president of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, was considered to be conservative, buthe accepted the liberal documentary doctrine of the Pentateuch. He viewed archaeology, ratherthan the Bible, as the final arbiter of truth. Thus, he rejected the use of “Philistine” in the book ofGenesis because archaeology did not support the presence of the Philistines at that time (ShiftingSands).George Ernest WrightWright felt a call to the Presbyterian ministry and trained at McCormick Theological Seminary inChicago. He was subsequently ordained in the liberal United Presbyterian Church. After workingunder William Albright’s tutelage at the Bethel excavations in Israel, Wright studied archaeologyat Johns Hopkins. He completed his Ph.D. in 1937 and began teaching Old Testament atMcCormick in 1939.Wright tried to form a synthesis between evangelicalism and modernism. He accepted the criticaldocumentary approach to the Old Testament, believing that Joshua was the work of “aDeuteronomic editor who used several preexisting sources” (Shifting Sands). He did not believein the historicity of the man Joshua. He rejected the evolutionary approach to the development ofIsrael’s religion, but he was willing to allow archeology to overthrow the Bible. He said, “We92

must study the history of the Chosen people in exactly the same way as we do any other people,running the risk of destroying the uniqueness of that history” (Shifting Sands).By the end of his life, Wright concluded that “the problem of the Scripture’s truth and validitycannot be solved” (Shifting Sands).This is a brash and sad denial of the necessity of faith (Hebrews 11:6).The students of Albright-WrightAlbright and Wright’s influence on their own students was very negative.They were nearly all ordained ministers, but they “left the pulpit to focus on archaeology.” Theyalso rejected faith in an infallible Bible for the shifting sand of theological liberalism. “Thesestudents felt the need to distance themselves from their mentors. The result was cataclysmic forbiblical archaeology” (Shifting Sands).William Dever was a prominent example of this new approach. He totally rejected the validityof biblical archaeology, saying, “... we ought to stop talking about ‘Biblical archaeology.’”Paul Lapp was another one of Wright’s students who rejected his teacher’s position. He statedthat “history is ultimately a personal construction” (Shifting Sands). This is a relativisticapproach to history that does not allow for an infallible divine revelation. Lapp drowned at age39.Nelson GlueckGlueck has been widely quoted as stating, “It may be categorically stated that no archaeologicaldiscovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference,” but he was not a Bible believer in the truesense of the word. An ordained Jewish rabbi, Glueck “accepted the existence of legend andfolklore in the Bible” (Shifting Sands). He believed that the Bible contains “saga, legend andmyth, fact and folklore” (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31).Israel Finkelstein and Neil SilbermanThroughout the 20th century, skepticism increased dramatically within the field of archaeology.Today the dominating “minimalist movement” is more liberal than ever in its approach toScripture.Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman represent the apex of Jewish archaeology today.Finkelstein is the director of Tel Aviv University’s excavations at Megiddo. Their book The BibleUnearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts is avicious attack on the Bible’s divine inspiration and historicity. The conclusion of this book is93

that “there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Mosesand the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy ofDavid and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything aboutancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of KingJosiah” (“Joshua’s Altar,” http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-ofjoshua.htm).The EvangelicalsMost “evangelical” archaeologists cannot be trusted, either. Afflicted with the pride ofscholarship and not wanting to be thought of as Bible “hicks” in the eyes of the big names in thefield, who happen to be skeptics, even professing evangelicals have shied away from boldlystanding for the Bible’s absolute incorruptible infallibility. The Bible warns that “evilcommunications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33), and many evangelicals have beennegatively influenced through their training at the feet of modernists.The evangelicals who have tried to hold on to a belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, haveoften compromised with modernism by rejecting a six-day creation, holding to at least partlynaturalistic explanations for such things as the judgments on Egypt, the journey through the RedSea (capitulating to the Reed Lake theory), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (theearthquake theory), and the universal Flood.For example, Alfred Hoerth, who taught archaeology at Wheaton College for almost 30 years,believes in the mythical evolutionary ages of development, such as the neolithic period, claimingthat man gradually developed the use of metal working (Archaeology and the Old Testament, pp.36, 82), whereas the Bible plainly states that this was known by Adam’s immediate sons(Genesis 4). Hoerth says that “fossils and mastodons date to prehistoric times” (p. 15). He allowsfor a naturalistic explanation of the destruction of Sodom (p. 98), says the crossing of the RedSea was actually the crossing of the Reed Sea (p. 167), questions the number of Israelites in thewilderness (p. 178), is neutral about the extent of the Flood (p. 189), and allows for billions ofgeological years, considering it a non-issue (p. 199).6. The importance of checking the skepticsIn light of the previous point, it is necessary to double check any claim that the Bible has beendebunked. The Bible believer must be very skeptical of the skeptics!For example, Wikipedia’s article on Bryant Wood says, “He is known for his 1990 proposedredating of the destruction of Jericho to accord with the biblical chronology of c. 1400 B.C. Theproposal was later (1995) contradicted by new radiocarbon evidence, and Kathleen Kenyon'sdating of c. 1550 B.C. remains the date accepted in scholarly publications.”94

(In my experience, Wikipedia should never be trusted when it deals with people and topicstouching on the defense of the Bible.)Actually, the radiocarbon evidence is inconclusive (which is typical) but it actually falls againstKenyon’s dating and gives support for Wood’s position! See http://creationwiki.org/Jericho_chronology_disputeFurther, Wood gives several important reasons why Kenyon’s analysis should be rejected, noneof which are mentioned in the Wikipedia “hit piece.” Consider the following:First, she only excavated one-third of the territory that her predecessor John Garstang hadexcavated in the 1930s.Second, she claimed that Cypriot bichrome pottery was absent from the site and that this wasevidence that Jericho had ceased to exist by 1400 B.C., but Garstang had published descriptionsof a “considerable quantity of pottery decorated with red and black paint which appears to beimported Cypriot bichrome ware, the type of pottery Kenyon was looking for and did notfind” (Wood, 1990, 16[2]:52).Third, she ignored evidence that she herself had unearthed that points to a 1400 B.C. destructionof the city. This consisted of bowls, cooking pots, and small dipper juglets “all of which werecharacteristic of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1400 B.C.)” (Garry Brantley, Digging forAnswers, p. 61).Fourth, she ignored the amazing archaeological facts that confirm the Bible’s account of the fallof Jericho. The wall was fallen down in the manner described in the Bible. “What she did findwas a large deposit of red bricks outside the revetment wall, which formed a sloping incline fromthe top of this retaining structure to ground level. Both Kenyon and other archaeologists believethese bricks were the remains of the walls surrounding the city” (Brantley, p. 62). The walls fellbefore the city was set afire. Large amounts of grain were still in the storage bins in the houses,which confirms the Bible’s account which says it was harvest time (Joshua 2:6) and is consistentwith Joshua’s command not to take anything from the city (Joshua 6:17-18).7. Archaeology’s evolutionary mythsArchaeology is typically built upon the evolutionary assumption that man evolved from a stoneage to a bronze age to an iron age, each evolutionary ascent being accompanied by changes inculture and religion. Typically the iron age is said to have begun in about 1200 B.C.For example, Frederic Kenyon attributed the features of the Jordan Valley to vast terrestrialmovements two million years ago, and William Albright claimed that “Homo sapiens” evolvedartistic abilities sometime around 30,000 to 20,000 B.C.95

As we have seen, even “evangelicals” commit this heresy. Consider the following statements byAlfred Hoerth, former director of archaeology at Wheaton College:““Fossils and mastodons date to prehistoric times. ... The term neolithic is used to designate a periodbeginning with the domestication of plants and animals and ending with the introduction of metals ... TheNeolithic period was a time of profound change in human society as the focus changed from hunting andgathering to domestication and farming. ... there were no metal tools in Neolithic times” (Archaeology and theOld Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998, pp. 15, 36, 38, 82).Actually, there were no “prehistoric” times and no times when man did not use metal. This is amythical evolutionary concept. The Bible plainly states that Adam’s immediate children knewhow to domesticate plants and animals and work with brass and iron (Gen. 4:20-22).In fact, there is archaeological evidence of iron instruments more than 1,500 years before thesupposed iron and bronze age.“At a site in Mesopotamia about fifty miles northeast of Baghdad, called Tell Asmar today, but known in ancienttimes as Eshnuna, Henri Frankfort of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago found evidence of aniron blade from the level of 2700 B.C. A small steel ax from Ur and other very early objects of iron have alsobeen found. The fact that a greater abundance of iron has not been found seems to indicate that it was notwidely used in early times, but another contributing factor may be that iron oxidizes more quickly andcompletely than copper and, having disintegrated, would not be as readily detected in excavating. Numerousarchaeological discoveries give evidence of the use of copper during the period 4300-3000” (Joseph Free,Archaeology and Bible History, p. 37).8. Archaeological dating methodsArchaeological dating methods are based on evolutionary assumptions and inexact methodology.Since the late 1800s, pottery has been viewed as one of the most trusted means of dating ancientsites. It is called “ceramic typology.” In 1890, Flinders Petrie observed that each layer at Tel Hesicontained its own unique type of pottery. The method is based on the hypothesis that types ofpottery changed with time and that the prevalence of a certain type of pottery in a certainarchaeological strata indicate a unique time period. The method was further developed byWilliam Albright in the 1920s and 1930s at Tel Beit Mirsim in southern Palestine. “His workremains the basis of all modern ceramic typology, which is constantly being refined bycontinuing excavation” (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 15).The pottery dating method has some benefit, but it is very inexact and leaves room for subjectiveinterpretation.Archaeologist John Laughlin lists two problems:First, a standard pottery type might have had many variants.96

Second, similar ceramic types might not date to the same era; some types may have survivedlonger than others, and different manufacturing techniques and styles might have beenintroduced at different times in different locales.Alan Millard warns: “[Pottery] cannot be very precise, for a fashion may last longer in one placethan in another, and some evidence may be missed” (Treasures from Bible Times, p. 92).As for the Carbon-14 dating method, it is based on evolutionary assumptions. Chiefly, it assumesthat the earth is millions of years old and that the rate of radiocarbon decay has remained steady,but none of this has been proven. We have discussed the problem of radiometric dating in thebook Seeing the Non-existent. A good article on this is “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon andTree-Ring Dating” by Trevor Major, ApologeticsPress.org.9. Skeptical misinterpretation of the BibleThough liberals and skeptics refer to the Bible and pretend to disprove it, it is typical for them togrossly misinterpret it. Being predisposed to skepticism, they see errors where none exist. GarryBrantley gives two examples of this:“The meager appreciation for the historical thrust of these books has led to an imprecise reading of theirinformation. The prevailing perception among critical scholars, for example, is that Joshua and Judges presentconflicting pictures of the conquest, which further heightens skepticism regarding their historical credibility.Allegedly, Joshua presents a largely successful military penetration into Canaan, whereas Judges indicatesthat it was a much more protracted and complex affair. Critical scholars argue that, due to these apparentconflicts between the accounts, Joshua and Judges mutually undermine each other’s historical credibility. ...However, once the purposes of both Joshua and Judges are understood, and when the totality of biblicalinformation regarding the conquest is considered, these objections to the historicity of the conquest aspresented in the Bible largely are answered” (Brantley, Digging for Answers, pp. 56, 57).“Scholars generally assume that the Bible presents a violent, military conquest of Canaan involvingwidespread destruction. Yet the archaeological evidence does not paint such a picture. ... Yes, the Bibleindicates that, in certain instances, there was total destruction of a city, including all its inhabitants. But it alsorecords that, in general, the total destruction of property was relatively limited. ... Joshua explicitly mentionsproperty destruction in only three cases: Jericho (Joshua 6:34); Ai (Joshua 8:28; 10:1); and Hazor (Joshua11:12-14). ... Immediately following this report, however, an important qualification is added: ‘But as for thecities that stood on the mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only, which Joshuaburned’ (Joshua 11:13)” (Brantley, pp. 58, 59).10. The non-evidence of silenceAs we will see in these studies, archaeologists have often tried to discredit the Bible on the basisof silence from extra-biblical sources. This was a prominent method used by liberals in the 19thcentury. Since, for example, they had no extra-biblical evidence of writing dating to earlier thanabout 1000 B.C., they claimed that the biblical account of writing in ancient times was wrong,and since there was no extra-biblical evidence for camels in Palestine in Abraham’s day, theBible must be wrong, and since there was no extra-biblical evidence for the Hittites or Ur or thePhilistines or King David, etc., they must not have existed.97

It should be obvious by now that silence from extra-biblical sources is not evidence against theBible. In all of these cases, archaeology has subsequently provided extra-biblical evidence andthe argument from silence was proven to be bogus.The problem is that silence is still used to discredit the Bible. One must give liberals credit forpersistency! Like one positive-minded woman once said when challenged as to what good thingcould be said for the devil, “He’s always on the job.”11. Supportive background evidenceEven when there is no direct archaeological evidence for biblical events, there is supportivebackground evidence.Though there is no direct archaeological record of such things as Joseph in Egypt or Abraham inCanaan, the biblical account fits everything archaeologists have learned about those eras.The following statement about the times of Joseph could be said about every other era describedin Scripture:“The chapters relating to the life of Joseph in Egypt, from his servitude in Potiphar’s house, through his rise asa non-Egyptian to high office, to the embalming and mourning for Jacob and then for Joseph himself, faithfullymirror what is known of the culture of that country” (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 79).This is powerful evidence for the authority of the Bible, because it proves that the writers knewexactly what they were talking about and that they lived in direct connection with the eventsabout which they were writing. If they were inventing things or writing long after the events, thiswould be evident by the lack of accuracy in the details.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON INTRODUCTION ON ARCHAEOLOGY1. Before the explosion of modern archaeology Johann Gottfried von Herder described theevidence for ancient civilizations as “a few _________ leaves which contain stories aboutstories, ____________ of history...”2. What are two benefits of archaeology for the Christian?3. Why is the Bible’s theological message authenticated when its history is authenticated?4. Simon Greenleaf said, “Christianity does not profess to convince the _________ and___________.”5. In what book and chapter of the Bible does Jesus say that if men will not believe the Scripturethey will not believe even if someone rose from the dead?6. What are three limitations of archaeology?7. Most ancient documents perished because they were written on material such as ___________and ________________.8. Why did the Dead Sea Scrolls survive?9. Why is it unreasonable for archaeologists to refuse to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt?98

10. What Psalm describes the world in open rebellion against God and Christ?11. James Breasted subscribed to a _____ ______________.12. Where did Jesus say the Word of God cannot be broken?13. How did Christ defeat the devil?14. How did William Albright hurt the cause of Bible believers?15. Was Nelson Glueck a Bible-believing Christian?16. What verse warns that evil communications corrupts good manners?17. Where does the Bible say that Adam’s first children knew how to work with metal?18. The Bible believer must be very _______________ of the skeptic.19. Where does the Bible teach that man advanced gradually from the stone age?20. Where does the Bible describe “prehistoric times”?21. What supportive background evidence has archaeology found for the times of Joseph?99

IMPORTANT OLD TESTAMENT DATESThe following dates were developed by the brilliant biblical scholar James Ussher (1581-1656),author of The Annals of the World. He used the genealogies in the Hebrew Bible instead of thecorrupt Greek Septuagint, as well as the best extra-biblical sources available, and we have noreason to believe that he erred significantly in the following dates. His dating system hasappeared in annotated editions of the King James Bible since about 1700 and was widelyaccepted until theistic evolutionists and other long-age theorists compromised Bible history in avain attempt to reconcile it with evolutionary science.These dates may not be exact, but they are doubtless very near correct, because the Bibleprovides explicit chronological information.“There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providinginformation on the age of the Earth and humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating the Bibleprove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about giving man exactchronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge of the period back toAbraham, plus two tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam. The ancient Jewish historians (1 Chronicles1:1-27) and the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as literaland consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that God created the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers(Genesis 1:16) for Adam and his descendants (notice how Noah logged the beginning and the ending of theFlood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11; 9:14)” (Bert Thompson, “The Bible and the Age of the Earth,”August 1999, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/85).4004 Creation3074 Adam’s death2348 The Flood2289 Nimrod’s birth2247 The Tower of Babel1996 Abraham’s birth1994 Noah’s death1926 Abraham departs Ur1890 Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah1491 The Exodus1451 Israel enters Canaan1095 Saul anointed king1055 David takes throne975 Kingdom divided957 Solomon’s Temple built721 Northern kingdom destroyed by Assyria612 Nineveh’s destruction586 First Temple destroyed by Babylon516 Second Temple built100

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TREASURESCONFIRMING THE BIBLEThis report is a survey of important artifacts confirming the Bible that are found in prominentmuseums and archaeological sites. In the context of this research we have visited the BritishMuseum, the Louvre in Paris, the Oriental Institute in Chicago, the University of PennsylvaniaMuseum, the Bible Museum in Brussels, the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, and manymuseums and sites in Rome, Israel, Turkey, and Greece.Archaeology has confirmed the Bible’s historical accuracy to an amazing degree, in spite of thefact that most archaeologists have been infected with various levels of end-times skepticism.Joseph Free testifies,“I do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong” (Archaeology and Bible History, p. 114).Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck agreed, even though he was not a Christian,“... it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historicalstatements in the Bible” (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31).While it is true that historical evidence does not absolutely prove the theological message ofScripture, the Bible itself leads us to expect historical evidence. The Bible claims to be foundedupon infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Therefore, history and theology are friends. Every historicalevidence for the Bible should strengthen our faith in its teaching.It is true that archaeology cannot prove that Jesus was born of a virgin or that He rose bodilyfrom the dead, but it can demonstrate that the Bible’s history is accurate and can thus give usconfidence that everything else the Bible says is true.The Bible is like a very old friend with vast knowledge and experience whose statements havestood the test of repeated and strenuous attempts at discreditation. We thus have every reason tobelieve whatever he tells us.ANCIENT WRITING☛ A PowerPoint presentation of this material on Ancient Writing is included in the UnshakeableFaith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at thebeginning of the course for tips on using this material.101

In the 19th century it was believed by theological modernists that writing was not sufficientlydeveloped by Moses’ day for him to have written the early books of the Bible. Writing forliterary purposes supposedly was not invented until the classical period of Greek history in about1000 B.C. This view originated with Andrew Wolf and first appeared in 1795 in his Prolegomenato Homer. H. Schultz is an example of the 19th-century skeptics who were promoting Wolf’sdoctrine. In Old Testament Theology (Vol. 1, p. 25) Schultz wrote: “The time, of which the pre-Mosaic narrations treat, is a sufficient proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to allknowledge of writing.” Infidels such as Robert Ingersolls used this argument against the Bible.Archaeologists now know that writing was developed around 3150 B.C., at the latest. In Originsof the Alphabets, Joseph Naveh says, “Inscribed artifacts from archaeological excavations showthat man had a knowledge of writing as early as the late 4th millennium B.C.” (p. 6).There is vast evidence for this at the British Library, the Gutenberg Museum in Germany, theLouvre in Paris, and the Oriental Institute in Chicago, among other places.3150 B.C. was more than 1,500 years before Moses and in fact carries us back to the lifetime ofAdam by biblical chronology. Adam died in about 3075 B.C., and Noah’s Flood was about 2500B.C.Since the late 19th century, archaeology has discovered that the ancient kingdoms in the lands ofthe Bible--Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia--were literate societies full of schools and librariesand international correspondence. Writing in 1904, A.H. Sayce could say:“The Babylonia of the age of Abraham was a more highly educated country than the England of George III. ...The Mosaic age, instead of being an illiterate one, was an age of high literary activity and educationthroughout the civilized East. ... From one end of the civilized ancient world to the other men and women werereading and writing and corresponding with one another; schools abounded and great libraries were formed,in an age which the ‘critic’ only a few years ago dogmatically declared was almost wholly illiterate. ... Thecivilized world was a world of books, and a knowledge of writing extended even to the classes of thepopulation who were engaged in manual labour” (Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies, 1904, pp. 35,40, 42, 43).Ancient libraries have been unearthed at Ugarit, Mari, Ur, Ebla, Nippur, Nineveh, and elsewhere.Tens of thousands of ancient documents dating to Abraham’s age and earlier prove the existenceof a highly literate civilization. Extensive government and business records were kept andinternational correspondence was conducted in multiple languages.The ancient books include royal inscriptions, historical chronicles, mythological and religioustexts, legal contracts, royal grants, letters, and decrees, administrative documents, textbooks,mathematical tables, farmer’s almanacs, architectural drawings, and construction methods.Sumerian dates to the 4th millennium B.C., which takes us back to the earliest days of man bythe Bible’s reckoning.102

Egyptian in hieroglyphic and hieratic dates to about 3200 B.C.Akkadian dates to about 2500 B.C. and was a Semitic language akin to Hebrew. It was used inthe Babylonian and Assyrian empires. More than 40,000 tablet fragments in Akkadian wererecovered from the ancient city of Nippur alone.Hurrian dates to about 2300 B.C. and was spoken in northern Mesopotamia in the Mitanni andHittite empires.Eblaite, another Semitic language, dates to the third millennium B.C. It was the chief language ofthe city state of Ebla. 17,000 tablets were excavated from there in the 1970s.Hittite dates to about 2000 B.C. and was the chief language of the Hittite kingdom.Ugaritic dates to about 1400 B.C. A library was unearthed at the ancient city of Ugarit in the1930s.The keys to unlocking the ancient languagesPrior to the 19th century archaeologists and historians could not read the most ancient languages.The Egyptian language was written in hieroglyphic, which used word pictures and symbols, andin hieratic which was sort of a cursive form of hieroglyphic.The Mesopotamian languages were written in cuneiform, which was a wedge-shaped script.Hieroglyphic and cuneiform were not languages; they were types of script in which ancientlanguages were written.The Rosetta Stone: Unlocking EgyptianThe discovery of the Rosetta Stone in the late 18th century and its translation in the early 19thwas the key to unlocking Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. The stone was inscribed in the secondcentury B.C. with a decree by King Ptolemy V of Egypt. Since it was written in three languages--hieroglyphic, demotic (a cursive form of hieroglyphic), and Greek -- it allowed linguists todecipher the unknown hieroglyphic by means of the known Greek.The 4 x 2-foot stone, weighing 1,600 pounds, was found in the Nile Delta by a French armyofficer named P.F. Bouchard in 1799 while Napoleon Bonaparte was in control of Egypt. It gotits name from the town in which it was found. Napoleon’s expeditionary force numbering 40,000included many of France’s best scientists.In 1801 the British routed the French, confiscated the Rosetta Stone, and shipped it to the BritishMuseum, where it has been on display ever since.103

The hieroglyphic language was deciphered by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1822. Hediscovered that the hieroglyphic signs were not merely individual symbols, but had phoneticvalue forming a readable language (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 56).The Rock of Behistun: Unlocking BabylonianIn the mid-19th century Henry Rawlinson, a major in the British army, found the key to unlockthe cuneiform languages. His discovery, the Behistun Relief, has been called the “Rosetta Stoneof the East.” (It is located in modern-day Iraq.)The Relief contains an account of the conquests of the Medo-Persian king Darius carved in threelanguages on a 400-foot-high rock face. It was visible from Ecbatana, Darius’s headquarters, andis located about 200 miles northeast of Babylon. The inscription is written in Old Persian,Babylonian (Akkadian), and Elamite (or Susian, named after Susa, the capital of ancient Elam).The Old Persian was used to decipher Babylonian.The Relief features a life-sized image of Darius with upraised hand. Darius is standing with onefoot on an enemy. Ten captives face him while two men stand behind him, one of these beingDarius’ son Xerxes who married Esther.The writing is chiseled into polished stone above and below the figures. It contains an account ofDarius’ rise to power. Part of it says, “I am Darius, Great King, King of Kings, the King ofPersia.” He was thus a worthy successor to the proud Nimrod, founder of the Babylonian andAssyrian kingdoms.Working at great physical risk, Rawlinson spent 12 years copying the inscriptions between1835-47.“Rawlinson repeatedly scaled the sheer cliff of Behistun to copy the inscriptions. His normal precariousposture while copying the cuneiform text was to poise himself on the top rung of a ladder with no support otherthan one arm on the rock face! On one occasion the rope ladder he was using broke and left him hangingfrom a narrow ledge until he was rescued” (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 59).When the ancient Babylonian language was deciphered, it opened up the records of the entireancient Mesopotamian world (biblical Shinar) to historians.HAMMURABI’S LAWIn the 19th century, theological liberals claimed that Moses could not have created the elaboratelegal code that bears his name because such laws were unknown in the ancient world until thetime of the Israelite kings.104

That was before the Code of Hammurabi was discovered in the Persian palace at Susa duringexcavations in 1901-1902. It is a block of polished black marble covered with cuneiform writing.Hammurabi was a prominent ruler of Babylon in the 2nd millennium B.C. (c. 1792-1750 B.C).He built an extensive empire of thousands of square miles by conquering neighboring kingdoms.The Code of Hammurabi stands about 7 feet 5 inches high. The original resides in the Louvre inParis, but there are copies in the Oriental Institute in Chicago, the University of Pennsylvaniamuseum and elsewhere.At the top of the block is a depiction of King Hammurabi of Babylon receiving the laws from thesun god Shamash, who is seated on a throne. Hammurabi raises his right arm in a posture ofworship, while Shamash holds a ruler and a rope symbolizing equity and justice.The introduction to the code describes how that Hammurabi promoted and supported the gods ofthe various cities under his rule, such as Marduk in Babylon.It is a lengthy code of law dating to about 300 years before Moses. It is now known that theselaws were disseminated throughout Western Asia wherever Babylon held power.For the Bible believer, the existence of a legal code before Moses is interesting but largelyirrelevant, because we know that his law was not based on any human code. It was divinelyrevealed by God on Mt. Sinai.There are many significant differences between Hammurabi’s law and God’s. For one,Hammurabi’s laws are not perfectly just and equal. For example, penalties differ according to thesocial standing of the victim and the perpetrator. In contrast, God’s law says:“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour theperson of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour” (Leviticus 19:15).“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not beafraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's” (Deuteronomy 1:17).The Code of Hammurabi is evidence that God put His moral law into man’s heart andconscience, but it has become corrupted with man’s fall.SUMMARY OF ANCIENT WRITING AND HAMMURABI’S LAW1. According to skeptics in the 19th century, writing was not invented until about 1000 B.C., butthis has been entirely debunked by archaeology.2. Archaeologists now know that writing was developed around 3150 B.C., at the latest. This ismore than 1,500 years before Moses. Archaeology has proven that the ancient kingdoms in Biblelands were highly literate.105

3. Ancient languages include Sumarian, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hittite.4. The key to unlocking Egyptian hieroglyphic was the Rosetta Stone, which was discovered in1799 by a French army officer. It was inscribed in three languages--hieroglyphic, demotic, andGreek--and the Greek was used to decipher the unknown hieroglyphic.5. The key to unlocking Babylonian cuneiform was the Rock of Behistun, which was transcribedby Henry Rawlinson in the 19th century. It was inscribed in Old Persian, Babylonian, andElamite, and the Old Persian was used to decipher Babylonian.6. The discovery of Hammurabi’s Law debunked the skeptics who claimed that complex lawswere not known in the days of Moses. Hammurabi was the king of Babylon, and his law dates toabout 300 years before Moses.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON IMPORTANT DATES, ANCIENT WRITING,HAMMURABI’S LAW1. What is the date of the Flood?2. What is the date when Abraham departed Ur?3. What is the date of the Exodus?4. What is the date when Israel’s kingdom was divided?5. What is the date when the First Temple was destroyed?6. Why did modernists in the 19th century say that Moses could not have written the early booksof the Bible in about 1500 B.C.?7. Archaeologists today believe that writing was developed in about when?8. Since the late 19th century, archaeology has discovered that the ancient kingdoms in the landsof the Bible were ____________ societies full of __________ and ____________ andinternational _____________________.9. Egyptian dates to about when?10. What were two great keys that led to the unlocking of ancient languages?11. What was cuneiform?12. What was hieroglyphic?13. Where was the Rosetta Stone found?14. What three languages does it contain?15. What was its significance?16. Where does the Rosetta Stone reside today?17. Where was the Behistun Relief found?18. The Behistun Relief contains an account of what king?19. Who transcribed the Behistun Relief?20. What is the significance of the Code of Hammurabi?21. Where was the Code of Hammurabi first found?22. Who was Hammurabi?106

23. When was the Code of Hammurabi written in connection with Moses?24. Why is the Code of Hammurabi irrelevant for the Bible believer?UR OF THE CHALDEES☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Ur is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.Skeptics claimed that Ur, the birthplace of Abraham, was a Bible myth, but the ancient city wasunearthed in the 1920s and 1930s under the direction of Charles Leonard Woolley. The amazingartifacts that have been recovered are housed in the British Museum and the University ofPennsylvania archaeology museum and elsewhere.The excavations at Ur provide a wonderful glimpse into the civilization that spread across thatpart of the world after the Flood and reveal the glories of the kingdoms established by Nimrodand his fellow kings and successors (Genesis 10:1-12; 11:1-4).We can better understand the world in which Abraham grew up and from which God called himin about 1920 B.C.We also see the type of pagan gods that Abraham’s father Terah worshipped (Joshua 24:2).Ur’s Technologically Advanced and Wealthy CivilizationUr was a great city of perhaps a quarter of a million people, perhaps twice that.The following is a description of the city from about 2500 B.C. to the time of Abraham:“It was an urban civilization of a highly evolved type; its artists, capable at times of a very vivid realism ...followed for the most part standards and conventions whose excellence had been approved by manygenerations working before them; its craftsmen in metal possessed a knowledge of metallurgy and a technicalskill which few ancient peoples have ever rivaled and which it must have taken long years to perfect; itsmerchants carried a far-flung trade, its agriculture prospered, its armed forces were well organized, and menpractised freely the art of writing. ...“Ur was a trading and manufacturing centre and its business extended far afield ... Raw materials wereimported, sometimes from overseas, to be worked up in the Ur factories; the bill of lading of a merchant shipwhich came up the canal from the Gulf to discharge its cargo on the wharves of Ur details gold, copper ore,hard woods, ivory, pearls, and precious stones” (Ur of the Chaldees, pp. 103, 213).“Broad fields of corn and barley swayed here. Market gardens, groves of date-palms and fig tees stretched asfar as the eye could see. These specious estates could cheerfully bear comparison with Canadian wheatfarms or the market gardens and fruit farms of California. The lush green fields and beds were interlaced by asystem of dead straight canals and ditches, a masterpiece of irrigation. ...“Many goods were manufactured in factories owned by the temple, for example in the spinning-mills which thepriests managed. One workshop produced twelve different kinds of fashionable clothing. Tablets found in this107

place gave the names of the mill-girls and their quota of rations. Even the weight of the wool given to eachworker and the number of garments made from it were meticulously recorded.“In one of the legal buildings they found copies of the sentences carefully stacked exactly as they are in theadministrative offices of modern law courts. ...“Ur of the Chaldees was a powerful, prosperous colourful and busy capital city in the beginning of the secondmillennium B.C.” (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 8, 16-19).The homes in Ur were impressive. The following is likely the type of house in which Abrahamgrew up:“An average dwelling measured forty by fifty-two feet. The lower walls were built of burned brick, the upper ofmud brick, and the whole wall was usually plastered and whitewashed. An entrance lobby led into the centralcourt, onto which all the rooms opened. On the lower floor were located the servants’ room, the kitchen, thelavatory, the guest chamber, and also a lavatory and wash place reserved for visitors. Thus all of the first floorwas utilized for the servants and guests; the second floor housed the family. The entire house of the averagemiddle-class person had from ten to twenty rooms” (Free and Vos, Archaeology and Bible History, p. 46).The rooms of the houses were filled with such things as tables, chairs (even of the foldingvariety), beds with wooden bedsteads, chests, ornate pottery, wickerwork, and rugs. The houseshad private wells, and some had a plumbing system to provide running water to kitchens andtoilets. Water and waste were carried away by a city drainage system.(The next few paragraphs are adapted from The Sumerians: Their History, Culture andCharacter by Samuel Kramer.)Ur’s skilled carpenters used hammers, saws, chisels, and drill bits. Metalworkers fashioned gold,silver, tin, lead, iron, copper, bronze, and antimony. They used techniques such as casting,hammering, annealing, filigree, and granulation.Leatherworkers tanned and fashioned the skins of bulls, calves, pigs, and sheep, making waterbags, harnesses, saddles, tires for chariot wheels, slings, shoes and sandals, and other types ofclothing. They used alkalies, sumac, and other ingredients for tanning and fat to make the skinssupple and impermeable.The huge textile industry at Ur consumed the wool of huge flocks of goats, sheep, and lambs, aswell as massive quantities of flax for linen. Using spindles and looms, a team of three womencould produce a piece of cloth 9 x 12 feet in eight days.Goods were transported by sledges, wagons (both two- and four-wheeled), chariots, and boats.On the rivers and canals boats were propelled by oars and sails, and some were pulled by men oroxen teams walking along the banks.An intricate system of canals, reservoirs, dikes, and ditches provided irrigation for the crops.108

The Ur civilization was skilled in the use of leveling instruments and measuring rods, in drawingand map making.Farming techniques were methodical and complex. There was a farmer’s almanac that providedinformation on weather and annual flooding and guidelines for planting and harvesting. Plantingbegan with a double plowing up of the field, followed by a harrowing, raking, and pulverizingprocess. They used plows with seeder attachments, so that they could plow and sowsimultaneously, the depth of seeding being precisely measured. They understood how to growbelts of trees for wind breaks. The farmers grew barley, wheat, millet, lentils, chick-peas, garlic,onions, lettuce, turnips, cress, leeks, mustard, and cucumbers, among other things.They raised sheep, goats, pigs, cows, and oxen, and consumed over 50 different types of fish thatwere caught with nets.(To here adapted from The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character by SamuelKramer.)The graves of the kings of Ur contained golden drinking cups, dishes, and goblets, wonderfullyshaped jugs and vases, bronze tableware, mother of pearl mosaics, ornaments made of gold,silver, and lapis lazuli (a semi-precious stone of an intense blue color). “Even the famous tombsof Nofretete and Tutankhamun [the Egyptian King Tut] contained no more beautiful objects. Thegraves of the kings of Ur are moreover 1,000 years older at least” (Keller, pp. 23, 24).There were harps and lyres and musical pipes. There were spears and helmets, daggers with goldblades and hilts of blue lapis lazuli decorated with gold studs with accompanying gold sheaths ofintricate design. There were game boards (British Library, Room 56, Case 16). There were modelboats and chariots.There was an amazing bright headdress of flowers and leaves fashioned from gold and silversheets and lapis lazuli (British Museum, Room 56, Case 12).One lyre was decorated with the head of a bull fashioned of gold with eyes, beard, and horn tipsof deep blue lapis lazuli (British Museum, Room 56, Case 9).An Ur king was buried with an amazing gold helmet, which is in Room 56 of the BritishMuseum (Case 17, WA 119296).“It was a helmet of beaten gold made to fit low over the head with cheek-pieces to protect the face, and it wasin the form of a wig, the locks of hair hammered up in relief, the individual hairs shown by delicate engravedlines. Parted down the middle, the hair covers the head in flat wavy tresses and is bound round with a twistedfillet; behind it is tied into a little chignon, and below the fillet hangs in rows of formal curls about the ears” (Urof the Chaldees, p. 58).109

Woolley observed that on the basis of these items we should accord the people of Ur “high rankin the role of civilized races.”A mosaic from one of the tombs (called the Royal Standard of Ur) was made of shell, redlimestone and lapis lazuli. One side depicts scenes of war and the other, a victory feast. It islocated in Room 56 of the British Museum.The war scene’s three rows are described as follows by the object’s discoverer, Woolley:“In the top row the king stands in the center, distinguished by his greater height, with behind him threeattendants or members of his house, and a dwarf-like groom who holds the heads of the two asses whichdraw the monarch’s empty chariot while the driver of it walks behind holding the reins; in front of the kingsoldiers are bringing up prisoners, naked and with their arms bound behind their backs, to him to decide theirfate. In the second row, come the phalanx of the royal army, heavily-armed infantry in close order with copperhelmets exactly like those found by us in the king’s grave, and long cloaks of some stiff material which I taketo be felt, just such cloaks as are worn by the shepherds of Turkey today, holding axes in their hands; in frontof them are the light-armed infantry without cloaks, wielding axes or short spears, already engaged with anenemy whose naked warriors are either fleeing or being struck down. In the lowest row we have the chariotryof Sumer, each car drawn by two asses and carrying two men, of whom one is the driver and the other awarrior who flings light javelins, of which four are kept in a quiver tied in the front of the car” (Ur of theChaldees, pp. 101, 102).The feast scene on the other side depicts the king and his courtiers banqueting in the top row. Thebanqueters are seated on chairs while servants attend them and a male harpist and female singerprovide musical entertainment. In the two lower rows “attendants are shown bringing in spoilscaptured from the enemy and food supplies for the banquet--one is driving a goat, another carriestwo fish, another is bent under the weight of a corded bale, and so on, several of the figures beingrepeated” (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 101).A statuette recovered from a soldier’s grave depicts a woman, thought to be his wife, wearing arobe composed of four flounces of decorative material. In real life each flounce would have beenabout a foot tall.The Ur women loved ornaments, such as “bronze and iron bangles and armlets, and bracelets ofrings or beads, ear-rings, and rings for the toes.” Rawlinson observes that in the tombs, fewfemale skeletons are without them. The wealthy had jewelry made of gold and silver and gems(British Library, Room 56, Case 12).Ur was involved in far-reaching shipping enterprise. Early inscriptions make frequent mention ofthe “ships of Ur” (George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies, Vol. 1). They were able tonavigate to considerable distances, and Rawlinson says that it may have been the astronomicalknowledge of the Chaldaeans which gave them the confidence to adventure on importantvoyages. One bill of lading from about 2040 B.C. was from a ship that had come up the PersianGulf to southern Mesopotamia after a two-year cruise to distant lands. The cargo included copperore, gold, ivory, hardwoods for the cabinet maker, and diorite and alabaster for making statuary(Free and Vos, pp. 46, 47).110

Ur’s LiteracyThousands of cuneiform tablets and fragments were found at Ur.Among these were student exercise books for learning how to read and write. There are tables ofverbs and tables of square and cube roots. The students at Ur had “a correct understanding of‘Pythagoras Theorem’--1,200 years before Pythagoras formulated it!” (Alan Millard, Treasuresfrom Bible Times, p. 53).The tablets at Ur also include religious myths, proverbs, riddles, essays, moral precepts,historical writings, medical, agricultural, legal, and business documents.Ur’s IdolatryUr was steeped in idolatry. The people worshipped many gods and goddesses, the chief of whichwere the moon god Sin (also called Nanna) and his wife, Ningal. Sin was also the chief god inHaran where Abraham’s father Terah died (Gen. 11:31-32).The symbol of the moon god was the crescent (Woolley, p. 175), which became the symbol ofIslam after Mohammed exalted the moon-god as Allah. E.M. Wherry, who translated a standardedition of the Quran, said that in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal,were both involved in the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A ComprehensiveCommentary on the Quran, 1973, p. 36).There was also Shamash, the sun god.Ningal was only one of many goddesses worshipped in Ur and its neighboring cities. There wasIshtar, Lama, Gula, Bau, among others. As we will see in the study on Babylon, goddess worshipbegan in Babel and spread throughout the earth. It still plays a large role in Hinduism, Buddhism,and New Age. In the first millennium A.D. it was Christianized by Roman Catholicism asMariolatry.There were idolatrous shrines scattered throughout Ur and in the individual homes.“We may safely imagine that throughout the whole of the sprawling town there were scattered templesdedicated to one or another of the innumerable gods. ... Such shrines appear to have been a particular resortof women” (Woolley, pp. 183, 212).Ur’s TowerThe central structure of ancient Ur was a gigantic staged tower or ziggurat devoted to Sin andNingal and the worship of the heavens (astrology).111

Originally it was 200 by 150 feet at the base and stood at least 75 feet high. Today it stands halfthat tall. The inner core was made of mud brick which was protected by a thick outer layer ofbaked bricks set in bitumen or asphalt (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 38). The use ofbitumen fits the description of the building of the first tower at Babel. There, too, they used burntbrick and slime or bitumen (Gen. 11:3). The word slime is translated “asphaltos” in theSeptuagint.The Ur tower had four stages, built one upon another in diminishing size, and on the top was ashrine room for the moon god.The tower was called “the mountain of God” and the stages depicted “as it were, a ladder to andfrom heaven” (Woolley, pp. 138, 139, 236), which reminds us of the Bible’s account of Ur’sneighbor Babel which says the people wanted to build a tower to reach to heaven (Gen. 11:4).The tower was very beautiful. None of the reconstructions I have seen do justice to this. Eachstage was a different color, the foundation was black and the upper stages, red and blue. Eachstage probably answered to the astrological colors associated with the planets (Woolley, p. 235).The shrine at the apex was built of bright blue-glazed bricks topped with a golden dome.Some of the doors of the temple were overlaid with gold (p. 164) and some of the walls andceilings were covered with sheets of gold “cut into openwork patterns with shield-shaped holesinto which were set inlays of agate or lapis lazuli” (p. 165).Parts of the temple buildings were decorated with beautiful designs fashioned from coloredcones pressed into thick plaster (Woolley, p. 37).The terraces of each stage of the tower were covered with soil and planted with trees. The towerhad an ingenious and complex irrigation and drainage system (Woolley, p. 145). “Thus we haveto imagine trees clothing every terrace with greenery, hanging gardens which brought morevividly to mind the original conception of the Ziggurat as the Mountain of God.”From that time forward, idolatry was associated with high places and “groves” and astralworship (Exodus 34:16; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; 2 Chron. 33:3).As the confounded Babel workers spread out and associated together by language, they carriedtheir idolatry and love for mystical religious towers with them, constructing them wherever theysettled. Woolley said the “great staged towers characterized the cities of Sumer” and were “apeculiar feature of Mesopotamian architecture” (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 118).112

Mass Suicide and Human sacrificeBuried with the kings of Ur were entire retinues consisting of teams of oxen harnessed to greatwagons laden with household furniture and accompanied by attendants. These apparently tooksome type of drug and died with their master.“All the bodies were so neatly placed, Woolley concluded the people had walked down the ramp to theirpositions, lain down, and drunk poison from a small cup. (Some of the cups were beside the bodies.)Undertakers then tidied the scene, killing the oxen, some of which lay on top of their human attendants, andleft. With great ceremonies and offerings, the shaft was refilled with earth” (Millard, Treasures from BibleTimes, p.p. 44, 45).Accompanying the dead kings in these amazing mass human sacrifices or suicides were grooms,soldiers, musicians, court attendants, and female servants. Hundreds of people were buried withthe Ur kings in this manner.Woolley, who headed up the excavation of the tombs, describes the scene of one of these burialsas follows:“The royal body was carried down the sloping passage and laid in the chamber, sometimes, perhapsgenerally, inside a wooden coffin, though Queen Puabi lay upon an open wooden bier and another queen inthe only other undisturbed burial was apparently stretched upon the floor of the tomb. Three or four of thepersonal attendants of the dead had their place with him or her in the tomb-chamber; thus, two were crouchedby Puabi’s bier and one lay a little apart and four shared the tomb of the other (nameless) queen; in theplundered tombs scattered bones betrayed the presence of more than one body. These attendants must havebeen killed, or drugged into insensibility, before the door of the tomb-chamber was walled up. The owner ofthe tomb was decked with all the finery befitting his station and with him in the chamber were set all suchobjects as we find in the graves of commoners, the only difference being that they are more numerous and ofmore precious material--the vessels for food and drink may be of gold and silver instead of clay--theattendants, on the other hand, while they wear what we may call their court dresses, are not laid out properlyas for burial but are in the attitudes of those who serve, and they are unprovided with any grave equipment oftheir own; they are part of the tomb furniture.“When the door had been blocked with stone and brick and smoothly plastered over, the first phase of theburial ceremony was complete. The second phase, as best illustrated by the tomb of Puabi and by RT789,was more dramatic.“Down into the open pit, with its mat-covered floor and mat-lined walls, empty and unfurnished, there comes aprocession of people, the members of the dead ruler’s court, soldiers, men-servants, and women, the latter inall their finery of brightly coloured garments and head-dresses of carnelian and lapis lazuli, silver and gold,officers with the insignia of their rank, musicians bearing harps or lyres, and then, driven or backed down theslope, the chariots drawn by oxen, the drivers in the cars, the grooms holding the heads of the draughtanimals, and all take up their allotted places at the bottom of the shaft and finally a guard of soldiers forms upat the entrance. Each man and woman brought a little cup of clay or stone or metal, the only equipmentneeded for the rite that was to follow. There would seem to have been some kind of service down there, atleast it is certain that the musicians played up to the last, then each of them drank from their cups a potionwhich they had brought with them or found prepared for them on the spot--in one case we found in the middleof the pit a great copper pot into which they could have dipped--and they lay down and composed themselvesfor death. Somebody came down and killed the animals (we found their bones on the top of those of thegrooms, so they must have died later) and perhaps saw to it that all was decently in order--thus, in the king’sgrave the lyres had been placed on the top of the bodies of the women players, leant against the tomb wall--and when that was done, earth was flung in from above, over the unconscious victims, and the filling-in of thegrave-shaft was begun. ...“The best example of the death-pit was that of our royal grave RT1237 ... The pit measured, at the bottom, 27feet by 24, and had the usual sloped approach and its sides had been mud-plastered and hung with matting.Six men-servants carrying knives or axes lay near the entrance, lined up against the wall; in front of them113

stood a great copper basin, and by it were the bodies of four women harpists, one with her hands still on thestrings of her instrument. Over the rest of the pit’s area there lay in ordered rows the bodies of sixty-four ladiesof the court. All of them wore some sort of ceremonial dress; a few threads and patches preserved by being incontact with stone or metal showed that this had included a short-sleeved coat of scarlet, the cuffs enriched inbeadwork in lapis lazuli, carnelian, and gold, with sometimes a belt of white shell rings; it may have beenfastened in front with a long pin of silver or copper; round the neck was worn a ‘dog-collar’ of lapis lazuli andgold together with other looser necklaces of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and carnelian beads; in the ears werevery large crescent-shaped ear-rings of gold or silver and twisted spirals of gold or silver wire kept in order thecurls above the ears. The head-dress was much like that of Queen Puabi; a long ribbon of gold or silver waslooped several times round the hair and, at any rate with those of higher rank, a triple band of gold, lapislazuli, and carnelian beads was fastened below the ribbon with gold beech-leaf pendants hanging across theforehead. Twenty-eight of these court ladies wore golden hair-ribbons, the rest silver. ...“It must have been a very gaily dressed crowd that assembled in the open mat-lined pit for the royalobsequies, a blaze of colour with the crimson coats, the silver, and the gold; clearly these people were notwretched slaves killed as oxen might be killed, but persons held in honour, wearing their robes of office, andcoming, one hopes, voluntarily to a rite which would in their belief be but a passing from one world to another,from the service of a god on earth to that of the same god in another sphere” (Ur of the Chaldees, pp. 72-78,80).Though it is possible that the higher-ranking attendants in the main chamber went willingly totheir deaths, it is apparent that at least some people were killed as human sacrifices in theconclusion to the gruesome pagan ritual.“The royal body with its attendants, many or few, was laid in the tomb, and the door was sealed and sacrificewas made in the little court before the entrance, and then this was filled in until only the crown of the domewas left above ground. Round it fires were lit and a funeral feast was held, and libations to the dead werepoured into the clay drain which ran down into the soil beside the tomb, and then more earth was thrown intothe shaft. Next an offering to the underworld gods was set out and covered with a clay bowl to shield it fromthe fresh earth which buried it; and then, in the half-filled pit, there was constructed in mud-brick what was tobe a subterranean building.“The filling-up of this building was done by degrees; clay was brought and trampled hard to make a floor overwhich offerings were spread and on which was laid the body of a human victim sacrificed in these later rites;earth buried these, and another floor was made and more offerings placed in order and another victim didhonour to the dead below, and this went on till the top of the walls was nearly reached...” (Ur of the Chaldees,pp. 85, 86).Confirmation of the BibleEverything that has been discovered about Ur fits the ancient Mesopotamian world as describedin the Bible.An advanced literate civilization is exactly what we would expect in light of the Genesis record,which says that Adam’s first children built cities and practiced such things as agriculture, animalhusbandry, music, and metal working (Genesis 4:16-22).The pagan idolatry, astral worship, and the religious towers are described in Genesis 10-11 andRomans 1:21-23.The spread of city-states across Shinar or Mesopotamia is described in Genesis 10:8-12.114

The timetable also fits the biblical scenario. When the Babylonian ruler Nabonidus restored theUr tower in his day (556-539 B.C.) he stated that it was originally built some 1,500 years earlier,which would have been about 2050 B.C. (Woolley found Nabonidus’ accounts of this on tablesin Babylon, The Bible in the British Museum, p. 89). By the biblical timeline, this takes us backto about two centuries after God confounded Nimrod’s Babel project. By then, the shock of thedivision of tongues had worn off, men were gathered together according to language and werealso learning to communicate cross-lingually, astral idolatry was spreading and religious towerswere being built in various places.Undying UnbeliefThough it is now obvious that Ur existed as a great city in Abraham’s day, unbelievingarchaeologists have found another way to discredit the Bible. They claim that Ur was notassociated with the Chaldees until centuries later; therefore, the Bible is wrong to use that term inreference to Abraham’s day. Archaeologists cannot prove that the Bible is wrong here, but sincethey have not found corroborating evidence they are quick to charge the Bible with error.This reminds us that there is never enough evidence for those who are willfully blind. Jesus saidthat if men do not believe the Scripture, they will not believe even if someone rose from the deadand appeared to them (Luke 16:27-31).SUMMARY OF UR1. Skeptics were debunked when Ur was unearthed by archaeologists in the 1920s and 1930s.2. Ur was a city state ruled by a king and was technologically advanced and wealthy. It was amanufacturing center and had far-reaching trading enterprises. It was an agricultural powerhousewith an intricate irrigation system and a farmer’s almanac. The typical homes were two story andsome had plumbing. There was a city drainage system. There were metal works, carpentry,leather works, jewelry making, spinning mills, and pottery. There was music and a variety ofmusical instruments.3. Ur was a highly literate society.4. Ur was steeped in idolatry, with the chief gods being the moon god Sin and his wife, thegoddess Ningal. Another chief god was Shamash, the sun god. Following the example ofBabylon, Ur had a gigantic tower devoted to Sin and Ningal and the worship of the heavens.Originally it was 200 by 150 feet at the base and stood at least 75 feet high and had four stages.5. At death, the kings of Ur were accompanied by a large retinue of attendants.115

6. The archaeology pertaining to Ur has confirmed the Genesis account. It was a city state afterthe fashion of what we read in Genesis 9-10. It was an advanced literate civilization, and it wasdevoted to idolatry.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON UR1. Ur was the birthplace of what famous Bible figure?2. When was Ur unearthed by archaeologists?3. The excavations at Ur provide a glimpse into what?4. How large was ancient Ur?5. Ur was a _______________ and _______________ center.6. Ur’s great agricultural fields have been compared to ____________ wheat farms or the marketgardens and fruit farms of __________________.7. The typical home in ancient Ur was how many stories and had how many rooms?8. Water and waste were carried away by a city _______________ ____________.9. What are three types of industry that thrived in ancient Ur?10. How were the crops irrigated?11. How did the Ur farmers get information on weather and guidelines for planting?12. What types of musical instruments were used in Ur?13. What is the Royal Standard of Ur and what does it depict?14. What type of animals pulled the Ur war chariots?15. The chariots carried how many warriors?16. What type of weapons were used by the Ur soldiers?17. How do we know that music was used in the Ur banquets?18. Ur was involved in far-reaching ________________ enterprise.19. How do we know that ancient Ur was a literate society?20. What was Ur’s chief god?21. This god was also the chief god of __________ where Abraham’s father died.22. What was the symbol of Ur’s chief god?23. What was the name of the chief goddess worshipped at Ur?24. What was another chief god of Ur?25. What was the central building at Ur?26. How many stages did it have?27. How were the kings of Ur buried?28. In what four ways does the archaeological excavation of Ur confirm the Bible?116

EGYPT☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Egypt is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.The following overview of Egypt’s ancient history under the pharaohs is adapted from AllanMcRae:It is usual to think of ancient Egyptian history as divided into 30 dynasties. This idea is taken from a book onEgyptian history by Manetho, an Egyptian priest, who wrote about 250 B.C. Selections from Manetho’s bookhave been preserved in extensive quotations by later writers.The Old Kingdom is the title given to the first time of great royal power (about 2700 to 2200 B.C.), runningfrom dynasties three to six. At this period the pharaohs were very dictatorial. They were able to gatherhundreds of thousands of people each year during the season when the Nile overflowed its banks and madeagricultural work impossible and compel them to work energetically for long periods in order to build thosetremendous burial monuments called the pyramids. During this time the religion glorified the sun god, butthere were many subordinate deities.The Middle Kingdom (about 1991 to 1786 B.C.) was a new time of great power beginning when the kings of aregion in the S, centering around the town later known as Thebes, became supreme over all Egypt andestablished their power in the delta. They worshiped a local god called Amun (formerly written Amen or Amon).This was the period of the Twelfth Dynasty. These kings put foreign lands under tribute and directed a hightype of civilization. It ends with the coming from Asia of a foreign group that possessed a new weapon, that ofhorse-drawn chariots which enabled them to make a lightning attack and to conquer a large section of Egypt.These Hyksos (sometimes called Shepherd-kings), held much of the land in subjection for over a century.Eventually they were driven out.The New Kingdom, also called the Empire, followed the expulsion of the Hyksos. It lasts from about 1570 to1078 B.C. These kings worshiped the god Amun, whom they considered to be identical with the earlier sungod,Re, and therefore often referred to as Amun-Re. A multitude of other gods were also worshiped in Egypt,but the priests of Amun-Re became so important that eventually a very large proportion of the land of Egyptcame to be the property of the temples of the god Amun. The 18th dynasty includes a series of great rulers, anumber of whom went by one of two names: Thutmose or Amenhotep. This was a time of Egyptian militaryprowess, and the erection of great monuments and temples. The 19th dynasty (about 1303 to 1197), evenmore than the 18th, was a period of great building. Largely as a result of the activities of the kings of these twodynasties, tremendous ruins stand at Thebes today, making it the great outdoor museum of the world. Therewere a series of kings named Ramses (or Ramesses). Ramses II, also known as Ramses the Great, builtmore temples and erected more statues and obelisks than any other pharaoh in history.Between the 7th and 4th centuries B.C. Egypt was harassed and sometimes partly conquered by theAssyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians. In 332 Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, and after hisdeath a year later, one of his generals, named Ptolemy, seized Egypt and established a dynasty thatcontinued for three centuries (adapted from MacRae, Biblical Archaeology, 2005, pp. 9, 10).The first mention of Egypt in the Bible is in Genesis 12 when Abraham went there to escape thefamine in Canaan. That was about 1900 B.C.It was to Egypt that Jacob and his sons moved to escape the great famine after Joseph becamevice-ruler. Israel dwelt in Egypt for 400 years before departing under the leadership of Moses inabout 1490 B.C.Egypt was often used by God to judge Israel during the time of the Judges and the Kingdom.117

Joseph in EgyptNo direct evidence of Joseph’s rule in Egypt or of Israel’s sojourn there have been uncoveredthrough archaeology, but this is not surprising for three reasons:First, the archaeological record from that time period is scant and the ancient documents writtenon papyri have perished.Second, the Egyptians did not leave historical narrative writings similar to the book of Genesis orthe books of Samuel and the Kings.“No attempt is made to give a full picture of a historical situation or development. A continuous account of thereign of successive kings has nowhere been found. ... A great handicap in the study of Egyptian literature, asfar as its use for history is concerned, is the fact that most of it was written for an immediate purpose, oftenmerely to glorify the person involved, and never simply to preserve historical records” (Allan MacRae, BiblicalArchaeology).Third, most of the ancient Egyptian records are from the accounts of military victories, and nopharaoh would have recorded a great defeat such as they were dealt by the God of Israel.Though there is no direct confirmation of Joseph from archaeology, there is a great deal ofindirect evidence authenticating the biblical record.“The background of the story of Joseph contains many passages that can be vividly illustrated by Egyptiancircumstance at this general period. Thus we find in Egyptian records that the position that Potiphar gaveJoseph when he put him over his household was one that existed in the houses of great Egyptian nobles ofthe time; that the king of Egypt was called ‘pharaoh,’ the term used in the Bible; that ‘chief of the butlers’ and‘chief of the bakers’ were titles given to important officers in pharaoh’s court; that the signet ring, the ‘vesturesof fine linen,’ and the ‘gold chain about his neck’ were just what an Egyptian king would be apt to give to onewhom he was placing in authority over the whole country; and that the mummification of Jacob and of Josephwas in accordance with Egyptian custom. These and other elements of the general background can beabundantly verified from ancient Egyptian records. All this is general corroboration” (MacRae, BiblicalArchaeology, p. 11).Moses’ PharaohThere were probably at least two pharaohs associated with Moses’ life, one who ruled when hewas born and another who ruled during the Exodus.Israel was in Egypt from about 1876-1446 B.C. and at the end of this period God raised upMoses to lead them to the Promised Land.“Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8).“And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and everydaughter ye shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22).“And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived,and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she118

could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, andput the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink. And his sister stood afar off, to wit whatwould be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidenswalked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. Andwhen she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, andsaid, This is one of the Hebrews' children. Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call tothee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee? And Pharaoh's daughter said toher, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take thischild away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursedit” (Exodus 2:1-9).“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter” (Hebrews11:24).The daughter of Pharaoh who rescued Moses from the river is thought to have been Hatshepsut.“Hatshepsut (around the 1550s to 1483 B.C.) was the daughter of Pharaoh Tuthmosis I, who probably issuedthe two decrees that all Israelite baby boys be killed. If so, it was Hatshepsut who rescued Moses. A notedhistorian wrote: ‘only she of all known women of the period possessed the presumption and independence toviolate an ordinance of the king, and under his very nose at that.’ She married her younger half-brother whobecame Tuthmosis II. Moses, by this construction, was her ‘foster-son’” (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidencein the British Museum, p. 99).There is a red granite obelisk inscribed with the name of Queen Hatshepsut in the BritishMuseum (Room 65).There is a statue of Tuthmosis I in the British Museum, Room 4.When Moses was 40 years old he killed an Egyptian for abusing a Jewish slave and had to flee tothe desert, where he lived for 40 years (Exodus 2:11-22; Acts 7:23-30). At this time Godappeared to him in the burning bush and called him to lead Israel out of Egypt. Thus, the Exodusoccurred 80 years after Moses was rescued from the river as an infant.It is not a simple matter to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Liberal archaeologists havenamed Ramesses II (also written Ramses), but he lived after Moses according to the biblicaltimeline. The reason they make this claim is that they have rejected the Bible’s dating. Theybelieve that Israel entered the land of Canaan in about 1250 B.C., whereas it was actually around1450 B.C. According to biblical dating, Moses appeared before pharaoh in about 1490 B.C.Some say the pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenophis II.The bottom line is that while it is interesting to speculate about which Pharaoh Mosesconfronted, since the Bible does not give his name, it is not therefore important for us know it.See Deuteronomy 29:29.“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and toour children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”The very fact that the Bible does not name the pharaohs until Shishak in the 10th century B.C. (1Kings 11:40) demonstrates its infallible accuracy.119

“Some scholars have faulted the Bible for not naming the pharaohs involved with Abraham, Joseph, andMoses, and have used this silence as evidence that the Bible’s early history is suspect. Egyptologists have,however, established that until the tenth century B.C. the title ‘pharaoh’ stood alone in Egyptian texts. It wasonly then that the title began to be followed by the name of the specific king. The biblical writers were simplyfollowing Egyptian precedent. Shishak is the first Egyptian pharaoh to be named in the Bible (1 Kings 11:40).In 925 B.C. his army marched into Palestine (1 Kings 14:25)” (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 19).King TutThe Bible says that Moses gave up his life as an adopted son of Pharaoh and chose to sufferaffliction with God’s people. He took this step by faith.“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosingrather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming thereproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of thereward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who isinvisible” (Hebrews 11:24-27).This momentous decision can better be understood in light of the discovery of the intact burialchambers of King Tutankhamun. Here we have a glimpse into the wealth and culture of Egyptianroyalty during the time of Israel’s captivity. Tut died in about 1350 B.C., which is some 150years after Moses led Israel out of the land in 1491 B.C.Tut’s burial chambers also gives us a better understanding of the challenge that Moses facedwhen he obeyed God and opposed Pharaoh.“Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the childrenof Israel out of Egypt” (Exodus 3:10).“And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let mypeople go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that Ishould obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:1-2).Moses was standing before one of the mightiest kings of ancient history, who held life and deathpower over all his subjects, with vast riches and a superpower military machine.In 1922 Howard Carter located four underground burial chambers containing the king’s remains.Three of the chambers were fitted with equipment for the king’s journey into death, while thefourth housed the mummy.The wealth represented in this one grave is staggering. There is a solid gold coffin weighingabout 243 pounds, a golden death mask, golden daggers, gold-plated bows, exquisite gold andgem-encrusted jewelry. There is a carved wooden throne encased in gold with details inlaced insilver and glass, and colored blue, green, and reddish-brown. It is estimated that the tomb’s goldplate alone weighs 400 pounds.120

For the king’s pleasure and protection in the next life, the tomb held four dismantled chariots,one of which was encased in gold, plus 29 bows. Magic texts from the Egyptian Book of theDead were engraved in the tomb and carved on idols.The gold-encased mummy was housed in three coffins. The outer coffin was yellow stone. Insidethis was a mummy-shaped coffin of wood covered with gold, and inside this a gold-platedwooden coffin.The glory represented by Tut gives the background for the choice that Moses made as a youngman, when he rejected life as an adopted son of pharaoh, with its pagan wealth, and pleasure,choosing rather to serve the true and living God and to cast his lot with God’s despised people(Hebrews 11:24-26).The Egyptian Doctrine of SalvationThe Egyptian doctrine of salvation dates back to Cain and his offering of good works to God. Itis the same doctrine that most people believe today.The Egyptian Book of the Dead describes the deceased led into a hall of judgment by Anubis.There his heart is weighed against the feather of Maat, signifying the weighing of his good worksagainst the bad. If he passes the judgment he is received into the presence of the gods.The vast majority of people everywhere believe this ancient Egyptian lie, thinking that salvationis by good deeds, sincerity, religion, etc. The truth is that man is totally condemned by God’srighteous standards and only through the sacrifice of Christ can any sinner be accepted beforeAlmighty God (Romans 3:23-24). This gospel was not hidden in the days of Egypt’s might. Ithas been proclaimed through the prophets since the days of Abel and was typified by Israel’ssacrificial system.The Merneptah SteleThe most ancient extra-biblical reference to Israel is the Merneptah Stele, which dates to 1229B.C. It was erected by the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah to celebrate a military campaign inCanaan.The 7 1/2 foot tall monument, which was discovered in 1896 at Thebes, is in the Cairo Museum.It reads:“Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel iswasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued. By the King ofUpper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merneptah, content with Maat, given life like Re everyday.”121

This event occurred during the period of the Judges. The reference to Israel having no seed is areference to the destruction of the nation’s food supply.Though brief, the inscription is highly significant. It was written during the time of the Judgesand proves that even then Israel was a nation of some importance. Otherwise, the proud king ofEgypt would not have mentioned her. It also confirms the description given in the Bible of howthat Israel was often harassed by neighboring nations because of her sin.This refutes the commonly held liberal view that Israel did not enter the land of Canaan untilabout 1230 B.C., which is two centuries later than the Bible’s timeline of about 1450 B.C.This also refutes the modernistic “12th century emergence theory” which says Israel emergedfrom the Canaanite people in about 1150 B.C. (instead of coming into the land from Egypt in the15th century).SUMMARY OF EGYPT1. That there is no direct evidence of Joseph’s rule in Egypt is not surprising for three reasons:First, the archaeological record from that time is extremely scant and the ancient papyridocuments have perished. Second, the Egyptians did not leave historical narrative writings.Third, no pharaoh would have recorded his defeats.2. The indirect evidence authenticating the Bible’s record of Joseph is extensive. These includeevidence that the position Joseph held in Potiphar’s household was common in that day, that theterm “pharaoh” is accurate, and that the mummification of Joseph was in accordance withEgyptian custom.3. It is not possible to identify with certainty the Pharaoh of the Exodus.4. King Tut illustrates the great wealth and power of the Egyptian pharaoh’s of Moses’ day andgives the background of the choice that Moses made as a young man when he rejected life as anadopted son of pharaoh and chose rather to serve the true and living God.5. The Merneptah Stele, which was erected in 1229 B.C., is evidence that Israel was in the landof Canaan then and was already a nation of note, which refutes the critics who say that Israel didnot enter the land until 1230 B.C. It was erected by Pharaoh Merneptah to celebrate his militarycampaign in Canaan.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON EGYPT1. What is the first mention of Egypt in the Bible?2. For what four reasons is it not surprising that no direct archaeology evidence of Joseph’s rulein Egypt have been found?122

3. Why does it not matter that we can’t be certain of the identity of the pharaohs of the book ofExodus?4. What verse says we must be content with the things God has revealed in Scripture?5. Why is it significant that the Bible does not name the pharaohs until Shishak in the 10thcentury B.C.?6. When did King Tut die? How long was that after Moses left Egypt?7. Why are the artifacts from Tut’s tomb significant for Bible believers?8. What is the most ancient extra-biblical reference to Israel?9. How old is the stele containing this reference?10. What does this stele say about Israel?11. How does this fit the description of Israel in the Bible?12. How does this stele refute the liberal view that Israel did not enter the land of Canaan untilabout 1230 B.C.?13. What is the “12th century emergence theory”?BABYLON☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Babylon is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.Babylon is a major theme of Scripture. It appears in the early chapters of Genesis and does notdisappear until the last the chapters of Revelation.Babylon’s beginningThe beginning of Babylon’s history is recorded in Genesis 10-11 with the founding of Nimrod’skingdom and the building of the Tower of Babel.God commanded Noah and his sons to spread abroad and replenish the earth, but the majority ofthem congregated in a place called Shinar, which is a huge fertile valley watered by the Tigrisand Euphrates rivers. (It was still called Shinar in Daniel’s day 1,600 years later, Dan. 1:2). Thiswas the beginning of the kingdom of Babylon, which became a powerful empire centuries laterand which in mystery form continues to exist in the world today.Instead of fearing the true and living God and acknowledging that He was righteous and just indestroying the world with a flood because of man’s wickedness and instead of praising God’sgrace in saving a remnant through Noah, the majority of mankind rebelled even more than theirforefathers and tried to put the holy Creator God completely out of mind. In the description ofthe Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-4, Jehovah God’s name is nowhere mentioned. Babel was(and is) all about man, and any “god” involved in the enterprise is one of man’s devise, one made123

in man’s image, and one that man can control. Ever since the Garden of Eden, men have beensaying to God, “Depart from us” (Job 21:17).Babylon’s First LeaderThe first leader in Babylonian wickedness was NIMROD (Gen. 10:8-12).Liberals and unbelievers consider Nimrod a mythical figure, but this is willful skepticism. TheBible is a far more dependable historical record than anything that has been dug from the sandsof Egypt or the tells of Mesopotamia. In fact, the extra-biblical record of that time is a jumbled,contradictory mess and any real history is hidden deep beneath a thick slathering of paganmythology.The Bible says that Nimrod was a “mighty one in the earth,” describing his prominence. He wasthe first leader of an anti-God confederacy, the first ruler of a humanistic empire, the forerunnerof the end-times antichrist. Nimrod probably demanded worship as god. This trait was imitatedby his successors down to the Caesars in Rome.The description of Nimrod as a “mighty hunter” refers to his prowess as a hunter of animals aswell as a hunter of men. He was a lion killer and a man killer. He was a conqueror, an emperor,an empire builder.The Bible’s description of Nimrod fits several men in ancient secular records. Consider some ofthese:Consider NARAM-SIN. A stele in the Louvre in Paris depicts the Mesopotamian king Naram-Sin. His reign is dated by archaeologists to about 2250 B.C., which is the time that the Tower ofBabel was built. Naram-Sin is the first god-king known to secular history. Enrico Ascalone says,“This is the first image of a king who manifested his own successful self-divinization, which isalso widely documented in the king’s own celebratory inscriptions” (Mesopotamia, University ofCalifornia Press, 2005, p. 30).The ruler’s name probably refers to Sin the moon god. Carrying a bow and spear, the king isdepicted as destroying a group of people called the Lullubi.He wears a horned helmet signifying deity and he carries a bow and a spear.Thus Naram-Sin has the characteristics of the biblical Nimrod: bold leadership, pride, aspiring todivinity, hunting/military prowess.Consider ASSHUR. The Assyrian empire was named after Asshur, the original builder ofNineveh and an associate of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10-11). Asshur became a mythological god, butthere is no reason to think that he was not also the real man mentioned in the Bible. Asshur had124

the characteristics of Nimrod. A mighty leader and hunter/warrior, his symbol was a bow. He wasalso associated with astrology, being worshipped as the sun god, which was symbolized by awinged disc or wheel encompassing the rays of the sun.Consider GILGAMESH. Sumarian records claim that Gilgamesh was the king of Erech (Urukin Akkadian) in about 2,500 B.C. This carries us back to the time near the Flood, and it isprobable that the Gilgamesh mythology has an historical basis in Nimrod, as the Bible says(Genesis 10:10) that Erech was as the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom. The Gilgamesh Epicdescribes the Flood from a pagan perspective. Gilgamesh is described as part-man, part-god,proud, and a cruel conqueror, the very characteristics modeled by Nimrod.Nimrod’s traits were reproduced in the Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, and Greek kings that rosein succession across the pages of history in that part of the world. Henry Layard, who unearthedmany ancient bas-reliefs depicting the Assyrian kings as hunters and warriors, made thefollowing observation linking them to Nimrod:“A conqueror and the founder of an empire was, at the same time, a great hunter. His courage, wisdom, anddexterity were as much shown in encounters with wild animals as in martial exploits; he rendered equalservices to his subjects, whether he cleared the country of beasts of prey, or repulsed an enemy. Thescriptural Nimrod, who laid the foundation of the Assyrian monarchy, was ‘a mighty hunter before the Lord;’and the Ninus of history and tradition, the builder of Nineveh, and the greatest of the Assyrian kings, was asrenowned for his encounters with the lion and the leopard, as for his triumphs over warlike nations” (Ninevehand Its Remains, p. 94).Babylon’s religionThe Tower of Babel was preeminently an act of idolatry. It was the beginning of the mysteryreligions that eventually permeated the world. Revelation 17:5 says Babylon is the “mother ofharlots and abominations of the earth,” which means the world’s dark religions had their evilbeginning with her.The development of idolatry is described in Romans 1:21-23. The people rejected the CreatorGod and worshipped and served the creation.Some of the major characteristics of Babylonian religion are as follows:1. Babylonian religion is self-worship.The people said, “let us make us a name” (Gen. 11:4). They were not glorifying God; they wereglorifying themselves. Pride and self-will is at the heart of idolatry. It is not about manworshipping God; it is about man worshipping himself. The “gods” are not in authority over manin the sense of a Creator-creature relationship, and man is not subject to them in that sense. Hefears what the gods can do to him, but he is not directly accountable to them. Babylonian religionpromises that man will be his own god, thus freeing him from accountability to the AlmightyGod. This is the devil’s age-old lie. He said to Eve, “ye shall be as gods” (Gen. 3:5). Babylonian125

idolatry is about the pursuit of self-will, self-fulfillment, self-empowerment, self-esteem. Idolatryis not about God; it is about me.This is a chief characteristic of end-times apostasy: “in the last days ... men shall be lovers oftheir own selves” (2 Timothy 3:1-2). Self-expression, self-fulfillment, self-satisfaction are at theheart of the modern pop culture. It is narcissistic to the core. As the Rolling Stones sang, “I’mfree to do what I want any old time...”2. Babylonian religion is luck worship.Babylonian religion is the pursuit of luck, good fortune, success. Tyche was the goddess of luck.The Hindu goddess Lukshmi is the goddess of fortune. This was one of the major attractions ofBaal worship. Sacrifices were offered to Baal in hope that he would provide the worshipers withgood weather, good crops, good jobs, happiness, success. The pursuit of good luck appealsdeeply to fallen man who is covetous and lives only for this present world. This is a major part ofthe modern New Age Babylonian rock & roll culture. The modern gods of luck are such things ashigher education, the stock market, and casinos.3. Babylonian religion is good works worship.This appeals to fallen man’s pride and natural sense of religion and his innate sense of morality.Cain, the inventor of the first false religion, tried to offer the fruit of his own works to God,falsely thinking that God would be satisfied (Gen. 4:3-5). Natural man does not want toacknowledge that he is a fallen creature and that even his very righteousness is as filthy ragsbefore God (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10-18, 23).The works aspect of Babylonian idolatry is illustrated by Egypt’s god Anubis. It was thought thatafter death the soul was brought before Anubis and its good deeds were weighed against the bad.A demonic creature named Ammit (composed of a crocodile, lion, and hippopotamus) waitedbelow the scales to devour the individual’s heart if wickedness prevailed. If the individual passedthe judgment, he was ushered into the presence of the gods.The Hindu-Buddhist belief in dharma and karma descended from Babylonianism.The New Age is also a works religion, the most acceptable works being things such as saving theenvironment, ending poverty, striving for gender equality, promoting gay rights, and solving theAIDS crisis.4. Babylonian religion is star worship.The desire to build a tower to heaven had a religious implication associated with astrology, theworship of the sun and moon and stars. That the top was to “reach unto heaven” (Gen. 11:4),126

does not mean that the ancient Babylonians believed they could actually build a tower to heaven;it means that they were using the tower as a religious path to God.Astrology--which permeates Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age--finds its roots here. It isthe pseudo-science of studying the stars in an attempt to determine their alleged influence uponman and to delve into the future. It is a form of occultism and should not be confused withastronomy, which (modern evolutionary theories aside) is the legitimate science of the study ofthe stars.The sun god was called Shamash, Marduk, Asshur, and other names. One of his symbols was adisc or a wheel encircling a star and/or rays.The moon was worshipped as Sin and other names. His symbol was the crescent. There was alsoa goddess aspect of sun and moon worship.The moon and sun were worshiped in Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. In Rome, the moongoddess was Luna, and in Greece, Selene.In Hinduism the sun god is Surya and the moon god is Chandra. Their symbols are still the wheelof rays and the crescent.The moon goddess is worshipped in Buddhism as Tara.Moon worship is also a part of the New Age.5. Babylonian religion is goddess worship.Goddess worship originated in ancient Babylon and spread throughout the earth. The goddesswas known by many names such as Rhea, Innana, Beltis, Isis, Ishtar, Nina, Ningal, Anat, Hera,Ashtoreth, Juno, Diana, Aphrodite, Minerva, Fortuna, Ceres, Hygiela, Athena, Artemis, andVenus.One of the greatest of the Babylonian-Assyrian goddesses was Ishtar. Her symbols were the lionand the star. The lions decorating the gates of ancient Babylon and guarding the thrones of theAssyrian kings were associated with her.Goddess worship is still prominent in Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as in the New Age. Asearch at Amazon books brings up more than 10,000 titles. Sue Monk Kidd, a popular writer whoused to be a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, journeyed from Catholic contemplativemysticism to New Age and now worships goddesses. She built an altar in her study andpopulated it with statues of goddesses, plus a mirror to reflect her own image.127

Goddess worship was typically steeped in immorality. The goddess “was the deification of thesex passion; her worship required licentiousness; sacred prostitution in connection with hersanctuaries was a universal custom among the women of Babylonia” (Halley’s Bible Handbook).The term “Babylon” as a byword for immorality “is rooted in the vocabulary of every modernlanguage” (Werner Keller, The Bible as History).Wherever Babylonian idolatry is practiced, society is morally debased.Goddess worship appeals to the lusts of the flesh and in the description of these lusts in Galatians5, sexual sins are mentioned first. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness” (Galatians 5:19). This list refers to every typeof sexually titillating thought and act apart from the lawful bonds of holy matrimony.Idolatry’s filthy sensuality was the enticement that caused Israel to sin repeatedly (Numbers25:1-3; 31:15-16).The Babylonian world system is very much in place in modern society, and its sensuality remainsa major temptation to God’s people today as it was in the early churches (Revelation 2:14).Hinduism, which is practiced by hundreds of millions of people, is a direct descendant of theBabylonian mystery religion, and many Hindu temples are adorned with pornographic images ofthe gods and goddesses. Shiva worship, Krishna worship, and Tantric yoga are deeply immoral.Immorality is also an integral part of the New Age. It is accompanied by the New Ethics thatencourages man to “live and let live” and promotes a judge-not attitude toward moral perversion.According to the standard of the New Ethics, the only real sin is intolerance and moralabsolutism. The New Age is filthy. Its channelers talk of sexual exploits in past lives; its “healingtouch” often turns sensual; its occultic secrets are often of a sexual nature; its Freudian andJungian psychology is riddled with sexual elements.“Free love” is also an integral part of the end-times rock & roll/Hollywood pop culture. As withancient Babylonian Baal worship, the pop culture’s “love” can be defined better as lust. It isselfish and self-willed rather than self-denying and self-giving. It tends to destroy marriagesrather than build them. The pop culture is Babylonian idolatry and it is no surprise that it hasfilled society with adultery, fornication, divorce, pornography, child abuse, homosexuality, babymurder, and demonic violence.6. Babylonian religion is mother-goddess worship.The mother-goddess and child were known by names such as Astarte and Tammuz, Isis andHorus, Venus and Adonis, Fortuna and Jupiter, Irene and Plutus.128

The mother-child were a part of the ancient Babylonian-Egyptian zodiac.In China, the mother goddess was Shing moo, who was depicted holding a child.A favorite title of the mother-goddess was “the Mother of the Gods” and the “Queen of heaven,”both of which were incorporated into Rome’s Madonna worship. The images of Isis and the babyHorus were the models for the Madonna and child.Mother-goddess worship is found today in Hinduism. An example is Saptamatrika and child. Sheeven wears a halo just as in Catholic art. Other mother-goddesses in Hinduism are Parvati andIswara and Indrani and Murugan.Mother-goddess worship also exists in Buddhism. Guanyin is depicted holding a baby.Mother-goddess worship was associated with death and resurrection. The son (and husband) ofIsis (or Ishtar), who is known as Horus or Tammuz, died and rose again. This is a usurpation ofChrist’s death and resurrection and points to the coming antichrist who will be wounded untodeath and be resurrected (Rev. 13:3, 12).7. Babylonian religion is serpent worship.Idolatry is the worship of Satan under a thin veil (Deut. 32:17; 1 Cor. 10:20-21).The fact that the snake has been a prominent feature of idolatry from the time of Babel untiltoday is evidence of this. The snake was the creature chosen by Satan in his attack upon Eve(Gen. 3:1). The devil is called “the old serpent ... which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation12:9).Marduk or Merodach, one of Babylon’s chief gods, was worshipped as a dragon. In pagan hymnshe was addressed as the “great serpent dragon” (Stephen Herbert Langdon. The Mythology of AllRaces: Semitic, Volume 5, 1931).The serpent or dragon is part of the Chinese zodiac.In Greek mythology Asclepius was associated with the serpent, which was worshipped as ahealer. The serpents in Asclepius temples were thought to bring healing to the devotees. Theserpent coiled around Asclepius’ staff became a symbol for the modern medical profession.The Mayans worshipped Quetzalcoatle as the “plumed serpent.”The serpent is prominent in Hinduism. An ancient golden throne of a Hindu king in Kathmanduat the Patan Museum features nine coiled serpents. Serpents are intertwined around the templesin Pashupati, Nepal’s holiest Hindu shrine.129

The serpent is also prominent in Buddhism. Buddha is sometimes depicted sitting on a coilednaga or serpent and shielded by its hood.8. Babylonian religion is mystical worship.Mysticism is the attempt to penetrate the unseen spiritual world and to experience directcommunion with the divine. Every aspect of ancient idolatry was mystical. It involved all sortsof rituals and practices, such as prayer wheels, prayer beads, water rituals, lighting candles,ringing bells, ascending temple steps, and meditation.Hinduism is steeped in mystical practices, including chanting, candles, bells, prayer beads, andparticularly yoga.Buddhism is also steeped in mysticism, including chanting, prayer wheels, circumnavigatingstupas, and meditation.Babylonian mysticism was christianized by the Roman Catholic Church to form a major part ofits monastic spirituality. It was practiced by Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Avila and IgnatiusLoyola. Today Roman Catholic Babylonian mysticism is spreading throughout Christianity andis at the heart of the end-times Harlot Church. It is promoted by Richard Foster, Dallas Willard,Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Beth Moore, Max Lucado, Phillip Yancy, Lee Strobel,David Jeremiah, Chuck Swindoll, and many other evangelical leaders.It is communion with devils masquerading as God, and it leads to spiritual shipwreck.Oftentimes it results in a belief in pantheism (God is everything) or panentheism (God is ineverything). (For more on this see the book Contemplative Mysticism, which is available in printand eBook formats from Way of Life Literature.)Babylon’s TowerUnder Nimrod’s leadership the confederacy determined to build a great Tower to “reach untoheaven.”It was probably a ziggurat, which is a stepped pyramid. Remnants of these have been foundthroughout Mesopotamia. At least 34 have been unearthed at Babylon, Nineveh, Erech, Calah,Asshur, Ur, and other places.After a visit to Babylon in 460 B.C., the Greek historian Herodotus described the Tower of Babelas follows:“It has a solid central tower, one furlong square [one-eighth of a mile], with a second erected on top of it andthen a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running around the outside,and about halfway up there are seats for those who make the journey to rest on.”130

In Nebuchadnezzar’s day the tower was named for the god Marduk or Merodach, who ismentioned in the Bible (Jeremiah 50:2). The shrine at the top had a 40-foot-high gold image ofMarduk.According to an architectural tablet found at Babylon, the ziggurat in Nebuchadnezzar’s day was295 feet square at the base and about 300 feet high.The ancient religious towers were not bland structures; they were colorful and pleasing to thesenses. Each stage was a different color, answering to the colors associated with the planets. Theshrines at the apex were typically built of bright blue-glazed bricks topped with a golden dome.The Elamite tower at Choghazanbil near Susa was made of glazed brick and enameled tiles insilver, gold, black, green, blue and azure colors, further decorated with white obsidian stones andmarble.The terraces of each stage were sometimes covered with soil and planted with trees, so that thestructure had the appearance of a forested mountain.The construction of the tower in Genesis 11 fits the description from archaeology of the ancientziggurats. It was made with burnt brick and slime, which refers to kiln-fired bricks and bitumenor tar as opposed to sun-dried mud bricks and mud mortar. Kiln-fired bricks have been datedarchaeologically to the third millennium B.C., which is the time period of Genesis 11.“This very precisely reflects Sumerian building practices in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley where the firstcivilizations were, where there is virtually no stone, but clay was some forty feet thick. ... Bitumen is the usualmortar used with kiln-fired bricks. By contrast, the later building technology of Israel/Palestine used a mudmortar. Bitumen of any kind was very expensive in Israel though it was standard in the earlier Mesopotamianperiod” (“The Tower of Babel and Ancient Near Eastern Ziggurats,” Dec. 22, 2007).The bitumen was also used to waterproof the base of the tower.“The bricklaying technique described in the Bible at the building of the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:3-4]corresponds with the findings of the archaeologists. As the investigations confirmed, actually only asphaltedbricks were used in the construction, especially in the foundations. That was clearly necessary for the securityof the structure in accordance with building regulations. In the neighbourhood of the river the regular rise inthe level of the water and the constant dampness of the ground had to be borne in mind. Foundations andstonework were therefore made waterproof and damp-proof with ‘slime’, i.e., asphalt” (Werner Keller, TheBible as History).The Babylonian bitumen was described by Bishop Prideaux as “a glutinous slime arising out ofthe earth in that country, which binds in building much stronger and firmer than lime, and soongrows much harder than the bricks or stones themselves, which they cement together.”131

Nebuchadnezzar and the New BabylonThroughout much of the 19th century, skeptics doubted the very existence of Nebuchadnezzar,but bricks were discovered in 1880 at Babylon that bear his name. Since then hundreds ofthousands of such bricks have been unearthed, and archaeologists have even discoveredarchitectural plans for his buildings.An 18-year excavation in the early 20th century by the German Oriental Society confirmed thatNebuchadnezzar created the new Babylon of his day, just as the Bible says in Daniel 4:30 (R.Koldeway, Excavations at Babylon 1915).“Babylon surpassed all of the cities of the ancient orient: it was greater than Thebes, Memphis and Ur, greatereven than Nineveh. ‘The centre of the city, which is full of three and four-storied buildings, is traversed by deadstraight streets not only those that run parallel to the river but also the cross streets which lead down to thewater side.’ So Herodotus described what he himself had seen. The town plan of Babylon is reminiscent of theblueprints for large American cities.“In Babylon they made the acquaintance of streets as broad as avenues and as straight as if they had beendrawn with a ruler. Every one of them bore the name of one of the gods in the Babylonian pantheon. Therewas a Marduk street and a Zababa street on the left bank of the river. In the right-hand corner of the city theycrossed the streets of the moon god Sin and of Enlil, the ‘Lord of the World.’ On the right bank Adad street ranfrom east to west, and intersected the street of the sun-god Shamash.“Babylon was not only a commercial but a religious metropolis as can be seen from an inscription: ‘Altogetherthere are in Babylon 53 temples of the chief gods, 55 chapels of Marduk, 300 chapels for the earthly deities,600 for the heavenly deities, 180 altars for the goddess Ishtar, 180 for the gods Nergal and Adad and 12 otheraltars for different gods.’“Polytheisms of this kind with worship and ritual which extended to public prostitution must have given the city,in terms of the present day, the appearance of an annual fair. The idea of Babylon as a cesspool of vice isrooted in the vocabulary of every modern language.“On the street and squares between the temples, the chapels and the altars, trade and commerce flourished.Solemn processions, heavily laden caravans, traders’ barrows, priests, pilgrims, merchants surged to and fro,colourful and noisy. Religious life and business life were so closely associated in Babylon’s everyday affairsthat they often dovetailed into each other, as they did in the temples. ... Just as in Ur, the temple authorities inBabylon ran their own department stores and warehouses. They also ran their own banks to invest theirrevenues to the best advantage.“Outside the double walls of the city ... lay the ‘Chambers of Commerce.’ It was on the river-bank that priceswere fixed and exchange rates established for the commodities that arrived by boat. ‘Karum,’ ‘quay,’ was thename the Babylonians gave to what we now call the Exchange. As well as taking over the Quay, or Exchange,from the Babylonians the old world has also taken over its system of weights and measurements”“Observing the sky in the interest of astrology led to undreamt of advances. They were able to predict eclipsesof the sun and moon. In the Babylonian School of Astronomy about 750 B.C. observations of heavenly bodieswere recorded and continued without interruption for over 350 years, the longest series of astronomicalobservations ever made. The accuracy of their reckoning exceeded that of European astronomers until wellinto the 18th century” (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 316-319, 322).Babylon’s walls were an amazing architectural feat. According to the Greek historian Herodotus(writing in about 450 B.C. which was some 65 years after the building of the Second Temple atJerusalem), Babylon’s double walls were 56 miles long and 320 feet high. Modern archaeologiststypically doubt that they were that high, but Herodotus was writing a firsthand account, plus wehave Nebuchadnezzar’s own record of the wall, in which he described it as “mountainhigh” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament). There were actually three walls, the132

outer being about 80 feet wide so that a chariot drawn by four horses could easily turn around onthe road that ran along the top. Beyond the walls was a deep, brick-lined moat filled with water.Two hundred and fifty defensive towers were constructed along the outer wall and extended 10feet above it.There were many gates into the city with doors made of brass and iron (Isaiah 45:2). The mostimportant was the beautiful blue and white monumental Ishtar Gate, which has beenreconstructed at the site of ancient Babylon an hour south of Baghdad and also at the BerlinMuseum using excavated bricks. Named for the goddess Ishtar, her symbol (the lion) wasfeatured prominently. The gate also flaunted the symbols for the gods Adad (a bull) and Marduk(a dragon).On the city side of the gate was a courtyard about 200 by 180 feet. One wall was covered withblue glaze with designs of trees and flowers in yellow, white, red, and blue. A central doorwayled into the king’s throne-room, which was 170 by 56 feet.Beyond the courtyard was the Procession Way which was a causeway built higher than thehouses. Pompously called Aibur-Shab, or “the enemy shall never pass,” it was at least 50 feetwide and hundreds of yards long, running from the Ishtar Gate to the Babel Tower. It was linedon both sides with walls covered with blue, yellow, white, and black tiles forming bold designsand representations of life-size lions. The street was paved with huge imported stones, limestoneblocks ran down the center with slabs of red breccia veined with white on either side. TheIstanbul Museum of Archaeology displays samples of the tiles that lined the causeway.It was used for the procession of the gods on New Year’s Day and for military processions.Captive Jews and artifacts from Solomon’s Temple were probably carried in procession under theIshtar Gate and down this causeway after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar’sarmy.A branch of the Euphrates ran through the city, dividing the old city from Nebuchadnezzar’s newBabylon, and a beautiful bridge 30 feet wide and more than 200 yards long connected the twoparts of the city. The old Babylonian palace was on the east side of the bridge and the new palaceon the west.At least three canals ran through the city.Nebuchadnezzar built a grand palace made of marble, rare wood, and bronze, and decoratedwith gold and silver, precious stones, and colorful tiles. The roof of the palace was made of cedarand the doors were of cedar covered with bronze. He called it the “shining residence, thedwelling majesty” and referred to it as “mountainlike.”Nebuchadnezzar built the renowned Hanging Gardens as a gift to one of his wives, the daughterof the king of the Medes. It is said that she was from the mountains and was depressed by living133

on the flat, dry Babylonian plains, so the king built her an artificial mountain complete with aforest and glorious gardens which hung over the heads of the Babylonian citizens. Greekhistorian Diodorus Siculus said the gardens were 400 feet square and more than 80 feet high.Strabo said the structure was made with baked brick and bitumen and consisted of a series ofvaulted terraces resting on cube-shaped pillars that were hollow and filled with earth to allow forthe growth of the largest trees. The top of the gardens was roofed and ascent was made by stairs.Plants and trees were imported from foreign lands, and there would have been a glorious varietyof habits and color, with vegetation hanging over the terraces and vaults. The water, whichflowed throughout the structure in streams and fountains, was raised from the Euphrates to a poolat the top of the structure by slave-powered machines. From there it was released to channels thattransported the water to every part of the gardens by gravity.Greek historians Strabo and Philo described the gardens like this:“The Hanging Garden has plants cultivated above ground level, and the roots of the trees are embedded in anupper terrace rather than in the earth. The whole mass is supported on stone columns. ... Streams of wateremerging from elevated sources flow down sloping channels... These waters irrigate the whole gardensaturating the roots of plants and keeping the whole area moist. Hence the grass is permanently green andthe leaves of trees grow firmly attached to supple branches. ... This is a work of art of royal luxury and its moststriking feature is that the labor of cultivation is suspended above the heads of the spectators.”Some archaeologists have doubted the existence of the Hanging Gardens in Babylon, but there isnot only the aforementioned historical evidence, there is also archaeological evidence. TheGerman archaeologist Robert Koldewey, working in the early 20th century, was convinced thathe had found part of the foundation of the gardens and evidence of the water pumps.Archaeologists found a record of Nebuchadnezzar’s proud description of Babylon, which reflectsthe Bible’s record in Daniel 4:29-30.“At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The king spake, and said, Isnot this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for thehonour of my majesty?”Following is from the Babylonian account:“A great wall which like a mountain cannot be moved I made of mortar and brick ... Its foundation upon thebosom of the abyss ... its top I raised mountain high. I triplicated the city wall in order to strengthen it. I causeda great protecting wall to run at the foot of the wall of burnt brick. ... A third great moat wall ... I built with mortarand brick. ... The produce of the lands, the products of the mountains, the bountiful wealth of the sea, withinBabylon I gathered. ... The palace ... I rebuilt in Babylon with great cedars I brought from Lebanon, thebeautiful forest, to roof it. ... Huge cedars from Lebanon, their forest with my clean hands I cut down. Withradiant gold I overlaid them, with jewels I adorned them” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament).Nebuchadnezzar’s Capture of JerusalemIn 1955 a clay tablet from the Babylonian Chronicle was translated by D.J. Wiseman at theBritish Museum and found to contain a record of Nebuchadnezzar’s second capture of Jerusalem.134

In his first raid on the Jewish capitol, Nebuchadnezzar (who was crown prince at the time) madeKing Jehoiakim his slave, robbed the temple of some of its treasures, and took captive many ofIsrael’s elite (2 Chron. 36:5-7; 2 Kings 24:1). It was at this time that Daniel and his friends weretaken to Babylon (Dan. 1:1-3).In his second military action against the city, Nebuchadnezzar took King Jehoiachin captive toBabylon and appointed Zedekiah in his place. On this occasion Nebuchadnezzar looted thetemple of all its treasures and carried away captive all of the “men of might and craftsmen.” Itwas probably at this time that the prophet Ezekiel was taken captive (Ezek. 1:1-2).Following is the Babylonian record of this event, which refers to kings Jehoiachin and Zedekiah,though not by name:“In the seventh year, in the month Chislev, the king assembled his army and advanced on Hatti-land [Syria].He encamped over against the city of the Judeans and conquered it on the second day of Adar [March 16,597 B.C.]. He took the king [Jehoiachin] prisoner, and appointed in his stead a king after his own heart[Zedekiah]. He exacted heavy tribute and had it brought to Babylon” (Babylonian Chronicle for 605-594 B.C.,British Museum, Room 55, Case 15, WA 21946).This is powerful extra-biblical confirmation of 2 Kings 24:10-17.There is also an amazing account in the Babylonian archives that describes Jehoiachin’s captivityin Babylon. It mentions him and his five sons as captives who received special rations. Thisrecord was translated by E. F. Weidner in the 1930s. The tablets were brought to Berlin duringthe German Oriental Society’s excavations of Babylon, the same excavations that discoveredBabylon’s famous Ishtar Gate. The receipts pertaining to the rations given to Jehoiachin date tothe 13th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which was 592 B.C., five years after the fall ofJerusalem. The “Ration Dockets” are in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. Following are some ofthe statements from the documents:10 [sila of oil] to the king of Judah, Yaukin2 1/2 sila to the offspring of Judah’s king10 sila to Iakuukinu, the king of Judah’s son2 1/2 sila for the five sons of the Judean kingThe Babylonian archives state that Jehoiachin received 20 times more food rations than othersthat were listed, which corresponds to 2 Kings 25:27-30.BelshazzarSkeptics such as Ferdinand Hitzig doubted the existence of Belshazzar, mentioned in Daniel 5,because his name had not been confirmed through extra-biblical evidence and ancient secularhistorians had named Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. Hitzig claimed that Belshazzar wasa biblical myth.135

This supported the liberal doctrine that Daniel was not written until after the time of AntiochusEpiphanes in 164 B.C., a view invented by skeptics who rejected the Bible’s supernaturalinspiration. They didn’t believe that a Jewish prophet writing in the sixth century B.C. coulddescribe events of the second century B.C., 400 years in the future.But in 1854 J.G. Taylor found the NABONIDUS CYLINDER at the ancient site of Ur bearingthe name Belshazzar. It was commissioned by Nabonidus as a dedication of the Ur zigguratwhich he rebuilt for his moon god, and it plainly states that Belshazzar was his son.“As for Belshazzar my firstborn son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his heart, and may hecommit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life” (The Nabonidus Cylinder, British Museum, Room 55, Case 14,WA 91128).Further, the NABONIDUS CHRONICLE 556-539 B.C., which was translated in 1924, statesthat Nabonidus and Belshazzar shared co-regency. It says that Nabonidus was in the city of Temain the Arabian desert for 10 years, while Belshazzar was with the army in Babylon.“He [Nabonidus] entrusted the army [in Babylon] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country heordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started outfor a long journey [to Tema]” (Nabonidus Chronicle, British Museum, Room 55, Case 15, WA 35382).The Nabonidus Chronicle is powerful confirmation of the historical accuracy of Daniel chapter5. It confirms the Bible’s accuracy in calling Belshazzar king, its accuracy in not mentioningNabonidus in reference to the fall of Babylon, and its accuracy in saying that Belshazzar offeredDaniel the position as third ruler in the kingdom (Nabonidus being first and Belshazzar thesecond).Why, then, does the Bible call Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:2, 11)?“It is worth mentioning that the description of Nebuchadnezzar as the ‘father’ of Belshazzar in the OldTestament (Dan. 5:2, 11) is probably simply an example of the use of ‘father’ to mean ‘forebear’” (T.C. Mitchell,The Bible in the British Museum, p. 89).SUMMARY OF BABYLON1. There is evidence for the biblical Nimrod in the personages that archaeology has discovered inthat exact place and time. Men such as Naram-Sin and Gilgamesh had the same character asNimrod.2. The idolatrous religion founded in Babylon has spread throughout the earth and is on the risein these last days in the form of Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, and Contemplative Mysticism.3. The religious tower described in Genesis 11 was duplicated throughout that part of the worldand remnants of many of these have been found by archaeologists.136

4. The existence of Nebuchadnezzar and his glorious Babylon has been confirmed througharchaeology, refuting the 19th-century skeptics who claimed this was a myth.5. Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem and Israel’s Babylonian captivity have been confirmedin ancient Babylonian documents.6. The existence of Belshazzar and his position as king of Babylon at its downfall have beenconfirmed by archaeology through the chronicles of his father Nabonidus.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON BABYLON1. In what two chapters of the Bible do we find the record of the beginning of Babylon’s history?2. Where was Shinar?3. The Tower of Babel was about what kind of “god”?4. When was the Tower of Babel constructed in relation to the Flood?5. Who was the first leader of the Babel kingdom?6. What does the Bible mean when it says that this man was “a mighty one in the earth”?7. What does the Bible mean when it says that this man was “a mighty hunter”?8. Who are three historical figures from secular history that might have been Nimrod or one ofhis associates?9. What were the characteristics of Naram-Sin that remind us of Nimrod?10. The Tower of Babel was preeminently an act of what?11. The book of Revelation says that Babylon was the mother of ___________ and______________.12. The development of idolatry is described in what New Testament passage?13. What are eight characteristics of Babylonian religion?14. Who was Shamash and what was his symbol?15. Who was Sin and what was his symbol?16. What were two major symbols of Ishtar?17. What is the major attraction of goddess worship?18. Where did the Roman Catholic Church get its doctrine of the Madonna?19. What verse says idolators worship the devil?20. What verse speaks of “the old serpent ... which deceiveth the whole world”?21. What was the symbol of Merodach?22. Where did the modern medical profession get the symbol of a serpent coiled around a staff?23. What is a ziggurat?24. How many stages did the Tower of Babylon have in 460 B.C.?25. What did the different colors of the tower stages signify?26. What is burnt brick?27. What was the slime that was used to construct the Tower of Babel?28. Where do the modern system of weights and measures come from?29. How wide was Babylon’s outer wall in the days of Nebuchadnezzar?30. What goddess was Babylon’s major gate named after?137

31. What evidence is there for the Hanging Gardens?32. What record is contained in Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian Chronicle?33. What is Jerusalem called in this account?34. The “Ration Dockets” describe the captivity of what Hebrew king?35. What is the significance of the Nabonidus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle?36. Why does the Bible call Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar when he was actually the sonof Nabonidus?ASSYRIA☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Assyria is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.The name Assyria is from Asshur (also spelled Assur), who founded Nineveh and who became agod in Assyrian mythology. This is in accordance with the Bible’s statement that Asshur foundedNineveh (Gen. 10:11). Asshur was associated with Nimrod, and the Assyrian symbol for Asshur--a warrior with a bow in his hand--reminds us of the Bible’s description of Nimrod as a mightyhunter (Gen. 10:9). Asshur was worshipped as the sun god and his symbol was a winged disk.Assyria’s PalacesBetween 1845-51 Austen Henry Layard uncovered the ruins of eight palaces of five Assyriankings: Ashurnasirpal, Shalmaneser III, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal (Asnappar).Four of these are mentioned in the Bible (all except Ashurnasirpal).In his book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853), Layard listed 55 rulers,cities, and countries that appear both in the Old Testament and in the ancient Assyrian recordsunearthed through archaeology.Assyrian annals give extra-biblical witness to nine Hebrew kings: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Menahem,Pekah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh.The Assyrian Empire was prosperous, technologically advanced, literate, and very wicked.The Bible describes its chief moral characteristics as pride (Isa. 10:12), violence, deception, andcovetousness (Nah. 3:1) and idolatrous witchcraft (Nah. 3:4), and this description is confirmedperfectly by archaeology.Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh was 1680 feet long by 810 feet wide. He named it “Palacewithout a Rival.” Its 71 rooms were lined with stone slabs eight feet high by four to six feet widecovered with bas-reliefs depicting the hunting and military exploits of the ancient kings.138

In Sennacharib’s day Nineveh was larger than Babylon, with 100,000 to 150,000 inhabitants. Itswalls were 30 feet high and 45 feet thick and had 15 great gates. The inner city wall ran sevenmiles in circuit and was fronted by a deep moat. He called this “the wall that terrifies the enemy.”Water was brought into the city by canals and aqueducts from as far as 25 miles away.The bas-reliefs contain detailed depictions of social life and military scenes, including personalarmaments, battle chariots, and war engines. There is even a depiction of how the Assyrianstransported massive stone statues.Assyria’s Grand LibraryArchaeologists unearthed a 30,000-volume library belonging to Ashurbanipal.The surviving books are written on clay tablets, which were partially baked when the library wasburned by the Babylonians in the 7th century B.C., thus helping to preserve them. The originallibrary would have been vastly larger, as it would have contained books written on leatherscrolls, wax boards, and papyri, all of which have perished. The surviving collection is housed inthe British Museum.The books include such things as royal letters and decrees; mythological and religious texts;business contracts; administrative documents; and material relating to medicine, history,astronomy, and literature. There were creation and flood myths.The following is from “Welcome to the Library of King Ashurbanipal”http://web.utk.edu/~giles/“Like a modern library this collection was spread out into many rooms according to subject matter. Somerooms were devoted to history and government, others to religion and magic and still others to geography,science, poetry, etc. Ashurbanipal's collection even held what could be called classified government materials.The findings of spies and secret affairs of state were held secure from access in deep recesses of the palacemuch like a modern government archive. Each group of tablets contained a brief citation to identify thecontents and each room contained a tablet near the door to classify the general contents of each room inAshurbanipal's library. The actual cataloging activities under Ashurbanipal's direction would not be seen inEurope for centuries.”Assyria’s CrueltyThe Assyrians were exceedingly cruel. It is no wonder that God’s Word called Nineveh “thebloody city” (Nahum 3:1).Consider the following description of Assurnasirpal’s military venture into Syria. This Assyrianking filled his palace at Calah with depictions of these terrible scenes.139

“I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men ... and I covered the pillar with theirskins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound tostakes round about the pillar ... and I cut off the limbs of the officers. ... Many captives from among them Iburned with fire, and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their hands and from others I cut offtheir noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, and anotherof heads, and I bound their heads to posts round about the city” (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p.48).This wicked Assyrian king particularly delighted in flaying people alive and burning children infires.No wonder Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh and preach!Assyria’s MilitaryThrough archaeology we know a great deal about Assyria’s military, including its equipment andtactics. This provides a fascinating background to the military accounts in the Old Testament.The following is excerpted from Henry Layard’s Nineveh and It’s Remains:Cavalry“Judging from the sculptures, cavalry must have formed a large and important portion of the Assyrian armies.The Assyrian horsemen are frequently mentioned in the Bible. Ezekiel 23:6 describes ‘the Assyrians clothed inblue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses;’ and Holofernes isdeclared to have had no less than 12,000 archers on horseback. The rider is represented as seated on thenaked back of the horse, which is only adorned with a cloth when led behind the chariot of the king” (p. 234).“The horses represented in the sculptures appear to be of noble breed. Assyria, and particularly that part ofthe empire which was watered by the Tigris and Euphrates, was celebrated at a very early period for itshorses, as the same plains are to this day for the noblest breeds of Arabia. ... The horses of the Assyrian basreliefswere evidently drawn from the finest models, and the Assyrian sculptor has not been altogetherunsuccessful in their delineation. The head is small and well-shaped, the nostrils large and high, the neckarches, the body long, and the legs slender and sinewy. The prophet exclaims of the horses of theChaldaeans, ‘They are swifter than the leopards, and more fierce than the evening wolves;’ [Habakkuk 1:8]and the magnificent description of the war-horse in the book of Job is familiar to every reader [Job 39:19]” (p.235).“In these bas-reliefs the harness and trappings of the horses and chariots are remarkable for their richnessand even elegance. The heads of the horses are adorned with plumes and fanciful crests, and with longribands or streamers, which were probably of many colours. Like the Arabs and Persians of the present day,the Assyrians appear to have been lavish of tassels of silk and wool, which were attached to all parts of theharness, as were also small bells and ornaments in ivory, many of which were afterwards found in the ruins.The bridle consisted of a headstall, a strap divided into three parts joining the bit, and straps over theforehead, under the cheeks, and behind the ears. We find sacred emblems used as ornaments in thetrappings of horses, as on the robes of figures; the winged bull, the sun, moon, stars, and horned cap beingfrequently introduced. They were probably of ivory, gold, and copper, or sometimes worked on cloth or silk.Three richly embroidered straps, passing round the body of the horse, kept the harness and chariot-pole intheir places, and were attached to a highly decorated breast-band. To the yoke was suspended an elegantornament, in the form of the head of an animal, and a ring which generally enclosed a winged bull, a star, orsome other sacred device.“Embroidered trappings, such as are described by Ezekiel [27:20] as the precious clothes for chariots, comingfrom Dedan, covered the backs of the horses. Their bits, as well as the metal used in the harness, mayfrequently have been of gold and other precious materials, like those of the ancient Persians. Their maneswere either allowed to fall loosely on the neck or were plaited, and their tails were tied in the middle withribands adorned with tassels” (pp. 237, 238).140

Chariots“In the Bible frequent mention is made of the use of chariots and horsemen both in sieges and battles, asrepresented in the Assyrian sculptures. ‘The choicest valleys shall be full of chariots, and the horsemen shallset themselves in array against the gate.’ [Isaiah 22:7] Amongst the tributaries of the Assyrians, the Elamiteswere celebrated for their chariots carrying archers” ( p. 238).Siege Instruments“The lower series of bas-reliefs contained three subjects--the siege of a castle, the king receiving prisoners,and the king, with his army, crossing a river. ... The castle had equidistant towers, and apparently severalwalls, one behind the other, all surmounted by triangular pointed battlements. The besiegers having brought abattering-ram to the outer wall, one of the besieged was endevouring to catch the ram, and to break theblows, by a chain lowered from the walls; whilst two warriors of the assailing party were seeking to hold theram in its place by hooks. This part of the bas-relief illustrates the account in the book of Chronicles and inJosephus, of the machines for battering walls, instruments to cast stones, and grappling irons made by Uzziah[2 Chron. 26:15, and Josephus, lib. ix, c. 10]. A warrior on the castle walls was throwing fire (traces of the redpaint with which the flame was coloured, being still visible in the sculpture) from above upon the battering-ram;whilst the besiegers endeavoured to quench the flames, by pouring water upon them from the moveabletower. Two soldiers, in full armour, were undermining the walls with instruments like blunt spears; whilst twoothers appear to have found a secret passage into the castle. Wounded men were falling from thebattlements; and upon one of the towers were women, tearing their hair and extending their hands to ask forquarter. The enemy were mounting to the assault, by scaling ladders placed against the walls. The king,discharging an arrow, and protected by a shield held by a warrior in complete armour, stood on one side of thecastle. He was attended by two eunuchs, one holding an open umbrella over his head, the other his quiverand mace. Behind them was an Assyrian warrior driving away three women, a child, and three bullocks,forming part of the spoil. It was thus that the Assyrians carried away captive the people of Samaria, replacingthe population of the conquered country by colonies of their own. The women were represented as tearingtheir hair and throwing dust upon their heads, the usual signs of grief in the East.“On the other side of the castle were two kneeling soldiers, one using his bow, the other holding a shield forhis companion’s defence. Behind them was the vizir, also discharging an arrow, and protected by the shield ofa second warrior, an archer kneeling, and an archer and his shield-bearer in complete armour, standing. Theywere followed by a chariot, in which a charioteer was standing, whilst the horses were held by a groom.Behind the chariot were two warriors, each carrying a bow and a mace.“The shields represented in this bas-relief were probably made of wicker-work, and were chiefly used during asiege. They were large enough to cover the whole person of the archer, who was thus able to discharge hisarrows in comparative security. Such may have been the bucklers which Herodotus describes as forming acomplete fence before the Persian archers at the battle of Platea” (pp. 235, 236, 237).Personal Armor“The Arabs employed in removing the rubbish from the chamber with the kneeling winged figures, discovereda quantity of objects in iron, in which I soon recognised the scales were from two to three inches in length,rounded at one end, and square at the other, with a raised or embossed line in the centre, and had probablybeen fastened to a shirt of linen or felt” (Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, p. 241).Hand-to-hand combat with clubs and spears and swords was common in that era, but as we haveseen, there was also plenty of death served up from long distances by arrows and machines thatthrew huge stones. There were also the skilled slingers, which are also mentioned in the Bible (2Kings 3:25). The Israeli slingers were accurate to the breadth of a hair (Judges 20:16).“In Old Testament times, slingers were regular components of an army and were often used together witharchers; during siege warfare their role was to pick off the enemy from the besieged city’s ramparts. Suchslingers were capable of hurling a projectile at over one hundred miles an hour and their effective range waswell in excess of one hundred yards” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament).141

The Gilgamesh Flood EpicOne of the 19th-century discoveries in the ancient Assyrian library at Nineveh was theGilgamesh flood account. Henry Layard found the tablets and sent them to the British Museum,where the text was translated in 1872 by George Smith.It is believed that the account originated in about 1800 B.C. in Babylon, which is near the time ofAbraham and about 500 years after the Flood.A portion of the Gilgamesh Epic is on display at the British Museum (Room 55, Case 10, WA K3375).It purports to be the account that Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh of how he survived the flood andgained immortality.Sumarian records claim that Gilgamesh was the king of Erech (Uruk in Akkadian) in about 2,500B.C. This carries us back to the time near the Flood, and it is probable that the Gilgameshmythology has an historical basis in Nimrod, as Erech is mentioned in Genesis 10:10 as thebeginning of Nimrod’s kingdom.Gilgamesh is described as part-man, part-god and is so proud and cruel and morally depravedthat the citizens of the land plead to the god Anu for protection. The Bible indicates that Nimrodmodeled these very characteristics. Nimrod and Gilgamesh portray the moral character that wasexhibited in later Babylonian and Assyrian kings such as Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib.Skeptics immediately used the Gilgamesh Epic as evidence that the Bible’s flood account is justone among many ancient legends.This willful unbelief is described in Peter’s amazing prophecy in 2 Peter 3:5-6.How did Peter, writing 2,000 years ago, know about the unbelief that would characterize modernscience? Such unbelief did not exist in his day. In fact, it was not until the 19th century that thiswillful ignorance came to the fore. Fulfilled prophecy is indisputable evidence of the divineinspiration of Scripture, and the very unbelief of modern archaeology witnesses to the Bible’struth!The fact is that the Bible’s flood account is of an entirely different character than the Gilgameshepic. The Bible’s account is not a wild-eyed fable, whereas that is exactly what we find inGilgamesh.First, consider the gods of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is an account of pagan gods who are weak andman-like and competitive. They are also dishonest and deceptive. After the chief god Ea takes anoath from the other gods not to tell mankind about the decision to send the flood, he decides to142

tell one man named Utnapishtim. Ea instructs him to keep the flood a secret from all other men.In fact, he is instructed to deceive others by giving them the impression that the gods are going tobless them instead of destroy them. When the storm comes, the gods are so frightened that theyflee to heaven and cower like dogs, crouching outside the door of the god Anu.Second, consider the ark of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is a CUBE 200 feet square and six stories tall,which would have been incredibly unstable and probably could not have survived the powerfulflood conditions. This is in contrast to the ark described in Genesis, which was 450 feet long by75 feet wide by 30 feet high, similar to the proportion of large modern sea-going vessels such asoil tankers and cargo containers.As an adopted son of Pharaoh, Moses was educated in all of the learning of the Egyptians (Acts7:22), who in turn were familiar with the learning of the ancient Babylonians. Yet not a hint ofthe ridiculous fables of these pagan people appear anywhere in Moses’ writings.This is because Moses wrote by divine inspiration and not by his own wisdom and training.Shalmaneser’s Black ObeliskThe Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (859-824 B.C.), was found in the ruins ofan Assyrian palace by Austen Layard in 1846.Of polished basalt six feet high, two feet wide, and sculpted on all four sides, the stele depictsfive foreign kings bringing tribute to the Assyrian monarch. There are five series of bas-reliefs(20 panels in all), each depicting a foreign king bringing tribute.The second series of panels from the top depicts King Jehu of northern Israel bowing beforeShalmaneser.The king of Assyria is standing before the humbled Jewish king and an attendant is holding anumbrella to shade him. Two other attendants are armed with swords. One of these is beckoningfor Jehu’s 13 servants to bring the tributes forward. Jehu and his servants have beards and arewearing long robes with decorated hems, peaked caps, and pointed shoes.The writing says, “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a goldenbowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king[and] spears” (the British Museum’s web site).The Bible does not describe Jehu’s tribute to the king of Assyria, but it does say that Jehu did notobey God and that he was given over to his enemies (2 Kings 10:31-33).143

Shalmaneser’s StelaThe Stela of Shalmaneser III, which describes the first six military campaigns of the Assyrianking, mentions Ahab (king of Israel) and Benhadad (king of Syria).“I approached Karkara. I destroyed, tore down, and bound Karkara, his royal residence. He brought along tohelp him 1,200 chariot, 1,200 cavalrymen, 20,000 foot soldiers belonging to Hadadezer [BENHADAD] ofDamascus ... 2000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers belonging to AHAB the Israelite.”Tiglath-pileser and Israel’s KingsTiglath-pileser (also known as Pul, which was his Babylonian name), was king of Assyria from744-727 B.C. His portrait is in Room 8 of the British Museum.Four of Israel’s kings are mentioned in his records.He describes the tribute demanded from King Menahem:“As for MENAHEM, I overwhelmed him like a snowstorm and he fled like a bird alone, and bowed to my feet. Ireturned him to his place and imposed tribute upon him.”This is mentioned in 2 Kings 15:19-20. Menahem raised the tribute money by imposing a tax of50 shekels on each wealthy man in his kingdom.Tiglath-pileser’s annals also confirm the events of 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 16:7-9.The Assyrian records describe the captivity of the Galilee region in northern Israel; theassassination of Pekah; the enthronement of Hoshea; Ahaz’s tribute; Rezin of Syria’s slaying.“Tiglath-pileser’s annals confirm all this, referring to the following people and events. In an inscription he tellshow Ahaz (of Judah) paid him an enormous tax of royal treasure, gold, silver, lead, tin, iron, woollen goods,linen, purple, trained horses and mules. Tiglath also gives details of how he took Syria, conquering all the wayto Damascus. He tells of how King Rezin fled into the city, and how, amidst scenes of devastation anddestruction, Rezin’s advisers were impaled. Tiglath-pileser’s annals also refer to the assassination of Pekah,claiming a part in the conspiracy. The historical nature of the biblical narrative could not be morecomprehensively confirmed” (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence, pp. 24, 25).Following is part of the Assyrian record:“BET-OMRI [the house of Omri] all of whose cities I had added to my territories on my former campaigns, andhad left out only the city of Samaria. ... The whole of Naphtali I took for Assyria. I put my officials over them asgovernors. The land of Bet-Omri, all its people and their possessions I took away to Assyria. They overthrewPEKAH their king and I made HOSHEA to be king over them” (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 260,261).The Annals of Tiglath-pileser III are in Room 89 of the British Museum (WA K 3751).Northern Israel is called the house of Omri after the name of the king who built the city ofSamaria (1 Kings 16:23-24).144

The capture of Astartu, a city in Gilead, is depicted on the Astartu Relief in the British Museum.The bottom of the relief shows the king being driven in his chariot which is led by honor guards.An attendant holds an umbrella over his head. At the top of the relief, Jews, goods and livestockare being taken captive. The bearded Jews, wearing fringed robes and skull caps and pointedshoes, with bags slung over their shoulders, are driven by an armed Assyrian soldier.Sargon II and the fall of SamariaSargon’s existence was doubted by skeptics, but the palace of Sargon II (722-705 B.C.) inKhorsabad was discovered by Paul Emile Botta in 1840. A depiction of Sargon recovered fromhis palace is in Room 23 of the British Museum. Sargon is on the left, and a nobleman, probablycrown prince Sennacherib, is on the right.The ancient records of this pagan king confirm the destruction of Samaria as described in 2Kings 17:4-6, 24; Hosea 13:16; Amos 3:9-11; and Micah 1:6-8.The Assyrian records confirm (1) that Samaria was conquered, (2) the Jews were taken awaycaptive (2 Kings 17:5-6), and (3) that pagan people were brought in from other countries torepopulate Samaria (2 Kings 17:24).Sargon’s account of his expedition into Israel reads:“In the first year of my reign I besieged and conquered Samaria. ... I surrounded and deported as prisoners27,290 of its inhabitants ... From them I equipped 200 chariots for my own army units. ... I restored the city ofSamaria. ... I made the remaining inhabitants assume their social positions. I installed over them an officer ofmine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king ... I brought into it people from the countriesconquered by my own hands” (Sargon Inscription from Khorsabad, Louvre, Paris).Shalmaneser V began the siege of Samaria, as the Bible says in 2 Kings 18:9, but he died duringthe three-year siege and it was concluded by Sargon II.The fortifications of the city had been strengthened a half century earlier by King Jeroboam, whobuilt a double wall with an overall thickness of 32 feet.Sennacherib’s description of the destruction of LachishSennacherib (704-680 B.C.) led a military campaign into Israel in 701 B.C. to regain controlover the cities that had revolted against Assyria upon the death of Sargon.The siege of the city of Lachish is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 32:9; and Isaiah 36:2.This event is described from the Assyrian perspective in a series of bas-reliefs found at Ninevehin the mid-1800s. The 90-foot-long bas-reliefs from the ancient palace of Sennacherib were145

discovered by Henry Layard and sent to the British Museum. They form the prominent feature ofThe Lachish Room or Room 10. The conquest of the Jewish city is recorded from left to rightaround the room.The reliefs show the Assyrians attacking the city, building a siege ramp, using battering rams todestroy the walls, and brutally treating the Jewish prisoners.“On the turrets and breastwork of the stronghold of Lachish with its stout high walls the Judahite defendersfought with clenched teeth. They showered a hail of arrows on the attackers, hurled stones down upon them,threw burning torches--the fire-bombs of the ancient world--among the enemy. The faces, curly hair, and shortbeards are easily recognisable. Only a few wear any protection for head or body.“At the foot of the wall the Assyrians are attacking with the utmost violence and with every type of weapon.Sennacherib had deployed the whole range of approved assault-tactics. Every Assyrian is armed to the teeth:each one wears shield and helmet. Their engineers have built sloping ramps of earth, stones and felled trees.Siege-engines, the first tanks in history, push forward up the ramps against the walls. They are equipped infront with a battering ram which sticks out like the barrel of a cannon. The crew consists of three men. Thearcher shoots his arrows from behind a sheltering canopy. A warrior guides the ram, and under its violentblows stones and bricks crash down from the walls. The third man douses the tanks with ladlefuls of water,extinguishing the smouldering fire-bombs. Several tanks are attacking at the same time. Tunnels are beingdriven into the rock beneath the foundations of the walls. Behind the tanks come the infantry, bowmen, someof them kneeling, some stooping, protected by a shield-bearer. The first captives, men and women, are beingled off. Lifeless bodies are hanging on pointed stakes--impaled” (Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 278, 279).“A chariot and other items are shown being carried out of the city along with numerous prisoners, includingcarts with families and small children. Dead defenders are shown spiked on poles and paraded about todemoralise others. Some prisoners are being tortured, flayed until the muscles are visible. On the end wall ofthe gallery Sennacherib is seen on a portable throne receiving the surrender of the city. An inscription reads,‘Sennacherib, supreme king, king of Assyria, sits upon a throne while the booty of Lachish passes beforehim’” (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence, p. 36).An eight-sided prism (British Museum, WA 103000, Room 10) records five of Sennacherib’scampaigns, including the capture of Lachish.Sennacherib’s description of the siege of JerusalemSennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem is described in 2 Kings 18-19; 2 Chronicles 32; and Isaiah36-37.The Assyrian army surrounded the city and would have destroyed it except that God answeredHezekiah’s prayer and the angel of the Lord killed 185,000 soldiers (2 Kings 19:35).A hexagonal clay cylinder from Nineveh called the TAYLOR PRISM, discovered in 1830,records this event from the Assyrian perspective. It is in Room 55 of the British Library (Case11).Another inscription found in the southwest palace at Nineveh records the same event, as follows:“As for Hezekiah the Jew, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong, walled cities ... by escalade and bybringing up siege engines, by attacking and storming ... by mines, tunnels and breaches, I besieged and took,200,150 people ... horses ... cattle and sheep without number I brought away146

“[Hezekiah] himself like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. Earthworks I threw up against him;the one coming out of his city gate I turned back to his mercy. ...“As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendour of my majesty overcame him ... and his troops ... deserted him. Inaddition to 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver [I took] gems, antimony, jewels ... ivory ... valuabletreasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians which I sent to Nineveh, myroyal city” (from WA 118815, Room 10, British Museum).The Assyrian account agrees with the Bible in five major points.1. It confirms the Bible’s account that Sennacherib was a proud boaster.2. It confirms the Bible’s account that Sennacherib shut up Jerusalem like a caged bird.3. It confirms the Bible’s account that Hezekiah gave tribute to the Assyrian king (2 Kings18:14-15).4. It confirms the Bible’s account that the tribute in gold was 30 talents (2,250 pounds).5. It confirms the Bible’s account that Sennacherib did not conquer Jerusalem. The Assyrianaccount merely says that he besieged Jerusalem, which is exactly what the Bible says. It is notsurprising that the Assyrian account leaves out the destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings19:35-36), because pagan kings did not record their defeats.The only point of disagreement pertains to the tribute in silver. The Bible says it was 300 talents(22,500 pounds), whereas the Assyrian account says 800. We don’t know why the Assyrian says800, but we have every reason to believe that the Bible is the accurate record, since it has provenitself dependable.In Hezekiah’s tribute we are given a glimpse into the great wealth of Judah even in this reduced,apostate stage in her history.The destruction of the Assyrian kingdom and Bible prophecyGod used Assyria as an instrument to punish Israel, but her day of judgment came and it wasterrible to behold. Israel still lives, but Assyria is only a vague memory.The destruction of Assyria was prophesied in Isaiah 10:5-19 and Ezekiel 31:3-13, and thedestruction of Nineveh in particular was prophesied in Nahum 2-3 and Zephaniah 2:13-15.Nahum prophesied about 713 B.C., which was more than a century before Nineveh fell in 612B.C., and her fall occurred precisely according to the Bible prophecy.Consider the following dramatic examples:147

1. The city endured a long siege. “Draw thee waters for the siege, fortify thy strong holds: go intoclay, and tread the mortar, make strong the brickkiln” (Nah. 3:14). Indeed, the city was besiegedfor over two years.2. Nineveh’s palace was breached by a flood. “The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and thepalace shall be dissolved” (Nah. 2:6). “There was a floodgate at the N.W. angle of the city, whichwas swept away; and the water pouring into the city ‘dissolved’ the palace foundation platform,of sundried bricks” (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary).3. Nineveh’s defenders were drunk. “For while they be folden together as thorns, and while theyare drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry” (Nah. 1:10). “Thehistorian [Diodorus Siculus] relates that the king of Assyria, elated with his former victories, andignorant of the revolt of the Bactrians, had abandoned himself to scandalous inaction; hadappointed a time of festivity, and supplied his soldiers with abundance of wine; and that thegeneral of the enemy, appraised, by deserters, of their negligence and drunkenness, attacked theAssyrian army while the whole of them were giving way to indulgence, destroyed a great part ofthem, and drove the rest into the city” (Alexander Keith, Christian Evidences: Fulfilled BibleProphecy, 1831). This also reminds us of the fall of Babylon when the king and his princes wereengaged in a drunken party as described in Daniel 5.4. Nineveh’s fortifications were destroyed by fire. “the fire shall devour thy bars” (Nah. 3:13,15). “Saracus the last king, Esarhaddon’s grandson, set fire to the palace and perished in theflames, as Ctesias states, and as the marks of fire on the walls still confirm. Charred wood,calcined alabaster, and heat splintered figures abound” (Fausset). Burnt bas-reliefs fromNineveh’s palace are on display in Room 9 at the British Museum (WA 124785).5. The enemy ran over the city unopposed and chariots ran abreast in the city’s wide streets. “Thechariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: theyshall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings” (Nah. 2:4). “The picture of the scenesin her streets--the noise of the whip, the rattling wheels, the prancing horses, the boundingchariots, followed by a vivid description of the carnage of the battlefield--is exceedingly striking,and true to their records and their sculptures” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). Eventhe road on top of Nineveh’s walls was wide enough for three chariots abreast (Fausset).6. Nineveh would be left utterly waste.“I will make thy grave” (Nah. 1:14)“She is empty, and void, and waste” (Nah. 2:10)“Nineveh is laid waste” (Nah. 3:7)“And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation,and dry like a wilderness” (Zeph. 2:13)148

“how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in” (Zeph. 2:15)The Babylonian Chronicle described Nineveh’s destruction as follows:“... the city was reduced to a mount of ruin and heaps of debris” (Babylonian Chronicle for 615-609 B.C.,British Museum, Room 55, Case 11, WA 21901).Many ancient cities that were overrun by foreign armies, sometimes repeatedly, have survived,but Nineveh disappeared just as Scripture predicted. By 400 B.C. the city “had become a thing ofthe past” and was gradually buried out of sight under the desert sands.Its exact location was forgotten until Austen Henry Layard’s excavations in the mid-19th century.His description of the desolation of Nimrod (Calah) in those days could also have been written ofnearby Nineveh, and it is a powerful confirmation of Bible prophecy.“The lofty cone and broad mound of Nimroud rose like a distant mountain in the morning sky. ... [there were]no signs of human habitation, not even the black tent of the Arab, were seen upon the plain. The eyewandered over a parched and barren waste, across which occasionally swept the whirlwind, dragging with it acloud of sand. About a mile from us was the small village of Nimroud, like Naifa, a heap of ruins. ... The luxuryand civilisation of a mighty nation had given place to the wretchedness and ignorance of a few half-barbaroustribes. The wealth of temples, and the riches of great cities, had been succeeded by ruins and shapelessheaps of earth” (Nineveh and Its Remains, pp. 15, 16, 55).SUMMARY OF ASSYRIA1. According to archaeology, Assyria was founded by Asshur, which is in accordance with theBible’s statement that Asshur founded Nineveh (Gen. 10:11). The Assyrian symbol for Asshur--awarrior with a bow in his hand--reminds us of the Bible’s description of Nimrod as a mightyhunter (Gen. 10:9).2. Archaeology has found evidence of many of the Assyrian kings mentioned in the Bible:Shalmaneser II, Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, andAshurbanipal (Asnappar).3. In his book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853), Layard listed 55 rulers,cities, and countries that appear both in the Old Testament and in the ancient Assyrian recordsunearthed through archaeology.4. Assyrian annals give extra-biblical witness to nine Hebrew kings: Omri, Ahab, Jehu,Menahem, Pekah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh.5. Archaeology has confirmed the Bible’s description of Assyria’s chief moral characteristics aspride (Isa. 10:12), violence, deception, and covetousness (Nah. 3:1) and idolatrous witchcraft(Nah. 3:4).6. Archaeology has confirmed Assyria’s cruel military might as described in the Bible.149

7. The Gilgamesh flood epic is a fable. It depicts a plurality of weak, deceptive gods. The ark is acube 200 feet square and six stories tall.8. Shalmaneser’s Black Obelisk portrays Israel’s King Jehu offering tribute to the Assyrian king.9. Assyrian records confirm Sargon’s destruction of Samaria, the carrying away of the Israelites,and the repopulating of the land with pagan people.10. Assyrian records confirm the siege and destruction of Lachish. Bas-reliefs depicting thisevent were found at Nineveh and are in the British Museum’s Lachism Room.11. Assyrian records (the Taylor Prism) confirm Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem.12. Archaeology confirms the description of the destruction of Nineveh written in Bibleprophecy.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ASSYRIA1. Who was the founder of Nineveh according to the Bible?2. What ancient kingdom got its name from this man?3. He was worshipped as the ______ god and his symbol was a ______________________.4. He was depicted as a warrior with a _________ in hand.5. How does this depiction fit the Bible’s description of Nimrod?6. What book and chapter of the Bible describes Nimrod’s kingdom?7. What archaeologist discovered the ruins of eight Assyrian palaces?8. When was this?9. What were four moral characteristics of Assyria as found in the Bible?10. The Assyrian king’s palaces were lined with stone slabs that depicted what?11. What Assyrian king built a grand library?12. Why have most of the books in the library perished?13. The prophet Nahum called Nineveh the ____________ city.14. How did the Assyrians treat the people they defeated?15. What type of siege engine did the Assyrians use to break down walls?16. Traces of red paint have been found on the depictions of a castle siege. What did the reddepict?17. When and where did the Gilgamesh Epic originate?18. Gilgamesh was the king of what city?19. According to the Bible, this city was the beginning of the kingdom of what man?20. What Bible prophecy specifically describes the skepticism of the end times?21. What are two major ways that the Gilgamesh Epic shows itself to be a pagan fable ascontrasted with the Bible’s account of the Flood.22. When was the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser found?150

23. What does it depict?24. What Hebrew king is depicted?25. How are this king and his servants dressed?26. Does the Bible describe Jehu’s tribute to the king of Assyria?27. The Stela of Shalmaneser mentions what Hebrew king?28. What four Hebrew kings are mentioned in the records of Tiglath-pileser?29. What was the Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser?30. What does Bet-Omri mean?31. Why is the northern kingdom of Israel called Bet-Omri?32. How are the Jews dressed in the Astartu Relief?33. In what three ways do the Assyrian records agree about the fall of Samaria?34. The siege of Samaria was begun by what Assyrian king and ended by what Assyrian king?35. What are three facts about the destruction of Nineveh that were written beforehand in Bibleprophecy?MEDO-PERSIA☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Medo-Persia is included in the UnshakeableFaith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at thebeginning of the course for tips on using this material.The Babylonian Empire was conquered in 539 B.C. by the Medo-Persians. This is described inDaniel 5:30-31.The Medo-Persian Empire was truly great. It encompassed 127 provinces and spread from Indiato Ethiopia (Esther 1:1).The Persians maintained a major road system with rest stations, inns, and guarded garrisons thatkept the highways free from bandits.The Royal Road stretched 1,600 miles from Susa to Sardis and post stations with fresh horseswere placed about every 15 miles along its length. A caravan could travel the length of the roadin 90 days, but a courier could make the same trip in a week.The Persians invented horseshoes to facilitate mail moving over the Royal Road.In the 5th century B.C., Greek historian Herodotus coined the famous saying that has often beenwrongly attributed to the U.S. postal system. Referring to the Persians he said, “Neither snow norrain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointedrounds.”151

CyrusThe Medo-Persian king Cyrus the Great (also known as the king of Babylon) (576-530 B.C.) ismentioned 23 times in Scripture. The prophet Daniel was still living at the beginning of his reign(Dan. 6:28; 10:1).Cyrus was called by name in prophecy before he was born. Isaiah prophesied in about 574 B.C.that he would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1).Jeremiah also prophesied of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, though he didn’t name Cyrus. Jeremiahsaid that the Babylonian captivity would last 70 years after which Israel would be restored(Jeremiah 29:10).Seventy years after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, Cyrus issued a proclamation orderingthe rebuilding of the Jewish temple (Ezra 1:1-4). Cyrus provided cedar trees and other materialsfor the temple’s construction (Ezra 3:7) and even restored the articles that had been taken fromthe First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra 1:7-11).It was once thought by skeptics that the Bible’s record of Cyrus’ release of the Jews and hisgranting of religious liberty was mythical, but archaeology has confirmed that this was inaccordance with his standing practice. The Cyrus Cylinder, while not specifically mentioningIsrael, states that this king had the policy of restoring captives to their lands and assisting them inrebuilding their temples. The cylinder, which is inscribed in the Akkadian language, was found inthe temple of Marduk in Babylon in 1879. It reads:“I returned to [these] sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have been in ruinsfor a long time, the images which [used] to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I[also] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and returned their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon thecommand of Marduk the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought intoBabylon to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their [former] chapels, the places which made themhappy. May all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities ask daily Bel and Nebo for long life for meand may they recommend me ... to Marduk, my lord, may they say thus: Cyrus, the king who worships you,and Cambyses, his son ... all of them I settled in a peaceful place” (Cyrus Cylinder, British Museum, Room 52,Case 6, WA 1880-6-17).Xerxes (Asasuerus), Esther and the Shushan PalaceThe Persian king during the time of Esther was Darius’ son Xerxes (485-465 B.C.). This was theGreek form of his name; it is Ahasuerus in Hebrew.Xerxes’ image appears on the Behistun Relief, standing behind Darius. He also appears standingbehind Darius in a relief from Persepolis which is at the Oriental Institute.Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the book of Esther and identifiedMordecai.152

“It is generally accepted that Mordecai can be identified with Marduka, a high official working in Susa. Somewould identify Esther with Queen Amestris. ... The book of Esther fits nicely within what is known from Persianand Greek history, and numerous scholars have remarked on the book’s great ‘familiarity with both generaland specific features of Persian life.’ The book is sprinkled with loan words and personal names of Persianorigin” (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 145).The Medo-Persian palace at Susa (Shushan) is mentioned in three books of the Bible. Daniel,Nehemiah, and Esther lived in this palace.“The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year,as I was in Shushan the palace” (Nehemiah 1:1).“That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan thepalace” (Esther 1:2).“And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in theprovince of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai” (Daniel 8:2).The palace began to be built by Darius and was completed by Xerxes. A Darius tablet at theLouvre says, “This palace which I built at Susa...”The Bible describes the palace as a glorious place with pillars of marble, beds of gold and silver,and pavements of red, blue, white, and black marble (Esther 1:6).Archaeology has confirmed this. The palace measured 820 x 490 feet and its throne room had 72majestic columns and was surrounded on three sides by porticoes with columns topped with hugedouble-bull capitals on which the cedar beams of the roof rested. These columns sat on bellshapedbases. The palace was decorated with panels of beautiful glazed brick featuring reliefs ofsoldiers and animals. Some of these are in the British Museum (Room 52). Others are in the SusaRoom at the Louvre in Paris.Many beautiful objects have been recovered from the ancient palace that give us a glimpse intolife in that day. Some of these would have been seen by Daniel, Nehemiah, and Esther. Theyinclude beautiful rhytons which were used to pour wine and which Nehemiah might have used.SUMMARY OF MEDO-PERSIA1. Archaeology has confirmed that it was Cyrus’ practice to grant religious liberty and returnreligious objects to the conquered people.2. The glory of the Shushan Palace, which is mentioned in three books of the Bible, has beenconfirmed by archaeology.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON MEDO-PERSIA1.Who conquered the Babylonian Empire?2. King Cyrus was named before his birth by what Hebrew prophet?153

3. What is the significance of the Cyrus Cylinder?4. What is the biblical name for the Palace at Susa?5. What three Biblical figures lived in this palace?6. Who built the palace?7. What was the Persian name of King Ahasuerus?ISRAEL☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Israel is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.Evidence of Israel’s history as recorded in the Bible is found throughout the land today.Following are a few examples:EVIDENCE AT THE ISRAEL MUSEUMThere are items in ivory excavated from Ahab’s palace in Samaria. The Bible mentions Ahab’sivory palace (1 Kings 22:39), and many fragments of carved ivory items have been found. Alsofound in the palace area was an opal signet ring (an official seal) containing the name Jezebel.Research in 2007 by Dutch Ugaritologist Marjo Korpel confirmed that the seal belonged to thewicked queen. The seal has idolatrous symbols, including a double cobra, symbolic of Satan, andthe Egyptian ankh, which is a sign of sun worship and is associated with the goddess Isis.There is a piece of basalt (volcanic) rock inscribed with the words “Beit David,” meaning“House of David.” It was part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria to celebrate thedefeat of his enemies, and it dates to about the 9th century B.C. which is less than 100 years afterDavid lived.There are coins from the Bar Kokhba revolt to liberate Jerusalem from the Roman armies from132-135 A.D., only a few decades after the destruction of the Temple. These depict the façade ofthe Second Temple with the Ark of the Covenant between the pillars. Others depict the silvertrumpets and a temple harp.EVIDENCE AT THE SHRINE OF THE BOOKThe Shrine of the Book, in Jerusalem, operated by the Israel Museum, features two of thegreatest historical witnesses to the authority of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, which is the basisfor the great Protestant Bibles such as the Luther German, the Reina Valera Spanish, and theKing James English. These are both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Aleppo Codex.154

The roof of the museum is in the shape of the lid of the clay jars that protected the Dead SeaScrolls, and the corridor leading into the museum resembles a cave.It is most amazing and wonderful that the two greatest witnesses to the authenticity of theMasoretic Bible are located in the Jewish Shrine of the Book in the modern state of Israel,because it was to the Jews that God assigned the task of preserving the Hebrew Bible. In Romans3:1-2 Paul calls the Hebrew Old Testament the “oracles of God” (“oracles” means utterance), andtells us that these oracles were committed to the Jews. Though the Jews did not obey theScripture, they revered it. Josephus and Philo “assure us that they would have undergone all sortsof torments rather than have taken a letter from the Scripture, or altered a word of it” (John Kitto,Illustrated History of the Bible, edited by Alvan Bond, 1908, p. 39). Countless Jews have died intheir zeal to protect and preserve the Old Testament Bible.This reverence was placed in theirhearts by the God of the Bible for the purpose of its preservation.In particular, it was the Jewish priests who were assigned as the keepers of the Scriptures (Deut.31:24-26; 17:18).After the destruction of the Jewish Temple, Hebrew scholars called THE MASORETES(Traditionalists) jealously guarded the Hebrew text and passed it down from generation togeneration.It is the Masoretic Hebrew Bible that was adopted by Christians and used in the first printedBibles.One of the most famous Masorete scholars was Aaron Ben Asher at Tiberias. From the 12thcentury forward the Ben Asher Hebrew text was the received Hebrew Bible.The ALEPPO CODEX*, at the Shrine of the Book, is the most revered copy of the Ben AsherBible. It was produced in about A.D. 920 in Tiberias, and the vowel markings were added by benAsher. (* The term “codex” refers to a bound book as contrasted with a rolled scroll.)In about 1375 it was moved to the synagogue in Aleppo, Syria, where it got its name. There itwas kept in a double-locked metal box in a room called “the Cave of Elijah.” In 1947, thesynagogue was destroyed by rampaging Muslims who were angry at the U.N. resolution toestablish a Jewish state. The Aleppo Codex was ripped apart and desecrated. The survivingportions were hidden away and smuggled into Turkey in a washing machine in 1958. From thereit was brought to Jerusalem and restored by the Shrine of the Book.Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, this was the oldest surviving copy ofthe Hebrew Bible and the one considered the most authoritative. Thus, until the discovery of theDead Sea Scrolls, the oldest copy of the Hebrew Bible was only 1000 years old.155

Then in the 1940s, the GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL was found in the first Dead Sea cave. Todayit resides in the Shrine of the Book. It contains the entire book of Isaiah written on 17 pieces ofsheepskin forming a scroll measuring 24.5 feet long. Though 1,000 years older, it is almostexactly the same as the Aleppo Codex and the Masoretic Hebrew text of the old ProtestantBibles. The differences are extremely minor. There are only three letters that differ between theGreat Isaiah Scroll of 100 B.C. and the Aleppo Codex of 900 A.D. Adolfo Roitman calls it“extraordinarily close” (The Bible in the Shrine of the Book, p. 43).Here we see a wonderful confirmation of God’s promise to preserve His Word. There isabsolutely nothing like this level of preservation in any other ancient book.“For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to allgenerations” (Psalms 100:5).EVIDENCE OF JEREMIAH’S PROPHECYSeveral people mentioned in the book of Jeremiah have been authenticated by amazing extrascripturalartifacts.There is a clay bulla (used to seal scrolls) brought to light in 1975 contains the name ofJeremiah’s scribe Baruch. It says, “Belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah.” See Jeremiah 36 and45.There is a clay seal “belonging to Gemariah son of Shaphan.” It was in Gemariah’s chamber inthe temple where Baruch first read Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 36:5-10). Gemariah was one ofthree men who tried to dissuade the king from burning the scroll, “but he would not hearthem” (Jer. 36:25).There is a eal with name of Jehucal ben Shelemiah, who is mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3 and 38:1.Jehucal was one of the emissaries sent by King Zedekiah to ask Jeremiah to pray for God’s help.Later Jehucal joined with those who urged the king to kill Jeremiah, claiming that he wasdiscouraging the people (Jer. 38:1-4).There is a seal with the name of “Elishama servant of the king,” mentioned in Jeremiah 36:12.There are the LACHISH LETTERS. In the 1930s an archaeological team discovered 21 letterswritten on pottery in Lachish. The letters confirm the statement in Jeremiah 34:7 that Lachishand Azekah were the last cities to fall. The letters mention Gemariah (Jer. 36:10), Jaazaniah (Jer.35:3), Baruch (Jer. 36:4), and Mattaniah (King Zedekiah, 2 Kings 24:17).It was Jeremiah’s prophecies that King Jehoiakim cut up and burned in the fire as he warnedhimself in the palace. God instructed Jeremiah to write the prophecies again, and they have beenmeticulously preserved, whereas Jehoiakim is long gone and forgotten.156

EVIDENCE AT MEGIDDOThe hill of Megiddo played an important role in Israel’s history. It is located on the main routethrough the Holy Land overlooking the valley of Jezreel, and any army traveling north to southwould travel through this area because of the mountainous terrain on both sides. It is believedthat more battles have been fought here than anywhere else on earth.Deborah and Barak defeated the Canaanites here in about 1300 B.C. (Judges 4-5). King Solomonconquered Megiddo and built a fortress city here in 1000 B.C. (1 Kings 4:12; 9:15). Megiddowas lost to foreign powers and retaken numerous times during the divided kingdom. Three ofIsrael’s kings died here: Saul at the hands of the Philistines in the 10th century B.C. (1 Samuel31), Ahaziah at the hands of Jehu in the 9th century B.C. (2 Kings 9:27), and Josiah at the handsof the king of Egypt in the 7th century B.C. (2 Kings 23:29).The location of Megiddo was lost for centuries. When Edwin Robinson visited the area in 1838he wrote in his diary, “I wonder where Megiddo could have been.” Actually it was right underhis feet. Since 1903 extensive archaeological excavations have found evidence of 20 or moreancient cities at Megiddo, one built upon another, going back to thousands of years B.C.Though disputed by those who are predisposed to doubt anything the Bible says, there isextensive evidence for the handiwork of King Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) and the kings of northernIsrael. The gate to Solomon’s city has been uncovered, as well as Solomon’s stables and hispalace.EVIDENCE AT CAESAREA MARITIMAMany biblical events occurred at Caesarea Maritima. It is mentioned 15 times in the book ofActs. (It should not be confused with Caesarea Philippi located at the foot of Mt. Hermon andbuilt by Herod the Great’s son Philip.)It was here that the Roman Tenth Legion was stationed, and there is archaeological evidence forthis. Cornelius the centurion, who commanded 100 soldiers in the legion, was saved and baptizedhere by Peter (Acts 10).After Paul was arrested in Jerusalem he was sent to Caesarea and spent two years imprisonedthere until he was sent to Rome. It was here that he appeared before Felix, Festus, and KingAgrippa (Acts 23:23 - 26:32).This city was enlarged and glorified by Herod the Great, who was king of Judea at Jesus’ birth(Mat. 2:1; Lk. 1:5). (This is the Herod who ordered the murder of male Jewish children undertwo years old in his demonic attempt to destroy Jesus.) A gift to Herod from Caesar Augustus(for whom the city was named), Caesarea became the capital of the Roman province of Judea. It157

was one of the crown jewels of the Roman Empire and its 40-acre man-made harbor was “thegreatest engineering wonder of its time.” There was a 4,000-seat theater, a 5,000-seat chariotracetrack, mosaic walkways, colonnaded streets, and all sorts of magnificent buildings, includingHerod’s palace and temples dedicated to Caesar worship. Other than the harbor at Alexandria,Egypt, Caesarea’s was the finest on the eastern Mediterranean and ships could make the trip fromRome in 10 days.Water was brought to Caesarea from miles away by a double aqueduct, an impressiveengineering feat in its own right. This provided plenty of water for the city’s pools, fountains,baths, and sewer system. The name of the Tenth Legion is inscribed on the aqueduct.The Pilate Stone (shown right) found at Caesarea in 1961 during reconstruction of the theaterproves that Pilate was the governor of Judea as the Bible says. Written in Latin, the inscriptionon the limestone block reads “Pontius Pilatus prefect of Judea, erected the Tiberium [temple inhonor of Tiberius Caesar] to the August Gods.” This agrees with Luke’s statement that Pilateruled during the lifetime of Tiberius (Luke 3:1). The stone is housed in the Israel Museum, whilea copy is on display at Caesarea.EVIDENCE AT MASADAMasada is a rocky mountain in the Judean desert overlooking the Dead Sea. Herod the Greatbuilt a fortified palace at Masada three decades before the birth of Christ. During the Jewishrevolt against Rome 100 years later the Jews captured the fortress. They believed that theMessiah was going to deliver them and establish the Davidic kingdom, but in fact they hadrejected the Messiah decades earlier. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the templein 70 A.D., Masada was the only site that remained under Jewish control. The rebels used it as abase of operation for raiding parties. In 74 A.D. Flavius Silva, at the head of 10,000 soldiers ofthe Roman Tenth Legion, conquered Masada, after a siege of several months. The Roman armiesbuilt eight camps around the citadel and with Jewish slave labor constructed an assault ramp tothe top. According to the historian Josephus, the remaining 1,000 Jews decided to commitsuicide rather than fall into the hands of the Romans. They had determined that God hadabandoned them, whereas in reality they had abandoned God. Ten men were chosen by lot to killthe others. Then the insurrection leader, Eleazar ben Yair, and the remaining ten men drew lotsagain and one was chosen to kill the others and end his own life. Two women and five childrenwho survived by hiding in a cave told the story of the last hours of the defenders as recounted byJosephus. This account has been disputed by some modern historians (someone is always tryingto make a name for himself by disputing well-established facts of history), but there is no goodreason to doubt it other than perhaps to question the number of Jews that were involved in thefinal suicide pact.The identity of Masada was lost for centuries until the site was discovered by two Americans in1838.158

Since the early 1960s extensive archaeological excavations have been carried out at Masada bythe Israel Department of Antiquities. The evidence for Herod’s first century B.C. palaces and thefirst century A.D. battle is irrefutable. There is the inscription “To Herod King of the Jews” on apiece of pottery that was used to import wine. These wine containers also feature the name C.Sentius Saturninus, who was the Roman consul in 19 B.C. Of the palaces, portions of some ofthe rooms remain, including Herod’s throne room and the bath house with its furnace room.There are remnants of marble columns, beautiful mosaic pavements, tiles, bathing pools, andmany other things. The place was very elaborate. The walls were covered with frescoes thatlooked like marble. The ruins also contain the remains of a Jewish synagogue that Herod built,one of the oldest known synagogues in Israel and the only one dating to the time of the SecondTemple. It is also the best preserved.Portions of Bible scrolls were found at Masada, including Joshua, fragments of Deuteronomy,and Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones. The Joshua scroll was originally dated to 30 A.D., butcarbon-14 dating has attributed it to 150-75 B.C., which means it is as old as the Bible scrollsfound in the Dead Sea caves (“The Dead Sea Scrolls Support the Masoretic Text,” Jan. 15, 2009,Soulcast.com, viewed April 28, 2010). And like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masada scrolls largelyagree with the Masoretic Text.There is a piece of pottery with the words “tithe for the priest.”Many coins found at Masada attest to the ancient history of the place. There are coins from eachyear of the Revolt, including 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed. They are inscribed with“Jerusalem the holy.”As for the battle, the Roman encampments are still evident, as is the attack ramp. There is even apiece of pottery with the name Ben Yair, the leader of the rebels. This was discovered togetherwith ten other pieces of pottery, each bearing a name, which is striking confirmation ofJosephus’ account of the lots.EVIDENCE IN JERUSALEMAn inscription found in THE SILOAM TUNNEL celebrated the completion of the constructionof a water tunnel in the time of King Hezekiah described in 2 Kings 20:20. The Hebrew writingis in the early angular script used before the Babylonian exile. The tunnel was discovered in the19th century by two Arab boys who were swimming in the Siloam pool. It is about two feet wideand five feet high and ends at the Fountain of Gihon (today called the Virgin’s Fountain), whichwas Jerusalem’s water supply since ancient times.Part of NEHEMIAH’S WALL has been unearthed. It matches the description in Nehemiah thatthe poor Jews who had returned from Babylon used whatever was at hand to rebuild the wallsrather than rebuild it with quarried stones.159

THE PAVEMENT IN PILATE’S COURT mentioned in John 19:13 was found byarchaeologist L. H. Vincent in the 1920s. The pavement was located in the court of the Tower ofAtonia, which was buried when the city was rebuilt in the time of the Roman Emperor Hadrian.The TEMPLE MOUNT itself and the Western Wall attests to the Second Temple, built in the6th century B.C. and expanded under Herod the Great in the 1st century B.C. The Western Wallcontains original stones from the foundation of the Temple Mount in the days when the NewTestament was written.The SOUTHERN STEPS which can be seen today near the Western Wall are the steps thatexisted in Jesus’ day leading to the main gates to the Temple from the old city. Renownedarchaeologist Benjamin Mazar, president of the Hebrew University, excavated the southern stepsbetween 1968-78. Because of his labor, visitors today can see the actual steps upon which Jesuswalked and where He preached at the main entrance to the temple area and where the Psalms ofDegrees were probably sung.There are also THE TEMPLE STONES. The Lord Jesus prophesied that the beautiful templeand the surrounding buildings would be destroyed and “there shall not be left one stone uponanother, that shall not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2). This was fulfilled 40 years later when theRoman army under Titus conquered the city and destroyed the temple. Some of the stones thattumbled off the mount during this epoch event have been unearthed along the Western Wall.Most of the stones weigh two to four tons, with some weighing as much as 15 tons.One of these stones with the inscription “TO THE PLACE OF TRUMPETING” wasdiscovered by Benjamin Mazar. This corresponds with Josephus’ description in his Jewish Warsof a corner of the Temple Mount where the trumpet was blown to mark the beginning and endingof the Sabbath. “And the last [tower] was erected above the roof of the Priest’s Chambers, whereit was the custom for one of the priests to stand and to give notice, by the sound of a trumpet, inthe afternoon of the approach, and on the following evening of the close, of every seventh day,announcing to the people the respective hours for ceasing work and for resuming their labors.”The original is in the Israel Museum, but a copy is on display near the temple stones along theWestern Wall.Stone plaques with Greek inscriptions from the time of King Herod WARNING NON-JEWSNOT TO ENTER CERTAIN AREAS OF THE TEMPLE have also been uncovered. Theplaque reads: “No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and embankment around thesanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows.” Acomplete plaque is housed in the archaeological museum in Istanbul and a partial one is housedin the Israel Museum.In 2009 Dr. Eilat Mazar, world authority on Jerusalem’s ancient archaeology, discovered theruins of DAVID’S PALACE. Though skeptics have predictably tried to discredit the find, Mazarfound evidence that this was David’s palace and that it was occupied up until the destruction of160

Solomon’s Temple (“The World of Archeology Is Rocked,” aish.com, July 6, 2009). Eilat is thegranddaughter of Benjamin Mazar, and in their last conversation before his death in 1995, theydiscussed the recovery of David’s palace.In the 1990s two small SILVER SCROLLS were found in an ancient tomb on Ketef Hinnom(the shoulder of Hinnom), on the side of the Valley of Hinnom. After being unrolled at the IsraelMuseum, the scrolls were found to contain the priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26. Datingto the 7th century B.C., these are the oldest portions of Scripture in existence, predating the O.T.scrolls from the Dead Sea caves by four or five hundred years.THE ARCH OF TITUSLeaving the land of Israel itself for a moment, there is powerful evidence in Rome for the SecondTemple and its destruction according to Jesus’ prophecy. It was a Roman army that destroyed theTemple under the leadership of Titus, and the artifacts were transported to Rome. Titus becameemperor, and in 85 A.D. a monumental arch was dedicated in commemoration of his victory overthe Jews. A bas-relief inside the arch depicts the spoils from the Jerusalem Temple carried in avictory procession after Jerusalem’s fall. Clearly seen are the candlestick and the silver trumpets.This 1900-year-old monument thus stands as a silent witness to the accuracy of Bible prophecy,as the destruction depicted on it was prophesied nearly a half century earlier by the Lord JesusChrist in Luke 19:41-44:“And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, atleast in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For thedays shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, andkeep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and theyshall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”SUMMARY OF ISRAEL1. Archaeological evidence of Israel’s ancient history found in Israel itself include artifacts fromAhab’s palace, the inscription of “House of David” on a Syrian victory pillar, the LachishLetters, and evidence of Solomon’s fortress at Megiddo.2. At Caesarea Maritima, there is evidence of the Roman Tenth Legion and of Pilate.3. At Masada, archaeologists have found evidence of Herod’s fortified palace, portions of Biblescrolls, and coins dating to the destruction of the Temple.4. In Jerusalem, archaeology has discovered Nehemiah’s Wall, the pavement in Pilate’s court, theSiloam tunnel, the Temple Mount, Temple stones, the Southern Steps, and the inscription “to theplace of trumpeting.”161

5. The Arch of Titus in Rome depicts the artifacts removed from the Temple before it wasdestroyed in 70 A.D.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ISRAEL1. What evidence of Jezebel exists from Ahab’s ivory palace?2. What type of symbols are engraved on this object?3. What evidence of King David was found on a Syrian victory pillar?4. What does the word “beit” mean?5. What was the Bar Kokhba revolt?6. What images from the Jewish Temple were engraved on the Bar Kokhba coins?7. What two great historical witnesses to the authority of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible are in theShrine of the Book museum?8. What passage says that God assigned the Jews the task of keeping the Scripture?9. Though the Jews did not _________ the Scripture, they __________ it.10. Who were the Masoretes?11. Who was Aaron Ben Asher?12. When was the Aleppo Codex written?13. What does the word “codex” mean?14. What is “Aleppo”?15. When was the Great Isaiah Scroll found and where?16. How old is the Great Isaiah Scroll?17. How does the Great Isaiah Scroll confirm God’s promise to preserve His Word?18. Who was Baruch and what archaeological evidence was found for his existence?19. What are the Lachish Letters?20. What are three important events in Jewish history that occurred at Megiddo?21. What archaeologist rediscovered the site of ancient Megiddo and when was this?22. Where was Caesarea Maritima located?23. What are two biblical events that occurred here?24. What evidence for Pilate was found here?25. What event described by Josephus occurred at Masada?26. What evidence for the Jewish temple was found at Masada?27. Where in Israel was Caesarea Maritima located?28. What are three Bible events that took place there?29. What is the significance of the Pilate Stone?30. The Siloam tunnel was built for what purpose?31. What type of material went into the construction of Nehemiah’s Wall?32. When was the pavement in Pilate’s Court located by archaeologists?33. What part of the Temple Mount contains original stones from the days when the NewTestament was written?34. The Southern Steps were excavated when?35. The Southern Steps led to what?36. What are the Temple Stones that were unearthed along the Western Wall?162

37. What is the significance of the stone with the inscription “to the place of trumpeting”?38. What warning did the Jews give to non-Jews in the Temple area?39. David’s Palace was excavated by what Hebrew archaeologist?40. What is the significance of the two silver scrolls that were discovered in Jerusalem in the1990s?41. In what valley were the scrolls discovered?42. What Scripture portion do they contain?LUKE’S WRITINGS☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Luke’s Writings is included in the UnshakeableFaith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study” at thebeginning of the course for tips on using this material.Critics in the 19th century attacked Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts as historically unreliabledocuments that weren’t written until many generations after Christ. German critic F. C. Baur(1792-1860), for example, claimed that the book of Acts was not written until the second half ofthe 2nd century. The critics claimed that most of the New Testament is based on myths that werepassed along by word of mouth for generations before being committed to writing.But the book of Acts is clearly written as a historical document. Luke mentions 32 countries, 54cities, nine islands, and 95 different people, including many civil and military officials. Likewise,Luke’s Gospel is filled with references to places and historical personages, such as the Herods,Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Philip tetrarch of Ituraea, and Cyrenius,governor of Syria.Luke claims to base his writings on the accounts of eyewitnesses who were still alive (Luke1:1-2).If the Bible is historically inaccurate, it is obviously not the divinely-inspired Word of God.The liberal view was debunked by renowned archaeologist William Ramsay (1851-1939), amongothers. Ramsay was taught liberal theories at the University of Aberdeen and Oxford Universityand assumed that liberals such as Baur were correct. When he went to Asia Minor and Palestineon his first archaeological expedition he fully intended to prove that the Bible is “not the bookfrom heaven it claimed to be.”"He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul's travels. These had neverbeen thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home ofthe Bible. Here he spent fifteen years digging. Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul, theTraveler and the Roman Citizen. ... The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Itsattitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before.For twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additionalevidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot.163

And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attemptto refute them” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 62).In 1915 Ramsay testified:“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of thetrue historic sense … In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians” (TheBearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915).“The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At thispoint we are describing what reasons and arguments changed the mind of one who began under theimpression that the history was written long after the events and that it was untrustworthy as a whole” (Ibid.).Ramsay debunked the idea that the New Testament was written long after the events.“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NewTestament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the moreradical New Testament critics of today” (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p. 136).“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and theeighties of the first century A.D.” (Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963).Following are other examples of how the New Testament has been authenticated over theskeptics:The critics said Luke was wrong in Acts 14:6 when he wrote that Lystra and Derbe were locatedin Lycaonia and that Iconium was not in Lycaonia. Paul and Barnabas were in Iconium whenthey fled to Lystra and Derbe, which was said to be in Lycaonia, thus implying that Iconium wasnot in Lycaonia. In 1910, Ramsay unearthed a monument proving that Iconium was a Phrygiancity rather than a Lycaonian city (The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 64).The critics said that Luke was wrong about the census described Luke 2:1-3. They claimed thatQuirinius (Cyrenius) was not governor of Syria at that time, because Josephus placed him asgovernor in 6 A.D., which was several years later. Archaeology disproved these charges. Ramsayunearthed an inscription in Antioch that stated that Quirinius was the governor of Syria in about7 B.C. (The New Evidence, p. 63). Thus, Quirinius was governor of Syria for two terms, in 7B.C. when Christ was born, and again in 6 A.D.The critics further claimed that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home for thecensus, contrary to what the Bible says. But a papyrus document found in Egypt says that allresidents were required to travel to their ancestral homes (The New Evidence, p. 63).Critics said that Luke was wrong when he said in Luke 3:1 that Lysanias was the tetrarch ofAbilene in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which was A.D. 27. Ancient historianshad stated that Lysanias was killed in 36 B.C. But an inscription found at Abila near Damascusdating to between A.D. 14 and 29 says that Lysanias was the tetrarch” (The New Evidence, p.64). Thus, Luke was right.164

Critics said that Luke was wrong in using the Greek term politarchs (translated “rulers of thecity” in Acts 17:6) to denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica because the term is not found inclassical literature. Archaeology has since uncovered 19 inscriptions that use the title after thesame fashion as Luke (The New Evidence, p. 65). The British Museum displays one of theseinscriptions from an arch in Thessalonica (Room 78, GR 1877.5-11.1).In these and other cases the critics were wrong, and Luke was right. Skeptics have repeatedly andridiculously acted as if they have an omniscient knowledge of ancient history and thus are in aposition to criticize the Bible, but they have been proven wrong countless times. The fact thatthis has not humbled most of them is further evidence of the Bible’s divine inspiration, because itprophesied their willful ignorance (2 Peter 3:3-5).In 1963, classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White confirmed Ramsay’s view of Acts:“Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historianshave long taken it for granted” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 189).SUMMARY OF LUKE’S WRITINGS1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts.William Ramsay set out to disprove the Bible but authenticated it, instead. He said, “Luke is ahistorian of the first rank” and “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”2. Ramsay debunked the liberal idea that the New Testament was written long after the events.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON LUKE’S WRITINGS1. What German critic said that Acts is not a reliable historical document?2. According to the critics, when was most of the New Testament written?3. What archaeologist debunked this idea?4. Did this archaeologist start out his career as a Bible believer?5. What convinced him that the book of Acts is accurate?6. How did this archaeologist debunk the idea that Acts 14:6 was wrong in saying that Iconiumwas not in Lycaonia.7. How did he debunk the idea that Quirinius was not governor of Syria during the censusdescribed in Luke 2?8. How did he confirm Luke’s use of the Greek term politarchs in Acts 17:6?165

EVOLUTION☛ NOTE TO TEACHERSWe recommend that you first go through the introduction to evolution with the class and thenuse the PowerPoint/Keynote presentations for the sections on Icons of Evolution and Icons ofCreation. After each PowerPoint presentation use the summary from the book for review. EachIcon has a summary and review questions.The section on history of evolution can be taught in class or can be used as a reading assignment.166

EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION1. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to refute Darwinism.The believer should not be intimidated by scientists.Dr. Lowell Ponte, former science and technology editor for Reader’s Digest, reminds us thatscientists are not gods, though they sometimes pretend to be:“Outside their narrow field of expertise, scientists are often no wiser than the drunk at the end of the bar inyour local saloon. In fact they are often more foolish than this drunk, because with the power of science,commissars often become intoxicated with the notion that knowledge and intellect in one field empowers themto speak with the authority of gods in all fields” (“Science Wars,” FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 27, 2004).Phillip Johnson, a law professor who has critiqued Darwinism, rightly says:“Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, whichcuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are ofnecessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman” (Darwin onTrial, p. 13).In fact, you can be your own scientist. You have the God-given ability to make observations andto make decisions based on those observations. Richard Tedder is an example of those who cameto Christ when he stopped depending on his university professors and started analyzing theevidence for evolution and studying the Bible for himself. He told me that when he startedreading the Bible he was amazed that everything it said “rang true” because he could see itreflected in life.We must remember that divine truth has been revealed to the weak rather than to the mighty(Mat. 11:25; 1 Cor. 1:26-28). Further, the “poor man” who has understanding can examine the“rich man” who is wise in his conceit (Prov. 28:11).The believer has everything he needs to test the doctrine of evolution: We have God’s Word (2Tim. 3:16-17) and we have God’s Spirit (1 John 2:27).Every philosophy must be brought to this Touchstone (2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20-21).Common sense refutes evolution at every turn. Consider, for example, the concept of evolutionthrough random genetic mutations. Nothing in life works like this. Take a piece of writing, suchas Genesis chapter one. It could never be created through random typing, and if accidentalchanges were introduced to the existing text, the result would invariably be degradation and notimprovement. Take a machine such as the Space Shuttle. It has two million parts (and is far lesscomplex than a bacterial cell). Random blind changes would never create such a machine norimprove an existing one. Complicated things are not built by random, accidental events. At thefundamental level, the evolution issue is not rocket science!167

2. Benefits of creation science materialCreation science materials are tremendously helpful in fortifying God’s people, particularlyyoung people, against the devil’s lies. Titus 1:9-11 says that preachers and teachers are necessaryto stop the mouths of false teachers. This is the first purpose of creation science materials. Youngpeople need to see that Darwinism can be rejected because there are no proven scientific factssupporting it.Creation science materials teach analytical thinking and sound argumentation. The writer ofHebrews says that the spiritual and moral senses must be trained through use.“But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their sensesexercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).We do not naturally know how to refute error. Like most other things in life, this must be learnedand we must grow in it. By learning God’s Word and weighing everything in life by God’s holyStandard, proving what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, we strengthenour spiritual and moral senses so that we can know God’s will and be approved by Him. Wellprepared creation science material is a tremendous help in this education so that we can learnhow to handle the wiles of the devil.Creation science materials lift the believer’s heart to God, the Almighty Creator, and teachlessons about His character and power. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of theworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power andGodhead” (Romans 1:20). Everything God has created teaches us lessons about the CreatorHimself, and the creation-science issue covers every aspect of God’s creation, from biology toastrology. It is thrilling research.Creation science materials are useful in evangelism. Creation science has been called “preevangelism,”and many people have been saved after first being confronted with creation sciencearguments against evolution. This caused them to doubt what they had been taught from thesecular sphere and to become receptive to examining the claims of the Bible and the Person ofJesus Christ. Consider the following example:“I was raised in a Christian home, believing in God and His creation. However, I was taught evolution whileattending high school, and began to doubt the authority of the Bible. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Biblecannot also be true. I eventually rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lowercreatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. Mycollege years at Penn State were spent as an atheist, or at best as an agnostic. Fortunately, and by the graceof God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation. Over a period of acouple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, andthat scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followedby a global flood. Suddenly I realized that the Bible might actually be true! It wasn’t until I could believe thefirst page of the Bible that I could believe the rest of it. Once I accepted the fact that there is a creator God, itwas an easy step for me to accept His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ as well” (John Cimbala, Ph.D. inaeronautics from California Institute of Technology, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe inCreation, edited by John Ashton, pp. 200, 201).168

3. Beware of the myth that the Bible has been discredited.The outcome of a murder trial in a U.S. courtroom requires evidence “beyond a reasonabledoubt,” because so much is at stake, and we should require no less on the issue of creation vs.evolution, which has grave consequences that are not only earthly but also eternal.The Bible claims to be the revelation of God to man, and if the Bible is true, there is an AlmightyCreator God and a heaven and a hell; man will live forever in one place or another; and salvationis only through personal faith in Jesus Christ.This issue is too serious to be decided on the basis of anything other than solid proof that theBible is not trustworthy, yet no such proof exists. In fact, the critics have been proven wrongtime and time and time again.Charles Darwin said, “The clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe inthe miracles by which Christianity is supported” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, editedby Nora Barlow).Like many others since then, Darwin FALSELY ASSUMED that the “clearest evidence” islacking. They have falsely assumed that the Bible has been discredited by modern science and bythe “higher criticism” of theological liberalism, but the fact is that the modernistic theories havebeen repeatedly disproven whereas the Bible has been repeatedly authenticated.Those who have maintained faith in the Bible have never been disappointed.Consider the situation that existed in 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of Species.Theological skeptics such as F.C. Baur claimed that the New Testament was not written until acentury and more after the events and that it was based on myths that had taken shape as theywere handed down by word of mouth for generations. Skeptics claimed that the book of Acts wasfilled with historical errors. They claimed that writing was not sufficiently developed by Moses’time for him to have written the early books of the Bible.But it was the critical views that turned out to be mythical, whereas the Bible was authenticated.Those who maintained their trust in the Bible were vindicated.The critical views about the date when the New Testament was written and about the historicalinaccuracies of the book of Acts were decidedly refuted by the renowned archaeologist WilliamRamsay, among others. As for writing, archaeologists now know that it was developed around3150 B.C., at the latest, and we have personally seen the evidence for this at many famouslibraries and museums. This was was more than 1,500 years before Moses and in fact carries usback to the lifetime of Adam by biblical chronology. Since the late 19th century, archaeologistshave discovered that the ancient kingdoms in Egypt and Mesopotamia were literate societies full169

of schools and libraries. Ancient libraries have been unearthed at Ugarit, Mari, Ur, Ebla, Nippur,Nineveh, and elsewhere. (For documentation of these things see the section on “ArchaeologicalTreasures.”)The skeptics were not only wrong about these things; they were terribly wrong.In spite of this, multitudes have gone out into eternity believing that the Bible is untrustworthyand that evolution is true.Consider the sad case of Arthur Keith. He was one of the greatest anatomists of the 20th century,but he was duped by the Piltdown hoax. His book The Antiquity of Man treated Piltdown as thepreeminent missing link. In his autobiography Keith described attending evangelistic meetingsand being on the verge of converting to Christ, but he rejected the gospel because he felt that theGenesis account of creation had been proven to be a myth (Melvin Lubenow, Bones ofContention, p. 59). In reality, the myths were on the side of evolution, and Keith gambled hiseternal soul on them. In 1953, he was informed that the Piltdown fossils were a hoax, but by thenhe was an old man steeped in humanistic rationalism and a “pronounced opponent of theChristian faith.” As far as we know, he went to his grave in that condition. He should havelooked at the evidence for the Bible much more carefully and prayerfully. He should not havebeen so ready to believe what Bible critics and evolutionists taught. The stake is far too high.I, for one, refuse to stake my eternal destiny on unproven “theories” that are constantly changing.I don’t care if the entire scientific world believes that evolution is true (which is most definitelynot the case); they must provide real evidence to support their doctrine, and they have never donethis.4. Evolution is not a “theory.”We have tried to avoid describing evolution as a “theory.” While many of the men we quote usethat term to describe evolution, we do not use it ourselves, and if we do use it we put it withinquotation marks. This is because evolution does not rate as a scientific theory or even as ahypothesis. As David Stone, Ph.D. physics, says:“Scientific theories involve quantitative modeling, experimental data, and repeated validation by prediction andobservation. In any aspect of the philosophy / fantasy of evolution, there is no ‘theory.’ There is no theory forformation of the first protein, first DNA, first cellular sub-structures, first cell, multi-celled creatures, transitionsbetween kinds, etc. Just stories. There are no genetic data, not a single observed case of mutations andnatural selection producing new, complex tissues, organs, or creatures. Evolution is also not a hypothesis,which is a reasonable explanation of observed facts, consistent with known physical laws, employingexperimental data and analysis. It has been tested at least to some degree to see whether it holds up undercertain conditions. A theory arises when a hypothesis has stood up to repeated tests under a wide variety ofconditions and cannot be broken. Evolution warrants neither term. Evolution qualifies merely as aphilosophical, even a religious idea, void of scientific support, and intended to replace biblical truth withstories” (e-mail to author, August 21, 2011).5. The evidence for evolution is so flimsy that even many secular scientists disbelieve it.170

In 1922, William Jennings Bryan warned,“It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth--not even atheory--but a mere hypothesis” (In His Image, 1922, p. 94).Bryan was right, and nearly a century later, evolution remains “a mere hypothesis.” This is plainfrom the fact that evolution’s major “evidences” are disputed even by scientists who aren’tcreationists.I have many books in my library by evolutionists questioning the major principles of evolution.Consider a few examples:I.L. Cohen, a mathematician and researcher, a member of the New York Academy ofSciences. “… every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter)is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology,fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ... The theory of evolutionmay be the worst mistake made in science” (Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study inProbabilities, 1984, pp. 209, 210).David Berlinski, Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton and post doctoral work inmathematics and biology from Columbia University. “The structures of life are complex, andcomplex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberatedesign. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should theartifacts of life be different? ... For many years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticismon the circumference of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, andphilosophers linger. But the burning fringe of criticism is now contracting, coming ever closer tothe heart of Darwin’s doctrine” (The Deniable Darwin, June 1, 1996).Michael Denton, Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College London, Senior ResearchFellow in molecular biology at the University of Otago, New Zealand. “My fundamentalproblem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems andstructures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannotconceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of randomchanges. It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to swallow that all these thingswere built up by accumulative small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical claim,especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody can think of any credible explanation ofhow it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybodybrushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet” (“An interview with Michael Denton,”Access Research Network, Vol. 15. No. 2, 1995; the interview was produced in conjunction withthe University of California and was the first in a series of interviews with noted scientists andeducators entitled Focus on Darwinism).171

Soren Lovtrup, Swedish biologist and the author of Epigenetics: A Treatise on TheoreticalBiology and The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will beranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth,1987).Richard Milton, science journalist and design engineer and a member of Mensa, has been amember of the Geologists’ Association for over 30 years. “I am seriously concerned, on purelyrational grounds, that generations of school and university teachers have been led to acceptspeculation as scientific theory and faulty data as scientific fact; that this process hasaccumulated a mountainous catalog of mingled fact and fiction that can no longer be containedby the sparsely elegant theory; and that it is high time that the theory was taken out of its ornateVictorian glass cabinet and examined with a fresh and skeptical eye” (Shattering the Myths ofDarwinism, 1992, p. 4).Michael Pitman, a chemistry professor at Cambridge. “Neither observation nor controlledexperiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene,hormone, enzyme system or organ” (Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 67, 68).Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, mathematics professorat MIT, UCLA, and Oregon State University: “The point, however, is that the doctrine ofevolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in itscapacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is,in essence, a metaphysical claim. ... Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth ametaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb” (Teilhardism and the New Religion, p. 24).Lee Spetner, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, worked with the Applied Physics Laboratory ofthe Johns Hopkins University from 1951-70. “Despite the insistence of evolutionists thatevolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown thatmacroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequenceof microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so” (“Lee Spetner/Edward MaxDialogue,” 2001, The True Origin Archive).David Stove, Australian philosopher, educator, and author who taught philosophy at theUniversity of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. “Huxley should not haveneeded Darwinism to tell him--since any intelligent child of about eight could have told him--that in a ‘continual free fight of each other against all’ there would soon be no children, nowomen, and hence, no men. In other words, that the human race could not possibly exist now,unless cooperation had always been stronger than competition, both between women and theirchildren, and between men and the children and women whom they protect and provide for. ...Such cases, I need hardly say, never bother armor-plated neo-Darwinians. But then no cases,possible or even actual, ever do bother them. ... In neo-Darwinism’s house there are manymansions: so many, indeed, that if a certain awkward fact will not fit into one mansion, there is172

sure to be another one into which it will fit to admiration” (Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes,Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution, pp. 9, 39).William Thompson, Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute ofBiological Control, Ottawa, Canada. “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinionamong biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. Thisdivergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certainconclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to thedisagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they thinkthis unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they areunable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting tomaintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination ofdifficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science” (Introduction to The Origin of Species, 6thedition, 1956, p. xxii).Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History, London. “Theexplanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not onlyconveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution tenyears and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last tenyears we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level ofknowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in highschool, and that’s all we know about it” (Patterson, in an address given at the American Museumof Natural History, Nov. 5, 1981; cited from White and Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, p. 47).The report “Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible” (available at the Way of Lifeweb site) features more than 50 Ph.D.s who state that evolution is not scientifically proven.Consider a few examples. Most of these once believed in evolution:“Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications--from journal articles to textbooks to popularmagazine stories--which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplishmacroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief” (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. ingeophysics and space physics from UCLA, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,edited by John Ashton, p. 230).“I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which includedvestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design,the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolutionversus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. ... Slowly, butsurely, I WAS ABLE TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS USED TO SUPPORT EVOLUTIONISMBY RESEARCHING SECULAR LITERATURE ONLY. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the caseagainst evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative,creationism” (Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. inmeasurement and evolution from Wayne State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, chapter 4).“There is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientificvalidity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions, andinferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations ofthe evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution. It was in the1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and disgust, I became enlightened to this. Up until that time Ihad not given the evolution matter very much thought. On the contrary, I presumed that researchers173

committed to the study of evolution possessed the same integrity as that expected of any credible scientist. ...Subsequently, the greatest embarrassment of all was for me to find that THERE SIMPLY WAS NO VALIDSCIENCE WHATEVER, in any of these numerous publications touting evolution” (Edward Boudreaux, Ph.D. inchemistry from Tulane University, professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, In SixDays, edited by John Ashton, pp. 205, 206).“Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimatefactual evidence” (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, In SixDays, edited by John Ashton, p. 201).“As I looked at the evidence--trying to be a dispassionate scientist--I could not find the evidence for themultitudes of intermediate forms which should exist if evolution was true” (Raymond Jones, Ph.D. inbiology, “Standing Firm,” The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 28).“It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully theassumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidencethat bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubtingthe truth of this doctrine” (Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University, “The Creationist Viewof Biological Origins,” NEX4 Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33).“I have never seen any evidence for evolution. All that I see around me in nature points to a divinedesigner” (Angela Meyer, Ph.D. in horticultural science from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, edited byJohn Ashton, p. 143).“How secure is the idea that there is an uninterrupted creative sequence from the big bang through theformation of the solar system, the solidification of the earth, the spontaneous generation of life, and theevolution of plants, animals, and humans to end in the world around us today? Is this scheme impregnable?By no means. It has fatal gaps and inconsistencies” (Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography fromCambridge University, In Six Days, pp. 318, 319).“I no longer believed there was any validity to Darwinism, having become convinced of this as much by theevolutionist literature I had read as by the creationist books. The standards of evidence supportingevolution seemed trivial compared to the evidence on which engineers have to base their work” (HenryMorris, Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota, Persuaded by the Evidence, p.222).“I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionaryprofessors at universities, and I have never read or heard any scientific fact that contradicts what theBible says. There are evolutionist’s interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary toScripture” (Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University, interview with DavidCloud at the Creation Museum, June 23, 2009).“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature--in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or books--that describes how molecular evolution of any real,complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. ... In the face of the enormouscomplexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed” (MichaelBehe, Ph.D. in biology from the University of Pennsylvania, Darwin’s Black Box, chapters 8, 9).“For three years, I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well [to debate chemistry professor Dr.Charles Signorino]. For three years, I lost every scientific argument. In dismay, I watched the myth ofevolution evaporate under the light of scientific scrutiny, while the scientific case for Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ just got better and better. It’s no wonder that the ACLU (actually the anti-Christian lawyersunion) fights by any means to censor any scientific challenge to evolution!” (Gary Parker, Ph.D. in biology/geology from Ball State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 254).“After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in theuniverse from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactoryexplanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modernphysical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of thebeautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach” (John Rankin, Ph.D. inmathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe inCreation, p. 122).174

“Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as theevidence is picked and chosen and the great poll of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As thedepth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, allpointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design” (Timothy Standish, Ph.D. in biology and public policyfrom George Mason University, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 117).“If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would longago have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how many angels candance on the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept. ... evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all.Rather, it is clung to though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religiousfervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name” (Ker Thomson,D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines, former director of the U.S. Air Force TerrestrialSciences Laboratory, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 217).“The principles and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1,but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days!” (Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. in mechanicalengineering, Pennsylvania State University, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,edited by John Ashton, pp. 21, 22).“I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creationand global Flood than there is an old earth and evolution” (Keith Wanser, Ph.D. in condensed matterphysics from the University of California, Irvine, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 103, 104).“I became convinced that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to dowith evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for theevolution of life on earth” (A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, InSix Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 257, 259, 260, 263).There is indeed no evidence that a self-replicating living cell could arise from non-life. There isno evidence that mutations and natural selection could account for the vast complexity of life.There is no evidence that man ascended from the animal kingdom.6. The doctrine of evolution is a product of end-time apostasy.The 19th century witnessed an explosion of apostasy. Skepticism was in the air. TheologicalModernism, Humanism, and Unitarianism prepared the soil for the acceptance of Darwinianevolution.Consider some descriptions of this unbelieving atmosphere:“[It was a time] when speculations about the origin of species were most rife, when even the orthodoxdoctrines were being modified and complicated until it was hardly possible to know where orthodoxy endedand heresy started” (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p. 234).“Every thinking man I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious faith.And the unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief” (Thomas Huxley, cited fromAdrian Desmond, Huxley, p. 160).“The unspiritual condition of the churches … and the alarmingly prevalent skepticism, infidelity, and atheismamong the masses of the people in Germany, Switzerland, and Holland is, without doubt, almost whollyattributable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large majority of the prominent pastors and theologicalprofessors in those lands. The same condition of affairs is measurably true in England, Scotland, NewEngland, and in every community where this criticism is believed by any very considerable number of peopleand openly advocated” (L.W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, 1896).175

“The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us” (George Romanes, 1878,cited from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 371).“Attendance at places of worship is declining and reverence for holy things is vanishing. We solemnlybelieve this to be largely attributable to THE SCEPTICISM WHICH HAS FLASHED FROM THE PULPITAND SPREAD AMONG THE PEOPLE” (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, November 1887).It was within this atmosphere of spiritual skepticism that the doctrine of evolution was born andthrived.We document this extensively in the book The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame.7. Evolution is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and therefore is evidence of the divine originof the Bible.Consider 2 Peter 3:3-7. Written 2,000 years ago, this prophecy describes the prevailingnaturalistic evolutionary philosophy of our day. The prophecy says that scoffers will come whowill deny the global flood and the second coming of Christ. The prophecy charges the scofferswith willful ignorance (verse 5). It says they are motivated by the desire to throw off God’s lawand to walk after their own lusts (verse 3). The prophecy describes the Darwinist’s naturalistic,uniformitarian view (“all things continue as they were,” verse 4). The scoffers have a naturalisticfaith, rejecting the supernatural, the miraculous, the Divine. As Richard Lewontin admitted, “Wehave a prior commitment to materialism. ... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in thedoor” (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 31).8. Theistic evolution is not a viable option.Probably the majority of professing Christians today believe in some type of theistic evolution.They believe in a Creator God and they believe in salvation through Christ but they don’t believethe Bible’s account of six-day creation and they give credence to evolutionary doctrines such asthe ancient age of the earth and the gradual evolution of creatures. Theistic evolutionists whoprofess Christianity believe that it is possible to reconcile the Bible with evolution, but in realitythis is an impossibility.First, the early chapters of Genesis are written as history rather than poetry or allegory.“There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable culturalitems (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities,towers) in those opening chapters. The significance of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with‘the paucity of references in the Koran. The single tenth chapter of Genesis has five times more geographicaldata of importance than the whole of the Koran.’ Every one of these items presents us with the possibility ofestablishing the reliability of our author. The content runs head on into a description of the real world ratherthan recounting events belonging to another world or level of reality” (Walter Kaiser, Jr., “The Literary Form ofGenesis 1-11,” New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. by J. Barton Payne, 1970, p. 59).Genesis is cited as history by Jesus. In Luke 17:26-32, for example, Jesus mentions Noah, theArk, the Flood, Lot, the destruction of Sodom by fire, and Lot’s wife. Elsewhere Jesus mentions176

the Creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mat. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mat. 23:35;Lk. 11:50-51), and Abraham (John 8:39-40). In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24. Christalways treats Genesis as history, and it is impossible to honor Him as Lord and Saviour anddisregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both “accounts” of creation inGenesis 1 and 2 and treats them as historical. Many theistic evolutionists, such as FrancisCollins, head of the Human Genome Project, claim to be “evangelical” and to honor Christ asLord and Saviour, but this is not consistent with the rejection of Christ’s teaching about Genesisand human origins.Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the eight New Testament writers (all but James).Altogether the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times in theNew Testament, and Genesis is always treated as historical.Genesis 1-3 forms the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Adam was not a real man andthere was no literal Fall, the gospel becomes an empty religious myth.Jesus’ human genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). We know that this genealogy ispopulated with the names of real historical people, and there is no reason to treat Adamdifferently. Further, there is no room within this genealogy for millions of years of time.Adam is compared to Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paulconsidered Adam an actual man and the Genesis account literal history.Second, the teaching of Genesis cannot be reconciled with the teaching of evolution.a. Genesis says God created the world and everything in it in six days. The days of creation inGenesis 1 were regular 24-hour days, days with an evening and a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13,19, 23, 31). This is repeated in Exodus 20:10-11.b. Genesis says everything was made to reproduce after its kind. The statement “after theirkind” is repeated ten times in Genesis chapter one (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This isprecisely what we observe in the world. Dogs reproduce dogs, spiders reproduce spiders,birds reproduce birds, and peanuts reproduce peanuts. Animals can interbreed and adaptwithin kinds (e.g., dogs can be interbred to produce different kinds of dogs), but kindscannot be bridged. This is what the Bible teaches and this is what we can observeeverywhere in nature, yet evolution teaches that the kinds are not stable, that the fishevolved into the amphibian, and the amphibian into the reptile, and the reptile into the bird,etc.c. Genesis says the first man was created directly by God (Genesis 2) and was not the productof gradual evolution from the animal kingdom. The Bible says Adam was the first man (1Cor. 15:45). And Eve is the mother of all men (Gen. 3:20).177

d. Genesis says man is made in God’s image and is not a part of the animal kingdom (Gen.1:27). Evolution says man is an evolved animal.e. Genesis says the world was created perfect, then fell under sin and has been deterioratingever since. This is consistent with everything we can observe. Everything is moving fromorder to disorder. Everything is deteriorating, running down. This is what the Second Lawof Thermodynamics describes, as even secular evolutionists admit. Isaac Asimov was anevolutionist, but his definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as follows, actuallyrefutes evolution and proves the Bible: “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. How difficult to maintainhouses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let themdeteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses,breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about” (Asimov,“In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even,” SmithsonianInstitute Journal, June 1970, p. 10). How contrary this is to the doctrine of evolution,which says that things have gradually evolved from chaos to order, from non-life to life!f. Genesis says everything was designed to fulfill God’s purposes. Wherever we look in nature,from the microscopic to the astronomic, we see the appearance of design, which is contraryto the principle of evolution, which says the world is the product of blind naturalisticprocesses. Study the cell, the eye, the ear, the leaf, the flying wing, the atom, light, sound,water--everywhere you find evidence of purpose and design. Dr. Michael Denton observes,“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whateverdepth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality,which so mitigates against the idea of chance” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1983, p.342). Even a “simple” microscopic one-celled bacterium (E. Coli) contains DNAinformation units equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and allof that information works together in perfect harmony and is self-replicating! Purpose anddesign is what one would expect if God created the world as the Genesis record says Hedid, but if evolution were true, we would find chaos and haphazardness.g. Genesis indicates that the earth’s history is only about 6,000 years old, whereas evolutionclaims that it is billions of years old.Consider the following statement by Bert Thompson. (The documentation, which has beenremoved from the quotation, can be found in the original article online.)The truth of the matter is that the Bible, being a book grounded in history, is filled with chronologicaldata that may be used to establish a relative age for the Earth. It is not ‘silent’ on this topic. ...The Bible, for example, provides exact chronological data from Adam to Solomon. Combininginformation from the Assyrian Eponym Lists and the Black Obelisk, the death of Ahab has beendetermined to be 853-852 B.C. and therefore the reign of Solomon (some 40 years, 1 Kings 11:42)can be dated at 971-931 B.C. According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years before Solomon’s fourth year ofreign (967-966 B.C.), Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The date of the Exodus is 1446/1445 B.C.178

To this date is added the time of the sojourn in Egypt (430 years, Exodus 12:40), thereby producingthe date of 1876 B.C. as the year Jacob went to Egypt. Interestingly, the Bible records Pharaoh’squery of Jacob’s age (and Jacob’s answer—130 years) in Genesis 47:9, which would make the yearof Jacob’s birth 2006 B.C. (Genesis 25:26). Abraham was 100 years old when he begat Isaac, givingthe date of 2166 B.C. for Abraham’s birth. The chronology from Abraham to Adam is recorded verycarefully in two separate chronological tables—Genesis 5 and 11. According to Genesis 12:4,Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, presumably after Terah died at 205 years; thus, Abraham wasborn when Terah was 130 years old, albeit he is mentioned first by importance when Terah beganhaving sons at the age of 70 (Genesis 11:27; 12:4; Acts 7:4).Having established the birth date of Abraham at 2166 B.C. (Archer, 1970, pp. 203-204), it is possibleto work from the time of Adam’s creation to Abraham in order to discern the chronology of ‘thebeginning.’ The time from the creation of Adam to Seth was 130 years (Genesis 5:3), the time fromAdam to Noah was 1056 years (Packer, et al., 1980, pp. 56-57), and the time from Noah’s birth to theFlood was 600 years (Genesis 7:6), or 1656 A.A. (After Adam). It appears that Shem was about 100years old at the time of the Flood (Genesis 5:32; 11:10) and begat Arphaxad two years after theFlood (the Earth was not dry for more than a year; cf. Genesis 7:11 with 8:14; see also Genesis11:10) in approximately 1659 A.A.Arphaxad begat Salah in his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36 complements the chronologicaltable of Genesis 11 with the insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which indicates thatlikely Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Proceeding forward, one observes that Terah was born in1879 A.A., and bore Abraham 130 years later (in the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic—2166 B.C.added to 2009 A.A.—would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The Great Flood,then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C. (i.e., 1656 A.A.).Numerous objections have been leveled at the literal and consecutive chronological interpretation ofScripture. For example, some have suggested that the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 are neither literalnor consecutive. Yet five of the Patriarchs clearly were the literal fathers of their respective sons:Adam named Seth (Genesis 4:25), Seth named Enos (4:26), Lamech named Noah (5:29), Noah’ssons were Shem, Ham and Japheth (cf. 5:32 with 9:18), and Terah fathered Abraham directly(11:27,31). Jude’s record in the New Testament counts Enoch as ‘the seventh from Adam’ (Jude1:14), thereby acknowledging the genealogical tables as literal and consecutive. Moreover, howbetter could Moses have expressed a literal and consecutive genealogy than by using the terms‘lived...and begat...begat...after he begat...all the days... and he died’? Without question, Mosesnoted that the first three individuals (Adam, Seth, and Enos) were consecutive, and Jude stated byinspiration that the first seven (to Enoch) were consecutive. Enoch’s son, Methuselah, died the yearof the Flood, and so by three steps the chronology of Adam to Noah is literal and consecutive,producing a trustworthy genealogy/chronology.There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providinginformation on the age of the Earth and humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeatingthe Bible prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about givingman exact chronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledgeof the period back to Abraham, plus two tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam. The ancientJewish historians (1 Chronicles 1:1-27) and the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understoodthe tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as literal and consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that Godcreated the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers (Genesis 1:16) for Adam and his descendants (noticehow Noah logged the beginning and the ending of the Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11;9:14). ...While it is true that genealogies (and chronologies) serve various functions in Scripture, one of theirmain purposes is to show the historical connection of great men to the unfolding of Jehovah’sredemptive plan. These lists, therefore, are a link from the earliest days of humanity to the completionof God’s salvation system. In order to have any evidential value, they must be substantially complete(Bert Thompson, “The Bible and the Age of the Earth,” August 1999, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/85).Various biblical dating chronologies differ slightly--a few years here or even a hundredyears there--but no biblical dating chronology allows for a date of creation older thanseveral thousand years.179

h. Genesis says man had the ability to use language from the beginning, so that he mightcommunicate with God. But according to evolution, language evolved from animal gruntsand squeals. It is important to understand that even modern archaeology says that writingbegan about 5,000 years ago, which fits the Bible’s record exactly (Joseph Naveh, Originsof the Alphabets: Introduction to Archaeology, Jerusalem: The Jerusalem PublishingHouse, p. 6).i. Genesis says man had the ability to create an intelligent civilization from the verybeginning. Adam’s first children built cities, raised cattle, created musical instruments, andworked in brass and iron (Gen. 4:17-22). Evolution, on the other hand, claims that man’scivilization began with a “stone age” during which “cave men” lived like animals.9. Most people, even the most educated, know little about evolution and are not prepared todefend it.The Bible believer does not need to be intimidated by evolutionists. They are usually ill preparedto defend it.High school biology textbooks deal with the subject almost in passing and typically toss out afew of the shopworn icons--such as the embryo and horse charts, the Miller experiment, and fruitfly mutations--that are refuted in this course.On a flight from San Diego to Seattle in 2010, I had a conversation with a Ph.D. candidate inbiology, and he admitted to me that the only thing he knew about Darwinian evolution is the littlehe learned in college biology textbooks. Though he believed it, he was unprepared to defend it.The Christian who studies the facts presented in this book will be more knowledgeable aboutDarwinian evolution than the vast percentage of people he will meet along life’s way.10. Darwin and his followers use a bait and switch technique.The bait and switch routine is used continually. They try to prove the evolution of creatures, suchas a reptile turning into a bird, from evidence of minor changes within species, such as differenttypes of beaks on finches or different colorings of peppered moths or the change in the eatinghabit of a caterpillar or the adaptation of a bacterium.Adaptation within species is dramatically different from the changes required for the creation ofnew kinds of creatures. The difference has been referred to as “microevolution” vs.“macroevolution,” but we are not happy with the term “microevolution” since it falsely impliesthat some type of real evolution is happening.180

Darwin pointed to the variety among pigeons to prove that “natural selection” can producechanges. Yet there is zero evidence that such modifications can change a pigeon into somethingelse, or that such modifications can create a wing or produce flight. This is to compare apples tooranges.Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species is a masterpiece of bait and switch. He gave no evidencethat species could originate through his proposition. As James Perloff says, “Darwin’s On theOrigin of Species discussed survival of the fittest--but not arrival of the fittest” (Tornado in aJunkyard, p. 47).11. The term “science” must be clearly defined.It is important to understand that there are two types of “science” practiced today: operational(or empirical or observational) and historical.“Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of usefulproducts like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence fromthe past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone haspresuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historicalscience is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), wemust interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions” (Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, p. 20).Scientists have accomplished wonderful things through empirical science, such as buildingtechnological devices and exploring the living cell, but when they try to look beyond the physicalworld and beyond the constraints of time, they enter into a sphere about which they are notqualified to speak. They leave the evidence and enter into speculation.For example, the February 5, 2004 issue of Japan Nanonet Bulletin featured an interview withDr. Keiichi Namba, professor, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, on theflagellum motor. Notice the introductory paragraph:“Nature created a rotary motor with a diameter of 30 nm. Motility of bacteria, such as Salmonella and E. coliwith a body size of 1-2 microns, is driven by rapid rotation of a helical propeller by such a tiny little motor at itsbase. This organelle is called the flagellum, made of a rotary motor and a thin helical filament that grows up toabout 15 microns. It rotates at around 2,000 rpm ... and with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%.”This paragraph is a mixture of empirical and historical science. The description of the flagellummotor is based on observational science, but the statement that “nature created” this motor is notbased on any scientific evidence. It is pure speculation based on evolutionary assumption. TheJapan Nanonet Bulletin is qualified to report on the construction of biological nano motors, but itis not qualified to tell us how these motors came into existence. For that, we must look beyondman’s mind. We must look to God and His divine Revelation.12. Evolution is based upon unproven assumptions.181

One thing that will become evident in this course is that evolution is based upon unprovenassumptions. If evolutionists are not allowed to assume their doctrine, they have no evidence.In 1887, John Dawson wisely observed:“Let the reader take up either of Darwin’s great books, or Spencer’s ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as hereads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric meltaway like a vision” (John William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man, 1887, p. 330).Dawson was correct, and nothing has changed in this regard since his day.Consider some examples:HomologyOne of the most-used icons of evolution is homology or similarity between creatures, limbs, andorgans. Darwin made so much of homology that he said that it would cause him to believe inevolution even if there was no other evidence.Practically every modern biology textbook and every natural history museum uses homology asa chief evidence for evolution. For example, the Prentice Hall Biology 2002 textbook features adrawing of a limb of a turtle, an alligator, a bird, and a mammal accompanied by the followingnote, “[These] homologous structures ... provide evidence of a common ancestor whose bonesmay have resembled those of the ancient fish shown here.”In reality, the similarity of limbs, such as the bone structure of a human arm, an alligator’s leg,and a bird’s wing, provides zero evidence for evolution, unless one assumes that evolution hasoccurred. Similarity of structures is not evidence for common descent nor evidence againstcommon design. Who is to say scientifically that the limbs were not created for their individualpurposes and that the similarities of form exist because these function best to fulfill a variety ofneeds? It would be reasonable for the creator to use similar structures and processes in creaturesdesigned to live in the same environment.Radiometric DatingDr. Don DeYoung, in Thousands Not Billions, shows that radiometric dating techniques arebased on evolutionary assumptions, and if the assumptions are wrong the dates will also bewrong.The Big BangThe only reason evolutionists think they can trace an expanding universe back to a “singularity,”is because they assume there was no creation 6,000 years ago. Like radiometric dating methods,the Big Bang is premised upon an evolutionary “uniformitarian” view of the universe that denies182

divine creation a priori. Astrophysicist George Ellis admits that “there is a range of models thatcould explain the observations” (W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” ScientificAmerican, Oct. 1995, p. 55). Ellis admits that evolutionists “are using philosophical criteria inchoosing our models” and that “a lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”The fossil record as evidence of descent with modificationAll supposed evidence for evolution from the fossil record is mere assumption. It is impossible toprove scientifically that one fossilized creature evolved from another. This was admitted byColin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum:“THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL FOR WHICH ONE COULD MAKE A WATERTIGHT ARGUMENT [astransitional]. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering thequestion. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons whythe stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no wayof putting them to the test” (Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, cited fromSunderland’s Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 101, 102).Transposons are evolutionary remnants of ancient virusesFor years transposons in the DNA were “almost universally interpreted by evolutionary scientistsas remnants of ancient viruses.” Transposons are segments of DNA that “utilize cellularmachines to replicate themselves and then splice the copies back into the host DNA” (BrianThomas, “Science Overturns Evolution’s Best Arguments,” Institute for Creation Research, Dec.29, 2009). Since chimpanzees and humans share some transposons, this was supposed to beevidence that the transposons were created by the same virus before the two “species” divergedfrom an ape-like ancestor. It is now known that transposons contain functional code that is usefulto the organism and are not mere evolutionary “junk,” which is solid scientific evidence againstthe evolutionary assumption. There was no real evidence all along. The facts were merelyinterpreted through evolutionary assumptions and those assumptions were then used as evidencefor evolution!Armed with the knowledge that evolutionists assume their doctrine to be true and conduct their“science” on this basis, the Bible believer will not be led astray by evolutionary mediapresentations, whether in print, in museums, on the web, or in documentaries.For example, the National Geographic documentary The Known Universe 2 examines the“evidence” for extra-terrestrial life. With its spectacular graphics and interviews with scientistswith impressive credentials, it has the air of great scientific authority, but it lacks real substance.In reality, it is based upon evolutionary assumptions combined with speculation. Some majorassumptions are as follows:• Life evolved on earth; therefore, life could evolve elsewhere. “With billions of stars outthere, surely there’s life.” This is mere assumption.183

• Inert molecules can form life if a liquid is present to agitate them; therefore, life could formelsewhere if liquid water or even liquid methane is present. “Molecules must move aroundand interact to form the chemistry for life. Liquid allows the atoms to mix together to formthe building blocks of life.” This is mere assumption. In fact, as Dr. David Stone says, “It’seven worse. It’s just word games. No one has ever offered a system of chemical reactions, aproposed scientific model, at all. There is no science to support this.”• Since life exists in harsh environments on earth this means life can evolve in harshenvironments elsewhere. “We have to understand that life will evolve under conditions thatare horribly hostile.” This is mere assumption.• Life on earth formed by adapting to the environment; therefore, extra-terrestrial life will beadapted to its environment. “Over hundreds of millions of years all of the life forms on ourplanet have adapted to their environment.” Scientists are quoted as imagining that life on ahigh gravity planet would be squat and have many thick legs, whereas life on a low-gravityplanet would be spindly like a spider. It is pure assumption and speculation.13. Scientists are highly motivated not to criticize evolution.This is because Darwinian evolution is the religion of modern science and it is not acceptable toquestion it. Many have lost promotions and jobs and been denied degrees, awards, and grants foreven questioning evolution, not to speak of rejecting it.In the video documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein examines the persecutionof scientists and professors who dare to question Darwinism or to promote even the slightestevidence for intelligent design.In Slaughter of the Dissidents (Southworth, WA: Leafcutter Press, 2008), Jerry Bergman (Ph.D.in human biology from Columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evaluationfrom Wayne State University) tells the “shocking truth about killing the careers of Darwindoubters.” In the Introduction, John Eidsmoe says: “In this fascinating book, Dr. Jerry Bergman--himself a victim--chronicles the history of modern religious persecution in America. A highlyrespected, credentialed, and published professor, he was denied tenure--and subsequently fired--admittedly because of his creationist beliefs and writings. Dr. Bergman describes numerous othercases, often concealing names to protect those who do not wish to risk losing their currentpositions (a common means of persecuting those with minority views)” (p. xv).Dr. Bergman testifies:“[A] factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underhanded, often totally unethical techniques thatevolutionists typically used to suppress dissonant ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully andobjectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees,denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, and in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, theirresponse in general was totally unscientific and one that reeks of intolerance, even hatred” (Persuaded by theEvidence, chapter 4).William Dembski adds:184

“As Michael Behe pointed out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review for a biologist to questionDarwinism endangers one’s career. ‘There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job,you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical ofDarwinian theory not to make their views known.’ ... Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposingthe party line of a Stalinist regime. ... Overzealous critics of intelligent design regard it as their moral duty tokeep biology free from intelligent design, even if that means taking extreme measures. I’ve known such criticsto contact design theorists’ employers and notify them of the ‘heretics’ in their midst. Once ‘outed,’ the designtheorists themselves get harassed and harangued with e-mails. Next, the press does a story mentioning theirunsavory intelligent design associations. (The day one such story appeared, a close friend and colleague ofmine mentioned in the story was dismissed from his research position at a prestigious molecular biologylaboratory. He had worked in that lab for ten years. ... Welcome to the inquisition” (The Design Revolution, pp.304, 305).Walt Brown, who has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, describes the way thatevolutionists have controlled the scientific fields since the day of Thomas Huxley. He uses thefield of geology as an example:“Professors in the new and growing field of geology were primarily selected from those who supported theanti-catastrophe principle. These professors did not advance students who espoused catastrophes. Anadvocate of a global flood was branded a ‘biblical literalist’ or ‘fuzzy thinker’--not worthy of an academicdegree. Geology professors also influenced, through the peer review process, what papers could bepublished. Textbooks soon reflected their orthodoxy, so few students became ‘fuzzy thinkers.’ This practicecontinues to this day, because a major criterion for selecting professors is the number of their publications” (Inthe Beginning, p. 253).Consider Dr. Caroline Crocker, a cell-biologist and full-time visiting faculty member at GeorgeMason University. After she showed several slides about intelligent design in a class on cells, shewas reprimanded, pulled from lecture duties, and her contract was not renewed the followingsemester. She testified: “Students are not allowed to question Darwinism. There are universitieswhere they poll students on what they believe and single them out.”Some Darwinists have even hinted at or openly called for the imprisonment of creationists.“Richard Dawkins has written that anyone who denies evolution is either ‘ignorant, stupid or insane (orwicked--but I’d rather not consider that’) (New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p. 34). It isn’t a big step fromcalling someone wicked to taking forceful measures to put an end to their wickedness. John Maddox, theeditor of Nature, has written in his journal that ‘it may not be long before the practice of religion must beregarded as anti-science’ (‘Defending Science Against Anti-Science,’ Nature, 368, 185). In his recent bookDarwin’s Dangerous Idea, philosopher Daniel Dennett compares religious believers--90 percent of thepopulation--to wild animals who may have to be caged, and he says that parents should be prevented(presumably by coercion) from misinforming their children about the truth of evolution, which is so evident tohim” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 11).As a response to this persecution, IDEA was founded in 2001. It stands for Intelligent Design andEvolution Awareness. It seeks to promote the free discussion of ID and has encouraged theestablishment of clubs on college and high school campuses.14. Evolution is a religion that has been biased against the Bible and the God of the Biblefrom its inception; it is more about rejecting God than it is about science.In 2000, Dr. Michael Ruse wrote:185

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as anideology, a secular religion: a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. Evolution is areligion” (The National Post, May 13, 2000).Dr. Ruse was one of the main witnesses for the evolutionists in the 1981 federal court trial inLittle Rock, Arkansas. There he argued that creationism is religion, whereas evolution is science,but by 2000 he had reversed himself and acknowledged that evolution is also a religion.Paul Beck is one of many scientists who have rejected evolution after discovering that it is moreabout metaphysics than physics.“My studies led me to the ever greater conviction that evolutionism was a deeply flawed theory sustained notby science, but by those who were determined to find any explanation--no matter how absurd--that banishedGod from the scene” (Paul Beck, doctorate in engineering science from Oxford, Persuaded by the Evidence,p. 117).The presentation of evolution as an alternative metaphysical faith began with the fathers of themodern evolutionary theories.Charles Lyell (1799-1873), the father of geological uniformitarianism which became a bedrockof evolution, hated the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and hoped to use hisuniformitarian principle to drive men “out of the Mosaic record” (Life, Letters, and Journals ofSir Charles Lyell, I, pp. 253, 256, 328).Charles Darwin hated the Bible and the God of the Bible. In his Autobiography he said that theBible “was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of anybarbarian” and called the doctrine of eternal torment a damnable doctrine (pp. 85, 87).Thomas Huxley, who had a major role in the popularizing of Darwinian evolution, was very boldin his rejection of the Bible. He mocked biblical creation in Zoological Evidences as to Man’sPlace in Nature (1863) and The Physical Basis of Life (1868). In 1893, Huxley boasted, “...history records that whenever science and [biblical] orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, thelatter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, ifnot slain.” In his correspondence Huxley viciously said of Bible believers who resistedDarwinism, “I should like to get my heel into their mouths and scr-r-unch it round” (Lord Ernie,“Victorian Memoirs and Memories,” The Quarterly Review, 1923; cited from Ian Taylor, In theMinds of Men, p. 363).Ever since Darwin and Huxley, the evolutionary establishment has been committed to anaturalistic anti-God viewpoint and has been aligned solidly against the Bible.It was to avoid the implications of biblical creationism and the God of the Bible that scientistslike Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins came to believe in space aliens. MichaelBehe says, “The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view [life was seeded on186

earth by aliens] is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountableobstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation” (Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 11).Consider some statements that reflect the religious aspect of evolution:“Darwin’s real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphereof rational discussion” (Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, Keynote address, Darwin Centennial,1959).“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. ... There are nogods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. ... There is no ultimatefoundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either” (William Provine, biologyprofessor at Cornell University, Origins Research, 1994, quoted from In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p.379).“Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process withunique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he isresponsible. He is ... his own master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny” (GeorgeSimpson, Life of the Past, 1953, p. 155).“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding ofthe real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patentabsurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health andlife, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have aprior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of sciencesomehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that weare forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set ofconcepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to theuninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in thedoor” (Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 31;Lewontin was reviewing Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World).“I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering: for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set ofmathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being” (Paul Davies, cited by CliveCookson, “Scientists Who Glimpsed God,” Financial Times, April 29, 1995, p. 20).“Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable originfor life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of lifeon the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or process leading to life,elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however,myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope ofselecting one that was still more likely than the remainder” (Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide).“Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet thoseforces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whoseexistence, in scientific terms, is unproved” (“15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense,” Scientific American, July2002).“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it isnot naturalistic” (Scott Todd, immunologist at Kansas State University, correspondence to Nature, Sept. 30,1999, www.answersingenesis.org/todd).The fact that evolution is an alternative metaphysical faith explains why that even when its pettheories are proven wrong, it refuses to consider the biblical account. For example, Lyle’suniformitarianism has been replaced with catastrophic views such as the moving of continents byplate tectonics, the destruction of dinosaurs by meteorites, and the creation of the Grand Canyonby flooding through the broaching of an ancient lake, all of which are a repudiation of187

uniformitarianism. Geologist Davis A. Young observes, “The geologic community gave upsubstantive uniformitarianism long ago.” But at no point do evolutionists consider the possibilitythat the Bible’s account of a worldwide Flood might, in fact, be true. The reason is that they arecommitted to a naturalistic religion.15. Science has not answered any of the important questions of life.Science has staked out a near-God status in modern society, but in reality it cannot answer any ofthe important questions of life: Where did life come from? What is man? Is there a purpose tohuman life? Is there a God? If so, can we know Him? How can we know Him? What lies beyonddeath?David Berlinski is a Jewish agnostic but he understands that modern science does not hold theanswers to life:“If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or theconclusions of the great scientific theories. ... We know better than we did what we do not know and have notgrasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is there. Charles Darwin talkedspeculatively of life emerging from a ‘warm little pond.’ The pond is gone. We have little idea how life emerged,and cannot with assurance say that it did. We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with anytrivial theory about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial, we have no other theories. Wecan say nothing of interest about the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or wherethe form of the good is found” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, pp. xiv, xv).“The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientificcommunity. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkinshave said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that naturehas equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reasonto think this is so” (Berlinski, p. xvi).16. Evolution is elastic and is never refuted in the eyes of convinced Darwinists.Darwinists have an answer for everything. If it is demonstrated that evolution is not occurringtoday, Darwinists run to mind-boggling eons of time in the past. If it is demonstrated that blindprocesses cannot create, Darwinists protest that the processes are not really blind. If it isdemonstrated that natural selection cannot account for the formation of new organs andcreatures, Darwinists run to genetic mutations. If it is demonstrated that mutations are notcreative mechanisms, Darwinists run to the mysteries of unknown genetic processes. If it isdemonstrated that the fossil record does not display constant change, Darwinists run to hopefulmonsters and punctuated equilibrium. If it is demonstrated that no naturalistic process canexplain the origin of life, Darwinists run to extra-terrestrials and to multiverses.Because of this, refuting evolution can be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.Even some evolutionists have complained that Darwinism cannot be “falsified.”17. Science is extremely fallible and has erred countless times.188

Juan Arsuaga candidly advises,“... those seeking absolute truth or an immutable and unassailable dogma should look in a field other thanscience” (Neanderthal’s Necklace, p. 17).This is true, because science is so incredibly fallible. Consider the case of Ignaz PhilippSemmelweis:“On July 1, 1818, a little boy was born in Budapest, Hungary. His mother named him Ignaz. As the boy grew,so did his interest in medicine and the sciences. Eventually, he became a doctor. In his work at the ViennaGeneral Hospital, Ignaz saw many victims of the highly contagious and often deadly puerperal fever. Slowlyhe began to suspect an increased risk for anyone having contact with fever victims. In time his tentativesuspicions became firm convictions. Reasoning that physicians in the hospital were somehow carrying thedisease from the autopsy room and transmitting it to women in the maternity ward, Ignaz ordered all of thephysicians in his service to wash their hands thoroughly in a solution of chlorinated lime before examiningpatients. This was a radical and controversial move, and it resulted in big trouble for the young doctor.“Keep in mind that Ignaz took this stand years before Louis Pasteur, with his microscope, ever scientificallydocumented the danger of infectious bacteria. To say the least, at the time in which Ignaz lived, such a radicalposition was just not politically-scientifically correct. As a result, great pressure was brought to bear on theyoung man. He was ridiculed, hounded, and even viciously attacked. His character was smeared mercilessly.‘Crazy old Ignaz’ was the growing sentiment of young and old that seemed to follow him everywhere he went.Yet he stood his ground, entirely alone--one man against the entire scientific establishment of his day. Noone--absolutely no one--agreed with him. He was universally regarded as a nut.“In the end, although he never gave ground scientifically, the incredible, relentless, pressure got to him. Ignazlapsed into insanity. His death followed on August 1, 1865. At the age of 47, Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis wasjust as right as he could be, though the entire world and all of the scientific experts thought otherwise. Shortlythereafter, Joseph Lister performed his first antiseptic operation and Semmelweis, dead less than a year, wason his way to a full vindication” (“When Science Errs: The Oft Times Lonely Stand for Truth,” http://aiia.christiananswers.net/resources/thoughtletters/27/).A recent example of how science has erred is the so-called junk DNA. The term, which wasintroduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno, refers to the alleged “non-coding” part of DNA “consistedof randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genesthat were non-functional.” Evolutionists argued that God would not make “flawed” DNA.A 1980 article by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick said non-coding DNA “has little specificity andconveys little or no selective advantage to the organism.” Junk DNA as an evolutionary“vestigial” was argued by Darrel Falk in Coming to Peace with Science.It turns out that “junk” DNA isn’t junk, and any creationist could have predicted that this is thecase.Gretchen Vogel said, “The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance” (“Why Sequencethe Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, Feb. 16, 2001, p. 1184).John Mattick observed, “The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA]may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology” (quote byW. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome,” Scientific American, Vol. 289, Nov. 2003, pp. 49-50).189

18. The foundational issue is God and a personal relationship with Him through Christ.We must not forget that the foundational issue in apologetics is to introduce men and women toGod through Christ. It is “a supporting discipline for the overriding goal of the GreatCommission” (David Stone).If you believe in the Almighty God of Scripture, it is a simple matter to accept what the Biblesays, whether it is a six-day creation or Christ’s virgin birth, bodily resurrection and SecondComing, or anything else. The fact is that these are all things that pertain to the supernatural andthey cannot be tested by natural science.D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry and D.Sc. from the University of London, writes:“It was about this time, in the mid-1960s, that my ideas of the greatness of God were transformed. No longerwas He a ‘pocket’ God who did things as I could imagine from my ‘human viewpoint,’ but He hadstaggeringly great power, far beyond anything I could possibly comprehend. If God is so great, then there isnothing He could not do” (In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 266).This hits the nail on the head. The problem with people who can’t believe in the miracles of theBible is that they believe either in no God or a “pocket” God. When you believe in the AlmightyGod revealed in Scripture, it is easy to believe that the world was made in six days. In fact, it iseasy to believe that it was made in six micro-seconds, if the Bible said so.Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century, proficient indozens of ancient languages, divided men into two categories: big-godders and little-godders,and that pretty much sums it up.“One of the students of Princeton Theological Seminary professor Robert Dick Wilson had been invited topreach in Miller Chapel 12 years after his graduation. Dr. Wilson came and sat near the front. When chapelended, the old professor came up to his former student, cocked his head to one side in his characteristic way,extended his hand, and said, ‘I'm glad that you're a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see ifthey're big-godders or little-godders. Then I know what their ministry will be.’“His former student asked him to explain. Wilson replied, ‘Well, some men have a little God, and they'realways in trouble with Him. He can't do any miracles. He can't take care of the inspiration and transmission ofthe Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of His people. Then, there are those who have a greatGod. He speaks and it is done. He commands and it stands fast. He knows how to show Himself strong onbehalf of them that fear Him. You have a great God; and He'll bless your ministry’” (John Huffman, Who’s inCharge Here?).The Christian apologist’s objective is to make “big-godders” of people.This comes through knowing God personally by faith in Jesus Christ. We are separated from Godby our sin, both inherited and personal, and Christ died to pay the price God’s Law demands sothat we can be reconciled to Him. When a sinner repents of his sin and puts his faith in JesusChrist as only Lord and Saviour, a dramatic change occurs. He is born again and receives theindwelling Holy Spirit as his Teacher. His thinking is changed. This happened to me in 1973when I was 23 years old. Before that I was antagonistic toward the Bible. I doubted the Bible’s190

teaching on things such as judgment, salvation, and the future, but those doubts were resolved bymy new relationship with God in Christ.Christ instructed us to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8). We must inform people of who He is andwhy He came to earth. Apologetics can remove barriers that people have that keep them fromconsidering Christ, but our goal is not to win arguments about evidences; our goal is to introducepeople to Christ.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION1. What verse says God has revealed the truth to babes?2. What book and chapter says God has chosen the weak in this world to confound the mighty?3. What does the believer have that allows him to test the doctrine of evolution?4. What are three benefits of creation science material?5. What is one of the ways that modernists and skeptics were wrong about the Bible?6. Why did Arthur Keith turn away from Christ?7. Why is it wrong to call evolution a “theory”?8. Is it correct to call evolution an hypothesis?9. List four evolutionists who doubt Darwinism.10. In what century was “skepticism in the air”?11. Thomas Huxley said that every thinking man he met was in a state of _________.12. How is evolution itself an evidence of the divine origin of the Bible?13. What Bible prophecy describes end-times skeptics?14. What are two major reasons why it is impossible to reconcile evolution with the Bible?15. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are quoted or referred to _______ times in the NewTestament.16. Why does it affect the Gospel if Adam was not a real man?17. Jesus’ genealogy begins with what man?18. What are four ways that the Genesis account of creation contradicts evolution.19. How many times does Genesis say that things were made to reproduce “after their kind”?20. How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics support the Genesis account of creation?21. What bait and switch techniques do Darwinists use?22. What are two types of “science”?23. If evolutionists are not allowed to ____________ their doctrine, they have no evidence.24. Why are scientists motivated not to criticize evolution?25. In what video documentary does Ben Stein examine the persecution of scientists andprofessors who dare to question Darwinism?26. Evolution is more about _________________________ than it is about science.27. Who was Charles Lyell and what was his objective?28. What did Charles Darwin call the doctrine of eternal torment?29. What has driven some evolutionists to believe in space aliens?30. Julian Huxley said that Darwin’s achievement was what?31. Who said, “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”?191

32. What are some questions that science cannot answer?33. How did scientists err by saying that some DNA is “junk”?34. What is the foundational issue in the creation science debate?192

A HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONIn this section we give a brief summary of evolution.BEFORE THE 19TH CENTURYThe doctrine of evolution is an ancient heresy.Anaximander (611-546 B.C.) taught that man evolved from fish (“Evolution and Paleontology inthe Ancient World,” http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html).Xenophanes (d. 490 B.C.) believed that life arose from the “primordial mud.”Empedocles of Acragas (5th century B.C.) taught that the earth gave birth to living creatures thatwere first disembodied organs, which eventually joined into whole organisms.The Greek Epicureans believed that the universe evolved through naturalistic mechanisms apartfrom God or the supernatural. The Roman philosopher Titus Lecretius Carus (95-55 B.C.)described the Epicurean view in the influential poem On the Nature of Things.The Taoists (founded in the 4th century B.C. by Chuang Tzu) denied the fixity of species. Taoismregards nature as existing in a state of “constant transformation” known as the tao (James Miller,“Taoism and Nature,” Royal Asiatic Society, Jan. 8, 2008).Some Muslim scholars from the 8th to the 14th centuries A.D. held to the transmutation ofcreatures from non-living to living: “from mineral to plant, from plant to animal, and fromanimal to man.” In 1377, for example, Ibn Khaldun said that humans developed from “the worldof monkeys” in his book Muqaddimah.ERASMUS DARWINThe history of modern evolution begins with Charles Darwin’s influential paternal grandfather,Erasmus.There was a “vein of skepticism in the Darwin family” (John Wehler, Charles Darwin: Growingup in Shrewsbury).Erasmus (1731-1802) was a materialist who “discarded the Bible and Jesus” and “adored in theTemple of Nature.” For him “Reason was divine, and Progress its prophet” (Adrian Desmond,Darwin, pp. 5, 9).193

Erasmus was a tremendously influential man, a pioneering medical doctor, inventor, poet,philosopher, and naturalist. He invented a speaking machine, a copying machine, and the steeringmechanism used in modern cars. His close friends consisted of men such as Benjamin Franklin,one of America’s founding fathers; John Michell, the father of seismology; John Whitehurst,inventor of the factory time clock; John Baskerville, famous printer and type font designer;James Watt, perfecter of the steam engine; and James Brindley, creator of England’s canalsystem.Erasmus was a Fellow of the Royal Society, the first in a line of six generations of Darwins to beso honored.Erasmus’ wife, Polly, the mother of Charles Darwin’s father, Robert, was non-religious in areligious age, and she “faced death calmly without supernatural assistance” (Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin, p. 94).Erasmus was a moral scoundrel who was “fond of sacrificing to both Bacchus and Venus” (King-Hele, p. 18), meaning he loved alcohol and women. After the death of Polly, Erasmus bore twodaughters out of wedlock with his live-in governess, who was 22 years his junior. He alsocomposed lush erotic verse” (Desmond, p. 6).Erasmus’ god was a First Cause that had some vague part in bringing life into existence but hadno role in men’s lives. Rejecting the true and living God, Erasmus worshipped “a distant Deity ...the vast Unknown.” By his student years at Cambridge, he had rejected the biblical view of God.There he was deeply influenced in Deism by Albert Reimarus, the son of German philosopherHermann Reimarus. This is the doctrine of an absentee God who merely set things in motion, aGod who has not intervened in human affairs nor revealed Himself in Scripture. Deism has beendescribed as the Clockwork universe “theory,” in which God builds the universe and then lets itrun on its own.Erasmus believed in the evolution of life from an original microscopic biological speck to man.His family coat of arms consisted of three scallop shells with the motto E conchis omnia or“everything from shells,” referring to his belief in the evolution of life from the sea.Erasmus was influenced by his friend James Hutton’s view of long geological ages anduniformitarianism (King-Hele, p. 245). Without this doctrine, the “theory” of evolution wouldnot be possible.Erasmus proclaimed his doctrine of evolution in a popular two-volume set of books entitledZoonomia; or, the Laws of Organic Life (1794-96). The books went through many editions inEngland and America, with translations into German, Italian, French, and Portuguese.Zoonomia promotes the very concepts later popularized by Charles Darwin: natural selection,survival of the fittest, sexual selection, homology, and vestigial organs.194

Erasmus believed that everything has risen from an original “living filament” which was formedby “spontaneous vitality” in “the primeval ocean.” He wrote:“Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhapsmillions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that allwarm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued withanimality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations,sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its owninherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world withoutend!” (Zoonomia, Vol. 2, p. 240).Erasmus Darwin’s book The Temple of Nature was published the year following his death. Itpresents the doctrine of evolution under the guise of lessons he supposedly learned from thegoddess Urania, Priestess of Nature.Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurl’dRose the bright spheres, which form the circling world ...Nurs’d by warm sun-beams in primeval caves,Organic Life began beneath the waves. ...Hence without parent by spontaneous birthRise the first specks of animated earth;From Nature’s womb the plant or insect swims,And buds or breathes, with microscopic limbs. ...New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.In the second volume of Zoonomia, Erasmus labeled religion by various psychological diseases.One of these was “spes religiosa” or “superstitious hope.” He called this a “maniacalhallucination,” an insanity that has produced “cruelties, murders, massacres” into the world.Thus, Erasmus Darwin, the God hater who did not distinguish false religion from true, predatedthe so-called “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins by more than two centuries.Another alleged psychological disease that Erasmus identified was “orci timor” or “the fear ofhell.” After his death, an obituary in the Monthly Magazine stated that Erasmus told a friend “letus not hear anything about hell.”Erasmus was a close associate of Unitarian Christ-denier Joseph Priestley, the French DeistVoltaire, and other skeptics who rejected divine Revelation. One of Erasmus’ closest friends wasthe Unitarian Josiah Wedgwood, the grandfather of Charles Darwin’s wife. Wedgwood was adisciple of Priestly. Josiah’s famous Wedgwood pottery firm even honored Priestly with amedallion featuring his likeness.The two grandfathers bequeathed “a mixture of free thought and radical Christianity to theirgrandchildren” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 5).195

Erasmus died seven years before Charles’ birth, but the grandson read Zoonomia twice in hisyouth (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, p. 49).“Belief in evolution, passed on to his son Robert and reincarnated in his grandson Charles, canbe seen as the finest of Erasmus’s legacies” (Desmond King-Hele, p. 363).CHARLES DARWINCharles Darwin (1809-82) is the most prominent name in the field of modern evolution. Hisbooks are considered pivotal in popularizing the evolutionary doctrine. These are On the Originof Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Strugglefor Life (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871).Kimball’s high school biology textbook (1965) said that On the Origin of Species “ranks secondonly to the Holy Bible in its impact on man’s thinking.”Charles’ mother, Susannah, was a Unitarian, following in the footsteps of her father JosiahWedgwood. Susannah attended High Street Chapel in Shrewsbury, which had become a fullblownUnitarian congregation during the pastorate of George Case (1797-1831). Unitariansdenied the Trinity, believing that Jesus is not God. Charles was educated for a short time at aschool operated by Case. Today the church is called Shrewsbury Unitarian Church, High Street,and a plaque inside the building says: “To the memory of Charles Robert Darwin, author of ‘TheOrigin Of Species,’ born in Shrewsbury, February 12, 1809, in early life a member of and aconstant worshipper in this church.”Charles’ father, Robert, was also a skeptic. His “disbelief extended to the borders ofatheism” (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 113). He adopted his father Erasmus’ motto EConchis Omnia (“all things out of shells”) as his own and displayed it on his bookplate. ErasmusDarwin’s biographer says that Robert “never abandoned his belief in evolution and that hedeserves much credit for bringing up Charles in an evolution-friendly atmosphere. ... Robertgreatly helped Charles to bring himself to believe in evolution in defiance of orthodox scientificthinking” (Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin, p. 359).Robert was not brave, though, and hid his skepticism behind a public mask of Anglicanrespectability. Charles inherited his father’s reticence about being forthright in his religiousskepticism and largely left it to others, such as Thomas Huxley, to fight publicly for what hebelieved.Darwin’s elder brother Erasmus, named after their famous grandfather, was a radical skeptic inhis own right. As a young man Charles loved to spend time there, where “the buzz was radicaland Dissenting and ‘heterodoxy was the norm’” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 216). This crowd wasdeeply influenced by German biblical criticism and its accompanying theological modernism.196

Charles’ father wanted him to be a doctor and sent him to Edinburgh University for thatpurpose. There he cast his lot with the most radical, skeptical crowd. He was elected to thePlinian Society in 1826, at a time when “it had been penetrated by radical students--fiery,freethinking democrats who demanded that science be based on physical causes, not supernaturalforces” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 31). Darwin’s membership was sponsored by William Browne,who “had no time for souls and saints.”Darwin’s closest friend at Edinburgh was professor Robert Edmond Grant, another member ofthe Plinian society. He was “an uncompromising evolutionist” who believed that “the origin andevolution of life were due simply to physical and chemical forces, all obeying naturallaws” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 34). A man for whom “nothing was sacred,” he was “savagely anti-Christian” (p. 40). Grant loved Erasmus Darwin’s Zoonomia. He believed in spontaneousgeneration of life from “monads” or “elementary living particles” and that the sponge is theparent of higher animals.Darwin also attended Robert Jameson’s lectures at Edinburgh entitled “Origin of Species ofAnimals,” promoting the “theory” that the higher animals evolved from the “simplest worms.”Jameson, “wild-haired Regis Professor of Natural History,” was the founder of the PlinianSociety.Not being able to stomach the blood and guts aspect of the medical field (at a time whenoperations were conducted without anesthesia), Darwin sought his father’s counsel and wasadvised to study for the Anglican ministry at Cambridge University. Neither man believed theBible or the Gospel of Christ, but that was not necessary for an Anglican rector in that day. “TheAnglican Church, fat, complacent, and corrupt, lived luxuriously on its tithes and endowments,as it had for a century. Desirable parishes were routinely auctioned to the highestbidder” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 47). If Darwin obtained a country rectory he could live theleisurely and respected life of a gentleman.Darwin claimed that at this point in his life he fully accepted the Anglican creed, and much hasbeen made of this by some biographers, but he didn’t take the creed literally. He was convincedthat he could “accept” the Thirty-Nine Articles without maintaining “actual belief of each andevery separate proposition contained in them” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 86). At no point in his lifedid Charles Darwin believe the Bible!Darwin “was unconcerned about his soul” (p. 57) and made no personal commitment to JesusChrist.Many biographers have noted that Darwin enjoyed William Paley’s writings in his student days,implying that this was a strong Christian influence, but this is not the case. Paley’s “watchmaker”argument is famous, but he was not defending the Bible; he was defending natural revelation. (Ifyou find a watch lying in the woods, you would assume it was made by an intelligent being;197

likewise, the design of creation points to an intelligent creator.) Paley, a senior Anglicanclergyman, did not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. His God was “Aristotle’s God--amaster designer but now remote from his creation” and that he “tended to leave God ‘out there’remote from his creation” (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, pp. 115, 349).In 1831, Darwin began his famous five year journey on the H.M.S. Beagle. The captain, RobertFitz-Roy, believed the Bible and personally conducted the mandatory Sunday services.Ironically, one of Fitz-Roy’s objectives (beyond the official one of mapping coast lines for theBritish navy) was to substantiate the book of Genesis. In his journal, FitzRoy said that geologyrightly understood is compatible with the Genesis Flood.Darwin was heavily influenced during the voyage by reading the Principles of Geology byCharles Lyell, which he “studied attentively” (Autobiography, p. 77). Lyells’s uniformitarianismwas a bold and brash denial of the Bible’s teaching of divine Creation and the universal Flood,and this was his express objective. Darwin described Lyell as “thoroughly liberal in his religiousbeliefs or rather disbeliefs” (Autobiography, p. 100). Lyell was a supporter of John WilliamColenso, the Anglican Bishop of Natal, who likened the Pentateuch to the mythical accounts ofKing Arthur’s Court (Di Gregorio, From Here to Eternity, p. 240).Darwin claims that he was “quite orthodox” during the Beagle journey, but he was grosslyabusing the term “orthodox.” Note the full quotation from his Autobiography:“Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox ... But I had gradually come, by this time, to see thatthe Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbowas a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no moreto be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. ... By furtherreflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles bywhich Christianity is supported,--that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredibledo miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almostincomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with theevents ... by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as theyinfluenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation” (Autobiography, pp. 85,86).Like his grandfather Erasmus, Charles Darwin especially hated the doctrine of eternal torment.“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of thetext seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almostall my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (Autobiography, p. 87).In rejecting God and promoting life as a product of blind evolution, Darwin was sinning againsthis conscience and he suffered greatly for it. He was “destitute of faith, yet terrified atscepticism” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 268). He felt like he was committing murder. “When Darwindid come out of his closet and bare his soul to a friend, he used a telling expression. He said itwas ‘like confessing a murder’” (Desmond, p. xviii). The title to Adrian Desmond’s biography isDarwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.198

“He cut himself off, ducked parties and declined engagements; he even installed a mirror outside his studywindow to spy on visitors as they came up his drive. ... for years after reaching his rural retreat he refused tosleep anywhere else, unless it was a safe house, a close relative’s home. This was a worried man. ... Hewas living a double life with double standards, unable to broach his species work with anyone exceptErasmus, for fear he be branded irresponsible, irreligious, or worse. It began to tell in the pit of hisstomach” (pp. xix, 233).Darwin suffered much of his life from debilitating sickness, so much so that he was largely arecluse during his last 30 years. His sickness took the form of stomach problems, heartpalpitations, vomiting, and eczema (chronic skin disorder). “... a third of his working life wasspent doubled up, trembling, vomiting, and dowsing himself in icy water” (Desmond, Darwin, p.xviii).Before the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had “uncomfortable palpitation of theheart” and a “terrible long fit of vomiting,” and upon the first sight of the book “one leg swelledlike elephantiasis--eyes almost closed up--covered with a rash and fiery boils” (Desmond,Huxley, p. 257, Darwin, p. 233). He hid out for the next two months at a hydropathic spa, “livingin Hell,” waiting for the furor to die down.Darwin sought relief from a variety of quacks. He experimented with electric chains made ofbrass and zinc wires, which he looped around his neck and waist. He drenched his skin withvinegar. He followed a regimen of ice-bags in the small of the back three times a day for 90minutes at a time. He half-starved himself on crash diets. He spent months at hydropathic spas,particularly James Gully’s at Malvern, Worcestershire. There he was wrapped in wet sheets,drenched with buckets of cold water, lounged for hours in mineral springs, and fed cold biscuitsand water for breakfast.By 1871, the year he published The Descent of Man, Darwin was “a confirmed invalid” who “satengulfed in fog, downhearted, drawing up his will” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 597).Darwin started a myth that has been repeated ad infinitum by his disciples, and that is that hewas a Bible-believing Christian who was an unwilling convert to evolution, capitulating to itonly because of the overwhelming scientific facts. In his autobiography, Darwin presentedhimself as a man who was not deeply influenced by the skeptical environment in which he grewup. He claimed, in fact, to have believed the Bible as a Cambridge student and even during hisvoyage on the Beagle and only gradually to have become a skeptic solely as the product ofindependent scientific investigation.This is a self-serving myth. In fact, as we have seen, he never was a true Bible believer, neverprofessed Christ as his Saviour, and was influenced deeply by skepticism from a young age.Darwin claimed that he came to his evolutionary theories “quite independently.” But evensympathetic biographers such as Gertrude Himmelfarb characterize that as “not entirely candid.”Indeed, it was a bold lie. Darwin had read many books and attended lectures promoting199

evolutionary ideas very similar to those he later promoted, and it is impossible to form an ideaindependently of things you have actually heard!The fact is that Darwin’s views and his book were most definitely the products of a skepticalenvironment. Jacques Barzun rightly says, “Clearly, the spirit of evolution hovered over thecradle of the new century” (Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 46). Unitarianism, German “highercriticism,” and humanistic philosophy had greatly weakened biblical faith within the Church ofEngland and throughout society at large.Darwin could have believed the Bible, because he had it in his possession and knew men thatbelieved it, but he chose to reject it. There is no evidence that he even tried to find answers to theskeptical attacks upon Scripture. The answers were available, but Darwin was not interested inproving the Bible, only in disproving it. This willful skepticism has characterized committedDarwinists ever since and is a fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3-6.“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days SCOFFERS, walking after their own lusts, Andsaying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of the creation. For this they WILLINGLY ARE IGNORANT of, that by the word of Godthe heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world thatthen was, being overflowed with water, perished.”Some have pointed to Darwin’s reference to creation at the end of On the Origin of Species asevidence that he continued to believe in God, but that was a mere sap thrown out by a weak manwho feared the social and financial consequences of his own views. It must never be forgottenthat Darwin was not a brave man. To reference “creation” in Origin of Species when he hadrejected the concept of an intelligent creator was hypocrisy and cowardice. In fact, he came toregret it privately and expressed this in a letter to a friend to whom he admitted that he hadfeared public opinion: “I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used thePentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknownprocess” (Darwin, Autobiography. p. 272).Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey with a full-blown Anglican funeral. The “elders ofscience, State, and Church, the nobility of birth and talent” were in attendance. The coffin wasdraped in black velvet and covered with white flowers. Choristers hypocritically sang “I am theresurrection.” A special hymn composed for the occasion was taken from the book of Proverbs.Incongruously, it began, “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and getting understanding” andended with, “His ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” As the coffin waslowered into the grave, the choristers sang, “His body is buried in peace, but his name livethevermore.”There is a popular myth that Darwin was converted on his deathbed. It is said that this occurredduring a visit by a Lady Hope to Darwin’s house in 1881, but it isn’t true. Darwin biographerJames Moore calls this “the Darwin Legend.” Charles’s daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote onpage 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, dated February 23, 1922, “I was200

present at his deathbed. ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”Even Lady Hope’s own account of the story did not claim that Darwin actually renouncedevolution or embraced Christianity. She merely said that he expressed concern over the fate ofhis youthful speculations.THOMAS HUXLEYThomas Huxley (1825-1895) was called “Darwin’s Bulldog” because he was the premier publicdefender of Darwinian evolution in Darwin’s day. Whereas Charles Darwin was reclusive andmild tempered and fearful of conflict, Huxley was combative and loved the limelight. “Neverone to enter the public fray, Darwin needed a champion as Huxley needed a cause” (Desmond,Huxley, p. 260).When his first son died at age four, the grieving Huxley rejected the idea that he needed “thehope and consolation” of Christ and considered the temptation to turn to such a hope “a scoffingdevil.” When the preacher read about the bodily resurrection from 1 Corinthians 15 at thefuneral, Huxley said, “They shocked me,” and, “I could have laughed with scorn” (Desmond, pp.287, 288). Calling good evil and evil good, Huxley claimed that biblical faith is “theunpardonable sin” (p. 345).Huxley’s life spanned a time of great change. It looked like science would conquer every humanproblem and carry men into a glorious millennium. The transatlantic cable carried messagesinstantly across vast oceans. Railroads crisscrossed England on 6800 miles of track by 1851,drawing far-flung towns together and accelerating the pace of life. The newly opened LondonUnderground carried men quickly from one side of the great city to the other. Cities werebuilding modern sewage systems to “flush out medieval diseases.” Alexander Graham Bell’stelephone was the first step toward the Internet. The typewriter revolutionized writing, andThomas Edison’s light bulb turned night into day, allowing men to work around the clock andcarry forth the scientific revolution with even greater speed.In this time of change, skepticism was in the air. It seemed like the Bible would become justanother religious fable to fall before mighty science. Huxley said, “Every thinking man I havemet with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious faith. And theunthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief” (Huxley, 1851, cited fromDesmond, p. 160).Huxley counted radical God-hating skeptics such as Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, andGeorge Eliot as his best friends. “Secularity” was their watchword.They wanted “a hammer to break the creationist shackles” (Desmond, p. 186), and Darwinismbecame that hammer. It was also described as “a cleansing solvent, dissolving the dross” ofbiblical miracles (p. 306).201

Huxley thrived in this “sea-mist of rationalism” (Desmond, p. 169), and became one of theprominent voices in England for the overthrow of the Christian faith. He called Darwinism the“New Reformation.” Huxley wanted to “see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies” (p.253), and his children in the evolutionary faith have lived to see that dream fulfilled to a greatdegree.Huxley eventually attacked the resurrection of Christ. In his article “The Evolution of Theology,”which was published in Nineteenth Century magazine, Huxley claimed that Jehovah God was aproduct of evolution. He blasphemously hated the “Elohim ghost-deity” of the Old Testamentwho “policed moral behaviour with promises of rewards and threats of unearthly torment” (p.547). It is obvious that he did not understand either God or His Gospel. Huxley called theaccount of Jesus casting out the demons in Gadarene “preposterous and immoral.” He claimedthat Jesus was just another orthodox Jewish teacher. He called Paul’s theology “Neoplatonicmystigogy” (p. 571). Huxley’s largest book, Controverted Questions, was on Biblical criticism.Huxley had a great capacity for hatred, and he loved “trashing reputations and receivedwisdom” (Desmond, p. 227). The Pall Mall Gazette said that “cutting up monkeys was his forte,and cutting up men was his foible.” He said, “There is no doubt I have a hot bad temper. If I hatea man, I despise him” (p. 213), and he aimed the full force of that temper at Bible believers. Hewas a “parson hater.” Huxley said of scientists who resisted Darwinism, “I should like to get myheel into their mouths and scr-r-unch it round” (Lord Ernie, “Victorian Memoirs and Memories,”The Quarterly Review, 1923, cited from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 363). Of RichardOwen, one of the scientists holding out against Darwinism, Huxley said, “Before I have donewith that mendacious humbug I will nail him out, like a kite to a barn door, an example to all evildoers” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 504).Of anyone who attempted to defend the Bible at any level, even those compromisers who weretrying to reconcile it with evolution, proud Huxley said that if he “were Commander in Chief intheir universe” he would dump them in a “hot locus in the lower regions” (p. 505). Thus, the manwho mocked the doctrine of a God of judgment who would send men to hell, would have sent hisown enemies to such a place if he had the power! What unmitigated hypocrisy!Huxley intended to take control of science in England and he was largely successful. He foundedthe secretive X-Club, which was dedicated to “science, pure and free, untrammeled by religiousdogmas.” “Opponents were locked out, ignored, and mocked” (Wiker, The Darwin Myth, p.105). From X-Club ranks came three presidents of the Royal Society and five presidents of theBritish Association (Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 35). Cambridge biology teacherMichael Pitman observes: “It is certain that the ‘gay and conspiratorial’ X Club, which wasstrongly evolutionist in character, not only influenced the appointments made for senior positionsin the newly formed universities of the Victorian era but also, until its demise in the 1890s,practically controlled the business of the Royal Society” (Adam and Evolution, p. 64).202

The X-Club published its own periodical called Nature as part of their aggressive campaign ofselling Darwinism to the public. As of 2009, Nature was still standing true to its founding vision.In January of that year Nature published a free online packet entitled “15 Evolutionary Gems.”One report observed that it might have been subtitled “An evangelism packet for those wishingto spread the good news about Darwinism.”Pope Huxley and his fellow bishops in the Church of Science brought back the inquisition bydisallowing challenges to evolutionary doctrine and excommunicating those who dared toquestion it. Consider St. George Mivart. He started out as an ardent evolutionist and a disciple ofHuxley, but he was savaged when he had the audacity to publish a book debunking Darwinismand warning that it would destroy morality and produce despair (Desmond, p. 455). The Huxleyinquisitors had Mivart’s membership in the prestigious Athenaeum Club nixed. Mivart wasshunned as a leper by the Darwinian elite, and he wasn’t even a Bible believer; he was a liberalRoman Catholic who held to theistic evolution.Mivart was only the first victim of the Darwinian inquisition, a phenomenon that has broadenedin scope and intensity in our day. By 1995, Phillip Johnson observed:“Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government financedcreation myth that the public is supported to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as thepriesthood. ... So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course hasto protect its mystery that gives it that authority--that’s why they’re so vicious towards critics” (In theBeginning: The Creationist Controversy, PBS documentary, May 30-31, 1995).The Darwinian inquisition has largely shut creationists out of the public school/scientificestablishment. Dr. Henry Morris described this extreme bias:“It is not that creationist scientists have not published in their own scientific fields. For example, beforecoming to ICR, Dr. Duane Gish had published at least 25 articles on biochemistry in secular sciencejournals, Dr. Ken Cumming over 18 articles in biology, and Dr. Larry Vardiman at least 10 articles inatmospheric physics. My own publications in engineering include five books and 20 articles. One of thebooks, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, has been continuously in print since 1963 and has been used asa textbook in scores of universities.“But none of us can get a scientific article promoting creationism published in the secular journals, whethertechnical journals or popular magazines such as Reader's Digest or National Geographic. In fact, very fewreligious magazines will accept an article on creationism, especially one that promotes six-day creation anda global Flood.“On one occasion, a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists was able to get an invitation for meto speak at their convention, with an agreement that the Society would publish the paper in its journal. Whenthey saw my paper, however, they quickly reneged, even though the article had no religious material in it atall, only science. It was later published by ICR as the small book, The Scientific Case for Creation” (Morris,“Bigotry in Science,” Institute for Creation Research, n.d.).Countless other examples could be given. In fact, entire books have been written to document theDarwinian inquisition. In his book Darwin Day in America, John Day devotes a chapter to thisentitled “Banned in Burlington.”203

Huxley coined the term “agnostic” to describe the state of supposedly not knowing whether thereis a God and glorifying a skeptical mindset. The word means “no knowledge.” Darwin adoptedthis term for himself. In fact, Huxley’s biographer said, “Agnosticism was to become the newfaith of the West.”In Huxley’s lifetime a radical change came over England, and he played a large part in thisphenomenon. His biographer describes him as an “evolutionary propagandist and proselytizer ofa new scientific authority” (p. 617). He was a revolutionist.Huxley realized that education was the key to the promotion of evolution and the overthrow ofthe Bible in men’s hearts. Huxley called for the removal of the Bible from public schoolclassrooms (Desmond, p. 580). Since Huxley’s day Darwin’s disciples have taken over the publiceducation systems and brainwashed generation after generation of gullible, unsuspectingstudents. This is why Darwinists have fought so hard and have been willing to use any trick inthe book, including deception, to keep “intelligent design” from being taught in America’sclassrooms.Huxley and Darwin both believed that a moral code can be maintained even if one rejects Godand believes in naturalistic evolution. Huxley proclaimed that though man descended from“brutes,” he is assuredly not of them,” which makes no sense whatsoever. He held out for a highmoral code that included traditional marriage, but Huxley was wrong to pretend that the doctrineof evolution would not destroy morality. If there is no law-giving creator God, there is no basisfor absolute morality. If man is a product of the blind forces of nature, he is no better than ananimal and there is no ultimate reason why he should not act out any and every impulse. Thecentury that followed Darwin and Huxley has demonstrated the truth of this to anyone notwillfully blind.In fact, Huxley lived to despise the nihilistic culture that he helped create. Darwin biographerJacques Barzun said, “He was trying to lay the ghost he had raised, but lacked theformula” (Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 103). One evening the flamboyant homosexual Oscar Wildecame to the sixty-year-old Huxley’s house with a coterie of his daughter Nettie’s “self-obsessedhedonist” artsy friends. Wilde projected all the “petulances and flippancies of the decadence, thefebrile self-assertion, the voluptuousness, the perversity of the new Hedonism” (Desmond, p.540). Huxley responded, “That man never enters my house again.” Both Darwin and Huxleywere faithful husbands and moralists. Neither liked flaming homosexuals and moral decadence,but no-fault divorce and homosexual rights and legalized abortion and the pornographyrevolution are direct products of their evolutionary doctrine and religious skepticism.Huxley’s views “left him and his world naked before moral adversity ... and he diedheavyhearted with forebodings of the kind of future he had helped to prepare” (Jacques Barzun,Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 64). He became increasingly depressed and nihilistic. “A death shrouddescended over Huxley’s philosophy” (Desmond, p. 560). He and Darwin believed that mankindwas destined to perish in a final “universal winter” when the universe ceased to sustain life.204

Insanity and depression run deeply in the skeptical Huxley family.Huxley’s father died in an asylum. His two brothers suffered “extreme mental anxiety” and “nearmadness.”Thomas himself had many debilitating bouts with deep depression, periods when he was unableto face the world and “a deadness hangs about me.” He was said to carry “a strain of madness inhim” and to carry on “lengthy conversations between unknown persons living within hisbrain” (p. 555).Huxley’s daughter Mady was troubled by mental illness for years, “prey to gloom and horrors,”before her death in her mid-twenties. She “hardly knew her three-year-old.” She died in nearmadnessand despair, “desperately wanting to believe in another happier world that shall makeup for all the cruelties of this” (p. 558). Her own father’s philosophy provided no comfort, nopurpose, no hope, no salvation.One of Huxley’s grandsons, Noel Trevelyan, committed suicide at age 25 and another, JulianHuxley, suffered six mental breakdowns.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION1. Name three ancient philosophers who taught evolution.2. In what year did Erasmus Darwin die?3. What relation was Erasmus Darwin to Charles?4. Erasmus’ wife was _____________ in a religious age.5. Erasmus’ god was a _______________.6. At Cambridge Erasmus was deeply influenced by what philosophy?7. What is Deism?8. What did Erasmus’ coat of arms consist of and what did it mean?9. Without the doctrine of ______________, the doctrine of evolution would not be possible.10. What was the title of Erasmus’ popular set of books in which he preached evolution?11. Erasmus believed that everything has risen from an original ___________________.12. Erasmus called religion _____________ hope.13. Erasmus did not want to hear anything about _____.14. Josiah Wedgwood was the grandfather of Charles Darwin’s ______.15. Who was Joseph Priestley?16. In what year did Charles Darwin die?17. What were Darwin’s two most popular books?18. Charles’ mother was a _____________.19. Who was Robert Darwin?20. He hid his skepticism behind a public mask of ______________________.21. At Edinburgh University Darwin joined what skeptical organization?205

22. Who was Darwin’s closest friend at Edinburgh and what did he believe about the sponge?23. How could Darwin study for the Anglican ministry when he did not believe the Bible?24. In what way did Darwin believe the Anglican creed when he was at Cambridge?25. William Paley was the author of what famous argument?26. Did Paley defend the Bible as divinely inspired?27. What was the name of the ship on which Darwin made a five-year voyage?28. Who was the captain of this ship and what did he believe about the book of Genesis?29. What is the name of the man who influenced Darwin about uniformitarianism?30. Darwin said the Old Testament was “no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the__________.”31. Darwin called the doctrine of eternal torment a _____________ doctrine.32. Darwin felt like he was committing _____________ by rejecting the Bible for the doctrine ofevolution.33. Darwin was largely a ___________ during his last 30 years.34. Darwin’s favorite quack remedy was _______________.35. What myth did Darwin create?36. The skepticism of Darwin and his followers is a fulfillment of what prophecy?37. Where was Darwin buried?38. Is there evidence to suggest that Darwin was converted on his death bed?39. Thomas Huxley was called Darwin’s _____________.40. Huxley called the biblical faith the _____________________.41. Huxley said that thinking men in his day were in a state of __________.42. The watchword of Huxley and his friends was _______________.43. They wanted to break the _______________ shackles.44. What was the hammer they used for this purpose?45. Huxley thrived in a “sea-mist of __________________.”46. Huxley called Darwinism the _______________________.47. Huxley hated God’s ________________ and _______________.48. What did Huxley think of Jesus?49. Huxley said, “There is no doubt I have a ____________________.”50. He was a __________ hater.51. What was the name of the organization that Huxley founded to control science in England?52. What is the name of the periodical published by this organization?53. Who was the first victim of the Darwinian inquisition?54. Phillip Johnson warns about the _______________ of ______________ that is vicioustowards its critics.55. What term did Huxley coin to describe his view of God?56. Huxley realized that _______________ was the key to the promotion of evolution and theoverthrow of the Bible.57. Why is it not possible to defend a code of absolute morality while believing in evolution?58. Huxley died ______________ with _______________ of the kind of future he helped toprepare.206

ICONS OF EVOLUTION☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Icons of Evolution is included in theUnshakeable Faith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers and PrivateStudy” at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.Kenneth Poppe, a career biology instructor who has taught science in public school classroomsfor 30 years, says,“I have never seen a biology textbook that did not examine a few of the old-time scientific myths andsuperstitions that have since been debunked” (Reclaiming Science from Darwinism, 2006, p. 27).In 2010, I examined five high school textbooks and found that each one used debunked icons--such as the peppered moth, the horse chart, the four-winged fruit fly, and the embryo chart.For a much expanded list of icons of evolution see the book Seeing the Non-existent: Evolution’sMyths and Hoaxes, available from Way of Life Literature.NATURAL SELECTIONNatural selection is a concept developed in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species as themajor mechanism of evolution. It is considered to be Darwin’s most brilliant discovery.In Darwinian terms, natural selection refers to “survival of the fittest.” It says that traits thatimprove a creature’s chance for survival are preserved for future generations, and in this waysmall beneficial changes direct evolution. Over millions of years tiny changes produce newstructures and new creatures. Darwin called this “descent with modification.”For example, a drought on the Galapagos Islands in 1977 caused a shortage of small seeds whichfinches prefer and they were forced to eat larger and tougher ones. In one generation the averagesize of the birds increased slightly because the smaller ones did not survive. Only the “fittest”survived, and according to Darwinism this slight environment-induced change would eventuallyproduce not only different types of birds but also different types of creatures.Darwin, a pigeon breeder, used artificial selection to prove natural selection. Through selectivebreeding techniques an amazing variety of pigeons have been produced, including ones with tailfeathers that fan out like a peacock’s, hooded pigeons, hen-shaped pigeons, beautiful multicoloredpigeons, even owl-like pigeons.207

To Darwin, the breeding experiments are evidence that environmental pressures can produce thesame type of change through “natural selection” and that eventually the accumulation of smallchanges over great periods of time would produce new limbs, organs, and creatures.It is important to understand that Darwin emphasized the word “natural.” Darwinism emphasizesthe word “natural.” Darwin rejected any idea of design by an outside intelligence. He said,“There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and the action of naturalselection, than in the course which the wind blows” (Autobiography).Darwin’s objective was to provide a mechanism to explain life apart from God. The fierce debatetoday between Darwinian evolutionists and proponents of Intelligent Design prove this. Any hintthat there might be an intelligent designer involved in life makes establishment Darwinistsfighting mad and has resulted in the blacklisting of fellow scientists who dare to questionwhether purely naturalistic processes can explain the origin of life. Evolutionists in America haveeven argued this point before the Supreme Court. The National Academy of Sciences told thecourt that the basic characteristic of modern science is “reliance upon naturalistic explanations.”It is, therefore, a fundamental fact that Darwinian natural selection is a blind, non-intelligentprocess.Consider the following statements by prominent Darwinists:Darwinism is the “theory of random, purposeless variations acted on by blind, purposeless naturalselection” (Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology textbook).“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we nowknow is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mindand no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can besaid to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker” (Richard Dawkins, The BlindWatchmaker, p. 5).“If the history of life teaches us any lesson, it is that human beings arose as a kind of glorious accident ...surely a kind of glorious cosmic accident resulting from the catenation [linking] of thousands of improbableevents” (Stephen Jay Gould, April 22, 1984, 60 Minutes television program).“Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George GaylordSimpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1949, p. 344).“Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of the world can be expressedas growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption” (Peter Atkins, cited from T. Schick Jr.,Readings in the Philosophy of Science, p. 351).Darwinists must, therefore, explain how their processes work without regard to any type ofintelligence or design, which, as we will see, puts them into a serious quandary.A century and a half after the publication of On the Origin of Species, natural selection remainsthe major mechanism of evolution. Stuart Kauffman says, “Biologists now tend to believeprofoundly that natural selection is the invisible hand that crafts well-wrought forms. ... If current208

iology has a central canon, you have now heard it” (At Home in the Universe: The Search forthe Laws of Self-organization and Complexity, 1995).In answering Darwinian natural selection, we observe:1. Natural selection can only explain minor variations within a species.Natural selection might explain something like the size of a finch’s beak, but it has never provento be a mechanism for the supposed transmigration of species.Though Charles Darwin titled his book On the Origin of Species, in reality he did not give anyevidence of how one type of animal could evolve into another. His evidence only demonstratedthat there can be variety within one kind of animal.The change in the size of a finch’s beak is interesting, but no matter what size of beak it has, itremains a finch. The same is true for the change in the color of the peppered moth. It is still amoth; in fact it is still a peppered moth. Centuries of pigeon breeding experiments have neverproduced anything other than pigeons.A recent example of the type of minor change that is offered as evidence of evolution is the applemaggot. This example is found under the evidence section of the British Natural HistoryMuseum’s web site.“One example of evolution in recent history is that of the apple maggot in North America. Apple maggots, astheir name suggests, eat apples, but this has not always been true. They used to feed on a plant calledhawthorn (and were called hawthorn maggots), but in the 1700s when apples were introduced to NorthAmerica some hawthorn maggots started to feed on apples. Nearly identical as adult flies, the apple maggotevolved from hawthorn maggots when apple trees were introduced to North America. This shift in dietseparated the maggots into two groups, hawthorn maggots and apple maggots. Both groups are stillbiologically very similar, but because of their food preferences they will no longer breed with oneanother” (“Living Evidence,” April 27, 2005, www.nhm.ac.uk).The apple-loving hawthorn maggot is still a maggot and it still produces the same kind of fly asthe hawthorn maggot. Giving it a new name does not change the fact that nothing of significancehas “evolved” beyond its diet. It has not evolved; it has adapted. The admission that “both groupsare biologically very similar” is an understatement.The fact that this type of thing is offered as evidence of evolution by one of the world’s premiernatural history museums demonstrates the bankruptcy of Darwinism.The process that produces minor adaptive changes in a creature and the isolation of variousinherent genetic traits has never been demonstrated to be a process that can change one type ofanimal or plant into another.2. Natural selection can only “select,” as its name implies; it cannot build.209

Being “natural” and therefore blind and unintelligent, natural selection cannot see the future andwork toward a goal. It cannot produce new genetic information or new structures. Naturalselection knows nothing about propulsion, flight, swimming, breathing, hearing, seeing, bloodclotting.......(Neo-evolutionists add the mechanism of “mutations” to provide new information for naturalselection to act on, but we will see that mutations provide no such thing.)Consider the bacterial flagellum. This microscopic motor-driven propeller drives certainbacteria. Molecular scientists are amazed at its “apparent” design. Harvard biologist HowardBerg calls it “the most efficient machine in the universe.” It is composed of a propeller, driveshaft, stator, bushing, u-joint, and a hydrogen ion powered rotary engine. It turns at up to100,000 revolutions per minute, and can change direction in a quarter of a turn. It can propelitself at speeds up to 60 cell lengths per second, which by proportion is more than twice as fast asa cheetah. “They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-termmemory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit insidethe circular cross section of a human hair” (Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning).How could natural selection produce such a thing? The evolutionist’s answer is that naturalselection used parts from other cellular machinery, but this is ridiculous on its face. How couldblind natural selection, which can’t see the future and doesn’t work toward a goal and has nointelligence, “co-opt” various parts to build something like this (even if all of the “parts” existelsewhere, which they don’t)? How could natural selection even see the need for such a thing, letalone produce it? As Dr. Phillip Johnson says:“... natural selection doesn’t know a thing about bacterial flagella. ... natural selection can only select forpreexisting function. ... for co-option to result in a structure like the bacterial flagellum, we are not talkingabout enhancing the function of an existing structure or reassigning an existing structure to a differentfunction. Rather, we are talking about reassigning multiple structures previously targeted for differentfunctions to a novel structure exhibiting a novel function” (Darwin on Trial, pp. 276, 277).3. Natural selection, not being able to see or work toward a future goal, would not selectsomething that would not be helpful for the creature’s immediate survival.Charles Darwin wrote:“On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidlydestroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call NaturalSelection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be lefta fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic” (On the Origin of Species, p.502)This means that partly-formed and therefore presently-useless structures such as a “developing”wing or leg or flipper or lung or heart would not be preserved.210

Some clever Darwinists can create a just-so story that finds a beneficial function in some partlyformedstructure or organ; but what is required from Darwinism is to demonstrate that everypartly-formed structure or organ is beneficial and is therefore something that would be “selected”because Darwinism requires the routine selection of billions of such things.Take the example of the bird’s marvelous flying wing. Evolutionists theorize that it developedgradually as a reptile became a bird. But a part wing would provide no benefit and would, in fact,be a definite hindrance. If scales somehow gradually lost their hardness on the way to somehowbecoming feathers, the protective benefit of the scale would be lost eons before any benefit offlight was achieved.4. Natural selection requires competition for “survival of the fittest,” but nature showsmore symbiosis and interrelatedness than struggle.Darwin described nature as being everywhere “red in tooth and claw,” but this is not what wesee. Evolutionists such as Pierre-Paul Grassé and Michael Pitman have acknowledged this:“Far from nature ‘red in tooth and claw’, each creature is skilled at extracting energy in a different way fromits own particular niche in the environment; many of them have roles in the ecosystem that avoidcompetition. As Grassé noted, even in the mud of a pond ‘... cohabitation of species belonging to groupswidely different in system teaches us that in one and the same environment separate types of biologicalsystem ensure the survival of one and all’” (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 78).Consider pollination. Here we see amazing harmony between flowering plants and thepollinating creatures.Though nature does demonstrate “tooth and claw” since the fall of man, we do not observe theconstant, everywhere-fought struggle for survival via competition that Darwin’s doctrinedemands.5. There are countless examples in nature where “the fittest” are not the ones that survive.“It is remarkable that Darwin failed to notice the truth in the converse of what he had said; the catastrophesthat end lives--drought, flood, starvation, plague--are non-selective. The strong are struck down with theweak. Is the blackbird’s early worm less fit? It has been shown, by night-time photography that lions do notnecessarily seek out the smallest, weakest buffalo. They may take fully adult males” (Michael Pitman, Adamand Evolution, p. 78).This is true throughout life. When men go to war, it is not the weakest that go; it is the fittest; andthey are the ones who are killed in disproportionate numbers.In fact, the strongest often sacrifice themselves to secure the survival of the weakest, such aswhen mother creatures die to protect their young.Further, there are many creatures and living processes that have survived even though theydisplay no evidence of being the fittest.211

Consider the koala. It is perpetually slow and sleepy!Consider the peacock. Its massive, brilliant array of tail feathers do not give it any advantage inthe forest. It is cumbersome for flying; it is the opposite of camouflage; and scientific studieshave shown that it is not even attractive to the pea hen!Consider the human child. It requires nearly two decades of nurture before it is ready to live onits own.6. Natural selection cannot explain the fact that plants and animals have remained thesame for supposed “millions” of years.If natural selection were true, it would mean that creatures are in a perpetual state ofenvironment-induced change, but many of the creatures observed in the so-called Cambrianlayer, which is supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old, are still with us today andhaven’t changed at all.Consider the bat. There are fossils of bats that are dated at 54 million years old, but it is the samecreature that flies in “modern” skies. The 54-million-year-old bat looked exactly like a “modern”bat and had the same complex echolocation equipment in its inner ears.Consider the Lungfish. It is supposed to be 360 million years old, but it hasn’t changed at all. Areport in Nature magazine observed that the Lungfish’s teeth structure has not changed in all that(supposed) time (“Lungfish dental pattern conserved for 360 million years,” May 31, 2001). Ashatchlings, Lungfish have small teeth which fuse into a bony dental plate as it matures. There arethousands of well-preserved fossils of hatchlings and adult Lungfish that exhibit this exact dentaldevelopment.Creation Moments well observes, “One cannot escape the conclusion that there has been noevolution of Lungfish since they first swam the seas. This agrees with Scripture” (“Lungfishtakes a bite out of evolution,” Creation Moments, Jan. 8, 2011).7. Natural selection is utterly helpless to produce life in the first place.Even if natural selection were true and even if it could account for the development of creatures,it would not explain the origin of life. Natural selection can only select; it cannot create. AsMichael Pitman writes, “to observe that ‘nature selects the fittest’ is far from explaining wherethe fittest come from” (Adam and Evolution, p. 78).We see that natural selection offers zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life, andevolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even a hypothesis. It is a mythical story.212

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION1. Natural selection has no creative power. It can sometimes possibly explain minor changeswithin a type of creature, but it cannot explain how creatures came into existence.2. Natural selection would not preserve something that would not be helpful for the creature’simmediate survival, such as a partial wing.3. Natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism is disproven by the fact that creatures remainthe same.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON NATURAL SELECTION1. In Darwinian terms, natural selection refers to _____________________________.2. According to Darwin, how does natural selection produce new creatures?3. How do the Galapagos finches supposedly prove the “theory” of natural selection?4. According to Darwin, how do artificial breeding experiments provide evidence for naturalselection?5. Darwin’s objective was to provide a mechanism to explain life apart from _______.6. The National Academy of Sciences says the basic characteristic of modern science is itsreliance upon ________________ explanations.7. Richard Dawkins wrote “The ____________ Watchmaker.”8. What are four reasons why we reject natural selection?9. What evidence did Darwin give that one type of animal could evolve into another?10. Why do evolutionists say that the apple maggot proves evolution?11. Why does the apple maggot not prove evolution?12. How do we know that natural selection could not build complex structures?13. What is the bacterial flagellum?14. Why would natural selection not “select” a half-formed wing?15. Nature shows more ________________ and ____________________ than struggle.16. How does pollination disprove natural selection?17. What are two examples of how the fittest are not always the ones that survive?18. How does the fact that creatures remain unchanged over long periods of time disproveevolution?19. What is an example of a creature that has remained unchanged since it first appears in the“fossil record”?20. How does natural selection account for the origin of life?MUTATIONSEvolutionists believe that genetic mutation is the mechanism that adds information to a creature’sgenome so that it can be naturally selected as advantageous and thus produce new types of213

iological structures and creatures. A mutation is “an error in the DNA of a living organism, analteration of the genetic code.”“The theory proposes that there is the infrequent appearance of a mutation where by chance the individual ismore favorably suited to its environment. While admitted to be rare, the mutant then finds an exactly matchingmate. Then, since they are slightly better fitted to the environment, it is supposed they tend to have moreoffspring than the normal variants. This chance process is repeated over countless generations, and the smallmutant changes accumulate and eventually lead to the appearance of an entirely new species” (Ian Taylor, Inthe Minds of Men, p. 159).Richard Dawkins says:“... mutation is, ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the species. All that natural selection cando is accept certain new variations, and reject others” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 125).The problem is that mutations are very rare, are almost always harmful, and have never proven toprovide the type of positive, creative genetic change necessary for evolution. Mutations don’tcreate!1. Scientists generally agree that known mutations are either neutral in their effect orharmful. Further, they do not add new information to the genome.Consider the following statements by Theodosius Dobzhansky of Columbia University, whosucceeded T.H. Morgan, father of the fruit fly mutation experiments:“A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, producedeteriorations of viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardlyserve as evolutionary building blocks” (Genetics and the Origin of Species, p. 73).“The mass evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological andthe few remaining ones are highly suspect” (Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, pp. 88-103, 170).Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry, worked for many years in pharmaceutical research at CornellUniversity, the University of California, and the Upjohn Company. He co-authored a number ofpublications in the peptide chemistry. Of mutations, Dr. Gish says:“The genes are ordinarily very stable. A particular gene (in the form of its successors) may exist manythousands of years without alteration in its structure. Very rarely, however, the chemical structure of a genedoes undergo a change. Such a change is called a mutation. Mutations may be caused by chemicals, X-rays,ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, and other causes. Some may occur during cell reproduction due to copyingerrors. Very often a mutation proves to be lethal, and they are almost universally harmful” (The FossilRecord Still Says No, p. 37).For mutations to create new structures, organs, and creatures, they would need to addinformation to the genetic code. A vast amount of new information would be required to turn a“simple” ameba into a man or even a wolf into a whale. But in fact mutations either subtractfrom the existing genetic code or simply modify it.“Moreover, the mutation does not introduce a new level of complexity, and it cannot be known that it is a‘step in the right direction’--that it will integrate with other mutations in the future for an increase in functional214

information that will code for adaptations for greater complexity” (Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People,p. 66).Dr. Ian Macreadie, principal research scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australiaand one of the southern hemisphere’s top AIDS researchers, says:“All you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a lossof information) that might help a bug to survive--say by not being able to fight the drug as effectively. But younever see any new information arising in a cell. Sometimes a bacterium can ‘inject’ information intoanother one, so it’s ‘new’ to that bacterium--but that information had to arise somewhere, and we just don’tobserve it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arisejust by itself, from nothing” (“Creation in the Research Lab,” The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 36).Dr. Lee Spetner, a biophysicist who worked at Johns Hopkins University, says:“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that addedinformation. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the geneticinformation and not to increase it. ... Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’tmake money by losing it a little at a time. The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionarychanges can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all loseinformation they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed toexplain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutationsthat lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it upin volume. ... Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theorydemands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds informationis more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory” (Not ByChance, 1997, pp. 131, 132, 159, 160).The million-dollar question is this: where does genetic information come from? Evolution has noanswer. Top geneticists say that it does not come through mutations, and obviously it doesn’tcome through natural selection. The Bible believer has a simple and effective reply which fits allthe evidence. The information in the living cell was placed there by the Creator. Each plant andanimal has the exact genetic information needed for its operation survival, and reproduction.There is a certain elasticity within the genetic code to allow the entity to adapt to a changingenvironment, but there is no change or “evolution” beyond this simple adaptation.Consider the mutation that produces sickle-cell anemia. This has been offered as an example ofa “beneficial mutation,” but we need to look at the whole picture. The mutation does providesome protection from the effects of malaria (the distorted blood cells are not as suitable for themalaria pathogen), but it does so at the expense of a serious and painful impairment to the body’sability to transport oxygen, an impairment that causes such things as anemia, poor circulation,lack of resistance to infection, and damage to organs. Thus, overall this mutation is much moreharmful to the creature than beneficial and would definitely not be the path toward turning areptile into a bird!Another example offered by evolutionists to demonstrate that mutations can drive evolution isbacterial resistance to antibiotics.215

For example, the Staphyloccus bacterium builds resistance to penicillin. This is said to prove thatbacteria evolved by adapting to the environment.In fact, though, there is no addition of genetic information and therefore no support for creatureto creature evolution. This is another example of the evolutionist’s bait and switch tactic. Theyuse the term “evolution” to describe simple adaptability within a species, and then use this toprove that kind to kind “evolution” is possible. The first can be proven, while the second is merepresumption. No matter what type of resistance it develops or what adaptations it makes, thebacterium remains a bacterium; in fact, it remains the same basic kind of bacterium.Consider two of the major ways that bacteria achieve immunity to antibiotics.First, some of the bacteria within a certain strain already have immunity to a certain antibiotic.These bacteria therefore survive and multiply, while those lacking this immunity die out. LeeSpetner observes:“The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner ... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for themutations needed to account for Evolution. ... The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must notonly add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. Thehorizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species” (“Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue,” 2001, www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).A few years ago the bodies of three Arctic explorers who died in 1845 were recovered. “Samplesof bacteria were taken from their intestines and it was found that some of the bacteria wereindeed resistant to modern-day antibiotics. This is just as the creation scientist would predict.There have always been some populations of bacteria that have had genes conferring a resistanceto antibiotics” (Alan Gillen, M.D., Body by Design, p. 141).The Staphyloccus bacterium isn’t “evolving.” It isn’t turning into something else. It is simplyresponding to the environment according to the way that God made it.Second, some bacteria gain immunity by a loss of genetic information. Dr. Lee Spetner gives theexample of bacteria that become immune to streptomycin by the decomposition of the ribosomein its cell due to a destructive mutation.“This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule fromattaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity andtherefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution … cannot be achieved by mutations of thissort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that onlydegrade specificity” (“Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue,” 2001, www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).Far from being a genetic advance for the bacterium, the mutation causes it to become lessfunctional overall.Mutations of this sort are the path toward gradual degradation of the creature rather than the pathof an upward evolution.216

We would warn our readers to beware of Darwinist’s citation of genetic research. In spite ofthe powerful evidence that has built up over the past century against mutations being amechanism of evolution, some Darwinists still cling to this myth. And they regularly cite newresearch as proof. In fact, they appear to be fleeing to genetics as the final and ultimate proof ofevolution. I believe that this is for two reasons. First, the traditional evidences for evolution (e.g.,ape-men, dino-bird, Darwin’s finches, peppered moth, Miller experiment, embryonic chart) havebeen effectively challenged in popular books such as Jonathan Well’s Icons of Evolution. Second,very few people are equipped to analyze genetic research. Therefore, the average person can’trefute Darwinist’s claims in this area. This is why they typically make no effort to simplify theresults of genetic research and they strive to be as technical as possible even in describing it.Thankfully, there are qualified geneticists who are skeptical of Darwinism and who are capableof analyzing the new claims.For example, in the book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins says that RichardLenski’s work with the E. coli virus has proven that mutations do add information to the geneticcode, but in The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe, Ph.D. in Biochemistry, has demonstrated thatthis is not true. “After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that theobserved adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of FunctionalCoding Elements (FCTs)” (“Michael Behe’s Quarterly Review,” Evolution News & Views,Discovery Institute, Dec. 8, 2010).Even some scientists who believe in evolution have rejected the doctrine that it could be drivenby mutations.I. L. Cohen, mathematician, member of the New York Academy of Sciences, called evolution bymutation a “metaphysical theory.”“Micro mutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is eitherfalsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is agreat misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is whathappened in biology ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in thehistory of science” (Cohen, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422).“To propose and argue that mutations even tandem with ‘natural selection’ are the root causes for 6,000,000viable, enormously complex species is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject thefundamentals of mathematical probability” (Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984, p.81).Theodosius Dobzhansky called the hypothesis of evolution by mutation “day dreaming.”“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. ... A single plant or asingle animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles wouldbecome the rule: events with infinitesimal probability could no longer fail to occur. ... There is no law againstday dreaming, but science must not indulge in it” (Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, pp. 88-103, 170).2. There are amazing repair mechanisms within the cell to thwart the distribution ofmutations.217

Even if it could be proven that a few mutations are somehow beneficial to the creature, the fact isthat there are many mechanisms within the cell that thwart their distribution.Biologists have identified more than 50 different types of repair enzymes.Lowell Coker, Ph.D. in microbiology and biochemistry, writes:“Numerous repair mechanisms have been found which ensure the accuracy of the replication process bycorrecting any errors that occur, even those that occur after replication in the complete DNA molecule. Pleaseobserve that these repair mechanisms work against the hypothesized mechanism of mutation as a principalmeans for operation in the theory of evolution. ... Each cell continuously monitors and repairs its geneticmaterial. ... The universal existence of repair mechanisms in DNA not only ensures faithful replicationof this master blueprint of life, but also ensures stasis in its function in the manner intended incontinuing generations. This strong evidence falsifies the mechanism of evolution which requires multipleand continued mutation or change over vast periods of time in the DNA molecule, the blueprint of life, to effectthe kinds and diversity of life that we see” (Lowell Coker, Darwin’s Design Dilemma, pp. 120, 121).Bacteriologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago says the cell even has the ability tomodify its repair systems:“It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds ofaccidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. Byvirtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not the passive victims of the random forces ofchemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have thecapacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repairsystems” (A Third Way, p. 33).Even “simple” bacteria have incredibly effective error-correcting systems. Shapiro writes:“The fast-growing bacterial cell is the ultimate just in time production facility. When an E. coli cell divides every20 minutes, exquisitely reliable coordination has been achieved for hundreds of millions of biochemicalreactions and biomechanical events. ... This incredible precision is accomplished not by rigid mechanicalprecision -but rather by using two layers of expert error monitoring and correction systems: (1)exonuclease proofreading in the polymerase itself, which catches and corrects over 99.9% of all mistakes assoon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000), and (2) the methyl-directed mismatch repair (MMR)system, which subsequently detects and fixes over 99% of any errors that escaped the exonuclease (Modrich,1991). Together, this multilayered proofreading system boosts the 99.999% precision of thepolymerase to over 99.99999999%” (Shapiro, “Bacteria are small but not stupid,” Exeter Meeting, 2006).In commenting on these facts, the blog Truthmatters.info says:“All cells on planet earth are working very hard to prevent the very thing that supposedly createdthem!! [e.g. genetic mutations] Think about that!! If that isn’t evidence against the non-Intelligent Design viewof Origins then I don’t know what is” (“Did DNA Copying Errors Create Systems for Preventing DNA CopyingErrors?” Truthmatters.info, Sept. 12, 2010).3. The fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not produce positive change in species.As we will see in the section on the fruit fly, for one hundred years these creatures have beensubjected to every scheme that man can devise to produce mutations. One objective of theexperiments has been to prove that evolution is true, but the result has been to disprove it. The218

only thing that has been produced is crippled and mutant fruit flies. No beneficial mutation hasresulted. No different type of fly or different type of creature has been produced. Mutationsproduce crippled monsters rather than the beautifully “adapted” creatures we observe in nature.As E.W. MacBride stated,“Creatures with shrivelled-up wings and defective vision, or no eyes, offer poor material for evolutionaryprogress” (quoted in H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation, 1966, p. 75).The scientific facts pertaining to genetic mutations refute the doctrine of evolution anddemonstrate that it is not qualified as a theory or even a hypothesis.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MUTATIONS1. Mutations are overwhelmingly either neutral in their effect or harmful. Duane Gish, Ph.D. inbiochemistry, says, “Very often a mutation proves to be lethal, and they are almost universallyharmful” (The Fossil Record Still Says No, p. 37).2. Mutations do not add new genetic information. They either subtract from the existing geneticcode or simply modify it. Mutations could not have produced the vast amount of newinformation required to turn an ameba into a man or even a wolf into a whale.3. The amazing repair mechanisms within the cell thwart the distribution of mutations and workagainst evolution.4. The fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not result in new organs and creatures.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON MUTATIONS1. Scientists generally agree that mutations are either ___________ or _____________.2. Who was Theodosius Dobzhansky?3. He said that “all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably ______________” and thefew remaining ones are ________________ _______________.4. Dr. Duane Gish says that mutations are almost universally _________________.5. Dr. Ian Macreadie says that “you never see any new _____________ arising in a cell.”6. Dr. Lee Spetner says that “not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little__________ to the genome.”7. If new information doesn’t come from mutations, where does it come from?8. Why is sickle-cell anemia offered as an example of a “beneficial mutation”?9. Why is sickle-cell anemia not a good evidence for evolution?10. What are two ways that bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics?11. Why is bacterial resistance to antibiotics not an evidence for evolution?12. What are two reasons why Darwinists are fleeing to genetics as evidence for evolution?13. What did Theodosius Dobzhansky call the hypothesis of evolution by mutation?219

14. The repair mechanisms in the cell ensure faithful _____________ of the master blueprint oflife as well as ensuring ___________ in its function.15. The two layers of error monitoring proofreading in the E. coli bacterium boosts the perfectionof genetic copying to what percentage?16. How can mutations be the path of evolution when the living cell is designed to keepmutations from happening and from being distributed to the next generation?17. How do the fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not produce positive change inspecies?THE FOSSIL RECORDMuseums, textbooks, and documentaries use the fossil record as a major icon of evolution, butthe fact is that if you remove the evolutionary presumptions, the evidence refutes evolution andsupports creationism.By way of introduction, we observe that the fossil record is vast.Charles Darwin knew that the fossil record did not provide evidence for his doctrine, because itdid not provide evidence for a vast number of “missing links,” but he believed this “problem”could be explained by the incompleteness of the record and the rudimentary state of paleontologyin his day.This can no longer be used as an excuse. Driven largely by the desire to find evidence forevolution, paleontologists launched a frenzy of activity throughout the 20th century. Today thereare an estimated 200 million fossils in museums worldwide, including 100 million invertebrates,one million vertebrates, and one million plants (Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment,Vol. 1, p. 77). Evolution: The Grand Experiment (volume 1) by Carl Werner breaks down thefossil evidence by plant and animal, giving the statistics for specimens in museums worldwide(pp. 76-85).1. The fossil record cannot prove evolutionary descent.This point cannot be emphasized too much. An evolutionary view of the fossil record is pureassumption. It is impossible to prove that long-dead creatures have some sort of evolutionarygenealogy. Some evolutionists have admitted this.Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum said:“... statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. ... It is easy enough to makeup stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored bynatural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” (letterto Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, cited from Sunderland’s Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 101, 102).Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature magazine, said:220

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. ... [Each fossil] is an isolated point, with no knowable connection toany other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. ... To take a line of fossils andclaim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion thatcarries the same authority as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific” (In Searchof Deep Time).Laying out a line of fossils that have similarities (homology) does not prove that creaturesevolved. As Dr. David Stone says: “A fossil record displaying creatures with some modestsimilarities in form, but enormous differences in other organs, functions, genetics, embryologicaldevelopment, etc., speak directly to special creation and against evolution. If evolution were true,the fossil record would show a continually smooth variation of forms, and classification intospecies, genera, etc., would be impossible.”All of the creatures in the fossil record are fully-developed plants and animals. To proveDarwinian evolution would require the existence of a vast number of partly-formed creatures andorgans and structures, but apart from a few questionable examples the record does notdemonstrate this.2. The fossil record’s “geological column” has major problems.The “column” supposedly consists of the Paleozoic, the supposed age of multi-celled organisms,fish, and amphibians, the Mesozoic, the age of reptiles and dinosaurs, and the Cenozoic, the ageof mammals and birds. These three major time periods are further divided into 12 divisions: ThePaleozoic consists of Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian,Permian. The Mesozoic consists of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. The Cenozoic consists ofTertiary and Quaternary.One major problem with this is the missing strata.William Corliss, an evolutionist, acknowledges:“Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks ofgeological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly paralleland show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible thoughcontroversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on” (UnknownEarth, 1980, p. 219).It would be wiser to admit that the entire principle needs to be discarded because it doesn’t fit theevidence.Another problem is that the “geological column” is often jumbled together.“Since 1840 there have been many rock formations discovered with fossils completely out of order accordingto the geologic column--like Precambrian sitting on dinosaur-age Cretaceous--but these have been eitherexplained away or simply ignored” (Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 51).221

Another problem is the fossilized trees that pierce geological layers.This contradicts the idea that the strata were laid down gradually over millions of years. Thetrees would have rotted away had this been the case. These have been found in Alaska, Alabama,Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia,Washington state, England, Germany, France, Nova Scotia, and elsewhere. Near Joggins, NovaScotia, 14,000 feet of sedimentary strata is exposed in the cliff faces along the Bay of Fundy andthere are many fossilized trees piercing 2,500 feet of geological layers. Many others have beenfound in Lancashire, England, and in the coal fields of Rhein-Westfalen in Germany (RichardMilton, Shattering the Myths, p. 84).Another problem is the out-of-place fossils.Many out-of-place fossils have been found that disprove the evolutionary fossil column, but theyare usually ignored. In the many natural history museums I have visited, I have never seen adiscussion of this contradictory evidence.Walt Brown, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT and former Chief of Science andTechnology Studies at the Air War College, provides the following examples of out-of-placefossils in his book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood:“For example, at Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to thedinosaurs. Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia. A leadingauthority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, accordingto the theory of evolution predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years. Dinosaur and humanlikefootprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, andmarine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and otherfossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal bedscontain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana,spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks--rocks supposedly depositedbefore flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks deposited before lifeallegedly evolved. Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of beesand cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and floweringplants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later. Pollinating insects and fossilflies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowersare assumed to have evolved” (Brown, In the Beginning, p. 12).The documentation for these can be found in Dr. Brown’s book on pages 67-68.A list of nearly 200 wrong-order formations in the U.S. alone can be found in an eight-part seriesby Walter Lammerts (“Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations,” Creation ResearchSociety Quarterly, September 1984, December 1984, March 1985, December 1985, March 1986,June 1986, December 1986, June 1987).3. The fossil record disproves evolution in that the fossilization itself is evidence of a greatworldwide catastrophe.222

The massive worldwide fossil beds are evidence for the biblical account of the worldwide Flood.rather than for a uniformitarian evolutionary process.There is no large-scale fossilization happening today. Fossilization does not naturally occur.Instead, dead animals are quickly consumed by animals, insects, worms, and bacteria, and aredestroyed through the action of the environment (sun, rain, wind, moving water, etc.).This is true even for the largest creatures on earth. The video Blue Ocean, produced by theBritish Broadcasting Corporation, shows a huge dead whale being devoured by fish, worms, andbacteria at the bottom of the sea.The vast western plains of the United States were once populated with millions of bison, whichroamed in enormous herds until they were nearly slaughtered to extinction during a short periodof a time in the late 19th century. Today there is zero evidence of fossil bison. The countlessbison skeletons that once littered the landscape simply disappeared through the aforementionedactions.The Old Testament indicates that the land of Israel was infested with lions for centuries (Job38:38; Prov. 22:13; 2 Kings 17:25), but there are no fossilized lions there (John Whitcomb, TheWorld That Perished, p. 76).The facts about the true nature of fossilization are typically ignored in natural history museums.For example, the Chicago Field Museum has a display allegedly proving that fossilization canoccur naturally by dead creatures “soaking in ground water for a long, long time.” This doesn’tproduce fossilization; it produces disintegrated animals!The British Museum of Natural History has the same fallacy in its display on fossilization. Thefollowing statements are found near a slab of rock containing the fossils of a school of fish:“Fishy death -- The fossils in this slab belong to a school of fish that died in the same place at the sametime. Their freshwater lake dried out during a hot spell leaving the trapped fish to die.”“How was this fossil fish preserved? When the fish dies, it falls to the sea floor and becomes buried insediments. The soft body parts rot away leaving the hard bones. Sediment layers accumulate and becomecompacted over time, forming a rock mould around the skeleton. The skeleton is gradually replaced by otherminerals. Over millions of years the sediments may be eroded away exposing the rock containing the fossil.”These are unscientific statements. Fossilization doesn’t happen this way. When fish die, they areconsumed flesh and bone by fish and birds, crabs, worms, bacteria, and by the action of theenvironment. Dead fish don’t lie on the bottom of the sea or a dry lake bed waiting for millionsof years of fossilization.223

The fossil record shows fossilization occurring so rapidly and involving such immense quantitiesof creatures and preserving such amazing details that it is obvious that they were buried alive in aprocess that was cataclysmic and anything but gradual.Clams, for instance, open up soon after they die, but there are fossil graveyards in many parts ofthe world containing millions of clams that are closed (Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p.129).The coal deposits are said by evolutionists to have formed over millions of years, but theycontain the fossils of perfectly-preserved skeletons, including two-ton dinosaurs, which wouldhave had to have been covered almost instantly. In 1878, miners working in the Mons coalfieldin Belgium discovered 39 iguanodon dinosaur skeletons, many of them complete, at a depth of322 meters. They were 10 meters long and weighed two tons each. “For their bodies to be rapidlyburied would require rates of deposition thousands or even millions of times greater than theaverage 0.2 millimeters per year proposed by uniformitarians” (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p.84).There is a seven-foot ichthyosaur that was fossilized while giving birth (Carl Wieland, Stonesand Bones, 1994).Amazingly, the fossil record includes millions of “soft-bodied organisms,” including bacteria,embryos, plants, leaves, flowers, worms, jellyfish, fish eggs, and insects, including butterflies.Plants and animals have been preserved in the most incredible detail.Throughout the earth there are massive fossil graveyards that offer profound witness to a globalFlood. Consider some examples:The Burgess Shale in British Columbia contains countless thousands of marine invertebratesthat have been preserved in exquisite detail, “with soft parts intact, often with food still in theirguts” (Dr. Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 537). It is obvious that theywere buried in a highly unusual and catastrophic manner.“The Burgess Shale is, therefore, an enormous fossil graveyard, produced by countless animals living on thesea floor being catastrophically swept away in landslide-generated turbidity currents, and then buried almostinstantly in the resultant massive turbidite layers, to be exquisitely preserved and fossilized” (Snelling, p. 538).The Ordovician Soom Shale in South Africa is 30 feet thick and stretches hundreds of miles. Itcontains thousands of exceptionally-preserved fossils. The eurypterids even show “walkingappendages that are normally lost to early decay after death” and “some of the fibrous muscularmasses that operated these appendages” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 538).“The evidence is clearly consistent with catastrophic burial of countless thousands of these organisms overthousands of square kilometers, which implies that the shale itself had to be catastrophically deposited andcovered under more sediments before burrowing organisms could destroy the laminations” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p.539).224

The Devonian Thunder Bay Limestone formation in Michigan is 12 feet thick and stretches formany hundreds of miles. It contains billions of fossils that were catastrophically buried.The Carboniferous Montceau Shale in central France has yielded the fossilized remains ofnearly 300 species of plants and 16 classes of animals. There are fossilized scorpions with theirvenomous vesicle and sting preserved.“ ... numerous footprints of amphibians and reptiles have been found, complete with finger and claw marks,and sinuous lines made by tails trailing in the mud. Even raindrop imprints and ripple marks have been foundpreserved, signifying that burial and lithification must have been extremely rapid. Similarly, the preservation ofthe fragile hinges in the bivalve mollusk fossils suggests that these animals were not transported before burial,but were entombed abruptly by rapid deposition of sediment” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 540).The Carboniferous Francis Creek Shale in Illinois forms a fossil graveyard containingspecimens representing more than 400 species of a mixture of terrestrial, freshwater, and marineorganisms. The preservation of soft part details is evidence of rapid burial.The Triassic Mont San Giorgio Basin in Italy and Switzerland, 300 feet deep and about fourmiles in diameter, contains thousands of well-preserved fossils of fish and reptiles. Details ofdelicate bones, tiny spines, and scales are distinctly visible. Fossilized fish contain embryosinside their abdomens. The fossilized Tanystropheus, a 4.5-meter giraffe-necked saurian, alsocontains the remains of unborn young.“Fish, like so many other creatures, do not naturally become entombed like this, but are usually devoured byother fish or scavengers after dying. Furthermore, when most fish die their bodies float. In the fossilassemblage at Mont San Giorgio are some indisputable terrestrial reptiles among the marine reptiles andfishes. Thus, to fossilize all those fish with the large marine and terrestrial reptiles, so that they are allexquisitely preserved, would have required a catastrophic water flow to sweep all these animals together andbury them in fine-grained mud” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).The Triassic Cow Brand Formation in Virginia also contains a mixture of fossilized terrestrial,freshwater, and marine plants, insects, and reptiles that were buried together in a massivegraveyard. “Microscopic details are preserved with great fidelity, and the resolution of preserveddetail is approximately 1 micron” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).The Cretaceous Santana Formation in Brazil preserves fossils of marine and land plants andanimals, including shrimp, bivalves, fish, sharks, crocodiles, spiders, frogs, turtles, dinosaurs,and pterosaurs [extinct flying reptiles], including pterodactyles with wingspans of over nine feet.“Preservation has been so rapid, and so perfect, that structures such as muscle fibers with banding present,some displaying ultrastructure, fibrils, and even cell nuclei arranged in neat rows, have been fossilized.Underneath the scales, small pieces of skin are preserved and show thin sheets of muscle and connectivetissue. In a female specimen the ovaries have been preserved with developing eggs inside, and one egg evenhad phosphatized yolk. Many specimens display the stomach wall with all its reticulations, and often with thelast meal still in the stomach. One specimen has no fewer than 13 small fish in its alimentary tract, with anumber of shrimps, that even had their compound eyes preserved with the lenses in place. But the mostspectacular tissues found in these fish specimens are the gills, many having the arteries and veins of the gillspreserved with the secondary lamellae intact. ... It is clear, therefore, that the fossilization process took place225

moments after the fish had died, and was completed within only a few (probably less than five)hours” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 545).The Siwalki Hills north of Delhi, India, 2,000 to 3,000 feet high and several hundred mileslong, are composed of sediment laid down by water and are packed with fossils of land animals.Similar deposits thousands of feet thick are located in central Burma. These are packed with thefossils of large animals such as mastodon, hippopotamus, and ox, plus fossilized tree trunks.The Morrison Formation covers an area of about a million square miles in 13 U.S. states andthree Canadian provinces, stretching from Manitoba to Arizona, and from Alberta to Texas.Dinosaur bones have been found at hundreds of sites, fossilized together with fish, turtles,crocodiles, and mammals.The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado contains fossils of palms,sycamores, maples, poplars, deep-sea bass, sunfish, herring, alligators, turtles, lizards, frogs,snakes, crocodiles, birds, bats, beetles, flies, dragonflies, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies, wasps,ants, and other plants and animals, terrestrial and marine.A fossil graveyard near Florissant, Colorado, contains fossilized fish, birds, insects, andhundreds of species of plants. Fruit and even blossoms have been found.The lignite beds of Geiseltal in Germany contain “a complete mixture of plants and insects fromall climatic zones and all recognized regions of the geography of plants or animals.” Leaves havebeen so well preserved that alpha and beta types of chlorophyll can be recognized.“[Also preserved are] the soft parts of insects: muscles, corium, epidermis, keratin, color stuffs as melamineand lipochrome, glands, and the contents of the intestines. Well preserved bits of hair, feathers and scales ...stomach contents of beetles, amphibia, fishes, birds and mammals ... Fungi were identified on leaves and theoriginal plant pigments, chlorophyll and coproporphyrin, were found preserved in some of the leaves” (N. O.Newell, “Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” Journal of Paleontology, 1959, 33: 496).These are merely a few examples of the amazing fossil graveyards that blanket the earth.As noted, the fossil record contains incredible detail. The trilobite’s compound eye has beenfossilized in such detail that scientists have been able to study it microscopically to determinethat some of these creatures had 15,000 lenses in one eye, with each lens being double!There are fossilized “soft bodied” non-vertebrate creatures and even fossilized microscopicbacteria!So much for Darwin’s claim that the fossil record has not preserved such detail. In On the Originof Species he proclaimed, “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.”226

The fossilization that is evident throughout the earth could occur only by a rapid cataclysmicprocess such as in a global Flood.4. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it does not contain the countless transitionalcreatures that Darwinian evolution requires.In On the Origin of Species Darwin acknowledged that his proposition requires ENORMOUSnumbers of intermediate links. He wrote:“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the numberof intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly ENORMOUS. Why then is not everygeological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal anysuch finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which canbe urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologicalrecord.”Darwin devoted two chapters of his book to an attempt to explain this problem. His answer to theissue of the missing links was that the fossil record was too incomplete in his day. He predictedthat subsequent research would unearth the missing links to prove his doctrine. We have seen,though, that the evidence has failed to materialize.In fact, subsequent research into the fossil record has refuted Darwin’s proposition for those wholook at the evidence without bias. Instead of countless numbers of transitional limbs andcreatures, evolutionists can only point to a few highly questionable ones.This has been admitted by some evolutionists, though they have hesitated to say it too loudly lestthey give ammunition to the despised creationists and draw upon themselves the wrath of theevolutionary gestapo.In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, highly respected physicists, wrote:“... either there were no transitions or the transitions were so rapid as to be analogous to quantum jumps. ...[For flying insects] it is particularly remarkable that no forms with the wings at an intermediate stage ofdevelopment have been found. Where fossil insects have wings at all they are fully functional to serve thepurposes of flight, and often enough in ancient fossils the wings are essentially identical to what can be foundtoday. ... WHEREVER ONE WOULD LIKE EVIDENCE OF MAJOR CHANGES AND LINKAGES ... THEEVIDENCE IS CONSPICUOUSLY MISSING FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD. ... These conclusions dispose ofDarwinism” (Evolution from Space, pp. 82, 86, 89, 94).Hoyle was not a creationist; neither is Wickramasinghe. In making this statement they had noagenda of discrediting Darwinism; they were simply being honest with the facts; and the factsare that the fossil record provides no evidence of the myriad of transitional structures andcreatures that the doctrine of Darwinian evolution requires. By the way, for their honesty theywere persecuted by the evolutionary gestapo.227

Many evolutionists claim to have found missing links, but when those “links” are examined theyare invariably found to have serious problems, and even the evolutionists themselves cannotagree about them.Francis Hitching, who is an evolutionist, says:“It takes a while to realize that the ‘thousands’ of intermediates being referred to have no obvious relevance tothe origin of lions and jellyfish and things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind ofcreature, artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, and thenrearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the arrangement. ... The ‘thousands’ ofintermediates also include a number of creatures of about the same explanatory value as the crossopterygianfish--this is, almost none. They are simply speculative candidates in the evolutionary ladder--disconnectedlinks in a hypothetical chain” (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 19).In Evolution: The Grand Experiment (volume 1), Dr. Carl Werner examines the fossil record forevidence of the evolution of invertebrates, fish, bats, pinnipeds, flying reptiles, dinosaurs,whales, birds, and flowering plants. He traveled to major natural history museums andinterviewed the experts. The book provides evidence that all of the “links” are still missing.Consider the following quotes from scientists who were interviewed for Dr. Werner’s book. Asfar as we know, all of these experts are evolutionists.Evidence for the evolution of Invertebrates:“Despite 30 years of research on Ediacaran fossils, there are very few, if any, unambiguous ancestors ofthings that appear in the Cambrian” (Dr. Andrew Knoll, Paleontologist and Professor of Biology, HarvardUniversity).Evidence for the evolution of fish:“... the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, andmany theories abound as to how the changes took place” (Dr. John Long, an evolutionist and the author ofThe Rise of Fishes).Evidence for the evolution of bats:“There’s a ten-million-year period of early mammal evolution where you would guess that there’d be some sortof bat precursor, but once again, nothing” (Dr. Gary Morgan, Assistant Curator of Paleontology, New MexicoMuseum of Natural History and Science and a specialist in bat evolution).Evidence for the evolution of pterosaurs:“The ancestors are not known” (Dr. Gunter Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany).Evidence for the evolution of dinosaurs:“Early on, again, I think researchers and even maybe lay people really felt that we had more ancestors in thefossil record than we actually do ... WE DON’T HAVE A LOT OF ANCESTORS; WE HAVE A LOT OFTWIGS” (Dr. Paul Sereno, Paleontologist and Professor at the University of Chicago and a leading expert ondinosaur evolution).228

This quote debunks the evolutionary “Tree of Life.” There is no trunk and no branches, onlytwigs! This, of course, is evidence for creation and not evolution.Evidence for the evolution of plants:“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existinggroups have passed during the course of their development, but it must freely be admitted that this aspirationhas been fulfilled to a very slight extent” (Dr. Chester Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants,University of Michigan).We see, therefore, that the fossil record disproves evolution in that it does not contain thecountless transitional creatures that Darwinian evolution requires.5. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it shows creatures appearing suddenly, fullyformed, with no evolutionary history.Jeffrey Schwartz says the major animal groups “appear in the fossil record as Athena did fromthe head of Zeus--full blown and raring to go” (Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 41).The testimony of Stephen Gould (d. 2002), one of the most influential evolutionists of the 20thcentury:“In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appearsall at once and ‘fully formed’” (Gould, Wonderful Life, cited from Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 50).The testimony of D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley:“Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new highercategories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms” (Raup and Stanley,Principles of Paleontology, 1971, p. 306).Eugene Koonin of the National Institutes of Health says:“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at anew level of complexity. ... In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history [e.g., viruses, bacteria, animalphyla], the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of therespective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms betweendifferent types are detectable” (“The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” 2007).The suddenness of the appearance of creatures has even been given the name “Cambrianexplosion” or “biology’s big bang.”The Cambrian layer is named after rocks in Cambria, Wales. This “layer” is supposed to be 500to 600 million years old and to represent the beginning of life on earth.Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. in cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley, states:229

“Although the abrupt appearance of animal fossils in the Cambrian was known to Darwin, the full extent of thephenomenon wasn’t appreciated until the 1980s, when fossils from the previously-discovered Burgess Shalein Canada were re-analyzed by paleontologists Harry Whittington, Derek Briggs, and Simon Conway Morris.The 1980s also marked the discovery of two other fossil locations similar to the Burgess Shale: the SiriusPasset in northern Greenland, and the Chengjiang in southern China. All of these locations document thebewildering variety of animals that appeared in the Cambrian” (Icons of Evolution, pp. 38, 39).SpidersSpiders appear fully developed in the “Cambrian.” There are even fossilized spider webs withbugs caught on them (e.g., on display at the American Museum of Natural History).TrilobitesBats“... the trilobites appear in the geological record suddenly, fully formed ... without any hint or trace of anancestor in the many rock layers beneath” (Andrew Snelling, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 294,295; Snelling has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney).“Bingo, they just show up” (Dr. Gary Morgan, Assistant Curator of Paleontology, New Mexico Museum ofNatural History and Science and a specialist in bat evolution, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol.1, by Dr. Carl Werner).“The bats appear perfectly developed in the Eocene” (Dr. Gunter Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum inEichstatt, Germany, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, by Dr. Carl Werner).Pterosaurs“When the pterosaurs first appear in the geological record, they were completely perfect” (Dr. GunterViohl, Curator of the Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, byDr. Carl Werner).Some evolutionists have pointed to relatively recent discoveries of life at the so-called pre-Cambrian level, but this “does not provide anything like the long history of gradual divergencerequired by Darwin’s theory” (Jonathan Wells, The Icons of Evolution, p. 38).Darwinism predicts that the fossil record will show that creatures gradually evolve, but in fact itshows creatures appearing fully formed.6. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it demonstrates complexity from its earliestlayers.According to the Darwinian doctrine of evolution, life arose from a “simple” creature such as abacterium to higher and higher life forms.The fossil record disproves this, even if you allow for evolutionary dating schemes. Creaturesappear not only fully developed but with incredibly complex features such as the bat’secholocation equipment.230

“The oldest bat fossils, belonging to an extinct lineage, were unearthed from rocks about 54 million years old,but the creatures that they represent aren’t dramatically different from living bats, says Mark S. Springer, anevolutionary biologist at the University of California, Riverside. Hallmark features of these creatures includethe elongated fingers that support the wing membranes and the extensive coiling of bony structures in theinner ears, a sign that they were capable of detecting the high-frequency chirps used in echolocation” (J.Bergman, “Evidence for the Evolution of Bats,” Origins, Feb. 2008, cited from Jonathan Sarfati, By Design, p.49).“The fossil record does not provide evidence for the transition towards either pterosaurs or bats: The earliestknown members of these groups had already evolved an advanced flight apparatus” (R. Carroll, Patterns andProcesses of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 277).Consider the trilobite, which is found at the earliest stages of life by evolutionary thinking. It isan amazingly complex creature. It is thought to have had a set of gills associated with each of itsjointed legs. It would have had complex muscle systems to move its legs. It is thought to havehad a circulation system, including a heart. It had antennae which probably had a sensoryfunction. It had a complex brain and nervous system to control all of these organs. The trilobitehad a compound eye with as many as 15,000 lenses per eye, all of which worked together inperfect harmony to provide exceptional vision for this “simple” creature. Dr. Andrew Snellingcalls it “the most sophisticated optical system ever utilized by any organism” (cited from In SixDays, edited by John Ashton, p. 295).The mind-boggling complexity of creatures at every level of the fossil record disprovesevolution.In fact, microbiology has taught us that there is no such thing as a “simple creature.” A bacteriumis more complex than a modern city.Darwinism predicts that the earliest forms of life found in the fossil record will be very simple,but in fact what we find is mind-boggling complexity from the beginning.7. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it exhibits stasis or stability of species ratherthan change.Creatures not only appear in the fossil record fully formed but they also retain the same form andhabits throughout their existence, even over supposed “millions of years.”Paleontologists call this observable phenomenon “stasis.”Steven Stanley, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, pulled no punches in his admission thatthe fossil record shows stasis rather than gradualism:“Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrateda biological stability for species of animals and plants that I think would have shocked Darwin.Certainly it has jolted many modern evolutionists. ... Once established, an average species of animal orplant will not change enough to be regarded as a new species, even after surviving for something likea hundred thousand, or a million, or even ten million generations. ... Something tends to prevent the231

wholesale restructuring of species, once it has become well established on earth” (“The New Evolution,”Johns Hopkins Magazine, June 1982, cited from Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 117, 118).Prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was equally candid:“Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil recordlooking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited anddirectionless” (Gould, Wonderful Life, cited from Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 50)In February 1980, at a conference at Hobart and William Smith College in honor of MaryLeakey, Gould said:“The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation ... one thing it does show thatcannot be attributed to its imperfection is that most species don’t change. ... They may get a little bigger orbumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. ...“The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don’t care much for gradualism is because the fossilrecord doesn’t show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If youwant to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knowsthat most species don’t change. That’s bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to begradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again,because you don’t see it, that brings terrible distress” (Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 121, 122).This statement is consistent with creation but entirely inconsistent with Darwinian evolution.Gould refused to believe in divine creation, though, so he invented a “theory” of evolution bygiant leaps through “punctuated equilibrium,” even though there is no scientific evidence forsuch a thing.Luther Sunderland, who was an aeronautics engineer with General Electric for 30 years,observed:“Frank statements like these by Dr. Gould are censored for school materials. Textbooks frequently containdogmatic statement about how well the fossil record documents evolution, so instead of experiencing ‘terribledistress,’ students develop a comforting faith that there must be some good evidence somewhere that wouldsubstantiate common-ancestry evolution” (Darwin’s Enigma, p. 122).Consider the bat. A fossil bat, Icaronycteris index, dated at 50 million years old, is on display atthe Museum of Natural History at Princeton University, and it looks the same as a “modern” bat.Consider plants. At the Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle there is a display ofsupposed 50 million year old fossilized leaves of cedar, pine, ginkgo, birch, and dawn redwood,and they look exactly like the “modern” varieties. While living on an island in the PacificNorthwest for a decade I had a hobby of studying the regional trees, and in examining the fossilleaves at the Burke Museum it is evident to me that they simply haven’t changed.Not only do creatures look the same throughout their history, they act the same. In 2010,Discovery News ran a report on a supposed 100 million-year-old lizard and dragonfly fossilizedinto amber. The lizard had caught the dragonfly and bit off its head just before being frozen intime by tree rosin. The report quotes George Poinar, professor emeritus at Oregon State232

University: “This shows once again how behaviors of various life forms are retained over vastamounts of time...” (“Lizard Entombed with Dragonfly Head in Mouth,” Discovery News, Oct.27, 2010).This stability of behavior is not consistent with an evolutionary view of life, but it is entirelyconsistent with creation. Creatures remain unchanged because God created them to reproduceafter their own kind.Darwinism predicts that the fossil record will demonstrate constant change and non-stability ofspecies, but in fact it shows sudden appearance followed by amazing stability.A creationist view of the fossil recordThe global Flood explains why we find massive beds of fossils throughout the earth. It explainswhy certain bottom-dwelling sea creatures are often found at the lower levels of the fossil strata,as these creatures would typically have been buried first.Many books have been written to present the creationist view of the fossil record, including thefollowing by men who hold Ph.D.s in geology, hydraulics, and mechanical engineering:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt BrownEarth’s Catastrophic Past (2 volumes) by Andrew SnellingThe uniformitarian “theory” that has dominated geology since Darwin’s day is beingrejected even by evolutionists.The uniformitarian doctrine, devised in Darwin’s day by Charles Lyell, says that the successivegeological layers represent millions of years of gradual buildup. He said “the past is the key tothe present,” meaning that conditions have remained the same over eons of time. Darwinenthusiastically accepted Lyell’s principle, saying that Lyell had “produced a revolution innatural science.”By the mid-20th century, uniformitarianism was being rejected.“The geologic community gave up substantive uniformitarianism long ago” (David Young, Christianity and theAge of the Earth, p. 142).Uniformitarinism is under assault today from the growing evidence that things formerly thoughtto have required thousands or millions of years can actually occur quickly.Consider some examples:233

SedimentationGuy Berthault conducted extensive laboratory experiments demonstrating that sedimentsnaturally and quickly form layers in moving water and that the sediment is sorted in the samemanner that is found in the “geological column.” The results of this research was published in thelate 1980s and presented to the National Congress of Sedimentologists at Brest in 1991.“What Berthault found was that when the sediments settled on the bottom they recreated the appearance ofthe original rocks from which they had come. But the strata were not formed by the deposition of a successionof layers as had been formerly assumed. Instead, the sediments settled on the bottom more or lessimmediately, but the fine particles were separated from larger particles by current flow, giving the appearanceof layers. Moreover, the lamination was found to have a thickness that was independent of the length of timetaken to deposit that sediment--another fundamental assumption of classic geology. ‘It follows,’ observedBerthault, ‘that no deduction of the duration of sedimentation can be made by simple observation of rocklaminae’” (Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 77).The laboratory work was supplemented by field observations from Mount St. Helens and otherplaces, proving that phenomena such as the formation of canyons previously thought to requirethousands or millions of years can occur in a matter of days or even hours.StalagmitesIt was long thought that stalagmites were formed at an incredibly slow rate and that this provedthe ancient age of caves. In fact, stalagmites were used as an icon of evolution for many decades.It is now known that they can form very quickly.“In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. Atthis rate they could have grown 300 ft. in just 3600 years. The picture at right is of a bat discovered in 1953 ina stalagmite, in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. The stalagmite grew around the bat before it could decay orbe eaten. The temperature where this bat is found is just above freezing at a constant 40 o F. The waterdripping from the stalactite above it is very salty. This would impede but not prevent decay. Also it would notprevent the bat from being eaten. So this stalagmite still had to form quite rapidly, certainly far less than 5,000years” (http://creationwiki.org/Stalactites_and_Stalagmites).Petrified treesIt has also been learned that wood can petrify quickly and that formations such as those in thePetrified Forest National Park of Arizona did not necessarily take long periods of time to form,as previously thought.“Indeed, as part of a study of the petrified wood in the Petrified Forest National Park of Arizona, an experimentwas conducted in which blocks of wood were placed in hot alkaline springs in the Yellowstone National Park totest the rate at which silica is deposited in the cellular structure of the wood. The measured rate was between0.1 and 4.0 mm/year. Other similar experiments have been conducted in laboratories. Furthermore, as a resultof testing for petrification in a Japanese volcanic spring, it was concluded that petrified wood in ancientvolcanic ash beds in sedimentary strata in volcanic regions could have thus been silicified by hot flowingground water with high silica content in a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to hundreds ofyears. Such rapid petrification of wood is confirmed by many field observations of trees cut down by earlysettlers in Australia that were subsequently buried in the soil, then later dug up and found to be petrified,including the axe marks” (Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 958).234

CoalEvolutionists have long used the massive coal beds that are scattered throughout the earth asevidence of an ancient age for the earth, because it is believed that millions of years wererequired for their formation. It has been demonstrated scientifically, though, that this is a falseassumption. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology, writes:“Laboratory experiments have been quite successful in artificially producing coal-like materials relativelyrapidly, under conditions designed to simulate those present in sedimentary basins where coal measure stratahave accumulated. ...“A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made insoluble material resembling coalmacerals (components) by heating lignin with clay minerals at 150 degrees C for 2 to 8 months in the absenceof oxygen. It was discovered that the longer heating times produced higher rank coal macerals, and the claysappeared to serve as catalysts that speed the coalification reactions...“More recent coalification experiments have tried to more closely simulate the natural geologic conditions, withtemperatures of only 125 degrees C in both lithostatic and fluid pressures equivalent to burial under 1,800meters of wet sediments, yet maintained as a geologically open system which allowed by-products that mayretard coalification to escape. In that experiment, after only 75 days, the original peat and petrified wood hadbeen transformed into coalified peat and coalified wood, comparable chemically and structurally to lignite andcoalified wood from the same geographical region as the original peat and petrified wood samples” (Earth’sCatastrophic Past, Vol. 2, pp. 584-586).Canyons and StratificationThe explosion of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and the subsequent transformation of the surroundinglandscape have provided a laboratory to study the formation of canyons and stratification.A canyon 700 feet deep and several miles long was carved (at some places even into solidbedrock) by the violent mudflows. One series of canyons are one fortieth the scale of the GrandCanyon in Arizona, with individual canyons having depths of up to 140 feet, with sheer cliffs ofup to almost 100 feet (Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 718).The blast also caused the formation of up to 600 feet of strata, caused by landslides, flowingwater from Spirit Lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water.“In less than five hours, 25 feet of very extensive strata had accumulated, even containing thin laminae andcross-bedding from 1 mm thick to >1 meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes ofaccumulation” (Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 724).It is evident that large canyons and massive stratification can occur very quickly and that thesedo not require millions of years to form.The uniformitarian model has also been undermined by newer theories that the world haswitnessed a series of global catastrophes, such as the one that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs.The fossil section of the Field Museum in Chicago is arranged around a series of six “massextinctions” that supposedly wiped out most life forms. These are said to have been caused bythings such as shifting continents, volcanic activity, meteors, and “global warming.”235

If mass extinctions were caused by dramatic, global events, it is obvious that the earlier view ofuniformitarianism was fundamentally wrong, but it was this very doctrine that caused scientiststo reject the Bible in the first place! The fact that they won’t admit that a terrible mistake wasmade and that the Bible needs to be reconsidered is evidence that we are not dealing withrational, empirical science but with religion disguised as science.The fossil record demonstrates that evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even as ahypothesis. It is a mythical story.SUMMARY OF THE WAYS THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD DISPROVES EVOLUTIONFar from providing evidence for the evolution of life, the fossil record disproves evolution.1. The fossilization itself is evidence of a great worldwide catastrophe.2. The fossil record does not contain the countless transitional creatures that Darwinian evolutionrequires.3. The fossil record shows creatures appearing suddenly, fully formed, with no evolutionaryhistory.4. The fossil record demonstrates complexity from its earliest layers.5. The fossil record exhibits stasis or stability of species rather than change.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE FOSSIL RECORD1. Why did Darwin know that the fossil record did not provide evidence for his “theory”?2. How did he answer this problem?3. Why can this no longer be used as an excuse?4. How can someone prove for sure that one fossil evolved from another?5. Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum said “statements about ____________and _____________ are not applicable in the fossil record.”6. Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature magazine, said that “o take a line of fossils andclaim that they represent a lineage is not a _______________ ________________ that can betested, but an assertion that carries the same authority as a _______________.”7. To prove Darwinian evolution would require the existence of a _____ number of _________creatures and organs and structures.8. What are the three major evolutionary ages?9. What are four problems with the evolutionary geological column?10. How do the multi-strata fossilized trees disprove evolution?11. How do out-of-place fossils disprove evolution?12. How does the fossil record give evidence of a worldwide Flood?13. Why does fossilization not occur by animals “soaking in ground water for a long time”?14. Why is it significant that many fossil clams are closed?15. What type of “soft-bodied organisms” are found in the fossil record?236

16. How could a fragile creature like a butterfly be fossilized?17. In what area of the world do we find fossil graveyards?18. List three great fossil graveyards.19. Darwin said that if evolution is true the number of intermediate varieties of creatures wouldbe “truly _____________.”20. Physicist Fred Hoyle said that the evidence for major changes and linkages is conspicuously_______________ from the fossil record.21. Francis Hitching said the fossil “intermediates” offered by evolutionists are “simply______________ candidates.”22. How does the fact that creatures appear in the fossil record suddenly, fully formed disproveevolution?23. How does the trilobite disprove evolution?24. What is “stasis”?25. How does stasis disprove evolution?26. Stephen Jay Gould said that “most species exhibit “no directional _________ during theirtenure on earth.”27. What evidence at the Burke Museum in Seattle disproves evolution?28. What Bible event explains the massive fossil beds throughout the earth?29. What is the uniformitarian “theory” of geology?30. Who was the inventor of the uniformitarian “theory”?31. What evidence do we have that stalagmites can form quickly?32. What evidence did the explosion of Mt. St. Helens provide against evolution?33. What are the five ways that the fossil record disproves evolution?HOMOLOGYOne of the most-used icons of evolution is homology or similarity between creatures, limbs, andorgans. This is supposed to show evolutionary descent. Darwin said,“I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth havedescended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (On the Origin of Species).Practically every modern biology textbook and every natural history museum uses homology asa chief evidence for evolution.The Prentice Hall Biology 2002 textbook is typical. It features a drawing of a limb of a turtle, analligator, a bird, and a mammal, accompanied by the following note, “[These] homologousstructures ... provide evidence of a common ancestor whose bones may have resembled those ofthe ancient fish shown here.”The argument from homology or similarity is used in every facet of evolutionary doctrine.237

To show how the eye evolved, for example, various types of eyes are arranged in a way thatascends from the simple to the complex.Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of the horse. Various four-legged animals arearranged in an ascending lineage, from small to large. They all look vaguely like horses and havefour legs, don’t they?Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of the whale from a wolf-like creature throughsuccessful stages to the giant blue whale.Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of man from apes. One of the most effectiveevolutionary icons was the Parade of Man, which depicts 15 figures evolving from apes tomodern humans. All of the creatures have two arms, and two legs, and two ears, and one nose,and they are walking upright (which is actually a deception), so they must be connected byevolution. This is the argument from homology.In reply we offer the following points:1. If you remove the evolutionary assumptions, this amounts to zero evidence.The statement in the Miller-Levine Biology textbook -- “Each of these limbs has adapted in waysthat enable organisms to survive in different environments” -- is pure evolutionary assumption.Nothing is proven.It could as easily be true that similarity of structure is the product of common design as commondescent. When something works, why reinvent the wheel? This is why engineers use devices likegears, wheels, ball joints, solenoids, and switches repeatedly in different kinds of machines. Dr.Terry Mortenson rightly observes:“Similarity of shape or design can just as well, if not more so, point to a common designer, rather than acommon ancestor. Roller skates, bikes, cars, trucks, busses and trains all have wheels, but one is not theancestor of the other. They are similar because intelligent human designers have all thought that wheels are agood way to move things on land. So too living creatures that share the same planet and are interdependentlylinked in a complex ecosystem will have many similarities and those which live in very similar environments onearth (e.g., in water or air or on land) will share even more similarities. Our infinitely wise Creator is smarterthan all the engineers put together. Good designs can be, and are, easily modified for differentapplications” (Mortenson, “National Geographic Is Wrong,” Answers in Genesis, Nov. 6, 2004).Commenting on the supposed evolution of the eye, William Dembski, Ph.D. mathematics,observes:“But hasn’t the biological community explained the evolution of such complicated structures as the mammalianeye? Actually it hasn’t. What the biological community has done is noted that there are many different eyesexhibiting varying degrees of complexity--everything from the full mammalian eye at the high end of thecomplexity scale to a mere light-sensitive spot at the low end. But slapping down eyes of varyingcomplexity on a chart and then drawing arrows from less complex to more complex eyes to signifyevolutionary relationships does nothing to explain how increasingly complex eyes emerged. The gapsbetween these increasingly complex eyes become unbridgeable chasms once you begin to think like238

an engineer and actually look at the astonishing and irreducibly complex components. ... Darwinianstories ... are just-so stories--fictional tales that entertain and lull the Darwinian faithful into thinking they’veresolved the problem of biological complexity when in fact its solution continues to elude them” (The DesignRevolution, p. 217).Why would blind evolutionary processes produce similar structures? Stuart Burgess, an engineer,observes:“... a classification tree can be produced for any type of man-made device, such as gears, bearings, doorsand windows. The reason why a classification tree can be produced for different kinds of man-madeproducts is that these products have intelligent designers who plan similarity. ... The only way in whichsimilarity could be considered evidence for evolution is if the evolutionist could show that the similarity seenin nature is what would be expected from evolution rather than design” (Hallmarks of Design, p. 120).2. The argument from homology is based on the unproven assumption that evolution has amechanism that could create complex structures.To say that homology is evidence of evolution is to assume that evolution has a mechanism thatcan account for the creation of complex structures and organs, but this has never been proven.The two classic mechanisms of Darwinism are natural selection and genetic mutation. Butnatural selection has no creative power. Through environmental pressures, natural selectionmight be able to “select” a certain beak size on a finch, but it can’t create a beak. A beak is acomplex structure that has every sign of being intelligently designed and made. Genetic mutationalso has no creative power. As we have seen, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful and do notadd the information to the genome that would be required to create complex new structures.Another mechanism proposed by Darwinists is “geographic and reproductive isolation.” Thissays that when a small group of creatures is isolated by geographic barriers, “evolution” willoccur more quickly because of the smaller gene pool. But this only deals with existing genes andoffers no possibility of being a mechanism to add new genetic information and create newstructures and organs and creatures.Since Darwinists won’t want to allow “a Divine Foot in the door,” they are back at square onewith no answer to the million dollar question: What is the power that fashioned such an amazingworld of living things?3. The founders of the biological classification systems did not believe that homologypointed to evolution.Carl Linneaus, who formulated the system for classifying plants and animals that is still usedtoday, and Georges Cuvier, one of the founders of comparative anatomy, were not evolutionistsand did not believe that the similarities between creatures was evidence that they evolved. StuartBurgess observes, “It is ironic that many modern scientists quote classification trees,comparative anatomy and palaeontology as evidence for evolution, when the main foundingscientists of these subjects were actually strong supporters of biblical creation” (Hallmarks ofDesign, p. 129).239

4. The limbs and creatures typically used as homologies by evolutionists are actually moredifferent than similar.In reality, a frog’s leg, a bat’s wing, and a horse’s leg are dramatically different from a humanarm!And a man is dramatically different from an ape!And a “simple eye” is dramatically different from a human eye.Evolutionists emphasize vague similarities while ignoring vast differences.5. At the genetic and embryonic level the supposed homologous structures are not formedin the same way or with the same genes.The Prentice Hall Biology textbook (2002) says, “... the limbs ... derive from the same structuresin the embryo.”But this is not the case.British biologist Gavin de Beer said, “The fact is that correspondence between homologousstructures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo, or of theparts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed, or of developmentalmechanisms by which they are formed” (cited from Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 71).Consider the formation of human and frog digits. In humans, cell death divides the ridge into fiveregions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). In frogs, the digits grow outward frombuds as cells divide (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, p. 110, citing Langman’s MedicalEmbryology edited by T.W. Sadler and Australian Frogs by M.J. Tyler).Thus, the fact that there are similarities of structures within the animal kingdom is thereforemeaningless at the genetic level.Homology offers zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON HOMOLOGY1. What is homology?2. What are three examples of how homology is used by evolutionists?3. How is the “Parade of Man” an example of homology?4. It could as easily be true that similar structures are the product of common _________ ascommon ___________.5. How much of the evolutionary argument from homology is based on assumption?240

6. What is the major assumption underlying this argument?7. What are the two classic mechanisms of Darwinism?8. Why is it impossible for natural selection to create complex structures?9. What is it impossible for genetic mutations to create complex structures?10. Who was the father of the biological classification system?11. How do human digits and frog digits differ in their construction in the embryo?THE PEPPERED MOTHOne of the most oft-used icons for evolution is the peppered moth, Biston betularia.In the book New Guide to Science, Isaac Asimov devoted a small section to proving Darwinianevolution and his sole evidence was the peppered moth. Stephen Jay Gould also used thepeppered moth as one of the supposed irrefutable evidences for evolution (Hen’s Teeth andHorse’s Toes, p. 257).It has been touted as “evolution’s prize horse” and described as “the slam dunk of naturalselection, the paradigmatic story that converts high school and college students to Darwin, thethundering left hook to the jaw of creationism” (Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, p. xvii).The following statement from Biology: The Dynamics of Life by Merrill Publishing is typical ofthe way that textbooks use the peppered moth as a major evidence of evolution:“The evolution of new species is seldom observed because the changes usually require many generations.However, scientists have observed many examples of the natural selection of adaptations. One of the beststudiedexamples involves the peppered moth in England. During the 1800s, there were two kinds ofpeppered moths--a common light-colored variety and a rarer dark-colored variety. These moths restedduring the day on light-colored tree trunks. In 1850, almost all the moths were light in color. Then, during arapid expansion of industry around that time, the air became full of smoke and soot. This extreme pollutionof the air turned the trunks of trees black. By the end of the century, most of the peppered moth population inEngland was dark colored. The light-colored individuals had become rare. ... In 1950, scientists performedan experiment to determine if natural selection had caused the dark variety of months to become morenumerous. They observed light and dark moths in both industrial and rural areas. The experiment showedthat birds ate more dark moths in rural areas where the trees were light-colored and more light moths inindustrial areas where the trees were dark-colored. Through natural selection, populations of pepperedmoths had become adapted to living in industrial areas. The experiment showed that organisms whose colorprovides better camouflage are more likely to survive and reproduce” (Biology: The Dynamics of Life, MerrillPublishing, 1991, p. 209).Thus, in a short time the population of peppered moths in that area changed from predominatelylight gray to predominately dark colored. The “new” moth was even given a new name, Bistonbetularia carbonaria, a supposed new “subspecies.”The proposed explanation was that the industrial pollution had killed the light-colored lichen onthe trees where the moths rested, and the light-colored moths could therefore be seen more easilyagainst the natural brown of the tree’s bark. Thus, the light-colored moths were eaten bypredators at a prodigious rate while the dark-colored ones survived and increased.241

This “evidence” for evolution was devised by Bernard Kettlewell. His objective in quitting his15-year medical practice was to prove evolution by studying the peppered moth, and he foundwhat he wanted to see. In Scientific American magazine, Kettlewell proclaimed that he haddiscovered “Darwin’s missing evidence.”Kettlewell published a photo that became a major icon of evolution and influenced countlesspeople to believe that Darwinian evolution is true. It is a photo of two peppered moths seeminglyresting on a tree trunk.For over a century, the peppered moth has been offered as proof of the Darwinian mechanism of“survival of the fittest” or “natural selection,” but there are serious problems with thisevolutionary icon.1. The adaptation of a species to its environment and the variety that can be exhibitedwithin a species do not explain Darwinian evolution.Variety within a species is not evidence for transmutation from one kind of creature to another!Natural selection might sometimes account for the distribution of different colors of moths andfor different sizes of dogs and different shapes of beaks on a finch, but it cannot account for lifecoming into existence or a wolf becoming a whale or a reptile becoming a bird. No matter whatan evolutionist might say about light- and dark-colored peppered moths, they are all still moths.In fact, they are still peppered moths. Not even a new color was produced, because the darkcoloredmoths already existed.Adaptability of species is not evidence for Darwinian “molecules to man” evolution, but it doesfit perfectly into the biblical model of creation by an all-wise God who designed the creatures toadapt to changing environments on a fallen earth.2. Studies have debunked the correlation between pollution and tree lichens and the changein moth color.“Field studies have demonstrated that pollution and tree lichens are not always correlated with a greaterproportion of darker moths. In one place, for example, the number of darker moths increased after pollutiondecreased. In another area, the number of darker moths ‘began decreasing before lichens returned to thetrees’” (John Day, Darwin Day in America, p. 246).3. The evidence was doctored.The aforementioned photograph of moths resting on a tree trunk, which has influenced thethinking and philosophy of countless people, was A FAKE. It turns out that peppered moths don’tnaturally rest on tree trunks. The moths were glued to the trunk!“After more than fifty years it is now admitted that these moths do not rest on tree trunks ... The well-knownphotograph of the black and white species together that appears in every high-school textbook was takenusing two moths glued to a tree trunk” (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 168).242

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. in cell biology, gives further refutation to the peppered moth myth:“Since 1980, evidence has accumulated showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks.Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assessnormal resting places. Mikkola observed that ‘the normal resting place of the peppered moth is beneathsmall, more or less horizontal branches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies.’ ... Intwenty-five years of field work, Cyril Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered mothnaturally perched on a tree trunk. ...“Manually positioned moths have also been used to make television nature documentaries. University ofMassachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reporter in 1999 that he once gluedsome dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths (The WashingtonTimes, Jan. 17, 1999). Staged photos may have been reasonable when biologists thought they weresimulating the normal resting-places of peppered moths. By the late 1980s, however, the practice shouldhave stopped. Yet according to Sargent, a lot of faked photographs have been made since then. ...“Open almost any biology textbook dealing with evolution, and you’ll find the peppered moth presented as aclassical demonstration of natural selection in action--complete with faked photos of moths on tree trunks.This is not science, but myth-making” (Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 149, 150, 155).In fact, the original researchers knew that peppered moths don’t naturally rest on tree trunks.Cyril Clarke, who was “a bosom friend” of Bernard Kettlewell, said: “In 25 years we have onlyfound two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps” (Judith Hooper, Of Mothsand Men, p. xviii).Some have tried to debunk Jonathan Well’s report on the peppered moth, but they have not beensuccessful. Take Kenneth Miller, for example.“Kenneth Miller was one of the most vocal defenders of the standard peppered moth story, which he hadincluded in his own textbooks. At a meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002, Milleraccused Wells of engaging in repeated misrepresentations and even fraud. Wells’s critique of the pepperedmoth story was exhibit number one in Miller’s indictment: ‘In his book, Dr. Wells made the claim, quote“Peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks.” But he didn’t present any data. When you do look at the data,what you discover is that the major observations that have been made of peppered moths in the wild mostfrequently shows that they rest on tree trunks--and therefore, that claim is incorrect.’ As for the photos ofpeppered moths resting on tree trunks that appear in biology textbooks like his own, Miller insisted that‘those “faked” photographs aren’t faked at all; they’re real moths, on real trees, in the real positions thatmoths have actually been found in the wild.’ ...“Readers of Wells’s book, however, might have concluded that it was Miller who was engaging inmisrepresentation. Contrary to Miller’s claim that Wells ‘didn’t present any data’ in his book to back uphis arguments, Wells in fact provided a detailed examination of the scientific research showing thatpeppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. When Wells responded to Miller’s accusations witha careful rebuttal reciting the evidence for his view, Miller posted an essay on his website with the selfpityingtitle ‘Paying the Price.’ Although Miller had previously accused Wells of being a liar and a fraud,he now portrayed himself as an aggrieved victim. ... According to Miller, Wells’s factual rebuttal to Miller’sprevious attack was an effort ‘to smear me.’ Miller also played the religion card, deriding Wells as ‘theReverend Jonathan Wells’ and supplying a link to a Unification Church website. For someone so loudlycomplaining about smears and ‘personal attacks,’ it was a performance of giddy chutzpah.“Despite Kenneth Miller’s vigorous public defense of the peppered moth story during the first half of2002, it was deleted from the next edition of one of his own biology textbooks. The change was just intime. Later that year a devastating book-length critique of the conventional peppered moth story waspublished by science journalist Judith Hooper. Hooper’s Of Moths and Men suggested not only that thestandard peppered moth account was unsupported by more recent research, but that the originalexperiments by Kettlewell were full of holes. Wells was fully vindicated, but no apologies wereforthcoming from his critics” (John Day, Darwin Day in America, pp. 247, 248).243

The peppered moth demonstrates that evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even ahypothesis. It is a mythical story.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PEPPERED MOTH AS AN ICONFOR EVOLUTION1. The peppered moth has not proved that one kind of creature can turn into another. Not even adifferent type of moth was observed. The peppered moth has remained a peppered moth. Thecase of the peppered moth actually proves the truth of the Bible, that God made creatures toreproduce within kind and that one kind of creature does not change into another kind.2. The major icon for the peppered moth “evolution” was a photo of moths resting on tree trunks,but this was a myth, as they don’t naturally rest on trunks but hide in the branches.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PEPPERED MOTH1. Who was the man who first proposed the peppered moth as evidence for evolution?2. What aspect of evolution is the peppered moth supposed to prove?3. What is the first reason why we reject the peppered moth as evidence for evolution?4. How have subsequent studies shown that Kettlewell’s conclusions were inaccurate?5. How was the evidence faked?6. Where do peppered moths naturally rest?7. Who is the author of Icons of Evolution?8. Who tried unsuccessfully to debunk this author’s position on the peppered moth?DARWIN’S FINCHESAnother major evolutionary icon is Darwin’s finches.On the voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin found several varieties of finches on the GalapagosIslands in the Pacific Ocean 600 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, South America, but theseactually played no part in the development of his doctrine. It was not until the 20th century thatthe finches became an icon of evolution. Percy Lowe first called them “Darwin’s finches” in1936 and David Lack published a book by that title in 1947 after Julian Huxley urged him to doso, believing that it would help prove Darwinism in the minds of the populace.We are reminded by this that Darwinists have always been searching for simple icons toconvince the public of the truth of their doctrine. These icons are effective because they aresimple and highly visual (e.g., Haeckel’s embryos, the horse chart, the peppered month, theParade of Man, Lucy). It does not seem to matter that the icons do not provide scientific evidentfor “molecules to man” evolution but rather are based on evolutionary assumptions.244

Since the 1940s, Darwin’s finches have become an iconic evidence for evolution. The followingfrom the Miller and Levine Biology textbook by Pearson Education (2002) is typical:“The Grants’ work demonstrates that finch beak size can be changed by natural selection. If we combine thisinformation with other evolutionary concepts you have learned in this chapter, we can devise a hypotheticalscenario for the evolution of all Galapagos finches from a single group of founding birds. Speciation in theGalapagos finches occurred by founding of a new population, geographic isolation, changes in the newpopulation’s gene pool, reproductive isolation, and ecological competition” (Miller and Levine, Biology, pp. 372,408).According to this icon, a slight variety in finch beaks proves that creatures “evolve” in responseto a change in their environment. For example, during drought, when only big tough seeds areavailable, those finches with slightly larger beaks survive better than those with smaller beaks.Voilá, you supposedly have “descent with modification”!Evolutionists have made much of Darwin’s finches. Jonathan Weiner called the change in thefinch beak “the best and most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwin’sprocess” (The Beak of the Finch, 1994).In reply to this evolutionary icon we offer the following points:1. The Galapagos finches are still finches.The minor change in the finches’ beaks is not evidence of the evolution of kinds but ofadaptation within kinds. There is no evidence here for “molecules to man” evolution. Thoughevolutionists have been studying the Galapagos finches for nearly a century, there is no evidencethat they could ever change into anything else. They haven’t even changed into a different kindof bird.2. Evolutionists have so narrowed the term “species” that finches with very minutedifferences are labeled different species.It is important to understand that the modern term “species” is not the same as the biblical “kind”as used in Genesis 1, which is the Hebrew word baramin. Andrew Lamb of Creation Ministrieswrites: “The biblical kind often equates to the family level in the modern biological classificationscheme, and sometimes to genus or order. Some excellent baraminology papers have appeared inrecent issues of Journal of Creation” (“Sheep and Goats?” Creation Ministries International,2007).Evolutionists have played their “species” card to create the illusion that the Galapagos fincheshave undergone truly significant change. One variety of the Galapagos finch is called scandens,while another is called fortis. But in 1983 it was found that a male scandens bred with a femalefortis and produced four chicks, proving that they are the same biblical “kind” (Genesis 1:21). AsRichard Milton observes:245

“In almost all respects, the finches of the Galapagos are so similar that it is difficult to tell them apart. ... It isvery difficult for an objective observer to see how a group of finches who ‘find it hard to tell themselves apart,’and who do in fact interbreed, can legitimately be called different species. ... But it is from this kind of wordplaythat all their subsequent claims of speciation and ‘evolution’ flow” (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pp. 150,151).3. The Galapagos finches actually provide evidence against evolution.First, they provide evidence for the Bible’s claim that God made creatures to reproduce aftertheir own kind. This is repeated 10 times in Genesis 1, and this is what we see in fincheseverywhere. Further, the ability to adapt to the environment is what we would expect if creatureswere designed by an Almighty God who knows the future and who knew that His creatureswould need to adapt to a changing and oftentimes harsh environment in a sin-cursed world.Darwin’s finches offer zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST DARWIN’S FINCHES AS AN ICON OFEVOLUTION1. The Galapagos finch provides zero scientific evidence that a finch could change into any othertype of creature. It only demonstrates that creatures adapt in minor ways to the environment.2. The Galapagos finch actually proves the truth of the Bible, that God made creatures toreproduce within kind and that one kind of creature does not change into another kind.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON DARWIN’S FINCHES1. Who was the man who first named the Galapagos finches “Darwin’s finches”?2. What is the first reason why we reject the Galapagos finches as evidence for evolution?3. The change in the finches’ beaks is not evidence of the ____________ of kinds but of the_____________ within kinds.4. What is the Hebrew word for “kind” in Genesis 1?5. The biblical kind often equates to the __________ level in the modern biological classificationscheme.6. What is the term that refers to the study of kinds?7. How have evolutionists played the species card?8. How do we know that the different “species” of Galapagos finches are the same biblical kind?9. What are two ways that the Galapagos finches provide evidence against evolution?THE FOUR-WINGED FRUIT FLYAnother major icon of evolution is the four-winged fruit fly. The amazing little fruit fly naturallyhas two wings, and the addition of two more wings through genetic mutations would seem, atfirst glance, to support the real possibility that creatures could evolve new organs.246

Practically every biology textbook uses the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) as evidence forevolution. The 2002 Miller-Levine textbook is an example:“At the beginning of the 1900s, the American geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan decided to look for a modelorganism to advance the study of genetics. He wanted an animal that was small, easy to keep in thelaboratory, and able to produce large numbers of offspring in a short period of time. He decided to work on atiny insect that kept showing up, uninvited, in his laboratory. The insect was the common fruit fly, Drosophilamelanogaster, shown in Figure 11-13. Morgan grew the flies in small milk bottles stoppered with cotton gauze.Morgan found that he could breed a new generation of flies every 14 days. A single pair of flies could produceas many as 100 offspring. Drosophila was an ideal organism for genetics because it could produce plenty ofoffspring, and it did so quickly” (Miller and Levine, Biology, Pearson Education, p. 274).All sorts of mutant flies have been produced from this experimentation. The Merrill Biology: TheDynamics of Life textbook shows some of these on page 169. They include vestigial wings,curled wings, white-eyed, prune-eyed, brown-eyed, and eyeless.One product of the experiments is a four-winged fruit fly. At first glance, this would appear toprovide dramatic evidence that genetic mutations can add information and produce new organs,but this is decidedly not the case.What is typically not told about the mutant fruit fly experiments is the following:1. The four-winged fruit fly is a crippled monstrosity.The extra wings lack flight muscles, so that not only do they not help the creature fly better, theyhinder it in flying at all. In fact, the second set of wings are not actually wings. They are a grossdistortion of the insect’s two “halteres,” which are small appendages behind the wings thatenable it to balance in flight. Thus, not only has the four-winged fruit fly lost the effective use ofthese highly complex organs, it has developed two large, useless mutant appendages.“As evidence for evolution, the four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circussideshow” (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 186, 187, 18).It has been recently discovered that the fruit fly’s halteres are amazingly complex organs. Theyare “small vibrating organs ... that act as gyroscopic sensors [which] serve as detectors of bodyangular velocity that quickly trigger muscle action. ... The velocity is sensed by the halteres,processed by a neural controller, and transmitted by the flight motor into specific wing motionsthat generate aerodynamic torque” (David Tyler, “Design Principles in the Flight Autostabilizerof Fruit Flies,” Uncommon Descent, March 23, 2010). Experiments have shown that the fruit flycan recover its heading to within 2 degrees in less than a tenth of a second, and the halteres arean integral part of this amazing flight system which the most technologically advanced fighter jetcannot begin to emulate.2. The mutant flies are constitutionally weaker than the parent form and would beeliminated in a free competition environment.247

The Darwinian law of “survival of the fittest” would not “select” the four-wing fruit fly. As wehave seen, the extra “wings” are not only useless; they are a positive hindrance. Further, the fourwingfly has difficulty mating, so that “unless the line is carefully maintained in a laboratory itquickly dies out” (Wells, p. 186).This is true for all of the mutant varieties of fruit flies that have been produced in the laboratory."A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [themutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in apopulation with free competition they are eliminated ... Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not asingle one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutations), and therefore, they are able to appear onlyin the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory” (H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung,1954, p. 1186, cited from the Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, chapter 14).3. The fruit fly experiments are actually strong evidence against evolution and for biblicalcreation.First, the extensive fruit fly experiments, which have been conducted for a century, have proventhat mutations do not produce useful new structures or new creatures.Beginning with the work of Thomas Hunt Morgan at Columbia University in 1906, millions offruit flies have been radiated, poisoned, and subjected to extreme conditions of light and dark,cold and heat. There were 100 fruit fly genetics labs in the United States alone from the 1930s tothe 1960s, and these tested hundreds of thousands of generations of mutant genes (CreationSpelled Out, p. 14). Radiation has greatly multiplied the number of mutations that would occurnaturally.The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because its grows from egg to adult in 10-12 days,lays up to 100 eggs a day, and it is a relatively “simple” creature with only four chromosomesper cell (as if any tiny creature that can fly and reproduce itself could reasonably be calledsimple).The century of fruit fly experiments represents millions of years of “evolutionary time.”The result has been a variety of mutant fruit flies--with various colored eyes and bodies, differentsizes of eyes, no eyes, short wings, large wings, no wings, extra wings, twisted wings, legsgrowing out of its head, etc.--but absolutely no evidence that the fruit fly could evolve throughmutations into some other type of insect or animal--or even into a different type of fly.The fruit fly experiments scientifically falsify the neo-Darwinism claim that mutations are thedriving force of species-to-species evolution.“German geneticists Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus were using a technique called‘saturation muta-genesis’ to search for every possible mutation involved in fruit fly development. Theydiscovered dozens of mutations that affect development at various stages and produce a variety of248

malformations. Their Herculean efforts earned them a Nobel prize, but they did not turn up a singlemorphological mutation that would benefit a fly in the wild” (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 190).Theodosius Dobzhansky, who succeeded T.H. Morgan at Columbia University, made thefollowing telling admission,“Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvementof the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown” (Evolution, Genetics, and Man, 1955, p.105).Second, the fruit fly experiments demonstrate that the kinds of creatures are stable and that thereare strict limits to the amount of change they can experience. These experiments support theBible’s declaration that God formed every plant and animal to reproduce “after its own kind.”“No matter what we do to the genes of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normalfruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly” (Jonathan Wells, “The Problem of Evidence,” Forbes, Feb. 5,2009).The fruit fly experiments are a powerful refutation of the doctrine of evolution and an icon forcreation.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE FOUR-WINGED FRUIT FLY AS ANICON FOR EVOLUTION1. The four-winged fruit fly is a crippled monstrosity that is no more an evidence for evolutionthan a two-headed calf.2. The fruit fly experiments are evidence that mutations are harmful and that they never improvethe creature and are not a path to evolution.3. The fruit fly experiments prove the truth of the Bible in that one kind of creature does notchange into another kind. God has put genetic barriers in place that cannot be crossed, so thatthere are strict limits to the amount of change they can experience.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON FRUIT FLY1. Who is the father of the fruit fly experimentation?2. When did these experiments begin?3. Researchers can breed a new generation of fruit flies every ____ days.4. What are three types of mutations that have been produced through this experimentation?5. Why is the four-winged fruit fly not a good evidence for evolution?6. The two extra wings are a distortion of the fruit fly’s ____________.7. What is the function of the fruit fly’s haltere?8. Why would fruit fly mutants be eliminated in a free competition environment?9. Mutant fruit flies are “always constitutionally ____________ than their parent form.”249

10. What are two ways that the fruit fly experiments provide evidence against evolution and forcreation?11. The century of fruit fly experiments represents ____________ of years of “evolutionarytime.”12. What are the only three possible outcomes of fruit fly experiments?LUCYOne of the most widely-used icons of evolution is Lucy, the name given to a fossilized ape of theaustralopithecine class that is supposed to be millions of years old and is alleged to be a missinglink between apes and man.The Lucy bones have been the subject of fierce debate, even among evolutionists.Lucy was a tiny creature standing about three and a half feet high.The bones were found in 1974 in northern Ethiopia by Donald Johanson and his colleagues. “Hethereupon declared on the spot that he had discovered a three million year old humanancestor” (Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, p. 241).They named the fragmentary skeleton “Lucy” after playing the Beatles song “Lucy in the Skywith Diamonds” repeatedly at the camp party the night of the discovery. John Lennon’s 1971song “Imagine” would have been more suitable, as Johanson and crew were living out the vainDarwinian dream that there is no God, no heaven or hell, only blind evolution. In the chorus,Lennon sang, “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one/ And some day I hopeyou’ll join us/ And the world will be as one.” Evolutionary scientists are at the forefront ofpushing this dream of a world united in a damnable myth, and it is a fulfillment of Bibleprophecy (e.g., Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:2-4).After Johanson announced to the world that he had discovered a new “missing link,” he wasshowered with international acclaim. “The National Geographic Society promised funds andassigned a photographer to Johanson’s expedition. Money came from several sources. Johanson’sfuture was secure” (Gish, The Fossils Still Say No, p. 243).Donald Johanson and company believed they had found the original stem that led fromAustralopithecus to man. Thus, they gave the creature the name Australopithecus afarensis todistinguish it from other forms of Australopithecus. (There is no consensus on this, though, evenamong evolutionists.)Australopithecus has long been promoted as a link in the evolution of man. The Early Man(Time-Life, 1965), which contained the famous “Parade of Man,” featured Australopithecusprominently as a “Pre-Man.” It was depicted as an upright, hairy semi-ape-faced creature with250

human arms, hands, legs, and feet. The Last Human (Yale University, 2007) describes four typesof Australopithecus: anamensis, afarensis, garhi, and africanus.(In the book Seeing the Non-Existent we deal with all of the major evolutionary “ape men,”including Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Australopithecus africanus,Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus, Ida, Ardi, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Neanderthal.)It is impossible scientifically to prove that Lucy was any sort of “missing link.”As we have seen in the section on the fossil record, it is impossible to prove that one type ofextinct creature had any sort of evolutionary connection with another. How could one possiblyprove such a thing? Just because there were certain similarities of structure does not proveevolutionary descent. This can only be presumed from a philosophical bias.The debate over Lucy’s gaitThough evolutionists admit that the creature had an ape’s head and brain and ape-like arms,hands, and feet, and no speech capacity, it is alleged by many that it walked uprightly, which was“the first step toward becoming human.” This is called “bipedalism.”There is wide disagreement on this point.Dr. Solly Zuckerman, for many years the head of the Department of Anatomy of the Universityof Birmingham in England, said of the Australopithecus family that “THEY ARE JUSTAPES” (Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 164). Zuckerman studied the fossils of thiscreature for 15 years in minute detail with a team of scientists. They compared every importantdetail of Australopithecus fossils with the bones of hundreds of humans and apes. For example,they compared the pelvic bones of Australopithecus with those of more than 70 humans, 94 greatapes, and many others of monkeys and baboons. That is an impressive piece of scientificresearch. Zuckerman concluded that Australopithecus did not walk erect. He said:“For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the australopithecines walked and ran upright likeman is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variantof what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable” (Beyond the Ivory Tower, p. 93).Zuckerman’s detailed scientific research into Australopithecus, the largest and most seriousproject of its nature ever conducted, to my knowledge, was largely rejected bypaleoanthropologists. But this is because his conclusions did not fit their pet theories. Zuckermanwas basically excommunicated by the paleoanthropological community for his conclusions, butthis is not because his research and conclusions were scientifically disproven; it was because heveered from the party line.Zuckerman’s team was not working on the so-called Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) but onfossils of other types of Australopithecus, but others have reached the same conclusion for so-251

called Australopithecus afarensis. Further, not everyone believes the Lucy group or the so-calledafarensis even represents a different category of Australopithecus.In 1982, Bill Jungers at the Stony Brook Institute in New York “argued that Lucy’s legs weretoo short, in relation to her arms, for her species to have achieved a fully modernadaptation to bipedalism” (Lucy’s Child, p. 194).In 1983, Randy Susman and Jack Stern, also of Stony Brook, concluded that Lucy and her kinspent most of their time climbing trees. They “detailed more than two dozen separate anatomicaltraits suggesting that the species was a less efficient biped than modern humans” (Lucy’s Child,p. 194). They described Lucy’s hands and feet as being long and curved, typical of a treedwellingape, even more highly curved than a chimpanzee (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p.207).That year Susman and Stern reported in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology:“The fact that the anterior portion of the iliac blade faces laterally in humans but not in chimpanzees isobvious. The marked resemblance of AL 288-1 [Lucy] to the chimpanzee is equally obvious” (J. T. Stern andR.L. Susman, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 80:279, 1983).Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago reached the same conclusion as Jungers, Susman, andStern. He pointed to the “curved fingers and toes” as an “apelike adaptation for grasping treebranches.”In 1983, a conference was held at the Institute of Human Origins at Berkeley in California todiscuss the issue of Lucy’s bipedalism. Russell Tuttle argued that the Laetoli footprints could nothave been made by a Lucy-type creature because its long, curved toes and other featureswould have left a different sort of print (Lucy’s Child, p. 196). Randy Susman emphasized thatthe creature’s “strong, curved, apelike finger bones,” and its “long arms relative to its legs”speak of tree living. Jack Stern used features of the hip, knee, ankle, and pelvis as evidence forhis view that the creature did not walk in a human fashion.In 1984, Charles Oxnard, professor of Anatomy and Biological Sciences at the University ofSouthern California, concluded that australopithecine was definitely not a missing link. “... theaustralopithecines known over the last few decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdrai,and Makapans-gat, are now IRREVOCABLY REMOVED FROM A PLACE IN THEEVOLUTION OF HUMAN BIPEDALISM, possibly from a place in a group of any closer tohumans than the African apes and certainly from a place in the direct human lineage. All thisshould make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductorytextbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications” (The Order of Man: ABiomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p. 332).It must be understood that Oxnard is not a creationist. He is an evolutionist, but he is beinghonest with the facts presented in the fossil record as he sees them.252

In 1987, Oxnard did an extensive computer analysis of the existing bones of Australopithecusand concluded that it walked like an ape, not a man. He demonstrated that the creature’s big toestuck out as in chimpanzees.In 1993, Christine Tardieu, an anthropologist in Paris, reported that Lucy’s “locking mechanismwas not developed.” Humans have a locking mechanism in the knees that allow us to standupright comfortably for long periods of time. Lucy didn’t have that, so she certainly didn’t standaround nonchalantly like she is depicted in the museums.In 1994, Dr. Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, using CT scans ofaustralopithecine inner ear canals, demonstrated that they did not walk habitually upright(“New Evidence: Lucy Was a Knuckle-walker,” Creation Ministries International, May 5, 2000,citing F. Spoor, B. Wood and F. Zonneveld, “Implications of early hominid morphology forevolution of human bipedal locomotion,” Nature 369(6482):645–648, 1994).In 1994, Jack T. Stern, Jr., told the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Association of PhysicalAnthropologists that he believes that A. afarensis “walked funny, not like humans” (Gish, p.257).In 2000, Science magazine reported that Lucy “has the morphology that was classic forknuckle walkers” (Erik Stokstad, “Hominid Ancestors May Have Knuckle Walked,” Science,March 24, 2000, Vol. 287, no. 5461, pp. 2131-2132). Stokstad says, “I walked over to thecabinet, pulled out Lucy, and shazam! -- she had the morphology that was classic for knucklewalkers.”In 2009, after anthropologists gathered at the Institute of Human Origins in New York to discussLucy, a report in the New York Times made the following interesting conclusion:“The debate over whether the primate Lucy actually stood up on two feet three million years ago and walked--thus becoming one of mankind’s most important ancestors--has evolved into two interpretive viewpoints, threefamily trees, spats over four scientific techniques and too many personality clashes to count. ... The long andshort of it is, according to a participant, that bipedality lies in the eye of the beholder” (“Did Lucy ActuallyStand on Her Own Two Feet?” (New York Times, Aug. 29, 2009).Thus, there is no consensus even among the evolutionists themselves that Lucy walked uprightly,and there is strong evidence that she did not.The fact that textbooks and museums typically portray Lucy as an unquestionable humanancestor and as an upright walker is evidence that their objective is to brainwash the public withan evolutionary myth rather than provide real objective education.It is probable that “Lucy” and her kin typically walked on all fours like an ape, while walkingupright for short distances. One day in Kathmandu, Nepal, in 2008, I saw a rhesus macaque253

monkey walk about 100 feet on his back legs. He was just cruising along and seemed verypleased with himself! A macaque monkey at the Israel Zoo walks upright much of the time. Apescan walk upright, but they aren’t designed to do it comfortably and naturally like a man does;they are more comfortable climbing trees. The mountain gorilla from Zaire has an arm-legproportion closer to humans than other apes and “a young gorilla can rear up and walk in ahuman way, resting on the sole of its foot rather than the side” (Michael Pitman, Adam andEvolution, p. 242).When it comes to Lucy’s hands, all authorities agree that they were ape-like, and as for her feet,Dr. Randall Susman and Dr. Jack Stern of the State University of New York at Stony Brook,described them as “showing a retention of grasping tendencies with long and curveddigits” (New York Times, Aug. 29, 2009).Why would Lucy “evolve” upright walking?Michael Pitman, who taught biology at Cambridge University, makes the following importantobservation:“But if a group of them decided to swing down from the trees and become meat-eating Homo erectus on theplain, upright gait would be the last thing they would want. Their first efforts would give them an uncomfortableshort-stretch roll, and a slow one at that. Man walks about as fast as a chicken; he runs upright at 12 m.p.h.while the patas monkey can run two-and-a-half times as fast. Indeed, the new man would have been aboutthe slowest mammal on the savannah; rolling like a boat in high seas and still wearing that tinychimpish head, he’d have had little chance in the survival stakes” (Adam and Evolution, p. 249).Lucy Art: Perpetrating a mythArtistic reconstructions typically depict Lucy with human hands, walking uprightly in a purelyhuman manner on human feet, and typically with human-proportioned arms and legs. This is truefor the models and drawings that I have seen personally at the Museum of Natural History inNew York City, the American Museum of Natural Sciences in Washington D.C., the BritishMuseum of Natural History, the Field Museum in Chicago, Yale University’s Peabody Museum,the Museum of Man in San Diego, the St. Louis Zoo, and the natural history museum atMichigan State University Ann Arbor.These reconstructions are not scientific; they are brainwashing tools.Dr. David Menton complained to the St. Louis Zoo about their Lucy exhibit, but his protestswere rebuffed. Menton, who has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University, said: “I think thezoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) an honestpresentation.” But Bruce Carr, the zoo’s director of education, said they had no plans to changethe exhibit. “What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think thatthe overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (Creation Ex Nihilo, Volume 19 Number 1,Dec 1996 - Feb. 1997).254

In fact, the overall impression that this Lucy model creates is that Australopithecus was an apeman,a creature that had some ape-like features but walked erect like a man and had humanhands and feet. This is a false impression that is contradicted by the evidence, but it is exactly theimpression that they desire to give in these “reconstructions.”SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST LUCY AS AN ICON FOR EVOLUTION1. It is impossible to prove scientifically that one type of extinct creature had any sort ofevolutionary connection with another.2. The idea that Lucy walked upright is unproven scientifically and there are many scientists whodisbelieve it.3. The reconstructions of Lucy in textbooks and museums are not based on science but on myth.Forgetting for a moment the controversy surrounding Lucy’s gait, the fossil record proves thatLucy did not have human hands and feet or human-proportioned arms and legs.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON LUCY1. What is Lucy? What is her evolutionary family name?2. Where was the Lucy fossil discovered?3. How did Lucy get her name?4. The ability to walk uprightly is called what?5. What happened to Solly Zuckerman after he went against the evolutionary party line?6. Susman and Stern said that Lucy’s hands and feet are _________ and ___________.7. Russell Tuttle points to Lucy’s __________ fingers and toes.8. Charles Oxnard said that the australopithecines are “irrevocably removed from a place in theevolution of human _________________.”9. Oxnard also said Australopithecus’ “big toe stuck out as in _________________.”10. Jack Stern says Lucy “walked ____________,” not like “_______________.”11. Erik Stokstad said Lucy had the morphology that was classic for ____________ walkers.12. What conclusion did a reporter reach at a gathering of anthropologists in 2009 that provesthat there is no consensus as to whether Lucy walked uprightly?13. What advantage would a clumsy “new walker” have over a monkey?14. What is mythical about the standard reconstructions of Lucy?THE LAETOLI FOOTPRINTSMost prominent natural history museums feature a model or photo of the Laetoli footprints thatpurport to prove that evolving apes walked upright “in a human manner” over a million yearsago.255

The footprints were discovered in 1978 by the team of the famous anthropologist Mary Leakey(wife of Louis) at a site called Laetoli in Tanzania.Two sets of prints run parallel to each other for a length of about 80 feet. One set of prints isman-sized while the other is smaller. They could have been made by a male and a female or byan adult and a child. There are also many animal prints preserved in the same strata.The footprints are used as an argument for depicting Australopithecus afarenses’s feet (Lucy) ashuman-like, in spite of the fact that no Australopithecus afarenses fossils were found in Laetoliand in spite of the evidence that “Lucy” could not have made the prints. Typical of the claims isthat by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall,“Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the bipedality of this early form is the set of footprints that have beenfound at Laetoli” (The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 7).A drawing at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History depicts human legs and feet makingthe prints, and the text claims that “Australopithecus afarensis” made them. The museumobviously wants its visitors to assume that Lucy had human-like legs and feet.In reply we offer the following points:1. If you remove the evolutionary assumptions, there is no reason to think that thefootprints were made by any creature other than man.Mary Leakey and her team were amazed “at how very human they were” (Ancestral Passions, p.486). Tim White, who was involved in excavating the prints, acknowledged:“They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a fouryear-oldwere asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn’t be ableto tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. Thereis a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straightin line. It doesn’t stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see ofAustralopithecines in books” (Johanson and Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, p. 250).White and his colleagues believe that the “modern human footprints” prove that Lucy had feetlike humans and walked in a human fashion, but there is nothing to connect Lucy’s kind with theLaetoli prints other than evolutionary assumption and circular argumentation.Melvin Lubenow says:“Interpreting the Laetoli footprints is not a question of scholarship; it is a question of logic and the basic rulesof evidence. We know what the human foot looks like. There is no evidence that any other creature, past orpresent, had a foot exactly like the human foot. We also know what human footprints look like. But we willnever know for sure what australopithecine footprints look like, because there is no way of associating‘beyond reasonable doubt’ those extinct creatures with any fossil we might discover” (Bones of Contention, p.331).256

2. The Lucy creature had ape-like feet and could not have made human-looking footprints.Russell Tuttle has rightly argued that a creature such as Lucy, with long curved toes, could nothave left the prints and concluded that “we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetolifootprints were made by Lucy’s kind” (“The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History,March 1990).Further, the footprints are nearly 12 inches long and were obviously made by a large individual. Iam six-feet tall and when I put my size 11 shoe beside a model of the Laetoli footprints at theSeattle Science Center it was obvious that the individual that made those prints could have beencomfortable in my shoes.But Lucy was only three feet tall. My, what big feet she had!3. The Laetoli footprints are actually evidence against evolution.If the evolutionary assumptions are removed, the Laetoli footprints are powerful evidence that“modern man” lived at the same time as creatures that are supposedly millions of years old.Either this means that the evolutionary dating methods are wrong and the entire fossil strataconcept should be discarded, or it means that “modern man” is millions of years old.Either way, the Laetoli footprints disprove standard evolutionary thinking.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS1. Where were the Laetoli footprints found?2. By what famous anthropologist were they found?3. Evolutionists say that the footprints were made by what creature?4. What scientific evidence connects this creature with the Laetoli footprints?5. How do we know that this creature could not have made the footprints?6. Why is the fact that the footprints are 12 inches long significant to this debate?7. How are the Laetoli footprints evidence against evolution?VESTIGIAL ORGANSAnother major icon of evolution is the so-called vestigial organ.“Vestigial organs” are said to be hang-ons from man’s evolutionary past that no longer have apurpose.In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed “vestigial organs” as proof of his doctrine. Helisted wisdom teeth, the appendix, the coccyx (pronounced kock-six) or tailbone, body hair, andother things.257

Robert Wiedersheim, a Darwinist in Germany, greatly extended the list of vestigial organs in hisbook The Structure of Man. Wiedersheim added the pineal gland, the pituitary gland, the tonsils,the thymus, the thyroid, and many others--180 in all. Wiedersheim was a world authority and hisbook was very influential, widely quoted in biology textbooks.The concept of vestigial organs was so popular as an evolutionary icon that Ernst Haeckel,Charles Darwin’s apostle in Germany, gave it the name Dysteleology or “the science ofrudimentary organs.”The refutation of this evolutionary icon is simple. Today the number of “vestigial organs” inhumans has been reduced to ZERO.It has been learned, for example, that the TONSILS are important in the growth of the immunesystem. “In the 1930s, over half of the children had their tonsils and adenoids removed. Thenmedical scientists learned that tonsils are important to young people in helping to establish thebody’s defense capabilities by producing antibodies. Once these defense mechanisms develop,the tonsils shrink to a smaller size in adults” (Alan Gillen, Body by Design, p. 34).Researchers at Duke University reported in 2007 that the APPENDIX is a safe house for “goodbacteria” so the intestine can be repopulated after flushing out a pathogen (“Purpose of AppendixBelieved Found,” CNN.com, Oct. 5, 2007)The human COCCYX is not any sort of vestigial tail. Instead it serves as a point of attachmentfor several important muscles of the pelvic floor (Of Pandas and People, p. 128).REVIEW QUESTIONS ON VESTIGIAL ORGANS1. What does “vestigial organ” refer to?2. What are two examples of supposed vestigial organs that Darwin mentioned?3. How many vestigial organs did Robert Wiedersheim come up with?4. What name did Haeckel give to the “science of rudimentary organs”?5. How do we know that the evolutionary concept of vestigial organs is wrong?6. What is the purpose of the tonsils?THE HORSE SERIESMost people living during the past 100 years have seen the horse series, which depicts thesupposed “evolution” of the horse from a dog-like creature with three toes to the modern onetoedcreature that cowboys and Indians ride in western movies. It must be true, because the chartsays so!258

The horse series was developed by Othniel Marsh who discovered 30 different kinds of supposedfossil horses in Wyoming and Nebraska in the 1870s. In 1879, after consultation with ThomasHuxley, he arranged these in an evolutionary sequence and put them on display at YaleUniversity’s Peabody Museum.The exhibit has been duplicated in countless museums and textbooks.It is featured prominently in the Field Museum in Chicago. On a visit there in 2010, I saw adisplay of fossils ranging from a small dog-like creature to the “modern” horse. This isaccompanied by the following statement:“... these three horses illustrate a general trend to longer legs with fewer toes. The earliest horses were smalland multi-toed. But as grasslands spread, longer legs with lighter single-toed feet allowed horses to run fasterand travel farther.”The three “horses” are as follows:hyracotherium (56 million years ago), which had multiple small hoovesmisohippus (33 million years ago), with longer legs and a bigger central toepliohippus (15 million years ago), with even longer legs and a bigger toeThe horse series is still promoted by Yale’s Peabody Museum. On a visit there in 2010, I saw thelarge display devoted to this myth. In one section of the display, the heads of the “horses” arearranged in six supposed evolutionary steps from small to large: hyracotherium, misohippus,miohippus, merychippus, pliohippus, equus.The horse series is an ideal evolutionary propaganda tool. Horses are interesting, and the displayis easy to comprehend and dramatic in its presentation.1. This is a vain exercise in homologyThe only evidence for evolution is the vague similarity of the creatures when arranged in acertain order. It is impossible to prove scientifically that one fossilized creature descended fromanother. To make such a claim is speculation. Remove the evolutionary assumption, and the“evidence” disappears. It can as easily be said that each of the fossilized creatures was created byGod and here was no evolutionary attachment. The bones themselves simply don’t provide thisinformation!2. Evolutionists admit that the horse chart is not accurate.George Simpson, who was so dogmatic about horse evolution in his 1951 textbook Horses, hadchanged his tune by 1953, claiming that generations of students had been misinformed about thereal meaning of the evolution of the horse (The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 259). Thatsame year, Simpson wrote, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into259

Equuus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Lifeof the Past, pp. 125, 127).In 1979, Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, made thefollowing admission to Luther Sunderland in a taped interview for the New York State EducationDepartment:“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the mostfamous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the Natural History Museum] is the exhibit on horse evolutionprepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now Ithink that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kind of stories themselvesmay be aware of the speculative nature of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’vegot science as truth and we’ve got a problem” (Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 90, 91; Sunderland wascommissioned by the New York State Education Department to interview influential scientists at five naturalhistory museums for a revision of the state’s Regents Biology Syllabus).In October 1980, the inaccuracy of the horse chart was admitted by the evolutionists who met atthe Chicago Field Museum. In a report on that four-day meeting, Boyce Rensberger said:“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from fourtoedfox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, haslong been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appearfully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown” (HoustonChronicle, Nov. 5, 1980, sec. 4, p. 15).That is a bold admission!3. Two major problems with the horse series are as follows:First, the various types of horses co-exist in the fossil record.In one fossil graveyard in northeastern Nebraska they found five species of horses co-existing atone time and place, including three-toed and one-toed (Bruce MacFadden, Fossil Horses, 1992,p. 255).Second, there is no reason to consider the Hyracotherium any type of horse.The Hyracotherium fossil was discovered by prominent British paleontologist Richard Owen in1841 and he thought it was a creature similar to the rock badger. This is why he named itHyracotherium, which means hyrax-like animal.It was evolutionist Othniel Marsh in America who changed the Hyracotherium into the Eohippusor “dawn horse,” because he and Thomas Huxley, who visited him in 1876, determined that itwas the evolutionary predecessor of the horse. There was no scientific reason to believe that theHyracotherium ever evolved into anything else. The decision was based strictly on evolutionaryassumptions and objectives. They were desperate to find some missing links.260

The reconstructions of Hyracotherium in textbooks and museums are designed to make thecreature look as horse-like as possible, but this is not science; it is myth-making. Some of themodels even depict the creature galloping or pawing the ground and running in herds without ashred of substantiating evidence!In reality, the Hyracotherium’s rear legs were much longer than its front legs and it would havelooked and moved nothing like a horse.4. To arrange horses in an evolutionary order according to size ignores the fact that“modern” horses come in a wide variety.You could as easily arrange living horses in an impressive “evolutionary order.”“One modern breed of horse in Argentina averages only 43 centimeters (17 inches) in height. Shire horsesweigh up to a ton, while Shetland ponies weigh only 400 pounds. If all three types were to be found fossilized,they could easily be arranged to claim that they have evolved over millions of years to show graduallyincreasing size” (David Watson, Myths and Miracles).The evolutionary horses series is not science; it is myth making.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE HORSE SERIES AS AN ICON FOREVOLUTION1. Evolutionary descent cannot be proven from the fossil record. It is impossible to prove thatone type of extinct creature is connected with another through evolution.2. The various types of horses co-exist in the fossil record. In one fossil graveyard innortheastern Nebraska they found five species of horses co-existing at one time and place,including three-toed and one-toed (Bruce MacFadden, Fossil Horses, 1992, p. 255).3. There is no reason to consider the Hyracotherium any type of horse.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE HORSE SERIES1. What does the “horse series” depict?2. Who devised the horse series?3. Who did this man consult with?4. Where did the horse series first go on display?5. What is the first alleged horse?6. How many evolutionary steps are presented in the Peabody Museum’s horse series?7. The horse series is an exercise in ________________.8. What is the scientific evidence that these creatures are the product of evolutionary descent?9. What are two major problems with the horse series?10. What name did Othniel Marsh give to the first “horse”?261

11. How do we know that the Hyracotherium didn’t look like a horse?THE EMBRYO CHARTAnother major icon of evolution is the embryo chart.The alleged fact that the human embryo looks like that of animals was mentioned by CharlesDarwin in On the Origin of Species, as follows:“Thus the embryo comes to be left as a sort of picture, preserved by nature, of the ancient and less modifiedcondition of each animal” (p. 664).“The embryos, also, of distinct animals within the same class are often strikingly similar” (p. 728).“Embryology rises greatly in interest, when we thus look at the embryo as a picture, more or less obscured,of the common parent-form of each great class of animals” (p. 735).The embryo chart was developed by Darwin’s German disciple Ernst Haeckel. He invented thelaw of recapitulation (also called the biogenetic law) which stated that the human embryoprogresses from a single cell to a fish to an amphibian to a reptile to a mammal to an ape to ahuman.Haeckel summarized this “law” with the saying “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Ontogenyrefers to the growth of the embryo; phylogeny refers to evolutionary history.Haeckel’s embryo chart first appeared in print in 1866 in his book Generalle Morphologie derOrganismen. Since then it has been republished in various forms in countless textbooks, journals,popular reports, and museums, and it is still appearing in textbooks in the 21st century. Oneteacher said, “I have taught Jr. High Science for over 35 years. Every textbook from every majorpublisher I have ever seen has had Haeckel’s embryos pictured and the text usually claims this asa proof for evolution” (http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered).The influence of the embryo chart has been incalculable. Carl Werner, M.D., testifies that he wasconfronted with Haeckel’s embryo chart in his first class in medical school in 1977 and itconvinced him that evolution is true.“These drawings were extremely compelling to me, especially the ‘fact’ that humans had gills and a tail. Afterthis lecture, I found myself rapidly accepting evolution” (Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, p. 2).The problem is that it is a grand scientific fraud, and it has been known to be a fraud since the19th century!1. Haeckel fabricated his embryo chart.That Haeckel was guilty of fabricating his embryo chart was exposed in his own day.262

It was exposed first by Ludwig Rutimeyer, a professor at the University of Basel, who broughtthe fabrications to the attention of the university at Jena. Rutimeyer called the drawings “a sinagainst scientific truthfulness.” He showed that Haeckel had used the same woodcut of a dogembryo three times to depict the supposed wormlike stage of what he called the embryos of adog, a chicken, and a tortoise. Haeckel was convicted at a university tribunal and made aconfession of sorts, but even his confession was a lie. He claimed that his draughtsman made theblunder, not acknowledging that he was the draughtsman (Russell Grigg, “Fraud Rediscovered,”http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered).Haeckel’s embryo fraud was also exposed early on by Wilhelm His, Sr., professor of anatomy atthe University of Leipzig. Dr. His demonstrated that Haeckel had doctored his embryo charts tomake them fit his proposition and concluded that “anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud hadforfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific researchworkers of any stature” (Shawn Boonstra, Out of Thin Air, p. 47).Haeckel huffed and puffed at his adversaries, but he was guilty as charged. He mislabeledembryos; he changed the size of embryos; he deleted parts; he added parts; he changed parts. Forexample, he took a drawing of a monkey embryo and removed its arms, legs, navel, heart, andyolk sac to make it look like a fish embryo. He then labeled it “Embryo of a Gibbon in the fishstage.”For his “embryo of man in the fish-stage,” Haeckel either removed or doctored more than half ofthe embryo’s essential organs.In spite of his deception, Haeckel continued as a professor at Jena for another 30 years andcontinued to promote his evolutionary deception far and wide.In 1915, Haeckel’s fraud was publicized in the book Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries by JosephAssmuth and Ernest Hull, which cited 19 authorities, but this carefully documented work waslargely ignored by Darwinian scientists and educators in their haste to prove evolution anddisprove the Bible.In the late 1990s, a team led by Michael Richardson, embryologist at St. George’s HospitalMedical School, London, did extensive research into the embryo to test Haeckel’s chart.Richardson gathered an international team of scientists who examined and photographedembryos of 39 different species at stages comparable to those depicted in Haeckel’s series.Richardson concluded that Haeckel was “an embryonic liar.” In a 1997 interview with NigelHawkes, Richardson said:‘THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST CASES OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. It’s shocking to find that somebody onethought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was totake a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked thesame at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes” (Nigel Hawkes interview withRichardson, The Times, Aug. 11, 1997, p. 14).263

2. A major error of Haeckel’s embryo chart is the misidentification of “gill slits” on thehuman embryo.In fact, they are not gill slits at all. They have no respiratory function at any stage. Dr. AlanGillen states:“The so-called ‘gill slits’ are really wrinkles in the throat region. This body tissue becomes the palatine tonsils,middle ear canal, parathyroid gland, and thymus. ... These folds in the neck region of the mammalian embryoare not gills in any sense of the word and never have anything to do with breathing. They are merely inwardfolds, or wrinkles, in the neck region resulting from the sharply down-turned head and protruding heart of thedeveloping embryo” (Gillen, Body by Design, p. 33).3. Haeckel’s myth that the developing human embryo is animal-like has encouraged themodern abortion industry.Dr. Henry Morris wrote:“We can justifiably charge this evolutionary nonsense of recapitulation with responsibility for the slaughter ofhelpless, pre-natal children--or at least for giving it a pseudo-scientific rationale” (The Long War against God,1989, p. 139).Haeckel believed that the embryo is still in the evolutionary stage and not fully human. He saidthat it is “completely devoid of consciousness, is a pure ‘reflex machine,’ just like a lowervertebrate” (Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 147).Thus, killing an unborn baby would be no different than killing an animal.Haeckel taught that even a newborn child has no soul and therefore infanticide “cannot rationallybe classed as murder” (Haeckel, The Wonders of Life, 1904, p. 21). He not only supportedabortion but infanticide as well. For physically or mentally handicapped infants, Haeckelrecommended “a small dose of morphine or cyanide” (Weikart, p. 147).In 1990, the famous astronomer Carl Sagan and his wife, Ann Druyan, argued that abortion isethical on the grounds that the fetus is not fully human until the sixth month. Taking Haeckel’srecapitulation “theory” as fact, they claimed that the embryo begins as “a kind of parasite” andchanges into something like a fish with “gill arches” and then becomes “reptilian” and finally“mammalian.” By the end of the second month, the fetus “is still not quite human” (“TheQuestion of Abortion: A Search for the Answers,” Parade, April 22, 1990). Later, in his bookBillions and Billions, Sagan denied that he was referring to Haeckel’s “theory” of recapitulation,but his statement was disingenuous. Though Sagan didn’t use the term “recapitulation,” he wasdefinitely using the concept of recapitulation, that the human embryo goes through “apparent”stages of evolutionary development in the womb.4. The only evidence for evolution in the embryo chart is the assumption of evolution!264

The embryo chart is actually a vain exercise in homology. Consider the following statement froma 2002 biology textbook:“In their early stages of development, chickens, turtles, and rats look similar, providing evidence that theyshared a common ancestry” (Prentice Hall Biology, p. 385).Why is this “evidence” of a “common ancestry”? Laying out a series of embryos and saying thatthey are similar in appearance is actually zero evidence that the creatures share an evolutionarydescent. As usual, remove the evolutionary assumption and the “evidence” simply disappears!5. Haeckel’s law is still being taught!In spite of the fact that Haeckel was caught red-handed fabricating the embryo chart and in spiteof the fact that there was never a hint of evidence for the doctrine of recapitulation, the Haeckelchart was used widely throughout the 20th century and, in fact, is still used today.Walter Bock of the Department of Biological Sciences of Columbia University said, “... thebiogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out inspite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars” (Science164:684, 1969).Child psychologist Benjamin Spock promoted Haeckel’s doctrine of recapitulation in his popularbooks:“Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. Ababy starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean.Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish...” (Baby and Child Care, 1957,p. 223).No wonder Spock had no clue about how to raise a child, when he thought that the child is anevolved fish!Biology textbooks continue to use the embryo chart as a major evidence for evolution. In somecases, they repeat Haeckel’s doctrine of recapitulation, but it is more common for the embryochart to be used today as an example of homology.Biology: The Dynamics of Life by Merrill Publishing (1991) goes full bore for the doctrine ofrecapitulation:“The fossil record indicates that aquatic, gill-breathing vertebrates preceded air-breathing land forms, andcomparisons of embryos of different classes of vertebrates support this view of evolutionary change. Anembryo is an organism in its earliest stages of development. In the early stages of embryo development ofreptiles, birds, and mammals, a tail and gill slits can be observed. As you know, fish use gills to breathe underwater. Fish embryos retain these structures; reptile, bird, and mammal embryos lose them as theirdevelopment continues. In the human embryo, a tail is visible up to the sixth week of development. In humans,the tail disappears, but in fish, reptiles, and birds the tail is retained into maturity” (Biology: The Dynamics ofLife, p. 202).265

The Prentice Hall Biology textbook of 2002, edited by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, usesthe embryo chart as homology, as we have seen.Modern Biology by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (1999) features the chart on page 291 with thisaccompanying text: “Although modern embryologists have discovered that Haeckel exaggeratedsome features in his drawings, it is true that early embryos of many different vertebrate specieslook remarkably similar.”Observe how casually this scientific textbook whitewashes Haeckel’s blatant deception!While some evolutionists are using modified editions of Haeckel’s embryo chart, others haveremoved his name and attributed the chart to Karl Ernst von Baer, the discoverer of the femaleegg cell. This is a great error, because von Baer taught against Darwinian evolution as well asagainst Haeckel’s doctrine of recapitulation!This error of attributing embryonic recapitulation to von Baer actually started with CharlesDarwin, who quoted him in On the Origin of Species.“Darwin cited von Baer as the source of his embryological evidence, but at the crucial point Darwin distortedthat evidence to make it fit his theory. Von Baer lived long enough to object to Darwin’s misuse of hisobservations, and he was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death in 1876” (Jonathan Wells,Icons of Evolution, p. 86).In the 2006 documentary Flock of Dodos, Randy Olson claimed that Jonathan Wells lied insaying that Haeckel’s embryo chart has appeared in many modern textbooks. The documentaryshows someone flipping through a textbook unable to find the diagrams and with Olsoneventually finding only a 1914 textbook containing the embryo chart.“The clear message communicated was that Wells and other ID proponents were perpetrating a hoax. But ifanyone was perpetrating a hoax, it was Olson. ... In 2001, New York Times science reporter James Glanzstated that Haeckel’s ‘drawings were reproduced in textbook after textbook for more than a century,’including a textbook coauthored by Bruce Alberts, then-head of the National Academy of Sciences, andNobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson” (John West, Darwin Day in America, p. 266).While some evolutionists have downplayed the significance of the Haeckel drawings, StephenJay Gould, one of the most influential evolutionists of this generation, admitted that it wasshameful that the drawings were perpetuated throughout the 20th century:“But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindlessrecycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, ofmodern textbooks!" (“Abscheulich!” Natural History, March 2000, pp. 42, 44–45).Science is self-correcting, we are told. But deceptive evolutionary icons such as the embryochart, the horse series, and the peppered moth have continued to be used decade after decadeeven though they have been either totally debunked or seriously questioned, and rarely arereaders/students informed of the heavy cloud of doubt that hangs over them.266

Great spiritual and moral damage can be done by the perpetuation of myths. Not only didHaeckel’s false doctrine provide phony evidence for evolution, it gave ammunition for themurder of unborn babies and provided intellectual fodder for the eugenics movement and theNazi death machine.“The scientific tradition established by the work of Haeckel and his followers enabled the Nazi doctors to erasethe healing/killing boundary by enforcing the grandiose Volkish mission for the healing of the German race bykilling off the ‘lower races.’ It was the stamp of scientific legitimacy afforded by academia that enabled thegreat evils to come” (Phil Orenstein, July 2006, www.discoverthenetworks.org).(For more on this see the chapter “Darwin’s Social Influence” in Seeing the Non-Existent:Evolution’s Myths and Hoaxes, which is available in print and eBook formats from Way of LifeLiterature.)SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EMBRYO CHART AS AN ICON FOREVOLUTION1. Haeckel’s embryo chart has been exposed as fraudulent from the beginning.2. There is no evidence for the doctrine of recapitulation, that the embryo goes through any sortof evolutionary stages. It is pure myth.3. The human embryo never has “gill slits.”4. The myth of recapitulation has encouraged the modern abortion industry.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE EMBRYO CHART1. Darwin said the embryo is “a ______________ ... of the common parent-form of each greatclass of animals.”2. What Darwin disciple developed the law of recapitulation?3. What does this “law” teach?4. What is “ontogeny”?5. What is “phylogeny”?6. What effect has the embryo chart had on many people such as Dr. Carl Werner?7. Haeckel was guilty of ______________ his embryo chart.8. What two professors in that day exposed Haeckel’s deception?9. What embryologist exposed Haeckel in the 1990s?10. This scientist called Haeckel an “embryonic _________.”11. He also said it is “one of the worst cases of scientific __________.”12. What are the supposed “gill slits” in the human embryo?13. How has the evolutionary myth of recapitulation encouraged the modern abortion industry?14. What did Haeckel recommend for physically or mentally handicapped infants?267

15. What famous astronomer argued for abortion on the grounds of Haeckel’s “theory”? Thisscientist called the human embryo “a kind of ____________.”16. What is the only evidence for evolution in the embryo chart?17. What famous child psychologist promoted Haeckel’s doctrine?18. What was Karl Ernst von Baer’s position in regard to Darwinian evolution?19. Stephen Jay Gould said it is right to be “both _____________ and _____________ by thecentury of ___________ recycling” of the embryo chart.THE MILLER EXPERIMENT AND THE PRIMORDIAL SOUPMYTHIn 1953, Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago performed a scientific experiment that hasbecome a major icon of evolution. It is widely used as evidence for the proposition that life cangenerate from chemicals.Miller was a graduate student in the laboratory of Harold Urey at the University of Chicago(winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1934), and their experiments were an attempt tovalidate an idea proposed by Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane, Marxists who wereattempting to disprove creationism. They theorized that the original atmosphere of the earthallowed the formation of organic compounds which produced a “prebiotic soup” (beforebiological life) or “primordial soup” that became the birthplace of self-assembling life. (Tobelieve in “self-assembling life” requires far more faith than belief in an Almighty Creator.)Oparin and Haldane theorized that the early earth had an atmosphere composed primarily ofmethane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water vapor, with little or no free oxygen. As we will see, thelack of oxygen was a necessary ingredient in their proposition.They did not propose these compositions because they had scientific evidence that such anatmosphere actually existed at any point of earth’s history, but because this type of atmospherewas believed by them to provide the best chance for the evolution of life.Urey had concluded that the Oparin-Haldane “theory” was correct, and Miller joined him inattempting to demonstrate that the “building blocks of life” could originate in such anenvironment.The Miller-Urey experiment consisted of the creation of a gaseous environment to simulate thealleged atmosphere of the early earth with the insertion of an electric discharge to simulatelightning.“Miller and Urey placed a mixture of gases into a flask containing water. These gases were in the proportionsbelieved present in the primitive atmosphere of Earth. The flask was subjected to electrical sparks thatsimulated lightning. Miller and Urey also repeatedly heated and cooled the mixture, simulating changes indaily temperatures” (Merrill Biology: The Dynamics of Life, 1991).268

In spite of the nebulous and highly questionable character of Miller’s experiment, the claim wasmade by evolutionists that the mystery of life’s origin had been solved.The New Scientist magazine ridiculously proclaimed, “In the beginning ... life assembleditself” (S. Fox, New Scientist, Feb. 27, 1969).The Miller experiment continues to be referenced in textbooks and used as evidence forevolution. It is typical to leave the impression with readers that the experiment was successful.Dr. Gary Parker, a geneticist who once used the Miller experiment as an icon for evolution in hisscience classes before he rejected the doctrine of evolution, says that Miller (1) used the wrongmaterials, (2) established the wrong conditions, and (3) got the wrong results. “Other than that,”Dr. Parker quips, “it was a brilliant experiment!”1. The Miller experiment is based on evolutionary assumptions.The Miller experiment assumes a universe and an earth and a primordial soup in which life couldevolve. But science has not proven that the universe and the earth could have happened bychance naturalistic means so that it could be the birthplace of evolutionary life. There arehypotheses, such as the big bang and multi-universes, but these are not scientific facts. TheMiller experiment is meaningless apart from evolutionary assumptions.There is no scientific evidence for the “pre-biotic soup” doctrine of evolution. It is, in fact, agrand myth based on evolutionary assumptions and wishful thinking:“Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as analready established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positiveevidence for its existence” (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Denton has a Ph.D. in biochemistryfrom King’s College London).2. Miller used the wrong materials.Since Miller conducted his experiment, scientists have determined that the atmosphere of asupposed ancient earth would not have been composed of the elements used in the experiment.Dr. Jonathan Wells says, “For more than a decade most geochemists have been convinced thatthe experiment failed to simulate conditions on the early Earth, and thus has little or nothing todo with the origin of life” (Icons of Evolution, p. 11).Most significantly, it has been demonstrated that oxygen has always been present in largequantities.“Canadian geologists Erich Dimroth and Michael Kimberly wrote in 1979 that they saw ‘no evidence’ in thesedimentary distribution of iron ‘that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during thespan of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks.’ ... [In 1982] British geologistsHarry Clemmey and Nick Badham wrote that the evidence showed ‘from the time of the earliest datedrocks at 3.7 billion years ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.’ ... In fact, evidence for primitive269

oxygen continues to mount: Smithsonian Institution paleobiologist Kenneth Towe (now emeritus) reviewed theevidence in 1996, and concluded that ‘the early Earth very likely had an atmosphere that contained freeoxygen.’ ... Although geochemists were sharply divided on the oxygen issue, they soon reached a nearconsensusthat the primitive atmosphere was nothing like the one Miller used” (Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp.16, 18, 19).And the presence of oxygen would preclude organic synthesis.“An electric spark in a closed container of swamp gas (methane) might produce some interesting organicmolecules, but if even a little oxygen is present the spark will cause an explosion. Just as a closed containerexcludes oxygen and prevents swamp gas from exploding, so compartments in living cells exclude oxygenfrom the processes of organic synthesis. ... Since free oxygen can destroy many organic molecules, chemistsoften must remove oxygen and use closed containers when they synthesize and store organic chemicals inthe laboratory. But before the origin of life, when there were neither chemists nor laboratories, the chemicalbuilding blocks of life could have formed only in a natural environment lacking oxygen ” (Wells, pp. 12, 13).“Without this assumption [that a primeval atmosphere had an absence of oxygen], the whole evolutionaryscenario fails, for even the simple organic compounds--the smallest bricks of living material--would havecrumbled as soon as they formed if oxygen were present” (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 138;Pitman taught biology at Cambridge).3. The Miller experiment added unnatural elements.The conditions of the experiment were not realistic.Under normal conditions hydrogen escapes into space, but it had no way to escape in the Millerexperiment.Further, under normal conditions any soluble organic products that happened to be formed wouldbe quickly broken down, but Miller precluded this by building a trap in his apparatus to preventsuch an occurrence.“The spark of electricity used by Miller to create the amino acids would have destroyed them under realconditions. The same spark that puts amino acids together also tears them apart and it’s much better atdestroying them than making them. Gary Parker says, ‘Miller knew this, so he circulated the gases, trappedout the molecules he wanted using a well-known biochemist trick. But that would be cheating, because youare supposed to say that this is how life arose before there was any intelligent design. So it’s the wrongconditions’” (A Question of Origins, DVD, Eternal Productions).As Michael Pitman, biology teacher at Cambridge, observes:“As water finds its own level, the natural tendency is towards chemical equilibrium; earth’s tendency is not toproduce proteins, DNA and other complex molecules, but to destroy them” (Adam and Evolution, p. 52).4. The Miller experiment got the wrong results.Even if the Miller experiment had produced proteins (which it did not), it would have fallen farshort of its objective, which was to prove that life could arise from chemicals.Nothing that has been produced in these experiments was living or self-replicating. Proteins donot exist and proliferate on their own. They operate as part of the mechanism of the living cell.270

The main product of the Miller experience, in fact, was tar!“What Miller actually produced was a poisonous brew that would destroy any hope for the chemical evolutionof life” (A Question of Origins).“The theistic evolutionary paleontologist Simon Conway Morris called the product of typical ‘origin-of-life’experiments ‘muck,’ ‘goo’ and ‘gunk,’ echoing chemical evolutionist Graham Cairns-Smith’s term ‘grosslycontaminated gunks’” (Jonathan Sarfati, By Design, p. 170).The trace amounts of amino acids that were produced were both “left-handed and right-handed.“But only the “left-handed” amino acids make up the proteins of life, and just one right-handedmolecule prevents the creation of proteins.Stephen Grocott, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Western Australiaand a leading research scientist in industrial chemistry, says:“Even if there were some source of optical activity in a primordial ‘soup,’ it would quickly disappear anyway.The recent idea of polarized light from a nearby galaxy doesn’t help. They talk of it possibly causing a slightimbalance, say 51 percent right-handed and 49 percent left-handed. But in time that will decay anyway, andyou need 100 percent pure, not just a slight increase” (“The Creation Couple,” The Genesis Files, edited byCarl Wieland, p. 68).“Suppose that you could go back in your time machine to a time when, according to evolutionists, a lifelessworld existed. Assume that you have taken with you an ocean full of organic precursors of life. What wouldhappen to them? They would all decompose to simpler and simpler molecules and mostly would end up aslifeless common inorganic substances. Sterilize a frog and put it in a sterile blender--buzzzzzz. Seal upthe mixture in a sterile container and leave it as long as you want. You won’t get life, despite the factthat you started with the best possible mixture of so-called precursors to life. Repeat the experiment a milliontimes--in the sun, in the dark; with oxygen, without; with clay, without; with UV, without. It won’t make anydifference. Thermodynamics clearly states that the mixture will decompose to simpler, lower energy, lessinformation-containing molecules” (In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 149).5. Even if some type of life could be made in a test tube it would only prove that intelligenceis required to create life!Biologist Michael Behe observes:“Making the molecules of life by chemical processes outside of a cell is actually rather easy. Any competentchemist can buy some chemicals from a supply company, weigh them in the correct proportion, dissolve themin an appropriate solvent, heat them in a flask for a predetermined amount of time, and purify the desiredchemical produce away from unwanted chemicals produced by side reactions. Not only can amino acids andnucleotides--the building blocks--be made, but a chemist can then take these and produce the buildingsthemselves: proteins and nucleic acids. As a matter of fact, the process for doing this has been automated,and machines that mix and react chemicals to give proteins and nucleic acids are sold by a number ofcommercial firms. ... Most readers will quickly see the problem. There were no chemists four billion yearsago. Neither were there any chemical supply houses, distillation flasks, nor any of the many other devices thatthe modern chemist uses daily in his or her laboratory, and which are necessary to get good results” (Darwin’sBlack Box).6. The modern science of genetics has falsified the idea of life arising from non-life for thosewho have eyes to see.271

Phillip Johnson observes,“The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokaryote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece ofminiaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low tech” (Darwin on Trial, p. 105).Dr. Stephen Grocott says:“I enjoy seeing the mental gymnastics of people trying to explain the origin of life. Most researchers in the areaare honest enough to say they haven’t got the faintest idea how life began from non-life. The mind bogglesat the complexity of the simplest single-celled organism--and the more we learn, the more complex itlooks” (“The Creation Couple,” The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 68).In Charles Darwin’s day, the cell was thought to be a simple blob of protoplasm. Working withinthe realm of this ignorance, it was possible for evolutionists to believe that natural processescould have produced life. Darwin’s German disciple Ernst Haeckel believed that life isconstantly forming in the mud at the bottom of the sea. He called this mythical living substance“monera” and believed it provided the base of the “tree of life.” In The History of Creation(1868) he described the appearance, eating habits, and reproductive cycle of monera. He evendrew pictures of them.“They consist entirely of shapeless, simple homogeneous matter ... a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucusor slime ... organisms without organs.”He even gave the monera the scientific name of Protamoeba primitivia.Today we know that the simplest living cell is more complicated than a modern city.The living cell is a living body with organs. It has blueprints, decoders, error checkers, qualitycontrol systems, power plants, power storage units, manufacturing plants, chemical plants,assembly lines, disposal units, trash compactors, a complex communication system, recyclingcenters, detoxification plants, transportation highways and tracks and tunnels, transportationvehicles, living walls with many types of one-way and two-way guarded, gated portals to theoutside world, an external matrix to connect with other cells, and a host of other things.Michael Denton, Ph.D. in biochemistry, says:“Nearly every feature of our own advanced machines has its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and theirdecoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating theautomated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for qualitycontrol, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction” (Evolution: ATheory in Crisis, pp. 328, 329).The cell contains not only the blueprint of the plant or animal’s body and the informationdescribing its every function but also the ability to actually fashion and operate it.272

Even a “simple” E. coli bacterium has about 4,640,000 nucleotide base pairs, which code for4,288 genes, each of which produces an enormously complex protein machine (Jerry Bergman,Ph.D. biology, In Six Days, p. 25).The information in the DNA in one human cell is equivalent to a library of 4,000 books, eachcontaining 500 pages. Yet it is so amazingly micro-engineered that all of the DNA from everyperson who has ever lived would weigh less than an aspirin tablet (Dr. Walt Brown, In theBeginning).This knowledge has forced many scientists to the conclusion that life could not have arisenspontaneously.Henry Zuill, Ph.D. in biology, says, “Complexity of the cell is now just too daunting to flippantlyassert biochemical evolution to explain it ... And if cells could not originate naturally, thennothing else could” (In Six Days).Consider Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix structure. Though he was anevolutionist and an opponent of Christianity, he realized that life could not have spontaneouslyarisen in “a warm pond.” Crick wrote:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, theorigin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have hadto have been satisfied to get it going” (Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88).Esteemed British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle reached the same conclusion. He called the idea of lifeevolving by chance in a primordial soup “nonsense of a high order.” He likened such an event tozillions upon zillions of blind men solving the Rubik cube simultaneously.“Anyone with even a noodling acquaintance with the Rubik’s cube will concede the near impossibility of asolution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the fiftiethpower blind persons (standing shoulder to shoulder, these would more than fill our entire planetary system)each with a scrambled Rubik’s cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving atthe solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling (random variation) of just one of themany biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operatingprogram of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is nonsenseof a high order” (Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, November 19, 1981, p. 527).7. Every evolutionary origin of life “hypothesis” has the same fatal flaw: it cannot bridgethe barrier between non-life and life.There are many theories as to how life evolved from non-life, but they are more ridiculous thanrealistic. They amount to nothing more than a batch of “just-so” stories. Not one of the theoriesprovides a realistic bridge of the gulf from non-life to life, from inert chemicals to living, selfreplicatingsystems.273

This is true for the prokaryote cell “theory,”, the RNA-first “theory,”, the deep sea vent “theory,”,the peptide “theory,”, the iron-sulfur “theory,”, the autocatalysis “theory,”, the clay “theory,”, thecatalytic noise “theory,”, and all the others.To propose a microsphere or a water bubble or a protobiont or a proteinoid or some such thing asthe path toward life is meaningless, because none of these are living, self-replicating things. Insuch scenarios, you are still left on the non-living side of the chasm.In reality, evolutionists have failed entirely and miserably in their attempts to produce life in atest tube or even to demonstrate that such a thing is within the realm of possibility. Life does notself-generate. Life is generated by life. That is real science. The “life generates itself” story isscience fiction.An excellent discussion of the Miller experiment can be found in Of Pandas and People. AuthorsPercival Davis and Dean Kenyon demonstrate that the seven assumptions of Oparin’s hypothesisof earth’s early atmosphere were wrong.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MILLER EXPERIMENT AS ANICON FOR EVOLUTION1. The Miller experiment was based on conditions that have proven to never have existed. Forexample, it has been demonstrated that oxygen was always present on the earth, whichauthenticates the Bible.2. The Miller experiment provided zero scientific evidence that life could arise from non-life.3. The simplest type of life is amazingly complex and could not have just happened through anaccidental, mindless combination of chemicals.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE MILLER EXPERIMENT1. What is the primordial soup?2. What does “pre-biotic” mean?3. When did Stanley Miller perform his experiment?4. Miller worked with what scientist?5. Upon completion of the experiment, New Scientist magazine announced that “life___________ itself.”6. Dr. Gary Parker lists what three problems with the Miller experiment?7. The Miller experiment is based on evolutionary ________________.8. Dr. Michael Denton says of the pre-biotic soup that “there is absolutely no positive__________ for its existence.”9. It has been demonstrated that _________ has always been present in large quantities.10. What is one of the ways in which Miller added unnatural elements to his experiment?274

11. Michael Pitman says that “earth’s tendency is not to produce proteins, DNA and othercomplex molecules, but to ___________ them.”12. What was the result of the Miller experiment?13. Just one ________________ molecule prevents the creation of proteins.14. Dr. Phillip Johnson says, “The prokaryote bacterial cell is a masterpiece of miniaturized_______________ which makes a _______________ seem rather low tech.”15. What name did Ernst Haeckel give to the mythical life that forms at the bottom of the sea?16. The information in the DNA of one human cell is equivalent to a library of __________books.17. Who was Francis Crick?18. He said “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a ___________.”19. Fred Hoyle called the idea of life evolving by chance in a primordial soup “___________ ofa high order.”20. What is the fatal flaw of every evolutionary origin of life “theory”?WHALE EVOLUTIONAnother icon of evolution is the supposed evolution of the whale from a land animal.In the first edition of On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin speculated that the whale evolvedfrom the bear:“In North America, the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thuscatching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects wereconstant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a raceof bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with largerand larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale” (p. 567).Because zoologists of Darwin’s day considered this story “preposterous,” which it doubtless was,he removed it from later editions of On the Origin of Species; but he said privately that heregretted giving in to his critics (R. Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Searchfor Its Origins, p. 463).Today evolutionists believe that the whale evolved either from a cat-like animal, a wolf-likeanimal, or a hippopotamus-like animal. Probably the most popular idea is that the whale evolvedfrom a MESONYX, a small, hairy, four-legged mammal similar to a wolf, or from a similarcreature called a SINONYX.The whale evolution chart at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle depicts the entire whale familyevolving from a little wolf-like animal. There is a reconstruction of the wolf-like “pro-whale” atthe British Museum of Natural History.Except for the change from the bear to a wolf, the story of whale evolution hasn’t changed muchsince Darwin’s day. Consider the following “just-so” story from National Geographic magazine:275

“The whale’s ascendency to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-leggedmammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into the water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred:hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick, smooth blanket of blubber,nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world the bodybecame enormous” (National Geographic, Dec. 1976).This evolutionary story has as much factual basis as a Hindu myth.Further, the reconstructions have not been scientifically honest.Consider RODHOCETUS, which has been proposed as a missing link between the landmammal and the whale is. It is depicted in museums and textbooks as a creature that has somewhale-like features such as a long whalish snout, a whalish tail or fluke, and flippers, but withfour legs-- short ones in the back and longer ones in the front.The scientist responsible for the reconstruction of Rodhocetus is Dr. Phil Gingerich of theUniversity of Michigan. He oversaw the drawing of Rodhocetus for the university’s museum ofnatural history. It depicts a slim aquatic creature with a long toothy snout, a fluked tale, andflipper-like hands on its legs and feet.While filming for the video documentary Evolution: The Great Experiment, Dr. Carl Werner,noticed a discrepancy at the university’s fossil display between drawings of Rodhocetus and theactual fossils. In particular, there are no fossils for the fluke or the flippers, the very things thatare used as evidence that this creature is a missing link in the evolution of the whale.In an interview, Dr. Gingerich confirmed that the drawings are mere speculation. He said, “Wedon’t have the tail in Rodhocetus. We don’t know for certain whether it had a ball vertebrateindicating a fluke or not. So I SPECULATED that it might have had a fluke.” Gingerich alsoacknowledged that the flippers were drawn without fossil evidence and subsequent findings haveconfirmed that that Rodhocetus did not have flippers. He said:“Since then, we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understandthat it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale. If you don’thave flippers, I don’t think you can have a fluked tail and really powered swimming. So I now doubt thatRodhocetus would have had a fluked tail” (Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, p. 143).Gingerich’s answers on camera were a bombshell, since even the museum’s own drawings stillhad flippers on the creature.After showing the amazing interview with Dr. Gingerich, Evolution: The Grant Experimentconcludes:“Many experts consider whales to be the best fossil evidence for evolution but are unaware of thesediscrepancies. Opponents of evolution contend that whale evolution is nothing more than hopeful supposition.If museum diagrams are redrawn and corrected for various discrepancies opponents argue that whaleevolution is nonexistent.”276

It is important to note that the same documentary features interviews with scientists who citeRodhocetus as indisputable evidence for the evolution of the whale! For example, Dr. TaseerHussain, paleontologist and professor of anatomy at Howard University and research associate atthe Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, says on camera: “We have a complete,modern whale-type structure in Rodhocetus” (Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, p. 143).This highly-placed scientist continues to promote an icon of evolution that has been totallydiscredited.Consider PAKICETUS. This proposed missing link was also discovered by Phil Gingerich inPakistan. Gingerich claimed that “in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, amissing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales” (Gingerich, “TheWhales of Tethys,” Natural History, April 1994, p. 86). It was trotted out in the 2001 PBS series“Evolution.” Though only a few skull fragments had been unearthed, it was claimed that thecreature had “an inner ear like a whale’s” and it was depicted as swimming and catching fishunderwater. On the flimsiest fossil “evidence,” Gingrich provided an illustration forschoolteachers of the Pakicetus swimming underwater like a whale, propelling itself with finlookingpaws and a stumpy tail allegedly on its way to disappearing altogether (JonathanSarfarti, Refuting Evolution 2, p. 136). This fanciful reconstruction was based on a mere fewbone fragments!When more bones of Pakicetus were unearthed, whale experts J. Thewissen, E. Williams, L. Roe,and S. Hussain stated in Nature magazine that it was strictly a land animal. “All the postcranialbones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals...” (“Skeletons of Terrestrial Cataceans andthe Relationship of Whales to Artiodactyls,” Nature, Sept. 20, 2001).The new drawing of Pakicetus shows a creature very different than the one broadcast by PBSand depicted in other forums. It was actually a dog-like animal with a pointy snout and a longtail. No swimming underwater like a whale, no finnish-looking paws, no stumpy tail on the wayto disappearing. There is zero evidence that the Pakicetus had anything whatsoever to do withwhales!Consider BASILOSAURUS, which is also used as a link in the chain of whale evolution. It wasfeatured in the Discovery Channel’s series Walking with Dinosaurs and also in the NationalGeographic’s special report “Evolution of the Whale” (November 2001).Basilosaurus was a large sea creature, for sure, but it was probably a reptile. Though someevolutionists claim it was a mammal, the evidence that it was cold blooded is impressive. Careerbiology teacher Kenneth Poppe says:“Its vertebral column, teeth, and nostrils much more resemble the seagoing dinosaurs called mosasaurus andplesiosaurus, and the small turbinates in the skull show it to be a cold-blooded creature. ... paleontologists areadamant the basilosaurus was not an intermediate in transition, but an established and permanent species in277

its own right that has no close ancestors or descendants. ... why is the reptile basilosaurus directly used toconnect mammalian rodents to mammalian whales?” (Reclaiming Science from Darwinism, pp. 205, 208).Further, the evolutionary time line is wrong. Dr. Lawrence Barnes, a whale evolution expert atthe Natural History Museum in Los Angeles, notes that the Basilosaurus didn’t live until after“modern” whales evolved. He says: “... Basilosaurus existed at a time when baleen-bearingmysticetes [baleen whales] are known to have existed, and echolocating odontocetes [toothedwhales] are presumed to have existed” (Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, p. 144).The alleged “evidence” for whale evolution really boils down to two things, and they arenothing more than evolutionary assumptions.First, there is homology, meaning the similarity between certain creatures that fit theevolutionary model of how whale evolution should have happened. A typical chart is the one atthe Museum of Natural History at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. At the top is a dog-likecreature and below that are three other creatures that grow progressively more similar in shape toa whale (though all the while being dramatically different from the whale). Even if these extinctcreatures actually looked like the evolutionary drawings, which in some key cases is highlydoubtful, this does not add up to evidence for whale evolution.Evolutionary descent cannot be proven for fossils. It is impossible to prove that long-deadcreatures have some sort of evolutionary genealogy. This was admitted by Colin Patterson of theBritish Natural History Museum:“... statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx theancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enoughto make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should befavored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for THERE IS NO WAY OF PUTTINGTHEM TO THE TEST” (Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, cited from Sunderland’sDarwin’s Enigma, pp. 101, 102).Remove the evolutionary assumptions, and the “evidence” disappears. It is just as logical tobelieve that each of the fossil creatures was created by God. In fact, this view is far morescientific, because science has demonstrated repeatedly that the various kinds of life forms havebuilt in boundaries that cannot be breached. The millions of fruit fly experiments, for example,prove this. No matter what is done to the creature, it remains a fruit fly. No new structures orfunctional organs are formed; no new creature arises. Since this is true for creatures living today,creatures that we can scientifically examine, there is no good reason to believe that it was nottrue for creatures in the past. The fruit fly experiments have demonstrated scientifically thatgenetic mutations could not have produced the myriad of wonderful life forms that exist.Another example is the whale exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. The anklebone of a deer and the ankle bone of Rodhocetus are shown side-by-side with the followingexplanation: “Similar ankle bone assemblies in this deer and in early whales strongly indicatetheir ancestral relationship.” Observe that they are assuming that Rodhocetus was a type of278

whale, whereas there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this. They are also assuming thatsimilarity in some structure is evidence of evolution, when this, too, has never beendemonstrated. Everything is presumed; no scientific evidence has been provided; no geneticmodel has even been imagined.The second supposed evidence for whale evolution is the evolutionary naming system, wherebysome extinct creatures are named “whales” and then used as evidence of evolution.Consider the following statement from a biographical sketch of Phil Gingerich which waspublished prior to a 2007 lecture series at the University of Alabama: “He has done research onthe phylogeny and origin of whales, including the discovery and description of the earliestknown whale, Pakicetus, and the archaic whale, Rodhocetus...” (“UA Evolution LectureshipSeries,” UA News, April 12, 2007).In truth, there is no scientific evidence that either of these creatures were “whales.” They wereput into the whale category on the basis of evolutionary assumptions, and having been namedwhales, they are now dogmatically stated to be such and are used as evidence of whaleevolution! This is circular reasoning with a vengeance!Evolutionary myths aside, consider how miraculous it would be for a wolf or a bear or anysuch creature to evolve into the 13 families and 79 species of whales, from the finlessporpoise measuring about four feet long, to the blue whale measuring 100 feet. The latter weighs360,000 pounds (the equivalent of 2,000 people); its tongue is the size and weight of an Africanelephant; its heart is the size of a small car; its heart pumps 2,640 gallons of blood; and a humancould swim through its massive aorta (Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1. p.40).Dr. Duane Gish describes the incredible faith required to believe in the evolution of a whale froma land creature:“Evolutionists are forced to believe that whatever the need may be, no matter how complex and unusual,random genetic errors were able to produce the structures required in a perfectly coordinated manner. ... Itrequires an enormous faith in miracles, where materialist philosophy actually forbids them, to believe thatsome hairy, four-legged mammal crawled into the water and gradually, over eons of time, gave rise towhales, dolphins, sea cows, seals, sea lions, walruses, and other marine mammals via thousands andthousands of random genetic errors. This blind hit and miss method supposedly generated the many highlyspecialized complex organs and structures without which these whales could not function, complexstructures which in incipient stages would be totally useless and actually detrimental. Evolution theory is anincredible faith” (The Fossils Still Say No, pp. 206-208).Consider the problem of the evolution of the whale’s diving ability.“Bottlenose dolphins easily dive to depths of nearly 1200 feet. The beaked whale can dive to a depth of over1600 feet. The largest of the toothed whales, the sperm whale (length about 65 feet and weight about 120,000pounds) dives easily to 3,000 feet and can dive even to a depth of almost 10,000 feet, nearly two miles. Inorder to withstand the enormous pressures at such great depths, which even at depths of about 3,000 feetreach pressures almost 100 times that at sea level, the cranial and auditory apparatus of the whale must bevery specially modified, including greatly increased vascularization of the ear. The sperm whale has a huge279

chamber containing several hundred gallons of sperm oil, or spermaceti, which alters according to depth andtemperature to permit adjustment in buoyancy. Before diving, this whale goes through a ten-minute breathingexercise in order for its muscles, blood, and lungs to store oxygen. Its blood contains 50% more hemoglobinthan human blood, and while humans use only 10-20% of their breathed air for energy, this whale can utilize80-90%. During a dive only 9% of its oxygen is derived from the lungs while 41% comes from blood and 50%from muscles and tissues” (Gish, The Fossils Still Say No).Consider the problem of evolving complex sonar equipment with the accompanying intelligenceto interpret the signals:“In order to help them ‘see’ at depths in the darkness, toothed whales are equipped with a sonar, orecholocation system. It is reported that they can hear sounds emitted under water from distances of sixtymiles” (The Fossils Still Say No, p. 206).Consider the problem of the change in the pelvis:“One of the principal problems for Darwinians in whale evolution is constructing a pattern of events for thewhale’s tail to emerge in small, naturally selected steps. The point is that the tail moves up and down, whereasin a land mammal it moves from side to side. This may sound a relatively small difference, but anatomically itis not. It means that somehow the whale’s ancestor had to get rid of its pelvis. ... According to Michael Pitman,a young Cambridge University biologist who has made a study of the problem, ‘every downward movement ofsuch a tail would crush the reproductive opening of the creature against the back of the pelvis, causing painand harm.’ ... Natural selection would work against, not for, such a change. So for the up-down action inwhales to emerge, there simultaneously had to be random genetic changes that diminished the pelvis whileallowing the tail to grow larger. Apart from the stupefyingly long odds against such a chain of eventshappening by chance, Pitman has concluded that there is a further anatomical objection. At a certain point inthe supposed transitionary period, the hip bone would have been ‘too small to support the hind legs and yettoo large to permit the musculature necessary to move the great tail of the whale’” (Francis Hitching, personalcommunication with Michael Pitman, The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 70).Douglas Dewar, a fellow of the Zoological Society, says:“Both whales and sea cows swim by the up and down movement of the great flattened tail. Such movement isimpossible in a land animal that has a pelvis, but a well-developed pelvis is essential to every land animalwhich uses its hind legs for walking. ... I have repeatedly asked evolutionists to describe or draw the skeletonof a creature of which the pelvis and hind legs are anatomically midway between the state that prevails inwhales and sea cows on the one hand, and a land quadruped on the other. No one has accepted thechallenge, and of course a fossil of such a creature has not been found...” (“The Case Against OrganicEvolution,” Witnesses Against Evolution, edited by John Meldau, 1968, p. 55).Consider the problem of the baby whale:“The babies of whales are born under water. If they were delivered in the way human babies are normallydelivered--head first--they would not survive. All whales are born tail first. Baby whales must nurse underwater. If they had to nurse in the usual way they would either drown or starve to death. No problem. Themammary glands of the mother whale are equipped with muscles which enable her to rapidly squirt the milkinto the baby’s mouth under such pressure it would create a fountain above water six feet high. Her milkcontains 42% fat and 12% protein, compared to 4.4% fat and 1% protein of human mother’s milk. A baby bluewhale drinks about 200 pounds of milk daily, gaining about 175 pounds each day” (The Fossils Still Say No, p.207).The baby whale’s mouth fits snugly into its mother’s body so the sea water won’t get mixed withthe milk, and its windpipe is elongated above the gullet so milk cannot flow into its lungs (DavidWatson, Myths and Miracles, pp. 27, 28). “This design had to be perfect in both the mother andthe baby whale from the very first time a baby whale was born and needed to nurse underwater.”280

These are only a few of the problems inherent in evolving a wolf (or any other land creature) intoa whale.Another myth associated with the evolution of the whale is the alleged VESTIGIAL “HINDLEGS.”Thomas Huxley said, “No doubt whales had hind legs once upon a time” (Adrian Desmond,Huxley, p. 347).The following statement of the vestigial “hind leg” myth is from a biology textbook:“Consider that normal sperm whales, like all whales, have small pelvic bones but no hind legs. A very smallpercentage of sperm whales, however, have vestigial leg bones, and some sperm whales even have bonesupportedbumps protruding from their body. Whales probably are descended from an ancestor that lived onland. In the whales’ genome, many of the genes needed to make hind legs have been conserved, or haveremained unchanged. In normal whales, the genes for hind legs are turned off. In rare cases, however, thegenes are partially turned on, and vestigial hind legs form. Thus, whales and other living things may displaytheir evolutionary history in the usually unexpressed genes they carry” (Modern Biology, Holt, Rinehart, andWinston, 1999, p. 290).The alleged “hind legs” are actually bones that are not attached to the whale’s skeleton. Thewhale has no sign of a pelvis or any other mechanism that has anything to do with actualvestigial legs. The bones in question strengthen the reproductive organs and are different inmales and females.Whale evolution is not science; it is a wild-eyed story.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF WHALEEVOLUTION1. It is impossible to prove evolutionary descent from the fossil record. One can observe certainsimilarities of structures, but this does not prove that one type of extinct creature had any type ofevolutionary connection with another. This can only be assumed; it cannot be proven. It is notscience.2. To name an extinct creature a “whale” does not make it a whale.3. To change a wolf-like creature into a whale would require a miracle as great as that describedin Genesis 1.4. The idea that the whale has vestigial hind legs is a myth.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON WHALE EVOLUTION1. Charles Darwin thought the whale evolved from the ___________.281

2. Most evolutionists today believe that the whale evolved from what type of creature?3. In what way was the reconstruction of the Rodhocetus unscientific?4. Who is Phil Gingerich?5. What did he admit to Dr. Carl Werner?6. Why was it unscientific in 2001 to depict the Pakicetus swimming underwater like a whale,propelling itself with fin-looking paws?7. What happened to discredit this view of Pakicetus?8. The Basilosaurus was a __________, whereas whales are __________.9. What are the two supposed evidences of whale evolution?10. The blue whale weighs the equivalent of how many people?11. Its tongue is the size and weight of an African _______________.12. What are three of the amazing things that would have to happen for a wolf to evolve into awhale?13. What are two ways the mother whale is perfectly equipped to nurse a baby whale?14. How do we know that the “vestigial hind legs” are no such thing?ARCHAEOPTERYX AND BIRD EVOLUTIONThe accepted idea among evolutionists is that birds evolved from reptilian dinosaurs, and theArchaeopteryx has been used as a major icon of this transition for over a century.Archaeopteryx is an extinct bird that has been preserved in amazing detail in a handful of fossils.It was the size of a typical “modern bird” and had feathered wings and a long feathered tail.Early on, Darwinists latched onto it as a missing link because of supposed “reptilian” featuressuch as teeth, a long bony tail, and claws on its wings.All seven of the major Archaeopteryx fossils were found in the same limestone quarry inSolnhofen, Germany, a quarry long famous for its beautifully-preserved fossils. The firstspecimen was found in 1861.It was Thomas Huxley who proposed the dinosaur to bird evolution, and he used Archaeopteryxas the major piece of evidence for this myth. In his lectures Huxley had his students envision a“Jurassic past” when “tiny dinosaurs with long hind limbs passed by degrees into ancientflightless birds ... and these via Archaeopteryx’s kin into the song birds heralding today’sdawn” (Adrian Desmond, Huxley, p. 359).Darwin with his bear-whale and Huxley with his dinosaur-bird had fantastic imaginations.Huxley mocked Bible Christianity as “blind faith,” but a bear turning into a whale and a dinosaurinto a bird is pure science fiction.282

Raging Controversy - No ConsensusArchaeopteryx has been the subject of heated controversy since its discovery. Paul Chambers,author of a history of the Archaeopteryx, says, “[It] has probably been at the centre of morebitterness and confrontation than any other single scientific object. This rancour began in 1961and is just as vigorous today. ... The bitterness it engenders is, if anything, worse today...” (Bonesof Contention, pp. ix, x).Though evolutionists generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs in some fashion, thereare competing theories. Some believe that birds evolved from Archaeopteryx or a similarcreature. Others believe flying birds evolved from non-flying ostrich-like birds. Others believethat birds did not evolve directly from dinosaurs but that both evolved from a common ancestor.This very vocal group (which includes Alan Feduccia) is sometimes known by the acronymBAND, meaning Birds Are Not Dinosaurs. Others believe that birds evolved from a crocodilelikereptile.There are two major theories about how birds evolved:First, there is the “tree down” proposition, which says birds learned to fly by first learning toglide from trees.Second, there is the “ground up” proposition, whereby birds evolved powered flight from theground up.The different groups have sometimes been at each other’s throats. “Speakers were shouted downat conferences and papers were blocked from publication ... I have even heard one persondescribe the opposite side as Nazis” (Chambers, pp. 192, 193).When evolutionists treat fellow evolutionists in such a manner, it should be no surprise that theyare so venomous toward creationists!It’s Just a BirdAfter over a century of brazen Darwinian hype in literature and museum displays, which havestated or implied that Archaeopteryx was some sort of missing link between dinosaurs and birds,the view that it is simply a bird is now becoming predominant.This is true even though Archaeopteryx continues to be paraded before the public in textbooksand museums as a missing link. Consider, for example, the widely-distributed publicationTeaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (by the National Academy of Sciences,1998) featured Archaeopteryx as the preeminent example of a missing link. On page 8 is thefollowing imaginary “dialogue” between teachers:283

“Karen: A student in one of my classes at university told me that there are big gaps in the fossil record. Doyou know anything about that?“Doug: Well, there’s Archaeopteryx. It’s a fossil that has feathers like a bird but the skeleton of a smalldinosaur. It’s one of those missing links that’s not missing any more.”A mere four years later, Paul Chambers concluded his 2002 history of the Archaeopteryx withthese words:“Most now feel that the Archaeopteryx is actually a type of primitive bird rather than a feathered reptile orfeathered dinosaur” (Bones of Contention, p. 253).Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds, says:“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is abird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that” (cited by V. Morell,“Archaeopteryx: Early bird catches a can of worms,” Science, Feb. 5, 1993, pp. 764-65).Archaeopteryx had elliptically-shaped wings made of flying feathers with the avian barb-barbulesystem that ingeniously fastens the feathers together to allow for flight. Its feathers areasymmetrical in shape, meaning there are more filaments on one side of the central vane than theother, which is essential for flight (Paul Chambers, Bones of Contention, p. 217). Like the curvedwing of an airplane, the asymmetrical shape of the bird’s wing provides lift. Only flightless birdshave symmetrical feathers.It had a moveable upper and lower jaw, unlike most reptiles which have only a moveablemandible or lower jaw (White and Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, p. 81).It had a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings(Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, p. 59).It was once thought that Archaeopteryx had solid bones like a reptile rather than thin and hollowbones like a bird, but it is now known that its bones were both thin and hollow.A CT scan of the brain case of Archaeopteryx performed in 2004 found that the brain was likethat of a modern bird. Its brain was larger than that of the typical dinosaur of the same body sizeand had large regions for vision (taking up nearly one-third of the brain), hearing, and musclecoordination. Also, the inner ear “more closely resembles that of modern birds than the inner earof reptiles.” “These characteristics taken together suggest that Archaeopteryx had the keen senseof hearing, balance, spatial perception and coordination needed to fly” (L. Witmer, “Inside theOldest Bird Brain,” Nature, 430(7000): 619-620; P. D. Alonso, et al, “The Avian Nature of theBrain and Inner Ear of Archaeopteryx,” Nature, 430(7000): 666-669).284

Evolutionary AssumptionApart from evolutionary bias and presumption, there is zero scientific evidence thatArchaeopteryx or any other of the proposed dino-birds are “missing links” on a path toward birdevolution.What about the supposed “reptile” features? They no more prove that Archaeopteryx was anevolving dinosaur than a platypus’s duck bill proves that it is an evolving duck.Francis Hitching, who is an evolutionist, says, “Every one of its supposed reptilian features canbe found in various species of undoubted birds” (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 21).Dr. Jonathan Sarfati observes:“The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status--a number of extinct birds had teeth,while many reptiles do not” (Refuting Evolution, p. 59).The Archaeopteryx is no problem for the Bible believer. God made all sorts of flying creatures.There are flying insects, flying reptiles, flying mammals (bats), and flying birds, and there arevast numbers of varieties of each.In fact, Hermann von Meyer, the man who named Archaeopteryx, was a creationist who believedthat the creature had nothing to do with evolution."I do not believe that God formed His creatures after the system devised by our philosophical wisdom. Of theclasses of birds and modern reptiles as we define them, the Creator knows nothing, and just as little of aprototype, or of a constant embryonic condition of the bird, which might be recognised in the Archaeopteryx.The Archaeopteryx is of its kind just as perfect a creature as other creatures, and if we are not able to includethis fossil in our system, our short-sightedness is alone to blame" (von Meyer, cited by Chambers, Bones ofContention, p. 98).No Scientific Explanation for Such an Amazing ChangeEvolutionists have never provided scientifically-feasible evidence of how a reptile could changeinto a bird.Darwinists focus on a few supposed “reptilian” characteristics of the Archaeopteryx whileignoring the vast amount of fantastic modification that would be required to turn a reptile into abird.Following are just some of these:A heavy earth-bound body would have to evolve into a light-weight, aerodynamic one. AlanFeduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an evolutionist who is a worldauthority on birds, says:285

“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds [hind legs] with foreshortened forelimbsand heavy, balancing tails” (quoted by A. Gibbons, “New Feathered fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer,”Science, 1996, cited from White and Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, p. 82).Solid bones would have to evolve into hollow bones that are light but incredibly strong.Scales would have to evolve into complex flight feathers. A “simple” pigeon feather is composedof more than one million individual parts made up of billions of cells perfectly organized into amarvel of design. The flight feather is an amazingly complex system with the following threemajor features (adapted from Burgess, p. 39).* a hollow stem containing air or foam, which starts out as a circle near the root of the featherand changes into a rectangular shape which is structurally stronger* barbs angle off of the stem forming the basic feather shape* two sets of barbules angle off of the barbs, with one set of barbules having hooks that interlockwith a set of non-hooked barbules; there can be hundreds of thousands of barbules in one featherWith the barbules hooked, the wing has a lightweight flat surface that the bird uses to pushagainst the air. The barbules prevent air from passing through the wing on the downward motionwhile allowing air to pass through on the wing’s upward motion.Michael Pitman, who taught biology at Cambridge, describes the marvelous design of the flightfeather:“Some large feathers contain over a million barbules, with hooks and eye-lets to match, in perfect order. Thefeather is useless without this interlocking mechanism which acts something like an automatic zip fastenerwhose disturbance preening rearranges. When outstretched in flight, the hooks cause the whole wingassemblyto form a continuous sheet to catch the wind. The whole feather is a cohesive, elastic and lightstructure, well-designed to function as an air-resistant surface. Sensory receptors record its precise position.Over both wings they effect the continuous variations and fine adjustments of more than ten thousand tinymuscles attached to the bases of the feathers. Behold the parts of a precious instrument of aerospace,unparalleled in design and workmanship by human technology” (Adam and Evolution, p. 222).Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself by spewing outhatred toward the God of the Bible and saying all sorts of ridiculous things. One of the silliest isthat “feathers are modified reptilian scales” (Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996, p. 113).Right. There’s barely any difference to speak of, except that scales are folds in the skin, whereas“feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules, and hooks [that] originate in a totallydifferent way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to mammalian hair” (JonathanSarfati, Refuting Evolution, p. 64). Dr. Sarfati adds, “For scales to have evolved into feathersmeans that a significant amount of genetic information had to arise in the bird’s DNA which wasnot present in that of its alleged reptile ancestor.”286

Bellows-like lungs would have to evolve into the avian sac-like lungs.“Bird respiration involves a unique ‘flow-through ventilation’ into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacssandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take partin oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs. The air sacs permit aunidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with thebidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. ... The unidirectional flow through bird lungsnot only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearlyconstant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path” (The New Answers Book 1, pp. 300, 301).Dr. Jonathan Sarfati also describes the vast difference between the reptilian and the avianbreathing systems.“Drastic changes are needed to turn a reptile lung into a bird lung. Reptile lungs work like bellows, the air isdrawn in, and the stale air is then breathed out the same way it came in. In the lung, blood extracts the oxygenand releases carbon dioxide on the surfaces of ingrowths called septae (singular septa). But birds have acomplicated system of air sacs, even involving the hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in onedirection through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through thelung’s blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake, an excellent engineering design.How would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs?” (Refuting Evolution, pp. 66,67).Michael Denton, Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College, London, observes:“Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebratedesign is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratoryfunction is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to deathwithin minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules arecoadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until theparabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their airsupply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner” (Evolution: ATheory in Crisis).Lymph fluid would have to evolve into blood.An egg with a leathery cover would have to evolve into an egg with a hardened calciferous shell.A reptile would have to change into a mammal.Dr. Jonathan Sarfati lists some of the differences between the mammal and the reptile:* Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heartwith four chambers instead of three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally differentsystem of blood supply to the eye.* Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.* Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.* Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the thorax and abdomen,which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breathe in a different way.287

* Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness), requiring a complextemperature control mechanism.* The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from all reptile ears.* Mammalian kidneys have a ‘very high ultrafiltration rate of the blood.’ This means the heartmust be able to produce the required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete ureainstead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated tomaintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine system(Refuting Evolution, p. 56).A land-bound reptile brain would have to evolve into an avian brain capable of thriving in acompletely different environment.A creature that can only grunt or squeal or croak would have to evolve the ability to sing prettysongs.This would require the evolution of the two sets of membranes that are located in the songbird’ssyrinx (voice box) so that it can produce independent sounds of two voices at once.“Birds vocalize with the syrinx, a sound-producing organ located at the junction of the two bronchi at the baseof the trachea. These two bronchial sides can actually be stimulated independently, so they can each producedifferent sounds at the same time, as happens in the clear, flutelike song of the Wood Thrush” (Bird Songs:250 North American Birds in Song, foreword by Jon Dunn, p. 6).Birds can take mini-breaths that are so brief and so perfectly synchronized with their songs theydo not produce any discernible gaps.Some birds transpose songs from one key to another. Some, such as the eastern whipbird and thebuff-breasted wren, sing duets. Some birds engage in countersinging and antiphonal singing,with one bird singing part of a song and another bird singing another part. This requiresknowledge of the duet by both partners and split-second timing in its execution. Some birds evensing matched duetting in a group of four. “Three or more birds sing--males, then females, thenmales, and so on--to produce what sounds like a single melody.”A creature that lives and dies in one place would have to evolve the ability to migrate longdistances.The arctic tern migrates more than 9,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic. An Alaskan bartailedgodwit that was tracked with a satellite tag flew 6,800 miles in one eight-day flight(www.plosbiology.org). The golden plover migrates from Alaska to Hawaii, unerringly finding atiny island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean after a journey of 3,000 miles. The whimbrelmigrates non-stop 3,500 miles from the Southampton Island in Canada’s Arctic to the mouth ofthe Amazon River in Brazil. One whimbrel that was tagged with a radio transmitter flew throughHurricane Irene when it was a category 3 storm and survived (“Bird Migrates through HurricaneIrene,” USA Today, August 28, 2011). The bar-headed goose migrates over the Himalayan288

mountains, flying more than five and a half miles high where there is little oxygen. The rubythroatedhummingbird flies non-stop 450 miles across the Gulf of Mexico in 20 hours, beating itstiny wings nearly 3 million times on that amazing journey.And this amazing reptile to bird evolutionary process, which is blind and non-intelligent anddirectionless, would have to produce 24 orders of birds from eagles to woodpeckers to swans topenguins to hummingbirds!Career biology instructor Kenneth Poppe observes:“Try to imagine the incredible numbers of oddball species necessary to bridge the gaps between any lizardand any bird. It takes a most active imagination to conjure even a hypothetical fossil record. For example,describe the anatomy of an intermediate species that transitions from cold- to warm-blooded, which a reptilewould have to do en route to becoming a bird. Considering the specificities and complexities of both metabolicsystems, any type of ‘half and half’ would be something out of poorly done science fiction” (ReclaimingScience from Darwinism, p. 218).The Croco-birdAn even more ridiculous idea, if that is possible, held by some scientists, is that birds evolvedfrom the crocodylomorpha or an ancient type of “terrestrial crocodile.”At a conference in Bavaria in September 1984, this view was put forth as one of the possiblepaths of bird evolution. The textbook Understanding Biology through Evolution by Bruce Olsencalls crocodiles and birds “cousins” and claims that both evolved through the archosaur (“rulinglizard”).Though attempts have been made to describe how a crocodile could become a bird, even themost ardent evolutionists have to admit that they “cannot as yet offer any plausible explanationfor the origin of the unique shaft, barbs, and barbules without which modern feathers would haveneither aerodynamic nor insulatory function” (Regal, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 1975, p.35).That could be the mother of all understatements! We have already seen some of the amazingphysical changes that would be necessary for a dinosaur of any type to evolve into a bird.At the genetic level, there are billions of things that would have to change to turn a crocodile intoa bird. As the biochemist Dr. Duane Gish observes, “What makes such stories or scenarios soincredible is the belief of evolutionists that whatever is needed will be produced by geneticchange or mutations, which are totally random with no particular end in view” (Evolution: TheFossils Still Say No, p. 104).Further, what motivation could a crocodile have in becoming a bird? He is already perfectlyadapted (one could even say “designed”) for his earth-bound environment.289

Was he discontented? Did he have a secret wish to fly? Where would such a strange impulsecome from? If it were an outside force that moved him in that direction, what was that force?Blind evolution? The “law” of natural selection? Aliens? Gaia? Magic?And all along the evolutionary trail from croc to bird, if this actually happened, the poor crocobirdwould have developed things that would be of no use to him in his natural environment, andwould, in fact, have been absolute hindrances. I am thinking of things such as a half wing. Tryrunning around with half a wing hanging from your side! Try building a crocodile nest with littlebird feet! Try breathing when your breathing apparatus has begun to morph into a completelydifferent system!And let’s suppose that somehow and for some reason the crocodile developed every necessarypart of the flying equipment and survived the torturous path of existing as a part-croc, part-bird,who would teach him how to fly? There would have been no birds to imitate, because this fellowwas supposedly the first bird. How many attempts would the croco-bird have to make before hegot airborne? Maybe he climbed a tall tree (a crocodile that can learn to fly can doubtless climb atree) and practiced gliding for a while in order to get the hang of it. Why would a crocodile wantto jump out of a tree? Why didn’t it hurt itself and just quit such nonsense long before anythingproductive happened? Sooner or later the croco-bird had to have taken off on his own. Maybe hefound an incline and ran as fast as his little croco-bird feet could go and got airborne that way,kind of like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk. Just what was that first croco-bird flight like?Wouldn’t it have been something to see!Once the croco-bird got off the ground, what would he do? Would a flying crocodile be afraid ofheight?Evolutionists would argue, perhaps, that they don’t believe that birds evolved from a moderncrocodile but from an extinct kind. O.K. Take any old type of crocodile you want, big or small,terrestrial or aquatic, and the scenario is the same.No wonder science fiction has been so closely associated with evolution. (See the report“Beware of Science Fiction” at the Way of Life web site.)Darwin: Look for Countless IntermediariesA few questionable fossils proffered as missing links do not prove evolution. As Charles Darwinsaid, his doctrine requires the existence of COUNTLESS intermediaries.Phillip Johnson observes:“if we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a singlegood candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history ofcontinual evolutionary transformation” (Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 81).290

What If Some Dinosaurs Had Feathers?The “evidence” that some dinosaurs had feathers is highly questionable, but what if some type ofdinosaur creature did have feathers?As Ken Ham observes:“What if a dinosaur fossil was found with feathers on it? Would that prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs?No, a duck has a duck bill and webbed feet, as does a platypus, but nobody believes that this proves thatplatypuses evolved from ducks. The belief that reptiles or dinosaurs evolved into birds requires reptilian scaleson the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers. A dinosaur-like fossilwith feathers would just be another curious mosaic, like the platypus, and part of the pattern of similaritiesplaced in creatures to show the hand of the one true Creator God who made everything” (The New AnswersBook 1, p. 173).Mythical Evolutionary ArtThe dino-bird hypothesis has been most successfully promoted as an icon of evolution via theuse of mythical art.The drawings and models of dino-birds in books and museums are a great deception. Withoutsupporting evidence, features are added to dinosaurs to make them look bird-like and theresulting mythical creations are presented as icons of evolution to an unsuspecting public. Evensome evolutionists have protested this practice.“In an open letter to the National Geographic society, Dr. Storrsolson, a Smithsonian Institute evolutionscientist, has referred to the practice of adding features to dinosaurs as ‘propaganda, hype, wishfulthinking, melodramatic, nonsense, spurious, fantasia, and a hoax.’ He wrote, ‘... the idea of featureddinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists actingin concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspokenand highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing evidence have beenamong the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientifichoaxes of our age’” (letter dated November 1, 1999, cited from the documentary Evolution: The GrandExperiment).ProavisGerhard Heilmann's The Origin of Birds (1926) featured a life-like picture of Proavis, thesupposed missing link. It is depicted with both scales and feathers and is shown climbing a treeand gliding through the air like a flying squirrel. This is pure myth. There is no fossil evidencefor such a creature, but it fit Heilmann’s “tree-down” proposition that dinosaurs first developedthe ability to glide before they developed powered flight. Heilmann hated God and the Bible. His1940 book The Universe and Tradition is “peppered with anti-religious feelings.”In spite of its mythical character, “the impact of Heilmann's book cannot beexaggerated” (Chambers, p. 163). That is no doubt true. Only the Lord can calculate how manypeople have been influenced to believe in evolution and thus to disbelieve the Bible because ofdeceptive evolutionary art.291

BambiraptorBambiraptor was unveiled in 1995 as the latest evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution. Thewell-preserved fossil was found in Montana and looks like a Velociraptor, which is a chickensizedT. rex.The skeleton and a reconstruction were exhibited at the 2000 Florida Symposium on DinosaurBird Evolution. Brian Cooley’s reconstruction magically transformed the bare skeleton into abird-like dinosaur, with bird-like eyes in bird-like orientation, bird-like leg muscles, even prettybird feathers! (See Icons of Evolution, p. 129.)Jonathan Wells makes the important observation that “nothing remotely resembling feathers wasfound with the fossil” (Icons of Evolution, p. 128).The Australia Museum in Sydney has an exhibit “proving” the evolution of dinosaur to bird. Onedisplay case features Bambiraptor, Archaeopteryx, and a pheasant. The Bambiraptor is running,looking for all the world as if it is trying to get off the ground, while the Archaeopteryx is flyinglevel, not far off the ground above the Bambiraptor, perhaps a bit unsteadily as a newcomer toflight, with the pheasant soaring easily above its supposed evolutionary predecessors.This is myth perpetrated through evolutionary art and the fanciful placement of skeletons.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF BIRD EVOLUTION1. After years of being called a missing link, Archaeopteryx is now being treated as a “true bird”by evolutionists.2. It is impossible to prove from the fossil record that one type of creature evolved into anothertype.3. To change a small dinosaur into a bird would require a miracle as great as that described inGenesis 1.4. The artwork pertaining to bird evolution is mythical.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ARCHAEOPTERYX AND BIRD EVOLUTION1. When was the first fossil Archaeopteryx found and in what country?2. Who first proposed that birds evolved from dinosaurs?3. What fossil did this man use as “evidence” for this?4. What is the title of Paul Chambers’ book about the history of Archaeopteryx?5. What are the two major evolutionary theories about how birds evolved?292

6. Paul Chambers says, “Most now feel that the Archaeopteryx is actually a primitive ______rather than a feathered reptile.”7. World bird authority Alan Feduccia says the Archaeopteryx “is a _______.”8. What type of feathers did the Archaeopteryx have?9. What type of bones did the Archaeopteryx have?10. A CT scan found that Archaeopteryx “had the keen sense of hearing, balance, spatialperception and coordination needed to ______.”11. Francis Hitching says, “Every one of its supposed reptilian feature can be found in variousspecies of undoubted _______.”12. What is significant about the fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth?13. What are five things that would be necessary for a reptile to change into a bird?14. What are barbules and what is their purpose?15. What are three differences between the mammal and the reptile?16. The unidirectional flow-through bird lungs keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly______.”17. What is unique about the songbird’s voice box?18. The Arctic Tern migrates _________ miles from ____________ to _______________?19. Darwin said his doctrine requires how many intermediaries?20. If it were proven that some dinosaurs had feathers, why would this not prove that birdsevolved from dinosaurs?21. The dino-bird hypothesis has been most successfully promoted as an icon of evolution via theuse of ____________ _______.22. In evolutionary art, features are added to dinosaurs to make them look __________.23. Dr. Storrsolson of the Smithsonian Institute referred to the practice of adding bird-likefeatures to dinosaurs as “_____________ ... and a ________.”BILLIONS OF YEARSThe idea that the universe is billions of years old is probably the major evolutionary icon that isused to “prove” evolution and to contradict the Bible’s teaching on origins.Before Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, doubt had been cast on the Bible’syoung earth teaching through Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian “theory” of geology with its claimthat the earth is millions of years old. As Ian Taylor comments,“... the revolution from young earth to old earth was the snowball starting the whole avalanche that eventuallychanged mankind’s entire worldview” (In the Minds of Men, p. 284).Lyell was as much a Bible hater as he was a geologist. His objective was to destroy the authorityof the Genesis record. He hoped to use his uniformitarian “theory” to drive men “out of theMosaic record” (Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, I, pp. 253, 256, 328, cited fromJohn Whitcomb, The World that Perished, p. 70). Darwin and his fellow evolutionists lovedLyell’s uniformitarian doctrine because it provided them with the eons of time needed to makeevolution seem feasible.293

“... it was the imperative need for great antiquity that deposed catastrophism, rather than any newscientific discoveries or observations; it was a new way of looking at things, not a new piece ofknowledge. ... Darwinists needed time, and lots of it: uniformitarians had the geological theory thatdemonstrated great antiquity. ... Thus an unusual academic interdependence sprang up between the twosciences that continues to this day. A geologist wishing to date a rock stratum would ask an evolutionist’sopinion on the fossils it contained. An evolutionist having difficulty dating a fossil species would turn to thegeologist for help. Fossils were used to date rocks: rocks were used to date fossils” (Richard Milton,Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 28).Radiometric dating was invented in the early 20th century and is alleged to provide “absolute”results.“Radiometric dating is based on the fact that radioactive isotopes decay to form isotopes of different elements.The starting isotope is called the parent and the ending is called the daughter. The time it takes for one half ofthe parent atoms to decay to the daughter atoms is called the half-life. If certain things are known, it ispossible to calculate the amount of time since the parent isotope began to decay” (Roger Patterson, EvolutionExposed, p. 112).The following facts provide an important background for interpreting evolutionary datingsystems:1. Every evolutionary dating method is built upon evolutionary assumptions.The Burning CandleThe evidence for evolution is always dependent on evolutionary assumptions. Remove theassumptions, and the “evidence” vanishes. The following example is excerpted from The WorldThat Perished by John Whitcomb:“Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its variousformations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumptionof starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting pointto the present. Consider a burning candle in an abandoned house. It is now burning at the rate of one inch anhour. Question: How long has it been burning and, thus, how long ago was the house abandoned? Answer:No one can know until it can be shown how high the candle was when it was last lit and how fast it wasburning originally! Question: How old is the earth? Answer: No one can know unless it can be shown what itwas like when it began and how rapidly it has changed since then!”The HourglassThe following illustration is from The New Answers Book by Ken Ham:Radioisotope dating can be better understood using an illustration with an hourglass. If we walk into a roomand observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long thehourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand atthe bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All ourcalculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failedto take into account some critical assumptions.1. Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?2. Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass?294

3. Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions.All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations. If scientists fail to consider each of these threecritical assumptions, then radioisotope dating can give incorrect ages (The New Answers Book, 2006, p. 117).The evolutionist assumes that he knows the conditions that existed at the formation of rocks he istesting. He assumes a uniformitarian process since then, and other things. In fact, these are thingshe does not know and that have not been scientifically proven, but without such knowledge it isimpossible to ascertain whether the dating results are accurate.There is evidence, in fact, that decay rates are not stable. See, for example, Brian Thomas,“Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable,” Institute for Creation Research, Aug. 5, 2009.The RATE ProjectThe RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) was conducted by a team of eightPh.D. scientists between 1997 and 2005.“The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. Thescientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. Theresults of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were takenfrom ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologiccolumn (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). ... The coal samples, which dated millions to /≥/hundreds ofmillions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14 C[carbon-14]. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination fromother sources. Samples in all three ‘time periods’ displayed significant amounts of 14 C. This is a significantdiscovery. Since the half-life of 14 C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14 C left afterabout 100,000 years. The average 14 C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods wasapproximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14 C/ 12 C ratio reduces that age to about5,000 years” (The New Answers Book 1, pp. 85, 86).The details of the RATE research was published in two books: Radioisotopes and the Age of theEarth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (2000) and Results of a Young-EarthCreationist Research Initiative (2005).2. Evolutionary dating methods give widely differing results.This is known as THE ANOMALY FACTOR. Scientists have tried to eliminate this, but theyhave been unsuccessful.Rock paintings in the South African bush in 1991 were dated by Oxford University’s radiocarbonaccelerator as being 1,200 years old, which was significant because it would have been the oldestbushman paintings found in the open country. It turned out that they were painted by JoanAhrens’ art class in Capetown a few years earlier and deposited in the bush by thieves. Afterdescribing this humorous episode, Richard Milton comments, “The significance of incidentssuch as this is that mistakes can only be discovered in those rare cases where chance grants ussome external method of checking the dating technique. Where no such external verification295

exists, we have simply to accept the verdict of carbon dating” (Shattering the Myths ofDarwinism, p. 34).Volcanic rocks in Hawaii were dated by potassium-argon at 160 million to 3 billion years old,when they were actually formed in an eruption in 1801 (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p. 47)Rocks formed between 1949 and 1975 by the Mount Ngauruhoe volcano in New Zealand weredated at between 270,000 and 3.5 million years old (A. A. Snelling, “The Cause of AnomalousPotassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe,” Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Creationism, edited by E. Walsh, 1998, pp. 503-525).Louis Leakey’s Zinjanthropus skull was dated to 1.75 million years by the University ofCalifornia using the potassium-argon method and to 10,100 years using carbon-14 (Taylor, In theMinds of Men, pp. 240, 241).A rock from Mount St. Helens’ 1986 volcanic eruption was dated at 350,000 years by thepotassium-argon method (S. A. Austin, “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from theNew Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal,Vol. 10, No. 3, 1986).A layer of volcanic ash at Lake Turkana, Kenya, was dated by three different radiometric datingteams (Milton, Shattering the Myths, pp. 53-55). A Cambridge team obtained dates ranging from0.5 to 17.5 million years. A team at Berkeley obtained dates ranging from 1.5 to 6.9 millionyears. A team of the Australian National University got a date of 1.88 million years. The latterwas accepted as a compromise, but this is not science; it is guessing! With such wildly differingresults, the scientists should simply admit that their dating methods don’t work and that theydon’t have the foggiest idea how to date rocks accurately.Dr. Steve Austin, a member of the RATE group, had samples tested from the alleged oldest andyoungest strata of the Grand Canyon. He used the isochron dating method, which is supposed tobe infallible. The oldest rocks were dated at 1.07 billion years while the youngest were dated at1.34 billion (The New Answers Book, p. 119). Thus, the infallible isochron dating method tells usthat the youngest strata is 270 million years older than the oldest strata!In another RATE study, rocks from various sites at the Grand Canyon were dated by fourradioisotope methods using commercial laboratories. One set of rocks gave dates ranging from841 million to 1.3 billion years (The New Answers Book, p. 121). The dates of rocks from theBeartooth Mountains of northwest Wyoming ranged from 1.5 billion to 2.6 billion years.Dating methods that are this wildly variable and contradictory surely lack any element of realscientific authority.3. Evolutionists are highly selective in choosing dates.296

Typically they select dates they prefer while ignoring those they find unacceptable. Datingmethods that return a young age for the earth are ignored. Again, this is not science; it is mythmaking.“Science has proposed many methods of geochronometry ... but of these many methods, only one technique--that of the radioactive decay of uranium and similar elements--yields an age for the Earth of billions of years.And it is this one method that has been enthusiastically promoted by Darwinists and uniformitarian geologists,while all other methods have been neglected” (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths, p. 38).“C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the pre-history of the Nile Valley. A famous colleague,Professor [John Otis] Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, asfollows: IF A C14 DATE SUPPORTS OUR THEORIES, WE PUT IT IN THE MAIN TEXT. IF IT DOES NOTENTIRELY CONTRADICT THEM, WE PUT IT IN A FOOT-NOTE. AND IF IT IS COMPLETELY ‘OUT OFDATE,’ WE JUST DROP IT” (T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, “C14 dating an Egyptian chronology,”in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, edited by Ingrid Olsson, New York: John Wiley & Sons,1970).“The chief tool employed to harmonize discordant dates is the simple device of labeling unexpected ages asanomalous and, in the future, discarding those rock samples that will lead to the ‘anomalous’ dates. Thispractice is the explanation of why many dating results seem to support each other--because all samples thatgive ages other than expected values are rejected as being ‘unsuitable’ for dating. ... If all the rejecteddates were retrieved from the waste basket and added to the published dates, the combined resultswould show that the dates produced are the scatter that one would expect by chance alone” (Milton,Shattering the Myths, pp. 49, 51).This is admitted by Dr. Richard L. Mauger, associate professor of geology at East CarolinaUniversity:“In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those indisagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained” (“K-Ar Ages ofBiotites from Tuffs in Eocene Rocks,” Contributions to Geology, Vol. 15, no. 1, 1977, p. 37).Professional pressures motivate scientists to conform to expected dating results:“... there are powerful professional pressures on scientists to conform to a consensus. Dating geologists areoffended by the suggestion that their beliefs can or would influence the dates obtained. Yet nothing could beeasier or more natural. Take for example a rock sample from the late Cretaceous, a period which is universallybelieved to date from some 65 million years ago. Any dating scientist who obtained a date from the sameof, say, 10 million years or 150 million years, would not publish such a result because he or she will,quite sincerely, assume it was in error. On the other hand, any dating scientist who did obtain a date of 65million years would hasten to publish it as widely as possible. Thus the published dating figures alwaysconform to preconceived dates and never contradict those dates” (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p. 51).“It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geologicaland archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as acceptable byinvestigators” (J. Ogden, director of a radiocarbon laboratory, Annals of the New York Academy of Science,1977, 288:167).Ian Taylor, an engineer, observes,“None of this is ever mentioned in popular magazines and textbooks, and the impression is left in the reader’smind that ‘absolute’ chronology has been established by the radiocarbon method” (Taylor, In the Minds ofMen, pp. 317, 318).297

4. Most dating methods point to a young earth.Walt Brown, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, lists 22 dating methods that point to ayoung earth. See In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, pp. 37-41.Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology, lists several dating methods that point to a young earth. SeeEarth’s Catastrophic Past, Volume 2.Following are some questions that evolutionists need to answer. These are by Mark Cadwallader,a chemical engineer working in product development and material failure investigations(Creation Spelled Out):Why do the earliest civilizations and written history date back less than 10,000 years?Why do the oldest trees happen to be just a few thousand years old?Why is there so little helium in the atmosphere if such a quickly diffusing gas is escaping into theatmosphere from rocks at high rates?Why are there radioactive halos preserved in granite rocks from elements with half-lives of onlyseveral minutes? The halos are like preserved bubbles which should have passed on out throughmolten rock that supposedly took millions of years to cool.Why do polystrate fossils pierce through so many different layers of supposed “geologic time”?Why are carbon-14 dating measurements continually finding mere thousands of years forfossilized trees, and why is C-14 being found in some diamonds and coal in which all theradioactive carbon with a relatively short half-life should be long gone because they aresupposedly millions of years old?Why are many gas and oil reservoirs under such high pressures, so that they become “gushers”and flow of their own accord, when rock porosity, permeability, and cracks are all around torelieve pressure over the supposed millions of years that the fossil fuels have been there?Why is the earth’s magnetic field decaying so rapidly, extrapolating backwards to levels thatwould be destabilizing within approximately 10,000 years?Why do we see so many comets in our solar system, since the comet tails are evidence of theirvolatile material boiling away as they pass by the sun? They should all have been consumed andinvisible by now if the solar system is billions of years old.Why haven’t the continents eroded nearly flat?Why haven’t the oceans accumulated sediment thousands of feet deep if the earth is reallybillions of years old?Why aren’t the oceans much saltier at the rate they accumulate salt, at least like the Great SaltLake and the Dead Sea, if they are so old?Dr. David Stone offers the following challenge to students: “The observations cited in thequestions above are all affirmative evidence for a young earth. Evolutionists will always come upwith stories to try to explain away the simple, direct implication of these observations. It’s up toyou to discern between stories and evidence.”298

We would ask another question: What explains the existence of biomaterials and soft tissue infossils that are allegedly millions of years old?“Researchers have uncovered biological molecules like proteins, DNA, and pigments from rocks that aresupposedly millions of years old. Laboratory studies on many of these materials indicate that they will onlysurvive thousands, not millions, of years. DNA is particularly prone to decay, yet ancient fossil ‘plants, bacteria,mammals, Neanderthals, and other archaic humans have had short aDNA sequences identified.’ ...“Bones are often fossilized through mineral replacement. However, soft bone and other original biomaterialsare continually being discovered. For example, some ‘fossil’ material is actual collagen protein from theoriginal animal. Since laboratory studies have consistently shown that even well-preserved collagen shouldturn to dust in 30,000 years, these fossils must be much younger than conventional dating indicates.“One mummified (not fossilized) hadrosaur that was examined in a Discovery Channel special in September2008 is not made of scattered collagen fibers, but whole tissues--in fact, its whole body--are still intact!Dubbed ‘Leonardo,’ its skin pattern and stomach contents are discernible, making it ‘unquestionably one of themost unexpected and important dinosaur discoveries of all time.’ But its startling preservation was only‘unexpected’ by those who believe that Leonardo is 77 million years old” (Brian Thomas, “FossilizedBiomaterials Must Be Young,” Acts & Facts, 38 (6): 17, 2009, Institute for Creation Research).A mosasaur fossil (a 40-foot-long marine reptile) at the Dinosaur Institute of the National HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County, supposedly millions of years old, has retina pigment, driedblood residue, and “preservation of skin structures from all parts of the body” (J. Londgren,“Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur,”PLoS ONE, 5 (8): e1198, 2010, cited from Brian Thomas, “Extraordinary Mosasaur FossilReveals Soft Tissues,” Acts & Facts, 39 (11): 19, 2010).In 2005, Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues published a paper in Science magazine describingthe presence of soft tissue in the fossilized femur of a Tyrannosaurs rex unearthed in Montana.“Schweitzer et al. reported the presence of structures that appeared to be blood vessels and blood cells withnuclei where DNA could be found. Many of the tissues could be stretched repeatedly and returned to theiroriginal shape indicating the presence of elastic proteins commonly found in blood vessels. Pictures of thetissue and experiments comparing the T. rex tissue with ostrich bone tissue appeared to confirm that thematerial was soft tissue. The presence of soft tissue, which decomposes rapidly after an organism dies, fitsthe Creation model (asserting that dinosaurs lived recently, in the last 10,000 years) better than anevolutionary scenario making dinosaurs older than 65 million years” (Daniel Criswell, “How Soon Will JurassicPark Open?” Impact # 396, June 2006).In 2009, researchers reconstituted dried ink from a “150 million-year-old” fossil squid’s ink sac.They even used the ink to draw a picture of what the extinct squid looked like. Scientists were“stunned” that it “still looks as if it is modern squid ink” (“The 150 million-year-old squidfossil,” Archaeology Daily News, Aug. 18, 2009, archaeologydaily.com).In 2008, BBC News reported on fossil feathers that have retained their pigment colors (“FossilFeathers Reveal Their Hues,” July 8, 2008). The colors are created by biological melanosomesthat have been preserved. The scientists who are studying the feathers have admitted they don’tknow how it is possible that such biomaterial is present in fossils that are supposed to be millionsof years old. Professor Mike Benton of the University of Bristol asks, “How do you square thatwith the well-known fact that the majority of organic molecules decay in thousands ofyears?”299

The only answer they have is that since they KNOW that the fossils are millions of years old, itmust therefore be possible for biomaterial to last millions of years! This isn’t science; it’s circularreasoning.Following are some helpful resources on the subject of evolutionary dating methods:Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood by Andrew A. Snelling (Volume 2)In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order by Ian T. TaylorRadioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeResults of a Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeThousands Not Billions by Don DeYoungStarlight and Time by Russell HumphreysSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EVOLUTIONARY DATING SYSTEM1. Evolutionary dating methods are based on unproven evolutionary assumptions. Evolutionistsdo not know the conditions that existed when the rocks were formed and they do not knowexactly what has happened since then to possibly change the rate of radioisotope conversion.2. The evolutionary dating methods are highly variable.3. The research performed by the Ph.D. scientists associated with the RATE project(Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has proven that the date of millions of years isimpossible for fossil-bearing rocks throughout the earth, because carbon-14 is still present, andthis means the rocks are less than 100,000 years old.4. Most dating methods point to a young earth. This include the dating of trees, the amount ofhelium in the atmosphere, polystrate fossils, the high pressure of gas and oil reservoirs, the decayof the earth’s magnetic field, the rate of earth erosion, and the accumulation of sediment in theoceans.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON BILLIONS OF YEARS1. Who was the father of the uniformitarian doctrine?2. How did this “theory” undermine the Bible’s teaching on origins?3. This man wanted to drive men out of the ____________ record.4. Darwin loved the uniformitarian doctrine because it provided him with the ____________needed to make evolution seem feasible.5. Radiometric dating is based on the fact that radioactive isotopes _________ to form isotopesof different ___________.6. The starting isotope is called the _________ and the ending is called the __________.300

7. The time it takes for one half of the parent atoms to decay to the daughter atoms is called the________.8. Every evolutionary dating method is built upon evolutionary _____________.9. John Whitcomb lists what two unprovable assumptions that underlie evolutionary datingmethods?10. To determine how long a candle has been burning, what two pieces of information must beknown?11. What does RATE stand for?12. What were the credentials of the RATE team?13. What is the half-life of carbon-14?14. There should be no detectable carbon-14 left after _______________ years.15. If traditional dating methods date coal to millions of years but carbon is detected in that coal,what does this mean?16. That evolutionary dating methods give widely differing results is called the ____________factor.17. A layer of volcanic ash at Lake Turkana, Kenya, returned dates of from _______ to ________by different radiometric dating teams.18. When Dr. Steve Austin had samples tested from the alleged oldest and youngest strata of theGrand Canyon, what was the result?19. Evolutionists are highly _______________ in choosing dates.20. Dating methods that return a young age for the earth are ______________.21. Professor J.O. Brew said “if a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the ____________;if it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a ______________; if it is completely out-ofdate,we just _____________.22. Dr. Richard Mauger says that evolutionary dates “in disagreement with other data are seldom_______________.23. What is the professional pressure on scientists to conform to a consensus in dating?24. The published dating figures always conform to ______________ dates and never___________ those dates.25. What are two books by Ph.D. scientists that list dating methods that point to a young earth?26. Why is it significant that gas and oil reservoirs are under high pressure today?27. What is the significance of biomaterials that have been found in fossils that are allegedlymillions of years old?28. What are three examples of biomaterials found in fossils?301

ICONS OF CREATIONEvolutionists say, “Where is the evidence for creation?” We reply, “Everywhere!”Everywhere we look in nature, using our natural eyes or the most powerful microscopes ortelescopes, we find evidence of a Divine Designer.Sir Isaac Newton once said, “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convinceme of God’s existence.”Biologist Michael Behe, though he is not a biblical creationist, calls “intelligent design” theelephant in the room for evolutionists:“Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around,examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of theroom, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into thepachyderm’s legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated withtheir lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. ... There is an elephantin the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled‘intelligent design.’ To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, thestraightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by thelaws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned” (Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 9,“Intelligent Design”).The “design” argument, in fact, is Scriptural, because the Bible says that the creation is evidencefor the existence of an Almighty God. See Romans 1:18-21. This passage says that the invisiblethings of God are seen in creation and that this is an evidence that God has given to men. Thepart of God’s character that is witnessed by creation is his “eternal power and Godhead.” Menare therefore without excuse if they do not believe in God and do not seek God. Verse 21 saysthat the reason men do not glorify God is that their hearts are darkened by sin.If an individual cannot “clearly see” God through creation, it is because his mind has beendarkened through rebellion (2 Corinthians 4:4).The design argument from nature can be a powerful tool in evangelism. It can cause people todoubt evolution and to seek God. Consider the case of Dr. Jobe Martin:“In the fall of 1971 I went to Baylor University in Dallas and gave my first lecture. It was on the evolution ofthe tooth. I talked about how these fish scales gradually migrated into the mouth and became teeth. A coupleof students came to me after the class that day and said, ‘Dr. Martin, have you ever investigated the claimsof creation science?’ I had never even heard of it. So I said, ‘Sure, I’ll look into this with you.’ And I’mthinking, kind of as a cocky young professor, ‘I’ll blow these guys away.’“Well, they asked me to study the assumptions that the evolutionists make. In all of my eight years ofscientific education, I had never had a single professor tell me about an assumption. So we started lookingat the assumptions. I began to realize that evolutionists are making some claims that are based onassumptions that aren’t valid, when they tell us that rocks are so old and these kinds of things.“Then they asked me to start studying some animals and see if I thought that animal could have evolved.The first thing that we studied together was this little bug called the bombardier beetle. This little insect,302

which is about a half inch long, mixes chemicals that explode. I began to think, O.K. how would that evolve?If evolution is true it had to somehow evolve that. Let’s assume it is evolving this defense mechanism, butthe first time that it finally produces the explosion, what happens to the bug? Well, it is destroyed by theexplosion, and we know that splattered bug pieces don’t evolve. So I thought, how could this havehappened? Well, [because of the intricate way it is built] it doesn’t blow itself up. It has another little factoryinside itself and it manufactures a chemical that acts as a catalyst, so when it squirts that chemical intothese other chemicals that are in a suspended state it produces the explosion. And it has an asbestos-linedfiring chamber to protect itself. And it has two little twin tail tubes, and it can aim these tubes out the side,even out the front. Let’s say a spider is coming up toward its side and it doesn’t have time to turn around andshoot. It can just take its little gun turret, aim it out to the side, and shoot. If you are listening to the explosionall you hear is a single pop, but scientists have now put that sound into slow motion, and it is like about athousand sequential little explosions that are so fast that all we hear is one pop. So you think, why wouldthat be? It was a curious thing for the scientists that are studying this little bug. A lot of them are at CornellUniversity and some other places. What they discovered was that if it were just one big explosion, the littlebug would be jetted away by the force! But as long as it is a sequential explosion, the bug with his little legscan hang on. How would evolution explain a sequential explosion?“This little bug messes with all of the theories of evolution. There is no way a slow, gradual process is goingto produce this bug. There is no way, even, that the newer theories, such as punctuated equilibrium, canexplain this bug. I began to realize that this little bug needed to have all of its parts there at once or you justdon’t have the animal.“And my stomach started to churn. My wife will tell you that my stomach churned for five years. It took a fiveyearstruggle for me to begin to flip the way I think, from thinking in an evolutionary way to thinking that thiscreature was created fully formed just like it is. That went against everything I had ever learned” (JobeMartin, Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution 1, ExplorationFilms.com).Apologists for evolution claim that the “design” argument has been refuted. They citephilosophers such as David Hume who supposedly overthrew the “watchmaker argument,”which as published in William Paley’s book Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence andAttributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802). Paley’s simplecommon-sense argument says that if you find a watch lying on the ground you would recognizeimmediately that it was designed and produced by an intelligence; likewise, the creationdemonstrates evidence of intelligent design. Contrary to the claims of some, Paley’s argumenthas never been refuted and indeed cannot be refuted. Dr. Michael Behe says:“But exactly where, we may ask, was Paley refuted? Who has answered his argument? How was the watchproduced without an intelligent designer? It is surprising but true that the main argument of the discreditedPaley has actually never been refuted. Neither Darwin nor Dawkins, neither science nor philosophy, hasexplained how an irreducibly complex system such as a watch might be produced without a designer.Instead Paley’s argument has been sidetracked by attacks on its injudicious examples and off-the-pointtheological discussions. Paley, of course, is to blame for not framing his argument more tightly. But many ofPaley’s detractors are also to blame for refusing to engage his main point, playing dumb in order to reach amore palatable conclusion. ... Paley’s argument over the years has been turned into a straw man to knockdown. Instead of dealing with the real complexity of a system (such as a retina or a watch), some defendersof Darwinism are satisfied with offering a story to account for peripheral features” (Darwin’s Black Box,chapter 10).The design argument has grown even stronger since Paley’s day through research intomicrobiology and the discovery of the the amazing living machinery in the cell.The obvious design in creation has convinced multitudes of people, including scientists, thatthere is a God.In 1962, Nobel laureate molecular biologist E. C. Komfield said:303

“While laboring among the intricacies and definitely minute particles in a laboratory, I frequently have beenoverwhelmed by a sense of the infinite wisdom of God ... the simplest man-made mechanism requires aplanner and a maker; how a mechanism ten times more involved and intricate can be conceived as selfconstructedand self-developed is completely beyond me” (“The Evidence of God in an ExpandingUniverse,” Look, Jan. 16, 1962).Michael Denton, Australian molecular geneticist, echoes this sentiment:“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, wefind an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcendent quality, which so mitigates against the idea ofchance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element ofwhich--a functional protein or gene--is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is thevery antithesis of chance, which excel in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our mostadvanced artifacts appear clumsy” (Denton, Evolution--A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 342).In the book SEEING THE NON-EXISTENT: EVOLUTION’S MYTHS AND HOAXES we dealwith about 35 icons of creation that point to a mighty Creator. These include the living cell, thehuman eye, the human brain, blood clotting, the giraffe’s blood pressure control system, thebombardier beetle, the bird’s flying feather, bird migration, birdsong, the hummingbird, redblood cells, lima bean distress signal, harmony and symbiosis, the flagellum motor, the cargoprotein, and the field of biomimetics.In this apologetics course we will consider two examples: the monarch butterfly and the trilobite.THE MONARCH BUTTERFLYDigital SLR photography is both a hobby and a ministry tool for me, and I enjoy the challenge ofphotographing butterflies and dragonflies. The monarch butterfly lives up to its name in that it isthe king of these amazing creatures and a wonderful icon of divine creation. I own many bookson butterflies and have visited prominent butterfly conservatories in several countries, and in myexperience evolutionists don’t even try to explain how such a creature could have evolved. Theymerely presume that it did. They even talk about the “co-evolution” of the butterfly and theflower, as if natural selection and mutation or any other naturalistic concept could possiblyexplain the origin of such wonderful symbiotic relationships! How could blind evolution createsuch a thing? If the flower and the pollinating insect did evolve, they had to have evolved atexactly the same time--like in the same day or week--because they are dependent on one anotherfor their very existence.MetamorphosisThe monarch butterfly’s Latin name, Danaus plexippus, means “sleepy transformation,”referring to its amazing life cycle.The butterfly goes through a four-stage process called metamorphosis: from egg, to larva, topupa, to adult.304

It begins life as a tiny, brilliantly-designed EGG that the female butterfly attaches to the exacttype of vegetation needed by the caterpillar when it hatches. It is attached with a special glue thathardens rapidly and holds the egg securely in all types of weather. The egg stage usually lasts afew days, but eggs laid before winter can enter a resting stage and hatch the following spring.Within this tiny egg is an entire world of genetic information. It contains the instructions for theconstruction of the caterpillar and to create the intelligence it needs to operate all of its organs(eyes, antennae, legs, etc.), to maneuver within its environment, to digest leaves, to avoidpredators, to know when and how to molt, to pupate, etc. It contains the instructions for theincredibly complex process of the final molting and formation of the pupa, including theamazing cremaster mechanism. It contains the instructions for the death and dissolution of thecaterpillar into a biological soup and the reformation of that soup into a beautiful butterfly. Itcontains the instructions not only to construct the butterfly in all of its mind-boggling complexity(e.g., its proboscis, its compound eyes, its intricately shingled wings, its sensory organs, itsreproductive organs) but also to create the butterfly’s brain and the intelligence needed to thrivewithin its environment, to fly, to land, to avoid predators, to find the right plants and flowers, todrink and digest nectar, to keep its cold-blooded metabolism in balance, to reproduce. It containsthe instructions for a bewildering multi-thousand mile migration to a place it has never been andin the absence of any earthly guide. It would seem, in fact, that the genetic code within that tinymonarch butterfly egg contains a map of a large part of the earth! And it contains the informationfor constructing hundreds of copies of itself.The creature emerges from the egg as a larva or CATERPILLAR. It is an eating machine thatincreases its weight 3,000 times in 20 days, doubling in size about every 12 hours. This would belike a human baby increasing from eight pounds to 24,000 pounds in less than two weeks! Themonarch caterpillar eats only milkweed, which is poisonous to other insects. It “sequesters” thissubstance and retains it through the metamorphosis process into the butterfly stage, thusproviding protection for the flying insect.The caterpillar has three pairs of “true legs” and up to six pairs of “prolegs.” The prolegs haverings of tiny hooks called crochets that help them grip the leaves and stems of plants. Thecreature’s brain and nervous system control the extremely complex coordinated movement of itslegs. Some caterpillars can produce smelly chemicals that it uses for defense. The caterpillarweaves a mat of silk threads on the leaves on which it walks. “The silk is produced by aspinneret situated behind the mouth-parts, so the caterpillar has to move its head from side toside in order to weave the silk mat. ... This silk helps the caterpillar to hold on to the leaf. Thereis some evidence that the silk threads may also serve as a chemical trail to help the caterpillartrace back its path if it has a particular hideout” (Butterflies of Peninsular India).As the caterpillar grows, it casts off its outer skin layer four or five times. This is called molting,and it is necessary to accommodate its rapidly increasing size.305

“There are sensors in the skin of the caterpillar that are strain detectors, that detect the amount of pressure orstrain being put on the skin and when that is too great they send a signal to the brain which then releases ahormone that causes molting” (Paul Nelson, Biola University, Metamorphosis, DVD, Illustra Media, 2011).When the caterpillar molts, it sheds its entire head capsule, with its six eye lenses and spinneret.Thus, during the molting stage, “there must be four or five different head capsules made, eachone being bigger to accommodate the growing caterpillar (Jules Poirier, From Darkness to Lightto Flight, p. 6).Toward the end of the caterpillar stage, “imaginal cell clusters” appear at various locations in itsbody, and these contain the information for the future butterfly.When it has grown to the right size, the caterpillar locates a suitable place on a milkweed leaf. Itmight make long journeys of 10 to 20 yards searching for the proper location. It spins a silk pad,from which it hangs by its prolegs to form a PUPA OR CHRYSALIS. After a day or two, thecaterpillar molts the final time but this time the post molting appearance is completely different.“There is no longer any head capsule, no jaws and no legs. The new appearance is of a relaxedand wet pupa.”During the final molt, the caterpillar attaches itself firmly to the silk pad by means of aCREMASTER that has microscopic hooks. This is an absolutely essential step, since it has beenhanging by its prolegs but these will be shed with the final molting.“When the skin is pushed to the top it uncovers a hole above the abdominal area, about 0.25 inches from theend of the pad. A black, stalk-like cremaster (about 0.1 inch long) protrudes through this hole. It lunges threetimes forward through the hole toward the silk pad. On the outer end of this cremaster is a bulb covered withhundreds of microscopic hooks of various forms. On the third lunge the front end pierces the silk pad, afterwhich the body of the caterpillar rotates clockwise three times, thrusting the cremaster hooks deeper into thesilk pad. In this position the body of the caterpillar begins to do all kinds of convulsive gyrations to remove theold outer skin from the silk pad. ... The insertion of the cremaster into the silk pad at the precise time is verycritical to the survival of the butterfly ... [and] the insertion of the cremaster was accomplished by a totally blindcaterpillar. Think of all the carefully coordinated design features of this transformation process” (Poirier, FromDarkness to Light to Flight, pp. 10, 11).The pupa must be attached securely to the silk pad. If the pupa falls at this point it ruptures,because it is full of liquid. The cremaster’s microscopic hooks attach something like Velcro but“the connection is so tight that if one simply pulls at the chrysalis, the chrysalis will break beforethe hooks pull lose from the silk pad. This protects the cremaster from being blown loose instorms” (Edith Smith, “Meandering Thoughts,” Aug. 21, 2010, Shady Oak Butterfly Farm,Brooker, Florida).After a few hours the pupal skin hardens.Butterfly pupa come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Some are cleverly camouflaged. Thepupa of the tailed jay looks like a new bud, while that of the giant owl butterfly looks like a deadleaf.306

During the pupa stage, the creature’s body and organs and even its very cells dissolve into acellular liquid referred to as “SOUP.”“Cell death is programmed. If you kill the wrong cells, you are in deep trouble. It’s very carefullyengineered. You’re going to save some of the cell population so you have to know where you’regoing to end up before you start” (Metamorphosis, DVD, Illustra Media, 2011).This “soup” reorganizes itself into a beautiful butterfly!Dr. David Stone observes:“This is so far beyond the best of human technology, that words fail. Hire the brightest scientists and engineerson the planet, give them an unlimited budget, even unto trillions of dollars, and an open-ended schedule, andhow likely is it that they could generate such a ‘soup’? Zero. This is yet another example that there is notheory of evolution, or even a wild speculation, to account for such an ubiquitous little creature as a butterfly.”When it is ready to emerge, the butterfly taps onto the front of the pupa with its legs and thepupal skin breaks and opens in front like a door. The butterfly exits and suspends itself in orderto pump the veins of its wings full of fluid to unfold them. This takes about 15 minutes. It alsojoins the two segments of its proboscis to form one sucking tube. It knows how to do all of this,though it has never existed in this form before.The caterpillar has 16 short legs, a chewing mouth, six simple eyes that see only in black andwhite, eats leaves, and crawls. The butterfly has six long articulated legs, a sucking mouth,antennae, a proboscis, four wings, reproductive organs, two complicated compound eyes that cansee in color, drinks nectar, and it can fly!The change has been likened to a Model-T Ford forming its own garage and then within thatgarage disassembling itself and then reassembling itself into a high-tech helicopter and flyingoff. Even this would not be nearly as dramatic, though, as the real change that occurs throughbutterfly metamorphosis.Metamorphosis is described even by secular biologists as a “miraculous change of form.” Theyadmit that “there is no evidence how such a remarkable plan of life ever came about” (PeterFarb, The Insects, Life Nature Library, p. 56).Science journalist Richard Milton says, “To say that this process is not understood ... means thatno stage or aspect of this physical process can be accounted for or even guessed at with ourcurrent knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology, extensive though theyare” (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 220).Michael Pitman, who taught biology at Cambridge, asks how it would be possible formetamorphosis to have evolved:307

“Within this dry shell the organs of the caterpillar are dissolved and reduced to pulp. Breathing tubes,muscles and nerves disappear as such; the creature seems to have died. But processes are in operationwhich remould that pulp into different, coordinating parts, and in due course the insect, which has not grownup or developed in any normal sense, re-emerges as a beautiful, adult butterfly. It is a kind of resurrection.Certainly it demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain suchan obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why, on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survivedthe mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult?Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian orcrustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? Theball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability” (Adam and Evolution, p. 71).Even if we assume that a caterpillar could evolve from something else, how could evolutionproceed beyond that to the pupa and the butterfly? Why would a happy little “evolved”caterpillar, merrily eating its way through succulent leaves, decide to spin a silk pad and formitself into a pupa? And if somehow this came into its thinking process, how could it learn to dosuch an amazingly complicated thing? And why? And even if this somehow happened, and thecaterpillar mysteriously dissolved into a biological soup, that would be the end of it. How wouldthe dissolved caterpillar ever rearrange itself into a different creature unless this entire processwas already programmed in its genetic makeup? Genetic mutations and natural selection standmute before metamorphosis.Furthermore, the caterpillar cannot reproduce. It has no sex organs. If it does not go through thedeath and rebirth of metamorphosis and become a butterfly, it has no way to perpetuate itself. Ithad to have had the ability to undergo metamorphosis from the very beginning in order to exist!The metamorphosis process had to have been perfect from the beginning. A partialmetamorphosis would mean death to the creature. The process must form a perfect butterfly thatcan carry out the complicated mechanism of reproduction.“By its very nature, metamorphosis is an all or nothing proposition. And throughout biological history, itssuccess has hinged upon the immediate availability of a full set of instructions, including genes, proteins, andthe developmental program required to integrate them. It all has to be in place ahead of time. It needs to havethe genes in place, the regulatory elements that are going to turn the genes on and off; it has to have all thecells preprogrammed to do what they are going to do so they respond to the signals they get in the right way.The larval cells have to know they are going to die. ... [The process] has to happen rapidly and in acoordinated fashion. Once you’re committed to the chrysalis stage, there is no going back. You have tocomplete the transition. A caterpillar that is equipped to go 10 percent, 25 percent through metamorphosis isno way through metamorphosis. Part way in a process that requires getting out the other side as a fullyformed adult doesn’t work. You have to recreate adult legs, adult antennae, adult eyes; you have to changethe shape of the brain and the connections to the organs; you have to reformat the gut so that it switches fromeating plant material to eating nectar. How many mutations does it take? And how do you coordinate all ofthat? If you get the eyes right but the gut wrong it’s a failure as a butterfly. If you get the wings right and thelegs right but the muscles don’t attach, that butterfly is going nowhere. It’s dead. You begin to see the depthsof the problem. So for evolution to have created this sort of pathway, gradually, it would take a miracle.Metamorphosis, if it came into existence at all by an undirected process, had to have done so in one fellswoop. Natural selection, by definition, cannot build that kind of process. To create a process likemetamorphosis, you’d need a totally different type of cause, something that could see a distant target, keepthat target in focus, and provide all the resources necessary to hit the bull’s eye on the first shot. The onlycause that could accomplish that is an intelligent agent” (Metamorphosis, DVD, Illustra Media, 2011).Biologist Richard Stringer, who has captured this transformation through magnetic resonanceimaging, says:308

“You have a great big orchestra in there, and you have a conductor, some conducting force, that’s responsiblefor it all. I can say without any doubt that it was the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen” (Metamorphosis,DVD).MigrationIn September and October one variety of the monarch flies 2,500-3,000 miles from Canada andthe northern USA east of the Rocky Mountains to locations it has never seen in mountain forestsin central Mexico. It even flies to the very same tree where its forebears overwintered! The exacthibernation sites were not discovered until 1975 when Dr. Fredrick Urquhart of the University ofToronto developed a method of tagging and tracking the butterflies. Hundreds of millions ofbutterflies find their way unerringly to these remote locations each year.The generation that flies to Mexico is called the “Methuselah Generation” because it isgenetically programmed to live for six to eight months rather than the few weeks that is typicalfor monarch butterflies. This allows it to complete the first part of the massive migratorymovement and is necessary for the monarch’s survival. (Some of them actually make the entiremigration and return to their starting place in the north.)The migration to Mexico takes about two months, with the insect averaging about 30 miles a day,and the butterflies hibernate over winter in small concentrated areas, with millions congregatedin a few acres. Some of the butterflies actually cross the Gulf of Mexico.In mid-March the females fly north for some distance, lay eggs, and die. The caterpillars hatch,go through metamorphosis, then continue the migration north. The new butterflies that hatch onthe way, though they never meet their parents, know where they are on the migration route andexactly where to go and how to get there. It is the second, third, or even fourth generation thatarrives back in the northern areas from where their forebears originated!“There are butterflies that are programmed to fly back in two generations, and perhaps some in four or fivegenerations, but all are programmed to go to a definite site in the Neovolcanic Mountains and to return towhere their forefathers started in the north. There are more butterflies that make it back to their northern fallsites in multiple generations than in a single generation. ... Monarchs migrating in the fall are programmed totravel to specific sites on certain mountains, even to the same trees used by their forefathers. During thespring migration they return to their original homes directly, or by multiple generations. Their offspring, fromeggs deposited enroute by spring migrant, follow the same migration route as their forefathers and arrive inthe same general area as their migrating parents” (Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight, p. 44).“This means that a remarkable system of information is bound up in the genetic coding of eachbutterfly, such that it ‘knows’ at what stage of the migrating cycle the group of butterflies is in.Such a delicate mechanism shouts intelligent design!” (Dr. Andrew McIntosh, Reader inCombustion Theory, Department of Fuel and Energy, University of Leeds, U.K., In Six Days,edited by John Ashton, p. 167).309

A seven-year study of the migration of butterflies and moths using sophisticated radar found thatthe silver Y moth travels only on nights when the wind blows in the right direction. “On suchnights, silver Ys, for example, can hit speeds over the ground of 90 kilometres per hour byfinding the fastest-flowing high-altitude airstream and angling their flight to correct for anycrosswind drift” (Bea Perks, “Long Haul: How Butterflies and Moths Go the Distance,” NewScientist, June 8, 2010). The research was done by a UK team of entomologists led by JasonChapman at the Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire. Monarchs have been seen as high as12,000 feet.Scientists are beginning to learn some of the biological secrets that enable migration. They havefound that the butterfly uses a combination of a sun compass, skylight cues, a circadian clock,and magnetic sensing to maintain its direction (“Brain ‘GPS’ Illuminated in MigratoryMonarch,” Science Daily, Jan. 27, 2011; “Monarch Butterflies Reveal a Novel Way in WhichAnimals Sense Earth’s Magnetic Field,” Science Daily, Jan. 27, 2010).They have also learned that the butterfly’s antennae have an essential role in migration(“Migrating Monarch Butterflies ‘Nose’ Their Way to Mexico,” Science Daily, Sept. 24, 2009).Reports such as these sometimes boast that monarch migration is being “demystified,” but this ispatent nonsense. First, only the very rudiments of migration are currently known. Further,understanding the biological rudiments of migration does nothing to explain such trulymystifying things as how such an incredibly complex mechanism and process could haveevolved or how it could be created through the process of metamorphosis or how an insect couldknow where it happens to be on earth in a migration journey (e.g., the generations that arehatched in the midst of the migration process) and where it needs to go from there.BeautyButterflies are so beautiful that they have been called “flying flowers.” There are thousands ofdifferent amazing color patterns and wing shapes.“Every one of these 20,000 species have different color patterns, and every one of them have different shapedwings. The diversity is so magnificent. If I was the greatest artist in the world there is no way I could come upwith all of these patterns. It would be absolutely impossible” (Ronald Boender, Butterfly World, FortLauderdale, Metamorphosis, DVD).The butterfly’s colorful wings are covered with millions of shingle-like, overlapping scales,which create the color and patterns. (Lepidoptera, the Latin term for the butterfly order ofinsects, means “scaly.”) Solid colors derive from pigmented scales, while the iridescent colorsderive from reflective scales that ingeniously refract a particular wavelength of light. Thebiophotonic crystal cells are designed and arranged perfectly to absorb certain wavelengths ofwhite light and reflect only that part of the light that is red or blue or whatever. There are tens ofthousands of scales for every square centimeter of wing, and each scale was a living cell until aday or two before the butterfly emerged from its pupa. “The scales have tiny lattices and ribbed310

walls that are designed to cause interference patterns in light waves within the 300 to 700nanometer range--exactly the range humans see as color.”“We have found by using the electron microscope that there are structures there that can have nomore variation than .00004 millimeters, a wonderful testament to God’s design” (Frank Sherwin,zoologist, God of Wonders, DVD).WingsThe butterfly’s wings are covered with approximately one million scales brilliantly arrayed likeshingles, which not only assist in the creature’s aerodynamic efficiency and provide colorpatterns, but also act as tiny solar panels to provide heat to warm the flight muscles of the coldbloodedcreature. “The scales are filled with air, giving them a low density, which enables theinsect to fly more easily” (Poirier, p. 33).The monarch can fly as fast as 30 miles per hour in still air and has been clocked at 50 miles perhour soaring along with thermal updrafts.Egg“The eggs are remarkable in themselves. They have species-specific architectures, some ofwhich are just astonishing. The monarch egg has a beautiful symmetrical structure. It looks like alittle miniature dome or cathedral” (Paul Nelson, Biola University, Metamorphosis, DVD). JulesPoirier, an electronics engineer, says that under a microscope the monarch egg “looks like amultifaceted diamond gem.”The egg adheres to the leaf by a powerful adhesive produced by the butterfly, and it is coatedwith a wax layer that protects from moisture.Each type of butterfly lays its eggs on a specific host plant, on which the caterpillars aredependent for food. They can’t survive on the wrong type of plant. The female butterfly isequipped to find the host plant from miles away through its incredible sense of smell, and as itgets closer it can identify the right leaf from its shape. It also tests the leaf with its feet andproboscis and antennae.PollinationThe butterfly pollinates the milkweed plant when the pollen attaches to its legs. Once removedfrom the flower the pollen re-orients itself in preparation for depositing on another flower. As itdries, its little arms bend so that they fit perfectly into a stigmatic groove.311

Miscellaneous FactsThe monarch butterfly has two compound EYES, each with 6,000 perfectly shaped and arrangedlenses connected to the optic nerve, and a brain that can decipher 72,000 nerve impulses from theeyes (James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 37). “The eyes of the monarch butterfly can seeevery color a human can see, plus ultraviolet light. ... Flowers that reflect ultraviolet light attractmonarchs more frequently than other flowers” (Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight, p. 35).The round shape of the eye and its protrusion from the butterfly’s head provides a field of viewthat exceeds 180 degrees. The monarch’s eyes, by an incredibly complex mechanism, can alsodetect light polarization and is thought to use this ability to determine the direction of the sun,even on cloudy days, during migration.The butterfly has a PROBOSCIS, which is a double-tubed feeding “straw” that it uses to sucknectar from flowers. It is an amazing organ. After the butterfly emerges, it unerringly knits thetwo tubes together by microscopic hooks. The proboscis can be rolled up for flight and extendedat will. Muscles in the butterfly’s head create suction to draw up the liquid. There are smell andtaste sensors at the tip of the proboscis that guide it to the nectar.The butterfly’s ANTENNAE are delicate and complex sensor organs. The female’s are tippedwith red smell sensors that can sense the male’s perfume from as far as two miles away. Theantennae are also used to smell flowers for food and to locate the right milkweed leaves forlaying eggs. The butterfly uses this sensory equipment to analyze the chemical makeup of a leaf.The antennae are also used for balance; if one is removed, the insect flies in circles. And as wehave seen, the antennae are also used for migration.The female butterfly uses six sharp microscopic needles on her FORELEGS to test for thechemical composition of food. She also uses her feet which are clawed tarsi. “Butterfly tarsipossess a sense similar to taste: tarsai contact with sweet liquids such as nectar causes theproboscis to uncoil, and females often scratch plants with the tarsi to find the proper host planton which to lay eggs” (Audubon Society Field Guide).If the butterfly came about by evolution, then evolution is miraculous and has all of the attributesof Almighty God!THE TRILOBITEThe trilobite is an extinct arthropod, a hard-shelled, segmented creature that “lived in the Earth’sancient seas.” The name “trilobite” means “three lobed” and refers to the fact that the creaturehad three longitudinal lobes. They existed in a bewildering number of varieties, with 15-20,000known species, ranging in size from one millimeter to over feet in length.Evolutionists place the trilobite in the earliest stages of life, in the so-called Cambrian layer. Theearliest trilobites supposedly lived 570 million years ago and the creature is thought to have gone312

extinct 240 million years ago. It is considered one of the signature creatures of the Paleozoic Era.(All of this is evolutionary myth with no scientific proof. The Bible says the trilobite populatedthe earth from the creation week.)Even some evolutionists admit that the trilobite “defies the theories of evolution” (“Trilobites,”Paleodirect.com).The trilobite defies evolution in that it appears suddenly in the fossil record with noevidence of having evolved from anything else.Evolutionary writings are filled with accounts of the trilobite, of how it “evolved,” “modified,”“developed eyes,” and such, but there is no evidence for this. The scientific evidence that itevolved from some other creature or that its complex eyes and other organs evolved is nonexistent.This proposition is based upon evolutionary assumptions and wishful thinking and noton the actual evidence.Evolutionists admit that it “appeared suddenly” in the “Cambrian explosion.”Dr. Andrew Snelling comments on this:“There are no possible evolutionary ancestors to the trilobites in the rock layers beneath where the trilobitesare found, for example, in the Grand Canyon. In fact, the trilobites appear in the geological record suddenly,fully formed ... There is absolutely no clue as to how the amazing complexity of trilobites arose, and thusthey quite clearly argue for design and fiat creation, just as we would predict from the biblical account inGenesis” (Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, edited by JohnAshton, pp. 294, 295).The trilobite defies evolution in that it was a highly complex creature.The trilobite had retractable antennae, multiple, jointed legs, and gill structures. It is thought tohave had a set of gills associated with every leg. It would have had complex muscle systems tomove the legs. It is thought to have had a circulation system, including a heart and lung, and acomplex nervous system, as indicated by the antennae which probably had a sensory function. Ithad a complex brain to control all of these systems. The trilobite also underwent a series of lifestages.And it had a compound eye that gives every evidence of being a marvelous design.“Clarkson and Levi-Setti (1975) of the University of Chicago have done some spectacular work on the opticsof the trilobite eye lenses. It turns out that each lens is a doublet, that is, made up of two lenses, while theshape of the boundary between the two lenses is unlike any now in use--either by animals or humans(Shawver 1974). However, the lens shape and the interface curvature are nearly identical to designspublished independently by Descartes and Huygens in the seventeenth century. Their design had thepurpose of avoiding spherical aberration and was known as the aplanatic lens. Levi-Setti pointed out that thesecond lens in the doublet of the trilobite eye was necessary in order that the lens system could work underwater where the trilobites lived. Thus, these creatures living at the earliest stages of life used an optimal lensdesign that would require very sophisticated optical engineering procedures to develop today” (Ian Taylor, Inthe Minds of Men, p. 164).313

Some of the trilobites had 15,000 lenses per eye, and all of these worked together in perfectharmony to provide exceptional vision for this “simple” creature.In spite of evolutionary claims that “trilobites developed one of the first sophisticated visualsystems in the animal kingdom,” there is no evidence that the trilobite eye or any other eyeevolved. The eye is found intact on countless fossilized creatures reaching back to the supposedearliest stages of the fossil record, and the eye appears fully formed in countless varieties, butthere is absolutely no evidence that one type of eye evolved from another. To lay out a display ofeyes from “simple” to more complex is not evidence for evolution. It could just as well provethat each particular eye was designed by God for that particular creature.In the “Cambrian layer” there are many type of creatures with many different types of eyes, andthere is zero scientific evidence that any of the eyes evolved from something “simpler.” The only“evidence” is speculation and evolutionary assumptions.Those who claim that the trilobite eye “evolved” provide no scientific method whereby such amiracle could occur by “blind” chance. Not only would it be necessary for the bewilderinglycomplex physical mechanism of the eye itself to have evolved, but it would also have beennecessary to have evolved also the accompanying complex wiring in the brain with itsmysterious ability to receive and interpret visual signals. And all of this had to “evolve” at theDNA level.The mind-boggling complexity of creatures at every level of the fossil record disprovesevolution.In fact, modern biology has taught us that there is no such thing as a “simple creature” even atthe most microscopic level, but this was evident in the fossil record all along.The trilobite gives evidence for the Biblical Flood.The trilobite provides evidence for the Flood, first, through its rapid fossilization. The incredibledetail of the fossils, even to the retention of microscopic detail in the compound eyes, proves thatthe creature was subject to a catastrophic process of fossilization as opposed to a uniformitarianone. The fossils demonstrate that living trilobites were fossilized so quickly that they were stillmoving! The fossil trilobite that I own, a Hollardops from the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, wasfossilized while swimming. The fossil is fully inflated, meaning it died and was fossilized in aninstant.The trilobite provides evidence for the Flood, second, because even though the trilobite was a seacreature it has been found in mountains and deserts throughout the world, on every continent,including the Sahara Desert, mountains in Morocco, in Nevada, Arizona (the Grand Canyon),314

Indiana, New York, Oklahoma, Ohio, Ontario, South America, England, Czechoslovakia,Germany, Spain, Russia, Siberia, and China--proving that the earth was once covered by the sea!Only a worldwide catastrophe of biblical proportions can explain the trilobite fossils.In the trilobite God’s existence is indeed “clearly seen” -- unless one is willfully blind.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ICONS OF CREATION1. What is the proof that Isaac Newton gave for God’s existence?2. What is the “elephant in the room” for evolutionists?3. What Bible passage says that the invisible things of God are seen in the creation?4. What invisible things about God are evident in creation?5. Why do men not see this evidence?6. What verse says the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not?7. What is the watchmaker argument?8. Who published that argument and when?9. When was this argument successfully refuted?10. How has the watchmaker argument grown stronger?11. What is “co-evolution”?12. What are the four stages of the butterfly’s metamorphosis?13. While in the pupa stage, the caterpillar dissolves into a cellular liquid referred to as _______.14. Why is the generation of monarchs that flies to Mexico called the “Methuselah Generation”?15. Does that same generation of monarchs fly back to Canada?16. How are the iridescent colors of the butterfly’s wings produced?17. What does the butterfly use to drink nectar from a flower?18. The monarch butterfly has a ___________ eye composed of ________ lenses.19. What does trilobite mean?20. Where did the trilobite live?21. What are two ways that the trilobite defies evolution?22. How does the trilobite’s fossilization point to instant fossilization?23. The trilobites appear in the geological record __________, _________ formed.”24. How does the trilobite give evidence for a global Flood?315

PREDICTIONSMaking educated predictions and testing them is part of the scientific method. Carl Werner,M.D., says:“Using the scientific method, a scientist will start with an idea (theory or hypothesis) and then test the validityof his idea by vigorously trying to disprove it. If he or she can’t falsify it, then the original theory remainstentatively true” (Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, p. 9).PREDICTIONS OF EVOLUTIONScience journalist Richard Milton refers to the “infinite elasticity of Darwinian Theory” becauseof “its ability to interpret the data in any one of a number of completely different ways--evenwith diametrically opposed conclusions--as long as those ways are consistent with the centralbelief in Darwinian evolution itself” (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 113).“As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead is used retrospectively to explainevery outcome: and a theory that explains everything in this way, explains nothing. Natural selection is not amechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact” (Milton, p. 130).This is true, but we will mention one prediction that Darwinian evolution should require withease.Billions of transitional creatures and organsDarwin admitted that his doctrine required that “the number of intermediate and transitionallinks, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great” (On the Originof Species). In fact, “Darwin’s theory predicted not merely that fossil transitions would be found;it implied that a truly complete fossil record would be mostly transitionals” (Phillip Johnson,Darwin on Trial, p. 48).“... if life has evolved in the way that Darwin proposed, there should be many millions of transitionalspecies--invertebrates with rudimentary backbones; fish with incipient legs; reptiles with half-formed wings,and so on. Indeed, given a theory that postulates continuous random genetic mutation, and hence acontinuous spectrum of life forms, constantly evolving to become better and better adapted, such specimensshould be the rule rather than the exception. Life itself should be boldly innovative, rather than cautiouslyconservative” (Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 254).When contemplating the absence of proof for his doctrine in the fossil record Darwin asked, “...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we noteverywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of thespecies being, as we see them, well defined?”He even considered the incredible possibility that “nature” had somehow hidden the evidence forhis doctrine. “Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of hertransitional or linking forms” (On the Origin of Species).316

“The absence of transitional intermediates was troubling even to Darwin’s loyal supporter T.H.Huxley, who warned Darwin repeatedly in private that a theory consistent with the evidencewould have to allow for some big jumps” (Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 46).“The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly if someone were to produce a sequence of fossilsfrom a sequence of adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing indisputable signs ofgradual progressive change on the same basic stock, but above the species level (as opposed tosubspecific variation) ... But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks.Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion with a straightforward fossil sequencefrom successive strata. Yet there are so many billions of fossils available from so many thousands of stratathat the failure to meet this modest demand is inexplicable if evolution has taken place in the way Darwinand his followers have envisaged. ... Schoolchildren should be able to do this on an afternoon’s nature studytrip to the local quarry, but even the world’s foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the wholeEarth to choose from and the resources of the world’s greatest universities at their disposal” (Richard Milton,Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 110).In the study on the fossil record in the chapter “Icons of Evolution” we have documented thegross lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution. Instead of gradualism, we see the suddenappearance of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history.PREDICTIONS OF BIBLICAL CREATIONISMBiblical creationism makes many clear predictions. As Jason Lisle, Ph.D. in astronomy, says:“Christians need to understand that their worldview is not merely hypothetical. The real universe is thebiblical universe. Since the Bible is true, it can be used to explain and make successful predictions aboutwhat we find in the physical universe. Genetics, geology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, and manyother sciences all show facts that are what we would expect, given the truth of the Bible” (Jason Lisle, TheUltimate Proof of Creation, p. 98).Consider some of these predictions:The universe will behave according to established laws.If God created the universe as described in the Bible, we can predict that it will behave accordingto established laws, and this is exactly what we find. This is so evident and so amazing that manynon-Christian scientists have become convinced that it points to “intelligent design.”Paul Davies, for example, in the Goldilocks Enigma describes the orderly, law-abiding nature ofthe universe as evidence for intelligence of some sort. Just as Goldilocks found the porridge nottoo hot or too cold, but “just right,” so the universe is “just right” for human life on earth.“Instead of finding that space is filled with a dog’s breakfast of unrelated bric-a-brac, astronomers see anorchestrated and coherent unity. On the largest scale of size there is order and uniformity” (The GoldilocksEnigma, p. 20).317

The universe will be logical.If God created the universe as the Bible describes, we can predict that it will be logical to man’smind, and this is exactly what we find. Dr. Jason Lisle observes that if God’s Word were not true,reality would make no sense:“We would not have a good reason to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility; the basic reliability ofmemory and senses, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, morality, personal dignity and freedom, and so on. ...“Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. ... For example, the statement ‘My car is in the garageand it is not the case that my car is in the garage’ is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Anyrational person would accept this law. But few people stop to ask, ‘Why is this law true? Why should there bea law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?’ .. The Christian can answer thesequestions. ... According to Genesis, God has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26) and therefore we are tofollow His example (Eph. 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and thus the way Heexpects us to think. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think,rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), and all truth is inGod (John 14:6; Col. 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself. Since God is constantly upholding theuniverse by His power (Heb. 1:3), the consistent Christian expects that no contradiction will ever occur in theuniverse.“Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other worldviews cannot account for them. Forexample, apart from the Bible, how could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only saythat they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, and no one hasexperienced the future. ... Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur inreality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, or laws of logic in general. ...“How can the evolutionist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? In an accidentalevolutionary universe, why would there be universal, unchanging standards? ...“There cannot be a single universal set of laws of logic if there is more than one god. Therefore, nopolytheistic religion can account for laws of logic” (Jason Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, pp. 40, 41,52, 54, 56).There will be a vast unbridgeable gulf between man and the animal kingdom; man alonewill demonstrate high intelligence and worship God.The Bible says that God made man in His own image and that man is not part of the animalkingdom. We would expect to find evidence for this, and this is precisely what we do find.In Hallmarks of Design Stuart Burgess gives 10 characteristics that are unique to man: uprightstature, skillful hands, unique skin, intricate language, intricate facial expressions, uniqueintellect, unique genetic code, unique reproduction, spiritual being, and delicate beauty(Hallmarks of Design, p. 164).There will be evidence that men worshiped one God in the beginning and that this devolvedinto polytheism.The Bible indicates that polytheism did not begin until nearly two millennium after man wascreated. Polytheism arose after the Flood at the Tower of Babel about 2200 B.C., and spreadfrom there throughout the earth. Before the Flood men worshipped one supreme Almighty God,and this is what historians have found.318

“In my opinion the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extremepolytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall ofman” (Stephen Langdon, Semitic Mythology, Vol. 5, Mythology of All Races, 1931, p. xviii; Langdon was arenowned scholar at Oxford).“A belief in a Supreme Being is to be found among all the peoples of the primitive culture...” (WilhelmSchmidt, Origin of the Idea of God).“There is a monotheism that precedes the polytheism of the Veda; and even in the invocations of theinnumerable gods, the remembrance of a God, one and infinite, breaks through the mist of idolatrousphraseology like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds” (Max Muller, History of Sanskrit Literature,1859, p. 559; Muller was a renowned Oxford Sanskrit scholar).“Five thousand years ago the Chinese were Monotheists, but even then there was a struggle with natureworshipand divination” (James Legge, The Religions of China, cited from A.C. Gaebelein, Christianity orReligion, 1927, p. 44).“From high cultures and low cultures the same picture emerges. It is a picture of a remarkably pure conceptof the nature of God and His relation to man being gradually corrupted on the one hand by rationalizationswhich resulted from the gradual substitution of man’s own thinking in place of revelation and on the otherhand by superstition which stemmed from ignorance and forgetfulness or the original revelation” (ArthurCustance, Evolution or Creation? 1976, p. 131; Custance had an M.A. in oriental languages and a Ph.D. inanthropology).“In the early ages of mankind, the existence of a sole and omnipotent Deity, who created all things, seems tohave been the universal belief...” (J. Gardner Wilkinson, The Ancient Egyptians).There will be evidence that human language is only a few thousand years old.Modern archaeology has traced writing to the late 4th millennium B.C. (Joseph Naveh, Originsof the Alphabets, p. 6). This is exactly when the Bible says man’s history began.There will be evidence that there was one original language.The Bible says that there was one language in the beginning of man’s history, and themultiplicity of languages can be traced to God’s judgment on the Tower of Babel project.One ancestral language is what many linguists and historians have argued for. It is calledmonogenesis and has been supported by Alfredo Trombetti, Morris Swadesh, John Bengtson,Merritt Ruhlen, and Joseph Greenberg, among others.“Many modern day philologists attest to the likelihood of such an origin for the world’slanguages. Alfredo Trombetti says he can trace and prove the common origin of all languages.Max Mueller also attests to the common origin” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence ThatDemands a Verdict, p.105).There will be evidence that man’s language was fully developed from its inception.Instead of language growing more complex, it is growing increasingly simple. Ancient Chinese,which originated at least 4,000 years ago, had 6,000 characters, whereas modern Chinese is319

greatly simplified. Ancient Sanskrit, which dates to at least 1,500 B.C., had up to 500 variationsfor each verb, whereas the modern languages that have developed from Sanskrit, such as Hindiand Bengali and Nepali, have only a few variations. (English typically has only five verb forms:do, does, did, done, doing.)There will be evidence of Intelligent Design.The evidence for this is everywhere. See the chapter “Icons of Creation.”There will not be life elsewhere in the universe outside of Heaven, and certainly not anysort of evolving life.The book of Genesis says that God made the earth for man’s habitation and the starry universe inrelation to man’s earthly existence. The only other creatures mentioned in Scripture are theangels. The elect angels live in Heaven but they are also active on earth. Some of the angelsfollowed Satan in his rebellion. Some of these are incarcerated (2 Peter 2:4) while others areactive on earth (1 Peter 5:8). Beyond this, the Bible does not indicate that there is life elsewherein the created universe.After 45 years of intensive research by NASA, not a single sign of life has been detected. Morethan $130 million has been spent on SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) since 1960,with the current technology using 27 different telescopes scanning space in all directions forsigns of life. This problem for evolutionists is known as the “Fermi Paradox.” Enrico Fermi, anatomic scientist, asked the question, “Where is everybody?”Robert Naeye, editor-in-chief of Sky & Telescope magazine, says, “The sobering reality is thatthere is no observational evidence whatsoever for the existence of other intelligent beingsanywhere in the universe” (“O.K., Where Are They?” Astronomy, July 1996, p. 36). PaulDavies’ book summing up the first half century of SETI is entitled The Eerie Silence (April2010). Davies still thinks life might be found if SETI could be ramped up, but he admits that sofar, “not a whisper of an alien message has been received.”There will be evidence that the world was made for man (Genesis 1:29).This is exactly what we find. The world contains everything man needs. It has oxygen forbreathing, water for drinking, food for sustenance, materials for clothing, fuel for light and heat,building materials for construction, substances for medicine, beauty, and a thousand other thingsfor man’s necessities and pleasure.The fact that the world seems designed for man’s use is so obvious that some evolutionists havecalled this the anthropic principle. But a world giving the appearance of having been designedfor man makes no sense if it were a product of blind evolution.320

Evolutionist Freeman Dyson said, “The universe in some sense must have known we werecoming” (quoted by Judith Hooper, “Perfect Timing,” New Age Journal, Dec. 1985, p. 18).All men will be of the same race.According to the Bible, all men have the same blood (Acts 17:26); they come from the sameoriginal parents, Adam and Eve.This is exactly what we find to be true. The differences between men are superficial, pertainingto such things as skin color and eye shape.There will be evidence that human civilization began in the Mesopotamian region.According to the Bible, after Noah’s Flood in about 2350 B.C. human civilization flourished inthe Mesopotamian region between the Tigris and Euphrates.This is exactly what archaeologists have discovered. Great civilizations arose suddenly in thisvery region.“Historians refer to ancient Mesopotamia as ‘the birthplace of civilization.’ The first civilizationdeveloped in the southern region of Mesopotamia, called Sumer. ... By about 2800 B.C., mostSumerians lived in a city-state” (Shilpa Mehta-Jones, Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, p. 4).In fact, the very cities mentioned in Genesis 10 have been unearthed by archaeologists. Theseinclude Babylon, Nineveh, Erech, Ur, and Calah.Man’s history will stretch back only several thousand years and will appear as a full-blownintelligent culture.The Bible says that Adam’s children built complex societies and were inventive from the verybeginning, excelling in such things as metal working, designing musical instruments, andagriculture (Genesis 4:16-22). This early society, dating to about 4000 B.C., was destroyed in theFlood, but it was duplicated immediately thereafter by Noah’s offspring beginning in about 2,500B.C. The kingdom of Babylon was highly sophisticated, with the use of bricks and mortar for theconstruction of high towers, etc. (Genesis 10:8-12; 11:1-4).This is confirmed by the discoveries of modern archaeology. Every ancient civilization seems tohave popped into existence suddenly four to five thousand years ago.The Egyptians had amazing mathematical and engineering skills. The Great Pyramid, built inabout 2,500 B.C., contains over two million blocks of stone, each weighing about 2 1/2 tons. Itssides are 756 feet long and are set to the points of a compass to an accuracy of a small fraction ofone degree (Don Stewart, The Creation, p. 150).321

Ur of the Chaldees is one of the ancient cities mentioned in Genesis after the Flood. The city,dating to 2500 B.C., was excavated in the 1920s by a joint team of American and Britisharchaeologists with Charles Woolley in charge. Werner Keller says, “Ur of the Chaldees was apowerful, prosperous colourful and busy capital city in the beginning of the second millenniumB.C.” (The Bible as History, p. 19). There were laws, courts, administrative offices, spinningmills. The broad irrigated fields of corn, barley, date-palms, figs, etc. stretched as far as the eyecould see and “could cheerfully bear comparison with Canadian wheat farms.” The city’s centraltower was 75 feet high, built in stages of diminishing size of “gaily colored brick” on afoundation block 120 feet square. Each stage was covered with trees. It was surrounded with fivetemples that featured courtyards with flowing fountains. The houses were “handsome andcomfortable.” Many of the citizens lived in “large two-storied villas with thirteen or fourteenrooms.” The houses were built of burnt brick and the walls coated with plaster and whitewashed.The citizens employed a variety of musical instruments to accompany their singing and plays.The graves of the kings contained golden drinking cups and goblets, wonderfully shaped jugsand vases, bronze tableware, mother of pearl mosaics, lapis luzuli and silver, harps and lyres andmusical pipes, bright headdresses of flowers and leaves cut from gold and silver sheets, daggerswith golden blades, and game boards.The Mayans of Central America, 2000 B.C. and even earlier, had a written language, art,architecture, and could figure the length of a solar year to within 2/10,000 of a day. Theycalculated the length of each year at 365.2420 days, whereas modern astronomers calculate it at365.2422 days.There will be evidence of ancient religious towers throughout Mesopotamia.The Bible says that after Noah’s Flood men built a great tower in Babylon as a religious andsocio-political enterprise. Since the 19th century, archaeologists have unearthed the remnants ofdozens of these towers, called ziggurats.There will be beauty and pleasure.According to the Bible, the Creator made beauty and a bounty of things for man to enjoy(Genesis 2:9 “pleasant to the sight”; Job 26:13 “he hath garnished the heavens”; 1 Timothy 6:17“who giveth us richly all things to enjoy”).This is exactly what we observe. The creation is not only functional, it is beautiful andfascinating and pleasurable. The sun doesn’t just appear or disappear; it comes and goes with aglory that has never been captured fully by man’s art! Snow doesn’t just fall from the sky inhaphazard chunks; it falls in flakes of glorious patterns. The earth’s sky is a lovely, comfortingblue, whereas it could be a depressing black like the moon’s. The trees and shrubs and grass areglorious in their beauty, all shades of tranquil green, all sorts of pleasant habits, displayingflowers of every shape and every color in the rainbow. Even the lowly weeds have their glorious322

flowers. Jesus spoke of their beauty, saying that even Solomon in his kingly glory was notarrayed like the grass of the field.Even in the depths of the sea and in outer space there is beauty. The Hubble Space Telescope hastaken pictures of breathtaking beauty in outer space.Bird feathers and butterflies have a complete range of color, which is produced by three types ofpigment (carotenoid, porphyrins, and melanin) as well as magnificent systems involving intricatelight reflection.Even at the cellular level, there is beauty. Dr. Fazale Rana says, “... the most fascinatingdiscovery made by scientific pioneers has little to do with the cell’s structures or activities.Rather, it is the sheer beauty and artistry of the biochemical realm” (The Cell’s Design, p. 16).“God has made nature not only for our necessities, but also for our pleasures. He has not onlymade fields of corn, but he has created the violet and cowslip. Air alone would be sufficient forus to breathe, but see how He has loaded it with perfumes; bread alone might sustain life, butmark the sweet fruits with which nature’s lap is brimming. The colours of flowers, the beautiesof scenery, the music of birds, all show how the great Creator has cared for lawful gratificationof every sense of man. Nor is it a sin to enjoy these gifts of heaven; but it would be folly to closeone’s soul to their charm” (Charles Spurgeon).There will be barriers between the different kinds of plants and animals.The Bible says 10 times in Genesis 1 that God made the plants and animals to reproduce “afterhis kind” (Gen. 1:11, 12, , 21, 24, 25).This is evident in the fossil record and is called stasis. Creatures not only appear in the fossilrecord fully formed but they also retain their form throughout their existence, even oversupposed “millions of years.” The oldest bat in the fossil record, for example, is “modern” inform.In breeding experiments, this is called “genetic homeostasis.” Through the process of artificialselection, corn has never become wheat; dogs, sheep; or reptiles, birds.It is important to understand that the modern term species is not the same as the biblical kinds asused in Genesis 1, which is the Hebrew word baramin. Andrew Lamb of Creation Ministrieswrites: “The biblical kind often equates to the family level in the modern biological classificationscheme, and sometimes to genus or order. Some excellent baraminology papers have appeared inrecent issues of Journal of Creation” (“Sheep and Goats?” Creation Ministries International,21007).323

There will be interrelatedness, interdependence, symphony.According to the Bible, God made the earth and the universe for man’s habitation, and this wouldpredict that we will witness interrelatedness, interdependence, and symphony throughout theuniverse, which is exactly what we see.Henry Zuill, Ph.D. in biology, observes:“When we look broadly at the panorama of life and ecological relationships, we see that ecologicalcomplexity is built on layer upon layer of complexity, going all the way down through different hierarchicalstructural and organizational levels to the cell and even lower. ... we are talking about an essential multispeciesintegrated service system--an entire integrated system. There seems to be no adequateevolutionary way to explain this. How could multiple organisms have once lived independently of servicesthey now require?” (In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 67-69).The examples of the harmony and integration of nature are endless. There is the finely-tuneduniverse. There is the earth’s ecosystem, with its nitrogen cycle, water cycle, food chain, etc.If evolution were true, we would expect to see chaos and disharmony rather than the beautifulintegration that actually exists.There will be evidence of man’s fall and of God’s curse on creation.According to the Bible, man sinned against God by breaking His law and God judged both manand the creation of which man is the head. Man is a fallen sinner and the creation is “groaningand travailing” under God’s curse (Romans 8:22).This is precisely what we see. Human history and experience tells us that something isdesperately wrong with man. He is incorrigibly evil, regardless of his environment andupbringing. He lies, steals, hates, envies, and covets. He is selfish, unkind, ungracious, and tendsto violence, and nothing has proven successful in changing man’s nature.The earth, while filled with beauty and delightful things, shows every evidence of being under acurse. There is disease and death and entropy. There is nature “red in tooth and claw.”There will not be any trees older than about 4,500 years.According to the Bible, the world was created six or seven thousand years ago and the globalFlood destroyed all life from the earth about 4,500 years ago, so we would predict that the oldestliving creatures will not be older than this.The oldest trees on earth are the bristlecone pines in the White Mountains bordering Californiaand Nevada. They are estimated to be about 4,600 years old.324

It has been claimed that a group of Huon pines in Tasmania are more than 10,500 years old, butthe dating was not based on actual ring counts but on pollen in a nearby lake. Traditional treeringdates give an age of no more than 4,000 years (Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, p. 173).There will be great diversity and variety.The Bible says that God made a great variety of plants and animals (Psa. 104:24-25).It is not, therefore, surprising that there are many types of seeing and flying creatures (reptiles,mammals, birds, insects), but in light of evolution this would mean that the incredible miracle ofsight and flight blindly evolved many times with countless varieties.There will be evidence of a worldwide flood.According to the Bible, a flood covered the earth with water during the days of Noah.The two-volume Earth’s Catastrophic Past documents the powerful evidence of a worldwideflood. The author, Andrew Snelling, obtained a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney,Australia, in 1982, and was a principal investigator in the eight-year RATE (Radioisotopes andthe Age of the Earth) project which critiqued evolutionary dating methods. Snelling made majorcontributions to the project in rock dating studies using radioisotopes and in studies of radiationhalos and tracks in various minerals.Volume 1 examines the biblical record of the Flood, comparing this record with modernscientific knowledge and theories. He demonstrates that the Genesis record is reliable history thatwas authenticated by Christ’s teaching. He shows that the reliability of the whole Bible dependson Genesis as literal history and answers the arguments that have been advanced, both bysecularists, theological modernists, and “evangelicals,” against a six-day creation and the globalFlood. These arguments include the supposed lack of sufficient water to cover the mountains, thelack of space on the ark for all of the creatures, the problems with feeding so many animals, thepost-flood animal distribution, and the similarity of the Babylonian flood accounts. Volume 1also examines each of the six days of creation from a biblical and scientific viewpoint. Volume 1concludes with a lengthy examination of the modern geological synthesis, including the geologiccolumn, the precambrian column, and plate tectonics.Volume 2 examines earth’s geology from the standpoint of the Genesis record, particularly theglobal Flood. Dr. Snelling documents the renewed recognition of catastrophism among scientistsand the subsequent rejection of uniformitarianism. He examines the evidence for a global flood,including the massive fossil and coal beds. He demonstrates that the geologic column showsmassive signs of rapid water-deposited strata and that the order of the strata deposited by theFlood would organize creatures according to how we see them in the fossil record. He shows thepitfalls in the radioactive dating methods, including potassium-argon, rudbidium-stontium,samarium-neodymium, and uranium-thorium. He gives scientific evidence for a young earth,325

such as comets, the earth’s magnetic field, sea salt, erosion, sediments, volcanic activity andhelium, radiohalos, and human population statistics. He answers various problems such as chalkand diatomite beds, coral reefs and limestone, evaporites, buried forests, coal beds, oil deposits,limestone caves and cave deposits, and ice ages.Man will not find a solution to dying.The Bible says that death is not a “natural” thing; it is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23). The Biblefurther indicates that man’s typical lifespan will be about 70 years (Psa. 90:10). On the basis ofthis teaching, we would predict that man will never find a solution to old age and dying, and it isobvious that this is the case so far. Molecular biologist Bill Andrews is one of the scientists whoare trying to find a genetic solution to old age. Andrews has vowed to extend the human life spanto 150 years, which would be twice the length promised in Scripture. If the Bible is true, that willnot happen. Victory over death will never be found in a pill, but it is found in Jesus Christ. “Forthe wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ ourLord” (Romans 6:23).There will be a fear of death and a sense of an afterlife.The Bible says that men fear it (Heb. 2:15), and this is exactly what we see. All men die, andmen are generally fearful of dying and do everything they can to avoid it.There will be evidence than man has a consciousness of God and a desire to have arelationship with Him.The Bible says that God made man in His own image and for the purpose of walking infellowship with him. After God made Adam, he communed with God before Eve was made.Observation proves this prediction to be true. Man has a universal consciousness of God and adesire to know Him. This is witnessed by the multiplicity of religions that man has invented.Man will have a conscience.The Bible says that God put a conscience in man that speaks to him about right and wrong.“Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” (Romans 2:15).This is true to man’s experience. Psychologists call it a “voice” and they try to quiet it byteaching men that they aren’t really under a divine moral mandate, but the fact is that the moral”voice” is a universal phenomenon.326

Man will be guilt-ridden.The Bible says that after man sinned against God, he was guilt-ridden. He hid from God andtried to cover his nakedness (Gen. 3).This is exactly what we see in life. Men have invented many things, such as works religion andpsychology, in an attempt to soothe their guilty consciences.Man will be a master of blaming others for his errors.The first thing Adam and Eve did when they sinned was blame others. Adam blamed his wife,and Eve blamed the serpent (Gen. 3:12-13).The blame game has been played by all people throughout history. This trait is seen in children.The child typically tries to blame a sibling or someone or something other than himself. Thosewho work with prisoners know that it is rare for someone to own up to his own guilt and takeresponsibility for his actions.Man will be conscious of his nakedness.The Bible says that Adam and Eve were naked when God made them, but after they sinned theywere conscious of this and ashamed of their nakedness (Gen. 2:25; 3:7).It is interesting that man is the only “animal” that is aware of his nakedness and has generallythroughout history covered it with at least some clothing. There have been exceptions, whentribes of men have became so degraded that they have lived in nakedness, but generally this hasnot been the case. From cave drawings to the artwork of ancient Mesopotamian civilization, menand women are depicted as clothed.Evolution cannot explain how man became hairless (if he indeed evolved from the ape kingdom)or why he is conscious of his nakedness whereas apes are not.The stars will differ in glory.According to the Bible, God made the stars and planets and they “differ in glory” (1 Cor. 15:41).This is scientifically true. Even the planets of our sun differ dramatically one from another insize, chemical composition, heat, rotation, moons, rings, and many other things, which makes nosense from an evolutionary viewpoint.“The most popular theory holds that the solar system formed from an interstellar cloud of swirling gas anddust. If the sun, planets, and moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. Yeteach planet is unique.327

“Since about 98 percent of the sun is hydrogen or helium, Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury should havesimilar composition. Instead, much less than 1 percent of these planets is hydrogen or helium.“If the solar system evolved all planets should spin in the same direction, but Pluto and Venus rotatebackwards, while Uranius is tipped on its side and rotates like a wheel.“All moons in our solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but at least six have backwardorbits. Furthermore, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter have moons orbiting in both directions.“Scientists have no answer as to why four planets have rings or why each planet is so unique” (A Questionof Origins video presentation).The life of the flesh will be in the blood.According to the Bible, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11).This was written about 3,500 years ago, but it was not understood scientifically until recenttimes. For centuries doctors used “blood letting” as a healing method. George Washington,America’s first president, probably died prematurely because of this bogus practice. Modernmedicine has learned what the Bible has taught all along, that the life of the flesh is in the blood.The amazing system of blood vessels and capillaries carries the life-giving oxygen and othernecessary elements to every part of the body via the amazing blood cell. The blood also forms amajor part of the infection fighting and clotting systems, which are necessary for the “life of theflesh.”The earth will be round.According to the Bible, the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22).This prediction is true according to modern science. Isaiah was writing about 2,700 years ago, ata time when men typically thought the earth was flat. Some have argued that Isaiah was notreferring to a sphere but to a flat circle, but it appears to us that he was referring to the sphericalshape of the earth and it has been interpreted that way by many august commentators. John Gill(1697-1791) said it refers to a “globe” and states, “for the earth is spherical or globular: not a flatplain, but round, hung as a ball in the air; here Jehovah sits as the Lord and Sovereign; being theMaker of it, he is above it, orders and directs its motion, and governs all things in it.” Nowheredoes the Bible say or indicate that the earth is flat. The reference in Revelation 7:1 to the “fourcorners of the earth” do not refer in the context to corners as such but to the four directions of thewind.The earth will be suspended in space.According to the Bible, the earth is “hung on nothing” (Job 26:7).328

Of course, modern science has confirmed this biblical “prediction.” Other ancient religiouswritings did not get this right. There were countless commonly-held myths about the earth sittingon the back of Atlas or a turtle or an elephant, etc.The sun will make a circuit to the ends of the heaven.The Bible says the sun’s “going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the endsof it” (Psalm 19:6).This, of course, is what modern science has discovered. The sun makes a circuit around thecenter of the Milky Way galaxy at a rate of 486,000 miles per hour, with the planets revolvingaround the sun. When David wrote Psalm 19 three thousand years ago this was not knownscientifically. For example, the Egyptians, in spite of their brilliant scientific achievements,believed that the sun was carried along in a boat that floated on a heavenly ocean.There will be the fulfillment of Bible prophecies.A final prediction we will mention is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. If the Bible is thedivinely-inspired Word of God, its prophecies will be fulfilled, and this is exactly what we see inhistory.The many prophecies of Christ’s first coming were fulfilled to the letter, including His birthplacein Bethlehem and the details surrounding His death. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, for example,prophesied that Christ would die by crucifixion but that His bones would not be broken, and thatHe would be mocked, soldiers would gamble for his garments, and He would be buried in thetomb of a rich man.The prophecies of Deuteronomy 28 that described the entire course of Israel’s history have beenfulfilled to the letter. She rebelled against God’s law, was scattered to the end of the earth, waspersecuted wherever she journeyed, and she has come back to her land as predicted byDeuteronomy 30.The prophecies of the course of the church age have also been fulfilled. In 2 Timothy 3-4, theBible prophesied that professing Christians would turn away from the New Testament faith tofollow fables and live according to their own lusts. Peter prophesied that false Christianity wouldbring great reproach to the cause of Christ (2 Peter 2:1-3).These prophecies, written thousands of years ago, have been fulfilled. This is miraculous and it isirrefutable evidence of the divine origin of Scripture.329

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCEAGAINST EVOLUTION1. The purported mechanisms of evolution don’t create.The two classic mechanisms of Darwinism are natural selection and genetic mutation. Butneither of these has creative power. Through environmental pressures, natural selection might beable to “select” a certain beak size on a finch, but there is zero evidence that it can create a beakor a finch or change a finch into some other type of creature. Genetic mutation also has nocreative power. As we have seen, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful and do not add theinformation to the genome that would be required to create complex new structures. Anothermechanism proposed by Darwinists is “geographic and reproductive isolation.” This says thatwhen a small group of creatures is isolated by geographic barriers, “evolution” will occur morequickly because of the smaller gene pool. But this only deals with existing genes and offers nopossibility of being a mechanism to add new genetic information and create new structures andorgans and creatures.Since Darwinists won’t allow “a Divine Foot in the door,” they are back at square one with noanswer to the million dollar question: What is the power that fashioned such an amazing world ofliving things?2. Every evolutionary origin of life hypothesis has the same fatal flaw: it cannot bridge thebarrier between non-life and life.3. The more we have learned about the complexity of the living cell, the more obvious it hasbecome that it could not have evolved by some blind naturalistic process.4. Minor changes within a kind does not prove that such changes could produce new creatures.Darwin’s book was titled On the Origin of Species, but he gave zero scientific evidence of howthat species could have come into existence through evolution. The evidence he gave provedonly that species can adapt and change within their kinds, which is evidence for the truth of theBible.5. There are powerful error-checking and repair mechanisms in the cell that maintain stabilityand thwart the type of change required by evolution.6. The fruit fly experiments disprove evolution.First, the fruit fly experiments demonstrate that there is stasis or stability within kinds ofcreatures. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly. Second, no mutations have proven to be animprovement over the natural fly.330

7. The fossil record disproves evolution.First, the fossilization itself is evidence of a great worldwide catastrophe.Second, the fossil record does not contain the countless transitional creatures that Darwinianevolution requires.Third, the fossil record shows creatures appearing suddenly, fully formed, with no evolutionaryhistory.Fourth, the fossil record demonstrates complexity from its earliest layers.Fifth, the fossil record exhibits stability of species rather than change.8. Homology is not evidence for evolution. Similarity of structure is not evidence for commondescent nor evidence against common design.9. All “evidence” for evolution is based on evolutionary assumptions rather than genuinescientific proof.10. There is great controversy even among evolutionists over the most important icons, such asLucy and Archaeopteryx.11. Lucy could not have made the Laetoli foot prints.Russell Tuttle has rightly argued that a creature such as Lucy, with long curved toes, could nothave left the prints and concluded that “we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetolifootprints were made by Lucy’s kind” (“The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History,March 1990). Further, the footprints are nearly 12 inches long and were obviously made by alarge individual and not the three-foot-tall Lucy.12. Evolutionary artwork is not scientifically honest.Lucy is an example. Artistic reconstructions typically depict Lucy with human hands, walkinguprightly in a purely human manner on human feet, and typically with human-proportioned armsand legs. But this is contrary to the scientific evidence.13. Evolutionary dating methods are based on unproven evolutionary assumptions. Further, theresearch performed by the Ph.D. scientists associated with the RATE project (Radioisotopes andthe Age of The Earth) have proven that the date of millions of years is impossible for fossilbearingrocks throughout the earth, because carbon-14 is still present, and this means the rocksare less than 100,000 years old.14. Life’s mind-boggling complexity points to a Designer. The life-cycle of the butterfly, forexample, had to have been pre-programmed by an Almighty Designer.331

SUGGESTED MATERIAL ON CREATIONSCIENCE AND EVOLUTIONThe book Seeing the Non-existent: Evolution’s Myths and Hoaxes, available from Way of LifeLiterature in both print and eBook editions, contains a wealth of additional material on thissubject, including the following:Using Creation Science MaterialsErnst Haeckel: Darwin’s German ApostleIcons of Evolution (a much expanded edition)Icons of Creation (a much expanded edition)The Ape Men (an examination of all of the major “missing links”)Darwinian Gods (e.g., aliens, hopeful monsters, panspermia, Gaia, the noosphere, multiverses,self-organization)Darwin’s Social InfluenceBible-believing ScientistsRecommended Creation Science BooksRecommended Creation Science Video Presentations332

NOAH’S ARK AND THE WORLDWIDEFLOODTHE FLOODThe vast majority of professing Christians today, even most evangelicals, do not believe that theFlood was global. This is not because science has disproven the global Flood; it is because ofend-times apostasy and the fearful accommodation to modern evolutionary theories.For the following reasons we are certain that the Flood was global.1. The Bible’s description points to a global Flood.The Bible plainly states that the Flood of Noah’s day was worldwide. The great detail in whichthe Flood is described witnesses against a poetic or allegorical interpretation.“And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast,and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7).“And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath oflife, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die” (Genesis 6:17).“For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every livingsubstance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (Genesis 7:4 ).“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the wholeheaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains werecovered” (Genesis 7:19-20).2. The mechanics point to a global Flood.The Flood of Noah’s day was not merely a long season of heavy rain. It was a great deluge ofwater from the sky combined with a deluge of water from below. The water from the sky camefrom a vast ocean that had been suspended above the earth in vapor form since the creation week(Genesis 1:7). The deluge from below came from “the great deep,” which was an ocean of waterbelow the surface of the earth. The “fountains of the great deep” were broken up (Gen. 7:11).This cataclysmic action would have resulted in massive tidal waves which swept across theworld. The tidal waves created by just one volcano (Krakatoa) in 1883 produced immense wavesat least 100 feet high; traveling up to 450 miles per hour they resulted in the death of nearly40,000 people; the sound of the eruption could be heard 3,000 miles away (Simon Winchester,Krakatoa). When a series of earthquakes struck Chile in May 1960, the resultant tidal waves upto 50 feet high and traveling at 525 miles per hour caused massive damage in Japan one-third ofthe way around the world from their origin.333

3. The length of the deluge points to a global Flood.The deluge continued for 40 days and 40 nights (Gen. 7:12; 8:2). At 40 days the water reached itsgreatest height, but it continued to prevail on the earth for another 110 days (Gen. 7:24). Thiswas obviously not a “local” flood.4. The practical issues point to a global Flood.If the flood was local, God would not have instructed Noah to bring all the animals into the ark(Gen. 6:19-20; 7:1-3).If the flood was local God could simply have instructed Noah to move! “The whole procedure ofconstructing such a vessel, involving over a century of planning and toiling, simply to escape alocal flood, can hardly be described as anything but utterly foolish and unnecessary. ... The entirestory borders on the ridiculous if the Flood was confined to some section of the NearEast” (Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood).5. God’s promise points to a global Flood.God promised there would be no more floods like the one of Noah’s day (Gen. 9:11), but therehave been many large local floods, including those which have killed thousands. The followingare only a few examples:200,000 drowned when tidal waves swept across the Bay of Bengal in 18763.7 million people drowned in a flood of the Yangtze river in China in 193110,000 drowned in floods in Iran in 1954100,000 drowned due to flooding in the Red River Delta in North Vietnam in 19711,300 drowned and 30 million became homeless from monsoon flooding in Bangladesh in 19883,000 drowned in the flooding of the Yangtze in China in 19985,000 drowned in flooding and mudslides in Venezuela in 19992,000 drowned in monsoon floods in China, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh in 20022,000 drowned in monsoon floods in Bangladesh in July 20046. Peter’s prophecy points to a global flood.Peter likened the Flood of Noah’s day to the coming destruction of the entire world by fire (2Peter 3:5-7).7. Flood stories from all over the world point to a global Flood.“Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Hindus, Greeks, Chinese, Phrygians, FijiIslanders, Esquimaux, Aboriginal Americans, Indians, Brazilians, Peruvians, and indeed everybranch of the whole human race, Semitic, Aryan, Turanian--have traditions of a Great Deluge334

that destroyed all mankind, except one family, and which impressed itself indelibly on thememory of the ancestors of all these races before they separated. ‘All these myths are intelligibleonly on the supposition that some such event did actually occur. Such a universal belief, notspringing from some instinctive principle of our nature, must be based on an HistoricalFact’” (Halley’s Bible Handbook).Though containing mythical elements brought in by idolatrous minds, the stories represent auniversal memory of the Flood. Hundreds of these stories have been discovered in 70 languagesfrom throughout the world, and the vast majority mention a large vessel that saved the humanrace from extinction, NINETY-FIVE PERCENT DESCRIBING THE FLOOD AS GLOBAL(Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1, p. 99). As Dr. Snelling observes, “... if thereactually was a flood that destroyed mankind, as the Bible teaches, then universal flood traditionswould be exactly what we would expect to find” (p. 104).Theological modernists claim that the Bible’s account is based on one of these other stories, suchas the Epic of Gilgamesh from Babylon. In fact, it is obvious that the Bible’s account is the trueone, with its amazing detail, its ark having proper dimensions for sea travel, and its lack ofpolytheistic nonsense. The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, says the “gods” almost starved todeath during the Flood and cowered like dogs in fear. It also claims that the ark was a giant cube,which would have been a nonsensical shape for a ship built to withstand the raging seas for ayear. It would have been wildly unstable. The biblical ark, on the other hand was 450 long by 75feet wide by 30 feet high, which is similar to the proportion of large modern sea-going vesselssuch as oil tankers and aircraft carriers.8. Global layers of sedimentary rocks point to a global Flood.The whole earth is covered by facies or continuous layers of sedimentary rocks having similarcharacteristics. About three-fourths of the earth’s land area has sedimentary rock as the bedrock,ranging in thickness from a few feet to 40,000 feet or more.“Sedimentary rock was originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition aftertransportation by water from various sources. Sedimentary rocks are made up of pieces of rock or othermaterial which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their presentlocation. Sedimentary rock results from moving water which lays down layer upon layer by what’s calledhydrologic sorting (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc). This means that over 70% of the earth’s crusthas been moved by a great movement of water giving strong evidence for the flood” (Steve Carr, “Evidencefor the Flood,” http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm/).“This very specific kind of sedimentary rock is found to extend in a continuous band from western Australia toTexas, Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi, then to Northern Ireland through England to become the famouswhite cliffs of Dover. It continues in northern France, Denmark, northern Germany, southern Scandinavia, toPoland, Bulgaria, and then to Georgia in the Soviet Union, and the south coast of the Black Sea” (Ian Taylor,In the Minds of Men, p. 95).Derek Ager, professor of geology at University College of Swansea, England, in The Nature ofthe Stratigraphic Record (1973) challenged his fellow evolutionary geologists with “ThePersistence of Facies.” (Facies refers to sedimentary rock.) Ager wanted to “find an explanation335

for the phenomenon before the vocal opponents of evolution made use of it,” but in fact it isirrefutable evidence for the Genesis Flood.9. Massive fossil graveyards point to a global Flood.Throughout the earth there are massive fossil graveyards that offer profound witness to a globalFlood.The Burgess Shale in British Columbia contains countless thousands of marine invertebrates,that have been preserved in exquisite detail, “with soft parts intact, often with food still in theirguts” (Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 537). It is obvious that they wereburied in an unusual and catastrophic manner.“The Burgess Shale is, therefore, an enormous fossil graveyard, produced by countless animals living on thesea floor being catastrophically swept away in landslide-generated turbidity currents, and then buried almostinstantly in the resultant massive turbidite layers, to be exquisitely preserved and fossilized” (Snelling, p. 538).The Ordovician Soom Shale in South Africa is 10 meters thick and stretches hundreds ofkilometers. It contains thousands of exceptionally preserved fossils. The eurypterids even show“walking appendages that are normally lost to early decay after death” and “some of the fibrousmuscular masses that operated these appendages” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 538).“The evidence is clearly consistent with catastrophic burial of countless thousands of these organisms overthousands of square kilometers, which implies that the shale itself had to be catastrophically deposited andcovered under more sediments before burrowing organisms could destroy the laminations” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p.539).The Devonian Thunder Bay Limestone formation in Michigan is 12 feet thick and stretches formany hundreds of miles. It contains billions of fossils that were catastrophically buried.The Carboniferous Montceau Shale in central France has yielded the fossilized remains ofnearly 300 species of plants and 16 classes of animals. There are fossilized scorpions with theirvenomous vesicle and sting preserved.“ ... numerous footprints of amphibians and reptiles have been found, complete with finger and claw marks,and sinuous lines made by tails trailing in the mud. Even raindrop imprints and ripple marks have been foundpreserved, signifying that burial and lithification must have been extremely rapid. Similarly, the preservation ofthe fragile hinges in the bivalve mollusk fossils suggests that these animals were not transported before burial,but were entombed abruptly by rapid deposition of sediment” (Snelling, p. 540).The Carboniferous Francis Creek Shale in Illinois forms a fossil graveyard containingspecimens representing more than 400 species of a mixture of terrestrial, freshwater, and marineorganisms. The preservation of even soft part details is evidence of rapid burial.The Triassic Mont San Giorgio Basin in Italy and Switzerland, 300 feet deep and about fourmiles in diameter, contains thousands of well-preserved fossils of fish and reptiles. Details ofdelicate bones, tiny spines, and scales are distinctly visible. Fossilized fish contain embryos336

inside their abdomens. The fossilized Tanystropheus, a 4.5-meter giraffe-necked saurian, alsocontains the remains of unborn young.“Fish, like so many other creatures, do not naturally become entombed like this, but are usually devoured byother fish or scavengers after dying. Furthermore, when most fish die their bodies float. In the fossilassemblage at Mont San Giorgio are some indisputable terrestrial reptiles among the marine reptiles andfishes. Thus, to fossilize all those fish with the large marine and terrestrial reptiles, so that they are allexquisitely preserved, would have required a catastrophic water flow to sweep all these animals together andbury them in fine-grained mud” (Snelling, p. 543).The Triassic Cow Brand Formation in Virginia also contains a mixture of fossilized terrestrial,freshwater, and marine plants, insects, and reptiles that were buried together in a massivegraveyard. “Microscopic details are preserved with great fidelity, and the resolution of preserveddetail is approximately 1 micron” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).The Cretaceous Santana Formation in Brazil preserves fossils of marine and land plants andanimals, including shrimp, bivalves, fish, sharks, crocodiles, spiders, frogs, turtles, dinosaurs,and pterosaurs [extinct flying reptiles], including pterodactyles with wingspans of over nine feet.“Preservation has been so rapid, and so perfect, that structures such as muscle fibers with banding present,some displaying ultrastructure, fibrils, and even cell nuclei arranged in neat rows, have been fossilized.Underneath the scales, small pieces of skin are preserved and show thin sheets of muscle and connectivetissue. In a female specimen the ovaries have been preserved with developing eggs inside, and one egg evenhad phosphatized yolk. Many specimens display the stomach wall with all its reticulations, and often with thelast meal still in the stomach. One specimen has no fewer than 13 small fish in its alimentary tract, with anumber of shrimps, that even had their compound eyes preserved with the lenses in place. But the mostspectacular tissues found in these fish specimens are the gills, many having the arteries and veins of the gillspreserved with the secondary lamellae intact. ... It is clear, therefore, that the fossilization process took placemoments after the fish had died, and was completed within only a few (probably less than five)hours” (Snelling, p. 545).The Siwalki Hills north of Delhi, India, 2,000 to 3,000 feet high and several hundred mileslong, are composed of sediment laid down by water and are packed with fossils of land animals.Similar deposits thousands of feet thick are located in central Burma, which are packed with thefossils of large animals such as mastodon, hippopotamus, and ox, plus fossilized tree trunks.The Morrison Formation covers an area of about a million square miles in 13 U.S. states andthree Canadian provinces, stretching from Manitoba to Arizona, and Alberta to Texas. Dinosaurbones have been found at hundreds of sites, fossilized together with fish, turtles, crocodiles, andmammals.The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado contains fossils of palms,sycamores, maples, poplars, deep-sea bass, sunfish, herring, alligators, turtles, lizards, frogs,snakes, crocodiles, birds, bats, beetles, flies, dragonflies, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies, wasps,ants, and other plants and animals, terrestrial and marine.337

A fossil graveyard near Florissant, Colorado, contains fossilized fish, birds, insects, andhundreds of species of plants. Fruit and even blossoms have been found.The lignite beds of Geiseltal in Germany contain “a complete mixture of plants and insects fromall climatic zones and all recognized regions of the geography of plants or animals.” Leaves havebeen so well preserved that alpha and beta types of chlorophyll can be recognized.“[Also preserved are] the soft parts of insects: muscles, corium, epidermis, keratin, color stuffs as melamineand lipochrome, glands, and the contents of the intestines. Well preserved bits of hair, feathers and scales ...stomach contents of beetles, amphibia, fishes, birds and mammals ... Fungi were identified on leaves and theoriginal plant pigments, chlorophyll and coproporphyrin, were found preserved in some of the leaves” (N. O.Newell, “Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” Journal of Paleontology, 1959, 33: 496).These are examples of the massive fossil graveyards that blanket the earth and that give evidencefor the Biblical Flood.10. Sea creatures on the tops of mountains point to a global Flood.Fossilized whale skeletons have been found 440 feet above sea level north of Lake Ontario, 500feet above sea level in Vermont, and 600 feet above sea level near Montreal. A whale’s skeletonwas found on top of the 3,000-foot Sanhorn Mountain on the Arctic Coast and a mile high onCalifornia’s coastal range.Clusters of gigantic fossilized oysters were found atop the Andes Mountains in South America.Clam fossils have even been found on the summit of Mt. Everest. Many ammonite fossils (seaanimals of the octopus family), some with a diameter up to six feet, can be seen at 12,000 feet inthe Himalayans in the Kali Gandaki River in Nepal (http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html/). I have purchased beautiful ammonite fossils in Kathmandu that camefrom this region.Thus, just as the Bible says, in ancient days floodwaters covered the mountains.Question: Was there enough water to cover the earth?Skeptics have challenged the biblical Flood with the claim that there isn’t enough water to coverthe earth to the tops of the mountains. This challenge has been disproven by Bible-believingscientists. The answer, in a nutshell, is that the Flood reconstructed the earth. Mountains andvalleys were formed; the ocean floors were changed.“We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculatedthat if the earth’s surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that waterwould cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 footmountain [Mt. Everest]? The key is to remember that the Flood didn't have to cover the present Earth,but it did have to cover the pre-Flood Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully restructured theearth. ‘The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished’ (2 Peter 3:6). It is gone forever. Theearth of today was radically altered by that global event. That Flood accomplished abundant geologic work.338

Eroding sediments here, redepositing them there, pushing up continents, elevating plateaus,denuding terrains, etc., so that the earth today is quite different from before. Today even mountain rangesrise high above the sea. Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, theAppalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments,full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much ofAsia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds ofdeposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah’s day. At the end of theFlood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided withAsia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants--folded and fractured layers ofocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah’s Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formedthem!” (John Morris, Ph.D., “Did Noah’s Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?” http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=520/).There was a “drastic rearrangement of terrestrial topography, with continental land masses rising from thewaters, and ocean basins deepening and widening to receive the waters draining off the lands. ... Somehow,these great subterranean caverns, no longer pressurized, collapsed and the surface elevations sankcorrespondingly. Since these had been mainly underneath the antediluvian continents, to serve as the storagereservoirs for their rivers, and since these continents had by this time been essentially planed off by flooderosion, this means that they now became the bottoms of the postdiluvian ocean basins” (Henry Morris, TheGenesis Record).You can disbelieve the Bible if you please, but you cannot say there is no evidence that it is trueand that biblical faith is blind.THE ATTACK UPON THE GLOBAL FLOODAs Peter prophesied 2,000 years ago, there is a vicious attack today upon the Bible’s account ofthe global Flood (2 Peter 3:3-7).By this prophecy we learn that the “last days” began in a special sense in the 19th century,because prior to that it was generally believed even by secularists and scientists that God createdthe world and there was a universal Flood. In 1930, Merson Davies observed, “We shouldremember that, up to 100 years ago [1830], such a marked prejudice against the acceptance ofbelief in the Deluge did not exist” (“Scientific Discoveries and Their Bearing on the BiblicalAccount of the Noachian Deluge,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, Vol.LXII, pp. 62,63).In the 17th and 18th centuries, for example, Cambridge scholars universally believed in a globalFlood and wrote about it (e.g., Thomas Burnet’s A Sacred Theory of the Earth; John Woodward’sAn Essay Toward a Natural Theory of the Earth; William Whiston’s A New Theory of the Earth);but by Charles Darwin’s day they had largely abandoned this position for the uniformitarian viewof geology.The attack upon the global Flood has been so widespread that it has affected many “evangelical”scholars.“... today more and more evangelical scholars and leaders have compromised, quietly going ‘soft’ on the earlychapters of Genesis and relegating them to myth and legend, or simply regarding them as irrelevant” (AndrewSnelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1, p. 102).339

Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, documented this spreading unbelief among“evangelicals” in his 2011 book Already Compromised.In volume 1 of the Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology, answers thechallenges by secularists, theological liberals, and compromising evangelicals to the Bible’saccount of a global Flood. He observes that “those who promote the local flood view haveseemingly tried to outdo one another in their efforts to depict the supposed absurdities in thebiblical account” (p. 125).Snelling shows that the water would have been sufficient to cover the earth to the heightdescribed by Scripture. He shows that the ark was large enough to hold all of the kinds ofanimals (not according to the count of modern “species,” but to the count of true biblical kinds,which in Hebrew are baramin). He demonstrates that there would have been at the most about16,000 animals on the ark with a median size of a small rat. He shows that plants could havesurvived the global flood and that fish could have survived the mixing of fresh and salt water. Heshows that it would not have been beyond the capacity of a few people to care for the animals.He also shows that the animals could have repopulated the entire earth since the Flood anddiscusses in particular the issue of marsupials in Australia (fossil marsupials have been found inEurope, Africa, North and South America).THE ARKA description of the ark (Gen. 6:14-16)The word “ark” refers to a box-like vessel. The ark was a modified box-shaped craft like amodern oil tanker. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high (Gen. 6:15). Givena standard cubit of 18 inches, this would have been 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high.It was three stories high (Gen. 5:16).It had one window and one door (Gen. 6:16).It was made of gopher wood and pitched within and without so that it was watertight (Gen.6:14). Though we do not know what gopher wood was, it is obvious that it was a strong andpliable wood suitable for the purpose. The pitch was some sort of waterproofing, such as theslime or bitumen that was used in building the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:3).The sea-worthiness of the arkWas it stable enough and strong enough to withstand the raging sea?340

1. The Bible says that God instructed Noah how to build the ark, and those who believe in anAlmighty, All-wise God have no problem believing that He could construct an ark that wasstrong enough to do this job.2. Further, about 1,600 years had passed since creation, and the technological level of man wasdoubtless very advanced. Adam’s first sons were skilled in city building, metal working,agriculture, music, etc. (Gen. 4:20-22). Men lived to long ages then and had one language soknowledge would have increased rapidly. At the Tower of Babel, God said that because of man’sintelligence and unified language, “nothing will be restrained from them, which they haveimagined to do” (Gen. 11:6). The Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio, has a large section thatdemonstrates how that men in ancient times had the knowledge to build wooden vessels withmulti-layered hulls that could withstand the conditions encountered by the ark. Though someskeptics have claimed that such a large ship could not be constructed out of wood, in fact shipsjust as large as the ark existed in ancient times. The third century B.C. Leontifera, a fighting shipwith 1,600 rowers, was between 400 and 500 feet long. Another third century B.C. ship, whichwas built by Ptolemy Philopator to carry 7,250 men, was 420 feet long (“The Large Ships ofAntiquity,” Creation ex nihilo, June 2000).3. The ark’s dimensions were perfect. The ratio of length to breadth was 6 to 1. Some giant oiltankers are 7 to 1. A model of the ark made by Peter Jansen of Holland proved that it was almostimpossible to capsize (John Whitcomb, The World that Perished, p. 24).The size of the arkWas the ark large enough to carry all of the animals?1. Noah only needed to carry a representative of each major kind of creature and not everyvariety within the kinds.2. The following is a description of the ark if the cubit was 18 inches: “Its carrying capacityequaled that of 522 standard railroad stock cars (each of which can hold 240 sheep). Only 188cars would be required to hold 45,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving three trains of 104 cars eachfor food, Noah’s family, and ‘range’ for the animals. Today it is estimated that there are 17,600species of animals, making 45,000 a likely approximation of the number Noah might have takeninto the Ark” (Ryrie Study Bible).3. It is also possible that the cubit in Genesis 6 was larger than 18 inches, which would mean thatthe ark would have been even larger than the previous description. “The Babylonians had a‘royal’ cubit of about 19.8 inches, the Egyptians had a longer and a shorter cubit of about 20.65inches and 17.6 inches respectively, while the Hebrews apparently had a long cubit of 20.4inches (Ezek. 40:5) and a common cubit of about 17.5 inches” (R.B.Y. Scott, “Weights andMeasures of the Bible,” The Biblical Archaeologist, May 1959, pp. 22-27, summarized byWhitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood).341

4. As for the dinosaurs, their average size, based on the fossil record, was the size of a sheep orsmall pony (Ken Ham, The New Answers Book, p. 167, quoting M. Crichton, The Lost World, p.122). Struthiomimus, for example, was the size of an ostrich, and Compsognathus was the size ofa chicken. Thus, only some of them were overly large, and of these, Noah could have taken theeggs or he could have taken juveniles. Even the largest dinosaurs were small when firsthatched. Since reptiles can grow as long as they live, the large dinosaurs from the fossil recordwere probably very old ones (The New Answers Book). “There were probably fewer than 50distinct groups or kinds of dinosaurs that had to be on the Ark” (The New Answers Book, p. 168).SUMMARY OF “NOAH’S ARK AND THE FLOOD”1. The widespread skepticism toward the global Flood is a fulfillment of the prophecy in 2 Peter3. The skepticism is not based on established science but on “willful ignorance.”2. The Bible plainly describes a global Flood.3. The global layers of sedimentary rocks and the massive fossil graveyards and the fossil seacreatures on the tops of mountains point to a global Flood.4. Most of the skeptical arguments against the global Flood are easily answered. For example, itcan be demonstrated that there was enough water to cover the earth and there was room in theArk for all of the kinds of animals.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON NOAH’S ARK AND THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD1. The fact that most professing Christians do not believe the Flood was global is because of theaccommodation to _______________ theories.2. What are five reasons for believing that the Flood was global?3. The Flood was mechanically caused by what two events?4. The deluge continued for how long?5. The Flood prevailed on the earth for how long?6. If the flood was local God could simply have instructed Noah to _______.7. How does God’s promise to Noah after the deluge prove that the Flood was global?8. In what chapter of the New Testament is the Flood of Noah’s day likened to the coming fieryjudgment?9. How do the flood stories from throughout the world point to a global Flood?10. What is sedimentary rock?11. How does the “persistence of facies” point to a global Flood?12. How do fossil graveyards point to a global Flood?13. What are three examples of sea creatures that have been found on the tops of mountains?14. If the earth’s surface were completely flat, there is enough water today to cover the earth to adepth of about ___________.342

15. The key to answering the charge that there isn’t enough water to cover the earth is as follows:the Flood didn't have to cover the _________ Earth, but it did have to cover the ___________Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully _______________ the earth.16. What New Testament prophecy describes the coming of mockers in the last days?17. How do we know that this reference to the last days began in the 19th century?18. What is the title of Dr. Andrew Snelling’s book that answers the challenges by secularists andliberals?19. Does the Bible say that Noah brought every type of “species” of animal onto the ark?20. Dr. Andrew Snelling has calculated that there would be at the most about _________ animalson the ark with a median size of a small _____.21. How long was the standard cubit?22. What were the dimensions of the ark in feet?23. How many stories high was the ark?24. How many windows and doors did the ark have?25. What is an example of an ancient wooden ship that was about as long as the ark?26. A model of the ark made by Peter Janson proved that it was almost impossible to _________.27. If the cubit was 18 inches, the ark had a carrying capacity of _______ standard railroad stockcars.28. What was the average size of the dinosaurs?29. What are a couple of possible ways that Noah got the larger dinosaurs on the ark?343

SOUL WINNING AND APOLOGETICSMEMORY VERSES: Matthew 7:21-23; 11:28-30; John 1:9; 1:11-12; 3:16; 3:36; 17:3;Romans 1:18-20; 2:14-15; 3:23; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 John 2:4;5:12-13THE REASON FOR SOUL WINNINGWhy should we go out and preach the gospel to every person?To be obedient and to prove our love for Jesus (Jn. 14:15; Mat. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Lk.24:45-48; Acts 1:8; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Phil. 2:16; 2 Tim. 4:5). It is each believer’s responsibility togive out the gospel. God has called all of us to do this work. Each Christian can reach differentpeople.To prove our love for our fellow man (Mat. 9:36). Don’t we care about our fellow man who is onhis way either to eternal heaven or eternal hell?To give men a choice for heaven or hell (Mk. 16:16).To take away people’s excuses (2 Cor. 2:14-16). When we give the gospel we are doing twothings. We are offering that person a chance to be saved and we are making him accountablebefore God about the gospel.To get a reward (Jn. 4:35-36).To get a harvest (2 Cor. 9:6). If the farmer only plants a small part of his field, he will not get avery large harvest. Each church that wants a good crop must plant the seed of the gospel aswidely and diligently as possible.To bear Christ’s reproach (Jn. 15:18; Heb. 13:13).To show that we are wise (Prov. 11:30).To put on the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:15). Preaching the gospel is part of the spiritual armorthat protects us from Satan’s attacks. The believer that is disobedient to his Lord’s command topreach the gospel to every creature and is careless about the souls of his fellow man is spirituallyweak and susceptible to backsliding and defeat.What will Jesus say about excuses such as the following?I don’t think the people are very interested in the gospel.344

I don’t like to do that type of work.Evangelism is not my gift.I am too busy with other things.Some people laugh at me.Some people say hateful things to me.I tried it and nothing happened.People around here have already heard.There are lots of churches in my area.THE AUTHORITY FOR SOUL WINNING.The believer who preaches the gospel is Christ’s ambassador and the listeners will be judged as ifChrist Himself spoke to them (Mat. 28:18-19; Luke 10:17; 2 Cor. 5:20).THE POWER FOR SOUL WINNING.The power for soul winning is not in the soul winning or in the soul winner. It resides in Christand the Holy Spirit and the Gospel.The work of conviction belongs to the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11).Christ is enlightening and drawing all men (John 1:9; 12:32).The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). It is the seed of the harvest. Thegospel is described in a nutshell in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.God calls men through the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thes. 2:14).To appropriate God’s power, we use prayer (Heb. 4:16). When you go out to share the gospel,pray much, both before and after. Keep a list of unbelievers that you regularly pray for.THE ATTITUDE IN SOUL WINNING.2 Timothy 2:23-26 describes the proper approach and attitude for soul winning.Avoid foolish questions (2 Timothy 2:23).Foolish questions are questions that are not asked sincerely in order to know the truth but areasked with the objective of hiding and confusing the truth; they are questions that are asked tocreate doubt and strife.345

A trained Jehovah’s Witness will typically ask such questions. He doesn’t want to know the truth;he only wants to teach his false doctrine. His foolish questions include these: How can God beone and yet three? How can Jesus be God when He prayed to God? How can punishment in hellbe eternal when the Bible says God will burn the sinners up? How can death be a journey whenthe Bible says it is a sleep? (For the answers, see our book Things Hard to Be Understood: AHandbook of Biblical Difficulties.)If a person only wants to argue, it is a waste of time to deal with him. There are scorners butthere are also willing listeners (Acts 17:32).We must deal with scorners wisely (Prov. 26:4-5). We must not imitate the way of the fool bygetting involved in endless arguments and petty bickering; but we must briefly answer the fool’sarguments so he will not think there are no answers and thus be wise in his own conceits.Efforts to deal with willful heretics should be short lived (Titus 3:10-11).On the other hand, if a person asks a sincere question, it should be answered from the Bible. Theman who led me to Christ took the time to answer questions that came from pagan books I hadbeen reading, such as the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ and Autobiography of a Yogi andSiddhartha, and from my dabbling in a Hindu meditation society, ecology, and Christian Science.He patiently answered my questions with simple Bible doctrine, but he didn’t debate with me ona philosophical level.Be gentle, patient, humble (2 Timothy 2:24, 25).It is difficult to deal with people who are in the snare of the Devil. They oftentimes mock thetruth and are overbearing, proud, and unreasonable, and we are tempted to respond in kind. But ifwe deal with them in a like manner as they deal with us, we only stir them up to anger. “A softanswer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Prov. 15:1).It is important to understand that meekness doesn’t mean weakness and cowardliness. Moses wasthe meekest man, but he was bold in standing for the truth and dealing with error, such as whenIsrael worshipped the golden calf. Jesus is meek and lowly in heart, but He is unflinching inreproving and rebuking for truth’s sake (e.g., Lk. 9:55) and was even severe in His dealings withheretics (Matthew 23).Teach and instruct with God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:24, 25).Gentleness and patience and prayer are not enough to win people to the truth. There is no“lifestyle evangelism” in the Bible. Our lifestyle should doubtless back up what we preach, butthe power of salvation is in the Word of God and the gospel (Romans 1:16). We must thereforeproclaim God’s Word. It alone has the power to convert those who are in Satan’s snare.346

Trust in God (2 Timothy 2:25-26).Only God can deliver someone who is in the snare of the Devil. I must not trust my debatingskills or my knowledge or my teaching ability or my patience and humility; I must trust only inthe Lord and His Word and Spirit to bring deliverance.We must understand that we are fighting a spiritual battle against a spiritual enemy (v. 26).No matter how impossible the situation might appear, God is able to give repentance.Repentance is both a gift from God and the responsibility of the sinner. Compare 2 Timothy 2verse 25 with 26. See also Acts 17:30.THE TECHNIQUE OF SOUL WINNING.Forget formulas and deal with people as individuals.Most soul winning programs are far too formulaic. Biblical evangelism is not salesmanship. Wedon’t see a specific soul winning formula in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospels and the earlypreachers in the book of Acts approached people differently according to the situation. There isonly one gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), but the approach and “technique” of presenting thegospel and dealing with people differs with each individual. Like Jesus with the woman at thewell or Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch or Paul with the philosophers on Mars Hill, we mustmeet people where they are and seek to bring them to the truth. We must learn to follow the HolySpirit and be sensitive to the situation in which we find ourselves. We must walk in fellowshipwith Christ and learn from Him how to be fishers of men (Mark 1:17). At the end of the day, allwe can do is present the truth. It is God who must draw and convict and convert the soul (John16:7-11).Don’t be afraid to be mocked.See John 15:20; Luke 9:26; Philippians 1:29.Don’t forget who the enemy is.Our real enemy is not man; it is the devil (Eph. 6:12). As the god of this world, he blinds theminds of unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:4). We must have on the whole armor of God to overcome himand rescue those who are his captives (Eph. 6:11-12).Be faithful and persistent.One of the most important things about evangelism is faithfulness and persistence. Don't getdiscouraged if nothing seems to be happening. We must do this work by faith, not by sight. Keep347

your eyes on the Lord and trust Him to accomplish His will and to give fruit and just continue togive out the gospel. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor.4:2).Use God’s law to show men that they are sinners.No individual will cast himself upon Christ for salvation unless he first is convinced that he is alost sinner with no hope apart from Christ. Most soul winning programs pass over this fact fartoo lightly. They teach us to quote a verse or two about sin and then ask the individual, “Do youbelieve you are a sinner?” Many people will answer this in the affirmative simply because theyknow that they are not perfect, but they also do not believe that they are so wicked as to deserveGod’s wrath. They do not believe that even their very righteousness is as filthy rags before God(Isaiah 64:6).It is God’s Law that exposes man’s sinful condition by showing what God requires and how farman has fallen. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ (Galatians 3:24). It is the Lawwhich takes away man’s excuses and stops him from judging himself by human standards andcomparing himself to other men and makes him stand guilty before God (Romans 3:19).In the epistle to Rome Paul spent the better part of three chapters establishing the fact of God’sholiness and His righteous judgment upon sinful mankind (Romans 1:18 - 3:23) before hepreached salvation through the grace of Christ (Romans 3:24 - 4:25).The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17 can be used effectively toward this end, beginningwith the first. Ask the individual if he has always put God absolutely first in his life. The sincereanswer, obviously, will be no. Ask if he has always honored and obeyed his father and mother,whether he has ever stolen, ever lied, ever coveted that which belonged to someone else.Go further and show that God requires that we keep His laws from the heart. External obedienceis not enough. Thus, lusting after a woman is likened to adultery (Mat. 5:28) and hating someoneis likened to murder (Mat. 7:21-22).Show that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty ofall” (James 2:10).This establishes the fact that all men are sinners who constantly break God’s laws and deserveGod’s punishment. It means that all men are under God’s judgment and will be punished witheternal punishment, because we can never pay the full amount that God’s law demands. Thus thewages of sin is not only physical death but also eternal torment in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).348

Explain the light that God has given.Men tend to blame God for not giving them enough light. It is common to charge God withculpability for the fact that millions of people today who have not heard the gospel of Christ. It iscommon to charge God with culpability for those in past times who have not heard.The fact is that God has zero culpability. He has given light and those who respond to the lightreceive more light. The Bible says that God gives light to every man (John 1:9).In the epistle to Rome, Paul explains that God has given three types of light to mankind. He hasgiven the light of creation that we might know that there is a wise and powerful God (Romans1:20), and He has given the light of conscience that we can know that there is a moral God(Romans 2:14-16), and He has given the light of prophecy and Scripture that we might knowwho this God is and might have a personal relationship with Him (Romans 3:1-2).God has raised up prophets to the nations from the time of Abel to the present. “God has spokenby the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21), but they have beenridiculed and persecuted and killed far more often than they have been honored and believed. Inthe days of Solomon the kings of the earth heard the prophetic wisdom God had given him (1Kings 4:34). Jesus commanded His disciples to carry the gospel to every nation, and even by theend of the first century it was preached in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Europe. The wholeBible has been translated into every major language and portions thereof into more than 2,000other languages.The nations have heard, they have not listened. They will be condemned by the likes of theEthiopian eunuch, the nation’s treasurer, who obtained a copy of the prophet Isaiah and soughtPhilip’s assistance in understanding it (Acts 8:26-39). When a man sincerely tries to comprehendthe light he has, God will send him a Philip. God requires that men seek after Him, and promisesto be found of those who do (Acts 17:26-27; Jeremiah 29:13; Luke 11:9; Hebrews 11:6). It is notGod’s fault that most people sit in darkness today.Learn how to open a conversation.There are a thousand ways to open a conversation that can lead to the presentation of the gospel.Use tracts. Ask, "May I give you something special to read?" or "I have some Good News forYou" or "May I give you something that has been a blessing in my own life?" Or use the title orsubject of the tract to begin a conversation. For example, I have a tract entitled “Why Did JesusDie?” and when I hand it to people I ask them if they know the answer to that question and I usetheir reply as an opportunity to present the gospel.Use religion. If you think the person might be religious, ask him if he believes it is possible to beabsolutely sure of salvation. Every false religion teaches that salvation is by works or by works349

plus grace, so the ensuing conversation is an opportunity to show that the Bible says salvation isa free gift that was purchased by Christ and that through Christ I can know for sure that I haveeternal life.Use the situation. Sometimes in barber shops, for example, I tell the barber that I used to be alonghaired hippy, and I then tell him my testimony of how I came to Christ. On a visit toErasmus Darwin’s house, which is a museum today, we asked the English taxi driver if hebelieved in evolution and used that conversion to present the gospel. On a visit to an atheist’shouse in Australia for a meal, I noticed a copy of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and openedthe conversation by asking if he had read it and explaining that I am convinced that Darwin gavezero evidence for his thesis.Do not approach the encounter as a debate to be won but a testimony to be told.If I treat the encounter with an unbeliever as a debate, he will probably treat it the same way andwill consider me an opponent to out-argue instead of someone to learn from. To avoid this typeof situation, it is wise to approach it as a testimony time rather than a religious or scientificdebate. Say, “Each individual must make up his own mind, but could I explain some of thereasons why I am personally convinced that the Bible is true and that Jesus is who He said Heis?” or, “Could I share a couple of the reasons why I don’t believe in evolution?” This way, theunbeliever is not put on the spot to try to defend his position and is more likely to listen to what Ihave to say.Challenge the unbeliever to state his best evidence for evolution.If an individual claims to believe in evolution, ask him to state what he believes to be the bestevidence. This is, first of all, a way for the soul winner to find out what the individual actuallyknows about evolution and so he can begin the refutation with the very evidence that theunbeliever finds most effective in his own mind. It is also a way to gain a hearing for the truth.When a person sees that you are interested in his thoughts he is more likely to show interest inyours.Be prepared to answer questions and to give evidences for the faith.Some soul winning programs encourage the evangelist not to answer questions, but I amconvinced that this is a wrongheaded and unscriptural plan. Jesus answered questions. I amthankful that the man who led me to the Lord in 1973 was willing to answer my questions. Mymind was filled with Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian Science, and Mother Earthenvironmentalism and I needed someone to show me that such things as an Eastern Guru Christand reincarnation and all paths leading to God were wrong.350

It is true that we should always try to bring the conversation back to the simple gospel, but takingthe time to answer sincere questions can remove stumbling blocks that people have to hearingthe gospel.Street preacher Russell Wallace says:“Creation evangelism is an excellent tool and ties in beautifully with the gospel message. ... Being armed withthe right information and able to answer some basic questions is a very powerful strategy to evangelizetoday’s youth. Telling people to just believe in Jesus regardless of the supposed evidence for evolution is areason for people not to believe. I do not expect a sensible mind to rationalize a contradiction. The saturationof society with evolutionary thinking makes the job of evangelism more difficult today. Sixty years ago a streetpreacher did not have to deal with the frequency of today’s stumbling blocks that get in the way of the Gospel.Some of these include the evolutionary slant on fossils, carbon dating, the origin of races and dinosaurs andtheir millions-of-years explanations. Let me share another example of a Friday night encounter--with a youngman named Danny. As he was passing by, he heard the preaching and hung around to listen. I went up to himand started a conversation. He revealed that he had been through some bad experiences with his family andno longer believed in God like he used to. Danny had already discarded the intellectual aspects of his faithbecause of his exposure to the constant barrage of evolution in school. He had no answers to defend his faith.After sharing how the Bible can be trusted, he asked ‘Do you believe in the story of Adam & Eve?’ Danny nowhad a keen interest to know more. After I gave him my answer he fired another question. ‘What about all thedifferent people?’ (Meaning: Where did all the races come from?) Danny outwardly made an effort to appearreserved but hearing this information had clearly impacted him. I could tell he was thrilled he could believe inGod again. He added, ‘You gave me reasons to abandon my doubts.’ I handed Danny a Creation magazineand encouraged him to hand it to his sister after he had finished reading it, because, in Danny’s words, ‘She isno longer a Christian but an atheist now.’ To my surprise, he gave me a hug then went to catch his bus. Ofcourse, some listeners, whether they be on the street or in the workplace might not be comfortable about thethings we say, but if you as an evangelistic believer are prepared with answers, any objections from thepeople you are witnessing to will be easier to deal with. And when you see how your answers positively impactthe ‘Dannys’ out there, it makes it all worthwhile” (“Street Preacher Says Creation ‘Is the Issue,’” CreationMinistries International, Oct. 17, 2008).It is important to be as equipped as possible and to continue to study to educate oneself in theBible and in ways to answer people’s questions.Memorize some reasons why you believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word, some reasons whyyou believe that Jesus rose from the dead, some arguments against evolution (e.g., facts of thefossil record, fruit fly experiments), and some arguments for creation (such as the life cycle ofthe monarch butterfly).See the section on “Using Resources” for material where the answers to questions can be found.Use resources.There are many powerful gospel and apologetics resources available that can be used inevangelism. Be familiar with some of these so that you can know where to find answers toquestions and also so you can recommend them to unbelievers.Build an evangelistic apologetics library. It is a good idea for each church not only to provide agood selection of tracts but also to build an apologetics-evangelism lending library as well asmaking such material available for purchase. Individual Christians can purchase some of the bestmaterials as a personal lending library for those who show keen enough interest.351

Find some good tracts. The first consideration in the use of gospel tracts is to be certain that thecontent is scriptural. There are three problems with many tracts. First, many do not contain aclear and biblical presentation of the gospel. Terms such as “ask Jesus into your heart” or “giveyour life to Christ” aren’t scriptural. Salvation is not to give one’s life to Christ; it is to trust thefinished atonement of Christ which He accomplished on the cross. This is not “splitting hairs.”Paul warned that in order to be saved the sinner must believe the right thing (Rom. 6:17; 1 Tim.2:4). A second serious drawback is that many tracts do not deal with repentance. Salvation onlycomes by “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).Whether or not the word “repentance” is used in a gospel tract, the idea should be. What isrepentance? It is a change of mind that results in a change of life; it means to turn around andface in a different direction; it refers to a surrender to God’s authority (1 Thes. 1:9). A thirdproblem with many gospel tracts is that they do not give enough information or they take toomuch for granted. In this day and time, most people even in the USA are ignorant of the Bible. Itis necessary that we explain biblical terms, otherwise, when people hear terms such as “saved,”“believe,” “Christ,” “God,” “sin,” they won’t have the proper idea of what we are talking about,and any “profession” they make will be empty.Following are some suggested gospel tracts:“The Bridge to Eternal Life.” This full-color pamphlet is also illustrated. [Majestic Media, majestic-media.com]“I’m a Pretty Good Person” is one of the many tracts published by the Fellowship Tract League. It is a goodtract to show people that their good works and religion won’t take them to heaven. [Fellowship Tract League,http://www.fellowshiptractleague.org/]“The Most Important Thing You Must Consider.” This tract is strong on God’s holiness and His just punishmentof sin and the necessity of repentance. [http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_prodinfo.asp?PID=pa3300819142]“What Is Your Life?” This pamphlet is illustrated. [Operation Somebody Cares, http://www.operationsomebodycares.com]“The Little Red Book” ministry has nine gospel tracts. [http://www.littleredbook.org]Liberty Baptist Church in Greenville, Michigan, has a wide range of helpful Gospel tracts. [Pastor Mike Austin,Liberty Baptist Church, http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/]Mercy and Truth Ministries has some interesting small tracts. One is titled “You Can Get to Heaven from---------” and an edition can be obtained for each state in the U.S. [Mercy and Truth Ministries, Lawrence, KSmercyandtruthministry.com]Moments with the Book has several tracts. One is the size of a business card and reads “The wages of sin isdeath” when held one way and “The gift of God is eternal life” when turned upside down. On the back is a briefgospel message. [Moments with the Book, Bedford, PA, http://www.mwtb.org/site/gospel-tracts.html]The Topical Database at the Way of Life web site contains a wealth of resources. See theApologetics, Creation Science, and Evangelism sections -- http://www.wayoflife.org/database/articledatabase.html352

On the subject of creation science/evolution, the following web sites are especially helpful:icr.org, answersingenesis.org, creation.com, creationmoments.comThe book Things Hard to Be Understood is a large handbook on biblical difficulties and answersa wide variety of challenges by skeptics and cultists and false religionists, such as the allegedcontradictions in the Old Testament and in the Gospels, verses pulled out of context to show suchheresies as Jesus is not God, or salvation is by works, or annihilation of the soul, or losing one’ssalvation. This book is available in both print and eBook editions (Kindle, PDF, PUB) from Wayof Life Literature. The eBook edition can be kept on one’s laptop or a smart phone or Kindlereader or iPad so that it is available when questions arise.Give Attendance to Doctrine, one of the Way of Life Advanced Bible Studies Series, deals withsuch things as Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and redactive criticism of the Gospels (thatthe Gospel writers used a common oral tradition and a so-called Q document).Other resources that refute theological liberalism and skepticism:New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowellUnger’s Commentary on the Old Testament by Merrill F. UngerThe New Unger’s Bible HandbookHalley’s Bible Handbook Deluxe EditionOld Testament Survey by Paul House and Eric MitchellIs the New Testament Reliable? by Paul BarnettThe Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by Walter KaiserThe Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig BloombergThe Historical Jesus by Gary HabermasThe Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics edited by Norman GeislerWhen Critics Ask by Norman GeislerWhen Skeptics Ask by Norman GeislerArchaeology and Bible History by Joseph Free and Howard VossThe Unshakeable Faith Student’s Handbook, which is a companion to this apologetics course,contains a brief summary of evidences. This can be used as a guideline in soul winningsituations, as a discipleship tool for teaching other believers, and as a refresher course for review.A Mini Apologetics Library, a selection of information in electronic format (e.g., mp3 and PDF)can be placed on a small USB drive and kept in one’s pocket. These little drives can bepurchased so cheaply today that we can afford to give them away when we find someone whoshows interest in doing his own research into an issue such as creation science. You candownload materials that you have found helpful and keep them on a drive (or a CD) for thispurpose. The files can include sermons, tracts, and documents such as the following from theWay of Life web site -- “Testimonies of Scientists that Believe the Bible,” “Icons of Evolution,”“Icons of Creation,” “The Bible’s Proof,” “Christ’s Resurrection,” “The Flood and Noah’s Ark,”353

The Amazing Story of the Bible, Your Questions Answered about the Bible -- even PDF editionsof portions of the Bible.Use testimonies.One of our readers said:“I have been focusing on how to evangelize those with whom we are in proximity for an extended period oftime -- school-mates, work-mates, family members, etc. I have discovered the power of testimonies. AChristian with a good personal testimony is a powerful weapon against Satan's kingdom. A Christian whoknows five or six good testimonies can keep a spiritual conversation going for months, and maintain a longterm low pressure form of evangelism that usually will not burn bridges with those we are around. ”This is a good idea. Not only can we use our own testimony but also testimonies of others, suchas the ones we have given in the report “Men Who Were Converted Trying to Disprove theBible,” available at the Way of Life web site -- www.wayoflife.org.Since many highly educated evolutionists are of the opinion that no true scientist believes theBible, it can be effective to give them a copy of “Testimonies of Scientists that Believe theBible,” which contains the biographical sketches of dozens of Ph.D.s who believe in a six-daycreation. This is available athttp://www.wayoflife.org/files/ec91e76262537ee6f1f48a9ef768d3de-847.htmlChallenge people to read the Bible for themselves.Faith comes by reading and hearing the Bible (Rom. 10:17). We need to challenge people to readthe Bible for themselves and to seek enlightenment from God. Show them God’s promises thatthose who seek Him will find Him (Lamentations 3:25; Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7; Hebrews11:6; James 1:5). Explain how to read the Bible. Start with Genesis and Exodus, then go to Lukeand Acts and Romans.The book The Amazing Story of the Bible is designed to be an introduction to the Bible. It isavailable as a free eBook in the evangelism section of the Topical Database at the Way of Lifeweb site -- http://www.wayoflife.org/database/articledatabase.htmlChallenge people to receive Jesus and come to Him (John 17:3).Salvation is not a prayer to pray or a religious ritual to go through. It is not turning over a newleaf and changing my lifestyle. It is not a mere ticket to heaven. It is a personal, life-transformingrelationship with Jesus Christ, and this relationship begins when the individual acknowledges hissin against God and surrenders to God’s authority, receiving Jesus Christ as his Lord andSaviour. Salvation is to receive Christ (John 1:11-12). It is to come to Christ (Mat. 11:28-30).Explain to the individual, “You can know Christ today. He has done everything that needs to bedone to save you and to bring you into right relationship with God. He invites you to come today354

and He promises that He will receive you and give you salvation and rest and will teach you howto be His disciple.Don’t neglect the follow up.If the person shows an interest, try to get his address and phone number so you can make contactwith him again. Make sure that he knows your phone number or that of the church so he cancontact someone if he senses the need. This information will usually be on the gospel tracts.Follow up through prayer. Have a prayer list.Follow up through invitations to church.Follow up through evangelistic Bible studies. See http://www.wayoflife.org/files/f83d182bc2c224e4a4bb44c96bf83ecb-833.htmlDEALING WITH ATHEIST AND AGNOSTIC SKEPTICSAtheism is on the march in these last days. Atheists are advertising on television and newspapers,billboards and buses, proclaiming slogans such as, “Are you good without God? Millions are,”and, “God probably doesn’t exist, so relax and enjoy life.” The Internet is filled with atheisticravings against God and “religion.”Understand the fundamental issue.According to the Bible, the atheist’s foundational issue is not an intellectual one; it is sin andarrogance and rebellion. Though the atheist claims not to believe in God, it is typical for anatheist to think about God a lot. A recent study found that atheists and agnostics reported moreanger at God during their lifetimes than believers (“Anger at God Common,” CNN, Jan. 1,2011).Don’t get entangled in a philosophical debate.It is a waste of time to enter into a philosophical debate with a skeptic. Arguing philosophy is adead-end street; it has no spiritual power. It is impossible to come to settled truth by this means.The Bible associates philosophy with vain deceit and warns the believer not to be spoiled by it(Col. 2:8). The Bible never tries to prove the existence of God. It begins with the simplestatement that God exists and that He made the universe. The reason for this is that man hasirrefutable evidence of God’s existence in the creation and in his own conscience. The atheistclaims that he can’t see that evidence, but this is why the Bible twice calls the atheist a fool (Psa.14:1; 53:1). He can’t see it because he is willfully blind and spiritually dead.355

The only thing that will help the atheist is the absolute truth found in the Bible, and we must notallow him to control the conversation.If you meet an aggressive atheist or agnostic, I suggest that you set the ground rules for adiscussion. I say to such people, “I will be glad to explain why I personally believe in God andthe Bible and Christ as Lord and Saviour and I will be glad to try to answer any sincere question,but I won’t get involved in a philosophical debate because I don’t believe that is profitable. TheBible is my sole authority and if you aren’t interested in hearing the Bible, I have nothing tooffer.”They usually find this very frustrating, but biblical instruction is the only thing that will deliver asinner out of the snare of the devil (2 Tim. 2:25-26). I thank the Lord that this is how a wise soulwinner dealt with me in the summer of 1973. While traveling from near Miami, Florida, toMexico, and back to Daytona Beach, Florida, we had a religious discussion. At first I wasinterested in his Bible answers to my questions and challenges, but eventually I got disgusted andsaid, “You don’t seem to have any thoughts of your own; you just quote the Bible. Why don’tyou throw the Bible out the window and let’s have a genuine philosophical discussion?” I amthankful that he didn’t accept my challenge. He told me that he was confident that the Bible isthe infallible Word of God and the only thing he had of eternal value for me was his knowledgeof the Bible. After three or four days, the light broke into my darkened heart; my pride wasbroken; and I put my faith in Christ and became a Bible believer myself!Emphasize that man is spiritually blind.It should be emphasized to the skeptic that to understand God and the Bible requires spiritualeyesight which the unbeliever does not have (1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Spiritualeyesight comes when the soul humbles itself before God (Proverbs 1:23; 2 Corinthians 3:14-16).Show the consequence of the competing world views.I like to remind unbelievers about the sobering consequence of the competing world views (theBible vs. naturalistic evolution). If the atheistic evolutionist is right, then there is no God, noeternal soul, no life after death, no eternal consequence to anything one does or believes in thislife. If, on the other hand, the Bible is true, then there is a God to whom man is accountable,there is only one way of salvation, death is a journey either to heaven or hell and there is nosecond chance to get it right. Thus, if the evolutionist is right, the Bible believer has lost nothingof consequence. My Christian life has been far superior to the worldly life I lived without Christ.But if the Bible believer is right, the evolutionist will miss salvation and lose his eternal soul.Understand how the skeptic argues.Following are some of the characteristics of the atheist’s argumentation and how to answer it:356

The atheist mocks and ridicules.Atheistic writings are typically filled with mocking and ridicule. There is an arrogance thatpredominates. There are probably exceptions, but this is true for every skeptical writing that Ihave seen, and I have examined many of the influential ones from the past 250 years. Consideran example:“Adam’s first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was very marvellous. All the cattle and beastsof the field and fowl of the air were brought before him to be named, and ‘whatsoever Adam called every livingcreature, that was the name thereof.’ This first Zoological Dictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be ableto call every animal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well as ourselves” (GeorgeFoote, The Bible Delusion).It must be noted that ridicule is not evidence. Mr. Foote does not disprove the account of Adamnaming the animals. He simply denies and disdains it and seems very pleased with himself fordoing so.The atheist blames God and says God is not just.This is the atheist’s favorite tactic. For example, Christopher Hitchens entitled one of his booksGod Is Not Great, calling the God of the Bible “a Celestial Dictator” and likening Him to thebrutal, self-centered leader of North Korea.This is a vicious slander. While the God of the Bible is Almighty God, a holy lawgiver and arighteous and just judge to whom every man is accountable, He is nothing like a North Koreanstyledictator. He is the opposite of a selfish tyrant. He is the creator God and He demands to beworshipped and honored as God, but He is worthy of the utmost respect because of Hiswonderful character. The Bible says that God is good, and mankind cannot justly accuse of Godof being anything but good. He doesn’t take; He gives. Every good thing that we have everexperienced came from the hand of God. He gave man an amazing body and mind and put himin the most delightful environment. He exalted man and woman as the king and queen ofcreation and gave them only one law. When they broke that law, instead of destroying them, Godoffered free eternal salvation which He purchased at great cost to Himself. The God of the Bibleis merciful, compassionate, longsuffering, gentle and easy to be entreated, meek and lowly inheart. Yes, there is an eternal Hell, but it was created for the devil and his angels and man goesthere by his own foolish and stubborn rejection of the gracious Creator’s offer of salvation.The atheist charges God with error because God does not act according to the atheist’s thinking.The skeptic is very demanding of God. He demands that God think and act in a way that willplease him, the atheist. “Why does God do this, and why does God allow this?” they say.The skeptic is convinced that he is capable of being God’s counselor. Robert Ingersoll, forexample, asked, “If the Bible is the foundation of all civilization, of all just ideas of right and357

wrong, of our duties to God and each other, why did God not give to each nation at least onecopy to start with?” (About the Holy Bible).The answer to the skeptic’s blaming of God is, first of all, that man is not God, and God’s waysare not our ways. His ways are much higher and wiser. Who is puny man to tell God how heshould think and act? Puny man who knows so very little and who has made such a mess of thisworld and who can’t even keep himself alive for more than a brief time?As to the charge about God’s culpability for those who haven’t heard, we have seen that God hasgiven light to every individual and nation and those who respond to the light receive more light.The atheist ridicules miracles.As one reviewer of the 19th-century agnostic Robert Ingersoll stated, “Anything that ismiraculous--such as predictive prophecy--is dismissed out of hand. Sometimes a touch of insultis added upon those who believe in miracles.” For example, Ingersoll said, “Can we believe thatElijah brought flames from heaven, or that he went at last to Paradise in a chariot offire?” (About the Holy Bible).The logical answer is “why not?” The skeptic has no evidence that the miracles described in theBible did not happen. He is not omniscient so that he knows all of the possibilities of what can orcannot happen in the universe. His only “evidence” is his own rationalism and unbelief. Hecannot disprove that Eve was made from Adam’s rib or that Elijah went to Heaven in a chariot offire or that Daniel foretold the future or that Jesus was born of a virgin or that He walked on thewater or that the apostles healed the sick and raised the dead. The atheist has zero evidenceagainst these things, so his position is entirely unscientific, unreasonable, and ridiculous.Most atheists profess to believe first and foremost in science, but there is not one solid scientificreason to believe that miracles don’t happen.The atheist mocks things in the Bible that make no sense to him.A large portion of atheistic writings about the Bible are devoted to mocking things that areassumed to be nonsensical. For example, Robert Ingersoll said, “Daniel is a disordered dream --a nightmare. What can be made of this book with its image with a golden head, with breast andarms of silver, with belly and thighs of brass, with legs of iron, and with feet of iron and clay;with its writing on the wall, its den of lions, and its vision of the ram and goat?” (About the HolyBible).Actually Daniel is an obscure nightmare only in Ingersoll’s imagination. In reality, this amazingprophecy is clear and self-interpreting. The image from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 isexplained clearly and simply. It represents four secular world kingdoms--Babylon, Medo-Persia,Greece, and Rome--followed by the establishment of God’s kingdom at Christ’s return. The358

vision of the ram and goat in Daniel 8 focus on the Medo-Persian and Greek empires, with theram representing the Medo-Persian and the flying goat representing Alexander the Great. As forthe writing on the wall whereby God announced the destruction of the Babylonian Empire andDaniel being thrown in the lion’s den for praying to God instead of to the emperor, what isobscure or nightmarish about that?Another example is how that atheists mock the doctrine of the Trinity. In his book The GodDelusion, Richard Dawkins mocks the Trinity as impossible to understand.But it is foolish to mock something just because it might not make sense to my fallible humanmind. The atheist can’t tell us how life came from non-life or even how the butterfly’s life cyclehappened. But he will stand in judgment on the Trinitarian God and pretend that he knows forsure that such a God does not exist because he finds such a God unthinkable. Amazing andridiculous audacity. Far from being evidence that the Trinity is a man-made doctrine, I considerthe fact that the doctrine is difficult to understand evidence that it is divine revelation. If I weregoing to make up a doctrine of God to foist on men, I wouldn’t make up something that makesno sense to the human mind.It should also be noted that the doctrine of the Trinity is often misstated. For example, the 18thcenturyinfidel Thomas Paine called it “the notion of the Trinity of Gods,” which is not theBible’s teaching. The Trinity is not three Gods but one God revealed in three Persons.The atheist misunderstands and misuses the Bible.The skeptic never looks more ridiculous than when he tries to be a Bible critic.Skeptics say, for example, that there are two contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1-2,whereas these are actually two complimentary accounts. (See the book Things Hard to BeUnderstood.)Skeptics say that God forbad all art in the second commandment (Exodus 20:4). Robert Ingersollsaid that the Bible “is the enemy of Art. ‘Thou shalt make no graven image.’ This was the deathof Art” (About the Holy Bible). Actually, God’s law forbad idolatrous art only. Exodus 20:4 mustbe interpreted in the context of the previous verse, which says, “Thou shalt have no other godsbefore me.” The Jewish Tabernacle and Temple were filled with artistry, such as the beautifulgolden candlestick, the golden incense altar, golden bells and engraved headbands, images ofpalms, pomegranates and cherubim. Arts actually flourished in Israel. David was a peerless poetand musician. Solomon beautified Jerusalem and built glorious palaces in many places.Skeptics say that the Jews could not have built the Tabernacle in the wilderness. Ingersoll asked,“How, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain curtains of fine linen? How did theseabsconding slaves make cherubs of gold? Where did they get the skins of badgers, and how didthey dye them red? How did they make wreathed chains and spoons, basins and tongs? Where359

did they get the blue cloth and their purple? Where did they get the sockets of brass?” (About theHoly Bible).If the skeptic would read the Bible with the goal of being informed rather than merely to findfault, he would see that the Jews not only had their own possessions that they took from Egyptbut they had treasure that was given to them by the Egyptians (Exodus 12:33-36).Skeptics say that the Bible’s account of Christ’s birth is hopelessly contradictory. Actually,though, this is a myth as has been refuted by many conservative Bible scholars. (See ThingsHard to Be Understood for the reconciliation of alleged contradictions.)They say that the accounts of Christ’s genealogy in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. RichardDawkins says, “Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’s descentfrom King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-onegenerations? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists!” (The GodDelusion).This is an infantile mistake on Dawkin’s part, but it is typical of how he treats the Bible. Thefollowing are the facts. First, Matthew traces Christ’s ROYAL GENEALOGY to Abraham (Mat.1:1), whereas Luke traces Christ’s NATURAL GENEALOGY to Adam (Lk. 3:28). Second,Matthew traces Christ’s genealogy through Joseph’s father Jacob (Mat. 1:15-16), whereas Luketraces it through Mary’s father Heli (Lk. 3:23). While Jacob was Joseph’s natural father, Heli washis adopted father. “Mary was the only child and heir of Heli (see the Talmus) hence whenJoseph married her he became the only son and heir of Heli” (George DeHoff, Alleged BibleContradictions Explained). Third, it is by means of Mary’s genealogy that Christ’s lineagebypassed Jechonias, because he was cursed so that his seed could not inherit the throne (Jer.22:30; Mat. 1:12). This problem was solved by tracing Christ’s genealogy through another ofDavid’s sons, Nathan, to Mary’s father Heli (Lk. 3:31). Therefore, instead of being evidenceagainst the Bible’s divine inspiration, the two genealogies provide wonderful evidence FOR it!Skeptics say that the accounts of Christ’s birth are contradictory. Dawkins says: “Matthew hasMary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth of Jesus,on their return from Egypt where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents.Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born.So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy? Lukesays that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreeda census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go ‘to his own city’” (The God Delusion).Actually, the contradiction is a mirage. Matthew does not “have Mary and Joseph in Bethlehemall along.” Matthew simply starts with Christ’s birth in Bethlehem without mentioning Nazareth.Not mentioning Nazareth is not the same as saying that Jesus was not there. The skeptic is notfinding contradictions; he is creating them!360

We could give nearly endless examples of how that skeptics charge the Bible with error when itis their own misunderstanding that is the problem. Many other examples are covered in ThingsHard to Be Understood: A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties.The atheist uses only liberal Bible scholars, completely ignoring conservative ones.In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins recommends three scholars: Bart Ehrman,Robin Lane Fox, and Jacques Berlinerblau. These are among the most radical of liberals, buttheir claims have been debunked by conservative scholars such as Merrill Unger, Walter Kaiser,Craig Bloomberg, Paul Barnett, and Gary Habermas, to mention a few.The atheist claims that one does not need a Creator God for morality.An ad campaign in 2010 sponsored by the American Humanist Association claimed that atheistmorality is superior to the Bible’s.This is impossible, because if life were a blind accident as atheists claim, if man is an evolvedbacteria, there would be no basis for absolute morality.The atheist claims that religion is harmful.This is one of Richard Dawkins’ themes, but the charge fails to distinguish between true andfalse religion. While is true that false religion has done much evil in the world, such as RomanCatholic crusades and Islamic terrorism, the true religion of God as revealed in the Bible hasbeen a bright spot in a dark world. It is the teaching of God’s law that has taught men to love oneanother. The “golden rule” -- thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself -- did not originate withatheists or evolutionists; it originated with the Bible. The apostle Paul taught that the law of God“is fulfilled in one word, even in this: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Galatians 5:14).Paul said, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of thelaw” (Rom. 13:10). If we love our fellow man, we will not commit adultery with his wife or killhim or steal from him or kidnap him or cheat him or lie about him or covet his goods, etc. Jamessaid that true religion before God is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (Jam.1:27).Atheists often charge the Bible with immorality in its treatment of women. But the Bible exaltswomen. It teaches that the woman is made in God’s image and equal in value to man thoughhaving a different role in this present world. Under God’s law it is a crime for men to spoilwomen sexually. The husband is to love his wife as his own body. Widows are to be treated withcompassion. If we examine human history, we see that women were commonly mistreated andabused in societies that were not influenced by the Bible. Women were not exalted and honoredin Buddhist Tibet or Hindu India or Taoist Japan. Women are still treated more as chattel inHindu and Muslim societies.361

The atheist charge that religion is harmful also fails to acknowledge the fact that atheist regimessuch as Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China were unspeakably brutal and destroyed countlessmillions of people.Further, this charge ignores the fact that the atheist has no absolute moral basis for saying thatreligion is harmful. If there is no God and no lawgiver and man is an evolved bacteria or worm,there is no ultimate basis of right and wrong, and it does not matter what man does or whathappens to him.The atheist’s authority is his own mind.The atheist’s fundamental problem is that he is his own god. He accepts no authority beyond hisown mind and heart.It is unreasonable to think that man could be his own authority, as his thinking is too finite andlimited and too susceptible to error.The Bible says that man’s heart is fallen because of sin and is deceitful and desperately wicked(Jer. 17:9); it says that those who trust in their own hearts are fools (Prov. 28:26).It is unreasonable to think that man could know the truth of God by his own unassisted thinking.How would this be possible? If there is a creator God, He is greater than man and beyondcomprehension by man’s natural senses and it would be necessary that He reveal Himself. Thisrevelation, of course, is exactly what the Bible claims to be.The atheist doesn’t like the idea of God as judge.You don’t have to dig very far before you find that what the atheist really dislikes about God isthe fact that He is a holy judge to whom all men are accountable.In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins praises the deist god of Voltaire and Thomas Paine abovethe God of the Bible, because the deist God is “loftily unconcerned with human affairs,sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins ormumbled contritions.” The thrice-married Dawkins dislikes the fact that the God of the Bible is(allegedly) “morbidly obsessed with sexual restrictions.”This rebellion toward God’s holy laws is the fundamental issue, and prophecy warns of it. InPsalm 2 the prophet describes the universal rebellion of the last days. It is God’s “bands” and“cords” that the people reject, referring to God’s law (Psalm 2:2-3). Peter prophesied the samething in his second epistle. The scoffers of the last days “walk after their own lusts” (2 Pet. 3:3).Paul said they will be “lovers of their own selves” (2 Tim. 3:2).362

Use the “you are a rock” approach with atheists.The following suggestion by David Stone, Ph.D. in physics, is used by permission from his bookEvangelism 1-2-1: How to do it Biblically, Boldly, and Compassionately(dstone44@comcast.net) --Sometimes you may need to “freeze” an atheist on the street before he brushes you off and gets away. Whenyou offer him a tract and make your intro, he is typically not interested at all, because he can’t imagine youhave anything of interest to tell him. In fact, if someone brushes you off with an attitude and starts to walkaway, you might just guess at his atheism and say . . .Oh, an atheist, huh? Too bad. You know, if you’re an atheist, you have a big problem. You’re out of touch withreality.If he is hanging around by this point, you may well be able to have a full-length conversation. I call thefollowing approach the “You Are a Rock” argument.Your real problem is whether YOU exist, not whether God exists. If there is no God, then everything is justphysics and matter, molecules and forces. Then your brain is essentially no different from a rock on theground, except for the particular arrangement of atoms. And the next thing that you say is just brain chemistry.There is no YOU that speaks, just brain chemistry producing sound out of your mouth. Is that right or not?Whatever he says . . .Now, was that YOU that chose to say that or just brain chemistry? Molecules can’t decide between good ideasand bad ideas, between logic and illogic, between right and wrong. Everything about YOU tells YOU that YOUexist! There is more to YOU than molecules. And once YOU admit that YOU exist, it’s easy to figure out thatGod exists.See that building over there? Do you know who the architect was that designed and built it? . . . Neither do I,but there is NO doubt in your mind or mine that someone with intelligence and skill built that building. Time,physics, and chance don’t put structures like that together. Time, physics, and chance tear down structures –a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And that building is really fairly simple. Look – mostlyrectangles, perhaps some triangles, bricks, stone, glass – if an architect wants to win an award he may throwin a curve or two. YOU, on the other hand, are walking nanotechnology. Every cell in your body is far morecomplex than a supercomputer. And time, physics, and chance don’t make supercomputers. Nor thenanotechnology of life, which is way beyond man’s capabilities.The designer of life is almighty God – the Lord Jesus Christ – who walked among us 2000 years ago. Whenan engineer builds something he doesn’t throw it away. He has a purpose for it. And God has a purpose foryou – first that you find Him.That mind of yours – your soul – is going to live forever somewhere. You have a God-given conscience – youknow the difference between right and wrong. Is murder wrong? . . . Is rape wrong? . . . Is molesting childrenwrong? When terrorists behead a captive, your heart cries out for justice. But are YOU ready for justice?Did you ever murder anyone? . . .From this point you go through the law, just like with any other lost person, to convince them they are lost. Youexplain their coming judgment, hell, their need for repentance, and then the Gospel. You need to camp onrepentance and the consequences of the new birth so they understand that life changes completely once theyrepent and follow Jesus Christ.What you have done with this approach is you have given them much to think about, including the falsefoundation of their atheistic faith. In the 2-minute “you are a rock” argument, you have “earned the right” toshare the Gospel with them in the rest of the conversation. By this point, most atheists will be doubting theirfaith. You’ll have given them plenty to think about. Trust God to convict them of their need for the Savior(David Stone, Evangelism 1-2-1).363

CONCLUSIONRemember that by giving out the gospel you are offering the greatest gift in the world. When wegive out the gospel we are offering dead people life, poor people riches, sick people healing, lostpeople salvation.By going we are both sowing and reaping (John 4:35-38). We must sow so that others can reap,and we reap from seed that others have sown. It is not uncommon for people to be confrontedwith the gospel many times before they even wake up enough to be interested.The bottom line is that if we go, God will work. We are His hands and feet. God calls through theGospel (2 Thess. 2:14). One pastor said, “I have learned that if I go out faithfully, God bringspeople even if they are not the ones I meet personally.” God has promised that His Word will notreturn void but it will accomplish His will (Isaiah 55:11).364

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONSANSWERED1. DO ANY SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE BIBLE?High Schools, colleges, and universities typically teach only one concept of origins, that beingevolution, and they are often given the idea that no true scientist today is a creationist. RichardDawkins says in his book The Greatest Show in Earth:“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligentdoubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputablescientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”According to Dawkins, if you reject evolution, you are unintelligent and your sanity should bequestioned, and he proclaims that no reputable scientist disputes it.In fact, modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation. In his bookRefuting Evolution, JONATHAN SARFATI, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry fromVictoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, says:“It is fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory sciencewould be impossible. In fact, most branches of modern science were founded by believers in the Bible’saccount of creation.”Consider some examples:Physics -- Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, JouleChemistry - Boyle, Dalton, RamsayBiology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, AgassizGeology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, CuvierAstronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, MaunderMathematics - Pascal, Leibniz, EulerDr. Sarfati continues:“Even today, many scientists reject evolution. The Creation Ministries International staff scientists havepublished many scientific papers in their own fields. DR. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, a nuclear physicistworking with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has had over 20 articles published inphysics journals, while DR. JOHN BAUMGARDNER’S catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported inNature magazine. DR. EDWARD BOUDREAUX of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articlesand four books in physical chemistry. DR. MACIEJ GIERTYCH, head of the Department of Genetics at theInstitute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers in scientific journals. DR.RAYMOND JONES was described as one of Australia’s top scientists for his discoveries about the legumeLeucaena and bacterial symbiosis with grazing animals, worth millions of dollars per year to Australia. DR.BRIAN STONE has won a record number of awards for excellence in engineering teaching at Australianuniversities” (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 2007, pp. 26-28).In 1979, Science Digest reported that “scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of ourfastest-growing controversial minorities. ... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold365

impressive credentials in science” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science DigestSpecial, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96).DUANE GISH, Ph.D. in biochemistry, worked for many years in pharmaceutical research atCornell University, the University of California, and the Upjohn Company. “As a biochemist, hehas synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He hasbeen co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.” Gish lists thefollowing scientists who reject evolution and believe in creationism.“While it is true that creationists among scientists definitely constitute a minority, there are many creationscientists, and their number is growing. Among these may be numbered such well-established scientists asthe late DR. W.R. THOMPSON, world-famous biologist and former Director of the Commonwealth Institute ofBiological Control of Canada; DR. MELVIN A. COOK, winner of the 1968 E. G. Murphee Award in Industrialand Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and also winner of the Nobel Nitro Award,now president of the Ireco Chemical Company, Salt Lake City; DR. HENRY M. MORRIS, for thirteen yearsProfessor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and University, one of the largest in the U.S. DR. WALTER LAMMERTS, geneticist and famous plantbreeder, the late DR. FRANK MARSH, Professor of Biology at Andrews University until his retirement; the lateDR. J.J. DUYVENE DE WIT, Professor of Zoology at the University of the Orange Free State, South Africa, atthe time of his death; DR. THOMAS G. BARNES, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas atEl Paso; DR. DMITRI KOUZNETSOV, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., winner of the Komsomol Lenin Prize in 1983 as oneof the two most promising young scientists in the Soviet Union, and winner of the Council of Ministries Prize ofthe USSR in 1986 for his research in biochemistry” (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, 1995, pp. 13, 14).A.E. WILDER-SMITH (1915-1995), who defended creationism against evolution in his manybooks, had three Ph.D.s, one in physical organic chemistry from Reading University, England,one in pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and one in pharmacological sciences fromETH, a senior university in Zurich, Switzerland. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry anda NATO three-star general, Dr. Wilder-Smith was an expert on chemotherapy, pharmacology,organic chemistry, and biochemistry.RAYMOND DAMADIAN, M.D., biophysicist, is the recipient of the Lemelson-MITAchievement Award as “the man who invented the MRI scanner.” In 1988 he was awarded theNational Medal of Technology, America’s highest award for applied science, and a year later, hewas inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame, an honor he shares with Thomas Edison, SamuelMorse, and the Wright Brothers. The first MRI scanner that Dr. Damadian and his colleaguesbuilt in 1977 resides at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Damadian is a BiblebelievingChristian and attends a Baptist church. He has stated that “the highest purpose a mancan find for his life is to serve the will of God.”RICHARD LUMSDEN (1938-97), Ph.D., converted from Darwinian atheist to Bible-believingChristian at the apex of his professional career when, challenged by one of his students, hedecided to check out the evidence for himself. A professor of parisitology and cell biology, hewas dean of the graduate school at Tulane University. He trained 30 Ph.D.s., published hundredsof scholarly papers, and was the winner of the highest award for parasitology.366

LEE SPETNER, author of Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, has aPh.D. in physics from MIT. He was a researcher with Johns Hopkins University from 1951-1970.JERRY BERGMAN, co-author of the book Persuaded by the Evidence, has five Mastersdegrees and two Ph.D.s, one in human biology and another in measurement and evaluation. Hehad a 4.0 grade point average for both Ph.D.s.The CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY membership consists of more than 600 men andwomen who hold advanced degrees and are committed to biblical creationism.The KOREA ASSOCIATION OF CREATION RESEARCH membership includes 450scientists, 150 of them with Ph.D.s in the sciences. The President of KACR, YOUNG-GILKIM, Ph.D. in Materials Science, is with the Korea Advanced Institute of Science andTechnology and is the inventor of various important high-tech alloys.FRANK MARSH has a Ph.D. in biology and is emeritus Professor of Biology at AndrewsUniversity. He is the author of “Variation and Fixity in Nature: The Meaning of Diversity andDiscontinuity in the World of Living Things, and Their Bearing on Creation and Evolution.”JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO, who has a Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa, hastaught biomechanics and physiology at the University of Chicago and California StateUniversity. He holds the patent for crew conditioning for extended manned space missions.The speaking staff of ANSWERS IN GENESIS includes 10 men and women who have earneddoctorates. DAVID DEWITT has a Ph.D. in neuroscience; DONALD DEYOUNG has a Ph.D.in physics; JASON LISLE has a Ph.D. in astrophysics; DAVID MENTON has a Ph.D. in cellbiology from Brown University; TOMMY MITCHELL has an M.D. from VanderbiltUniversity; TERRY MORTENSON has a Ph.D. in the history of geology; GARY PARKERhas a doctorate in education in biology/geology; GEORGIA PURDOM has a Ph.D. inmolecular genetics; ANDREW SNELLING has a Ph.D. in geology from the University ofSydney.The book In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, contains the testimonies of 50 scientists withdoctorates who believe in the Bible’s account of creation. These include JEREMY I. WALTER,Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University; JOHN KRAMER, Ph.D.in biochemistry from the University of Minnesota; PAUL GIEM, M.D. from Loma LindaUniversity; ARIEL ROTH, Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan; KEITHWANSER, Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine; JOHNR. RANKIN, Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide; BOB HOSKEN,Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Newcastle; GEORGE JAVOR, Ph.D. inbiochemistry from Columbia University; DWAIN FORD, Ph.D. in chemistry from ClarkUniversity of Worcester, Massachusetts; ANGELA MEYER, Ph.D. in horticultural science fromthe University of Sydney; ANDREW MCINTOSH, Ph.D. in the theory of combustion from the367

Cranfield Institute of Technology and D.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Wales; JOHNMARCUS, Ph.D. in biological chemistry from the University of Michigan; NANCYDARRALL, Ph.D. in botany from the University of Wales; JOHN CIMBALA, Ph.D. inaeronautics from the California Institute of Technology; E. THEO AGARD, Ph.D. in physicsfrom the University of Toronto; KER THOMSON, D.Sc. in geophysics from the ColoradoSchool of Mines; JOHN BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics fromUCLA and chief developer of the TERRA code; ARTHUR JONES, Ph.D. in biology from theUniversity of Birmingham; GEORGE HOWE, Ph.D. in botany from Ohio State University;A.J. MONTY WHITE, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth;D.B. GOWER, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of London; WALTERVEITH, Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cape Town; DANNY FAULKNER, Ph.D. inastronomy from Indiana University; EDMOND HOLROYD, Ph.D. in atmospheric science fromthe University of New York at Albany; ROBERT ECKEL, M.D. from the University ofCincinnati College of Medicine; JACK CUOZZO, D.D.S from the University of Pennsylvania;STEPHEN TAYLOR, Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Liverpool;ELAINE KENNEDY, Ph.D. in geology from the University of Southern California; COLINMITCHELL, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography from Cambridge University; STANLEYMUMMA, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois; EVANJAMIESON, Ph.D. in hydrometallurgy from Murdoch University; LARRY VARDIMAN,Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University; GEOFF DOWNES, Ph.D. in treephysiology from the University of Melbourne; WAYNE FRAIR, Ph.D. in biochemicaltaxonomy from Rutgers; SID COLE, Ph.D. in chemistry from Melbourne University;GEORGE HAWKE, Ph.D. in air pollution meteorology from Macquarie University; KURT P.WISE, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University, where he studied under well-knownevolutionist Dr. Stephen Gould; J.H. JOHN PEET, Ph.D. in photochemistry fromWolverhampton Polytechnic; WERNER GITT, Ph.D. in engineering from the TechnicalUniversity at Hanover; DON BATTEN, Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University ofSydney.Of course, even if every “reputable” scientist believed in evolution, as Richard Dawkins claims,this would not mean it is correct. The Bible says, “Let God be true, but every man aliar” (Romans 3:4), and Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, becausethou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them untobabes” (Matthew 11:25).In the report “Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible” we give biographical sketches ofmore than 50 Ph.D.s. This is available athttp://www.wayoflife.org/files/ec91e76262537ee6f1f48a9ef768d3de-847.html2. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE, WHAT IS THE ROLE OF FAITH?The Bible says that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things notseen” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is not blind; it has substance and evidence, but it is faith because it368

is believing in something invisible. We cannot see God. There is plenty of evidence that Heexists, but we cannot see Him, so we must accept His existence by faith.3. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?The evidence for God is all around us for those who have eyes to see. Design requires a designer.In spite of what evolutionists claim, the old watchmaker argument has never been refuted. Infact, it is only been strengthened through the discoveries of cellular biology. If you were to comeacross a watch lying along a pathway, you would know that someone made the watch, because itis obviously a product of an intelligent being. It could not have come into existence on its own.Likewise, when we see things far more complicated than any watch, things such as the humanbrain, the DNA molecule, the self-replicating living cell with its molecular machinery, or thebutterfly, we can assume that these are the product of Intelligence.Indeed, the Bible says that men can know there is a God from the things He has made, and thatmen are therefore without excuse for not believing in Him.“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1).“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who holdthe truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hathshewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, beingunderstood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are withoutexcuse” (Romans 1:18-20).In fact, all you have to do to know there is a God is to consider your own body. Consider, forexample, the human brain. The following is an excerpt from the article “Thinking about theBrain” by Dr. Don DeYoung and Dr. Richard Bliss, 2004, Institute for Creation Research:“The adult brain weighs about 1350 grams, just three pounds, yet it handles the information of 1000supercomputers. The fundamental unit within the brain is the neuron, or nerve cell. Each cell contains anucleus and branching fibers called dendrites and axons. When a cell ‘fires,’ it sends electrochemical impulsesalong its axon extension to neighboring neurons. Our brain contains about 10 billion neurons (10 10 ). Duringthe first nine months of life, these neurons form at the astounding rate of 25,000 per minute. ... Each neuron isin dendritic contact with perhaps 10,000 other neurons. The total number of neurological interconnections ison the order of 10 14 (100 trillion). This number is equivalent to all the leaves on all the trees of a vast forestcovering half of the U.S. The total length of the nerve dendrites in an adult brain is over 100,000 miles! ... thebrain holds at least 10 14 bits (binary digits) of information. Actually, it is a much greater number, since theneurons also show intermediate firing states, somewhat like a light-dimmer switch. The storage capacity ofthis supercomputer [the Cray-2] is 1,000 times less than that of the human brain. ... Note that the potentialbrain capacity is estimated as at least equivalent to that of 25 million volumes, a 500-mile-long bookshelf! ...The beautiful complexity of our brain contrasts sharply with all simplistic, secular attempts to explain it away.Our brain remains a frontier of science; we actually know very little about it, but what is known isoverwhelming. In addition, every single neuronal cell within the brain contains a trillion atoms. This is like amicroscopic universe within each cell, complete with order, purpose, and interdependence of components. ...The brain truly provides an ultimate design challenge for evolution. It should be a cause for humble praise inconsidering the wonder of the mind. It is a privilege to dedicate these minds to the Creator.”The reason that some men cannot understand this evidence for God is that their hearts areblinded by sin. The Bible says, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the worldARE CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power369

and Godhead” (Romans 1:20). If the invisible things of God are clearly seen in creation, whycan’t some people see them? The answer is that they are spiritually blind. I have a blind preacherfriend who lives in the Himalayan mountains and has preached in our church in Kathmandu. Ifhe were to say to me, “I have heard that there are beautiful snow-covered mountains nearby, but Idon’t believe it because I haven’t seen them,” I would say to him, “Prem, you can’t see thembecause you are blind. I can describe them to you, but you still wouldn’t be able to see them.”The spiritually-blind atheist won’t be able to see unless he humbles himself before the AlmightyCreator God, admits his fallen condition and rebellion against God’s Law and God’s justjudgment, and casts himself upon God’s mercy in Jesus Christ. Then God will give him spirituallight so that he can see the truth.In the face of the watchmaker argument, the atheist can only huff and puff with Darwinian mythsand philosophical rants, but he cannot refute it. The mind-boggling complexity and design thatwe find in nature, even in a single living cell, cannot be explained by “natural selection” or“random mutations” or any other natural process.4. DON’T ALL RELIGIONS TEACH BASICALLY THE SAME THING?There is a Hindu saying, “The truth is One, but different sages call it by different names.”This is a common misconception that is held by many non-Hindus, as well.First of all, the various religions do not teach the same morality. For example, Hinduism hasa caste system that locks men into a certain status from birth, and the low caste are consideredinferior to the high. In places where Hinduism is still followed in its purest forms, such as Nepaland rural India, the caste system is very strong. In Nepal, low castes are not even allowed intothe homes of high castes. In many villages, the low castes are not allowed to drink out of thesame wells and fountains as the high caste. In parts of India there is even an “unseeable caste”whose members are required to work at night. Though some Hindu scholars claim that the castesystem is not an integral part of Hinduism, it has been practiced by Hindus for thousands of yearsand does have support from the Hindu scriptures. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that allmen are the same. We came from the same original father and mother, and God commands us totreat all men alike. God’s law as given in the Bible is, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour asthyself” (Galatians 5:14). If I love my neighbor as myself, I will not treat him as an inferior andtry to “keep him down.” The Bible commands men to treat one another with perfect justice. “Yeshall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall notbe afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's” (Deuteronomy 1:17).In Hinduism, morality is largely relative. Take lying, for example. I have talked to hundreds ofHindus who believe that lying is a necessary part of life. In fact, the Hindu gods themselves lie.Yet the Bible teaches that lying is a great sin. Consider the following commandment:370

“Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one ofanother” (Ephesians 4:25).The Bible says that God hates the lying tongue (Prov. 6:16-17). It says that the liar is a wickedperson (Prov. 11:18). It says that Satan is the father of lies and those who tell lies are following inhis evil ways (John 8:44). The Bible even says that all liars will be punished in eternal hell.“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, andidolaters, AND ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is thesecond death” (Revelation 21:8).Obviously, what Hinduism teaches about lying and what the Bible teaches are different andcontradictory. If one is right, the other is wrong.The various religions also do not teach the same God. The Bible teaches that God had nobeginning; He is eternal. He made all things, but He is not all things. It teaches that God is not tobe worshipped in the form of idols. It says that God is Almighty and omnipotent, that he can doanything, and he is omniscient, meaning he knows all things. The Bible says God knows thenames of every star, how many hairs are on man’s head, and the thoughts of every man’s heart.The Bible teaches that God is holy. He never commits any wrong deed, never lies, never cheats,never commits fornication, never steals another man’s wife, never acts foolishly in a rage, nevergets high on drugs. The Bible says God is love, that even though men have sinned against Himand broken His law and turned to their own way, that God loves them and provided salvation forthem by coming into the world and dying on the cross. The Bible says that God is “meek andlowly in heart.” He is not proud. He treats men equally and does not look down on some of themas “peons.”No other religion teaches a God like this. Consider Hinduism. Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu,is said to be “God Himself” (Upadhyay, Hindu Gods and Goddesses, p. 51). He is deceitful,disobedient, and lascivious. “As a child Krishna was playful and mischievous. Innocent andobedient in his mother’s presence, he missed no opportunity for mischief when her back wasturned. He ... mocked and laughed at his elders and teased little babies until they cried, urinatedin neighbours’ houses and stole butter and sweets. But Yasodha and Nanda, who had no controlover him, just laughed at his antics. ... As a youth, Krishna enchanted and intoxicated thecowherd women with his flute playing. He teased them and made love to them” (Indian Gods,Kent: Grange Books, 1998, p. 45, 47). Krishna’s flute playing is said to “pull virtuous womenfrom their homes and drag them to Krishna” and to make “chaste ladies forget theirlords” (David Kinsley, The Sword and the Flute).The Bible’s description of God is different from the God taught in other religions.The various religions also do not teach the same thing about salvation. All religions exceptBible Christianity, teach that salvation is by works. In Hinduism, the goal of salvation is to bereleased from the cycles of reincarnation (the “wheel of life”), and this is achieved in one ofthree ways: through working out one’s karma by rituals, giving alms, good deeds, etc., through371

yogic meditation and “self-knowledge,” or through devotion to the Hindu gods by privatedevotions, temple rituals and pilgrimages. In Islam, salvation is achieved through praying fivetimes a day toward Mecca, celebrating Ramadan, giving alms, going on a pilgrimage to Mecca,etc.The Bible’s teaching on salvation is entirely different. According to the Bible, salvation is notwhat man does for God; it is what God has done for man. According to the Bible, man cannot besaved by his “good works,” because he is a sinner and he cannot do the perfect works that God’sholy law requires. God Himself has provided salvation as a gift by coming into the world anddying on the cross to suffer the punishment that men deserve. According to the Bible, there is noreincarnation and no nirvana. There is either heaven or hell. “And as it is appointed unto menonce to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).It is not true that “all paths lead to God.” They can’t all lead to God because they point indifferent directions! If I said to you that I am planning to go to Washington D.C. tomorrow fromNepal and that to get there I am just going to board any airplane and start flying in any direction Iplease, what would you think? You would think I am crazy, because you have to follow the rightpath or you will never get there. Likewise, the only way to get to Heaven is to follow the rightroad, and Jesus Christ claims to be that Road. If He is not, He was either a liar or a very selfdeceivedman. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh untothe Father, but by me” (John 14:6).5. DON’T THE LAWS OF NATURE DISPROVE MIRACLES?There is no established law of science that disproves miracles. Those who do not believe inmiracles are not standing on science; they are standing on philosophy and personal prejudice.The issue is not miracles themselves; the issue is God. Miracles are not difficult to believe if youbelieve in an Almighty God that made the heavens and the earth, as the Bible teaches, and theevidence of such a God is the universe and life itself. The Bible does not begin by trying to proveGod’s existence. It begins by announcing His existence.“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).The God who made all things can do all things. The God who made nature is not bound by the“laws of nature.”“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things arepossible” (Matthew 19:26).6. WHY DOES GOD ALLOW SUFFERING AND CATASTROPHES?To answer this we would say, first, that the trouble in this world is man’s fault, not God’s.When God made man in the beginning, there was no suffering. God made a perfect world for372

man to live in and provided for his every need. God placed the first man and woman in aparadise called the Garden of Eden and gave them only one commandment. But they were notsatisfied with God’s provision and they disobeyed God’s commandment and fell into sin. As aresult, the world became a place of evil and suffering. This is man’s fault. It is men that lie andcheat and steal and rape and kidnap and bully and kill.Second, God is holy. He is not only a Saviour, He is also a Judge. God warned the first manand woman, that if they disobeyed His law they would be punished, and that is what happened.Because of sin, the world came under God’s curse. This is described in Genesis chapter 3. It isGod’s curse that is the cause of sickness and death and violent storms and many other troublesthat men suffer. Men are not innocent before God. All men have sinned and broken His laws; andall men, therefore, deserve to be punished.Third, God has given light to men and they have rejected it. John 1:9 says that God giveslight to every man. There is the light of creation (Romans 1:19-20). Men can know that there is aGod from the things that He has made. There is also the light of conscience (Romans 2:14-16).God has put a conscience inside of man that tells him there is a God and that convicts him whenhe does wrong. There is also the light of the Bible (Romans 3:1-2). This is the greatest light thatGod has given to men, and the Bible in whole or in part has been translated into every majorlanguage of the world, plus most minor ones--more than 2,450 so far.From the very beginning, when men first sinned, God began to show them the way of salvation.But for the most part, God’s Word has been rejected and men have lived according to their ownthinking and have traded the true and living God for false gods. Adam and Eve, the first man andwoman, knew God and knew about His salvation (Genesis 3:15, 21). Adam lived 930 years(Genesis 5:5), so for the first millennium of man’s history the first man was still alive and wasstill testifying personally about the God who had created him. Adam’s second son, Abel, was aprophet and knew about salvation through the coming Saviour (Luke 11:50-51; Hebrews 11:4).Before the worldwide Flood, there were other prophets. Enoch was a prophet who preachedabout the second coming of Christ (Jude 14-15). Noah was also a prophet who preached for 120years before the Flood (2 Peter 2:5). Job lived after the Flood and knew many things about God,including salvation through the coming Saviour and the bodily resurrection (Job 19:25-27).Solomon proclaimed the true God to many nations in his day (1 Kings 4:34). This was 1,000years before Christ. King Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonian Empire preached about the trueGod to the nations of his day (Daniel 4:1-3, 37). This was about 550 years before Christ. Dariusof the Medo-Persian Empire also preached about the true God to the nations (Daniel 6:25-28).The apostles preached the gospel throughout the Middle East, as well as in Asia, Africa, andEurope (Romans 1:8). From then until now Christian missionaries have been preaching to theends of the earth, but most men have ignored this preaching. Men have no excuse for sitting indarkness and not knowing the true and living God.Men are responsible to seek God (Acts 17:27). In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus taught that menare responsible to respond to God’s Word (Matthew 13:18-19, 23). Those who respond to the373

light are given more light. Cornelius is an example of this (Acts 10). He was seeking God andtrying to follow the light of the Old Testament, and God sent a Christian to explain the gospel ofJesus Christ. The same thing happened to the eunuch who was the treasurer of Ethiopia. We readabout this in Acts 8:26-40. He had visited Israel and obtained the book of Isaiah, which is one ofthe books of the Old Testament, and he was trying to understand it when God sent Philip to himto explain the gospel.God has been calling out to men for 6,000 years, but for the most part He has been ignored. Godcannot be blamed for man’s spiritual ignorance.Fourth, God has provided salvation and offers it to all men. God’s great love and goodness isevident by the fact that He came into this world and suffered many things at the hands of Hisown creatures and allowed Himself to be crucified on a cross in order to save men from theirsins. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believethin him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God wants to save men. That isHis desire. If men are not saved, it is not God’s fault. The fact that God has gone to such greattrouble and expense to provide salvation for those who believe is evidence that He is good andthat He can be trusted to do that which is right.Fifth, we cannot expect to understand everything about God. To understand every mysteryabout God, you would have to be God. Though God has revealed many things to us in theScriptures, He has not revealed everything and He has not answered every question we can ask.Deuteronomy 29:29 is a very important verse. “The secret things belong unto the LORD ourGod: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that wemay do all the words of this law.”Sixth, God does not have to answer to man. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliestagainst God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made methus?” (Romans 9:20). As God’s creature, man is required to trust and obey the Creatorregardless of whether he can understand him. God must be God. Yea, God will be God.7. IS IT POSSIBLE TO KNOW THE TRUTH?The good news is that it is definitely possible to know the truth. The following is what the Biblesays about this:First, it is man’s responsibility to seek God, and the Bible promises that those who seekHim will find Him.“[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determinedthe times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply theymight feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:26-27).“... if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever” (1Chronicles 28:9).374

“I love them that love me; and those that seek me early [diligently] shall find me” (Prov. 8:17).“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13).“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that heis a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every onethat asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened” (Matthew7:7-8).“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shallbe given him” (James 1:5).These are wonderful promises. If a man seeks God earnestly, he will find Him.Second, Jesus explained what a man must do to find the truth.“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciplesindeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).Jesus said that if a man will continue in His Word, he will know the truth and be made free. HisWord is found in the Bible. This means it is necessary to read and study the Bible and to learnhow to interpret it properly.Jesus also promised,“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak ofmyself” (John 7:17).Here Jesus says that a man will know what is true if he obeys God. Obedience is necessary. It isnot enough to learn the Bible just for head knowledge, just as an hobby or an exercise incomparative religion. One must obey, and then he will know the truth.8. ISN’T THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CRUEL?Unbelievers have long used Israel’s destruction of pagan nations in Canaan as evidence that theGod of the Old Testament is unjust and cruel (Deut. 7:1-5). But the following facts must be takeninto consideration:First, God waited 400 years before judging these wicked nations, which reminds us that He isvery longsuffering (Genesis 15:13-16). These nations had the light of creation and conscience,and they also had prophetic light. There were prophets in the region such as Melchizedek andAbraham and Isaac and Jacob and his sons. The nations in Canaan who were destroyed couldhave repented like Nineveh did and God would have forgiven them (Jonah 3:5-10).Second, the nations in question were devoted to every sort of vile moral perversion, includinghomosexuality, rape, incest, bestiality, and the burning of their children (Lev. 18:1-29; Deut.375

12:31). They were destroyed for gross moral wickedness (Deut. 18:12; Lev. 18:24-25). Considerthe condition of Sodom and Gomorrah hundreds of years before God ordered the destruction ofthese nations. The men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and tried to force themselves on thevisiting angels (Gen. 19:4-9). These pagan nations were proud and bold in their sin (Isa. 3:9).It is not morally wrong for a holy, lawgiving God to punish those who willfully, flagrantly, andunrepentantly break His laws. Those who charge God with injustice and cruelty for punishingwicked nations are hypocritical, because they themselves believe in law and order and supportthe punishment of those who commit crimes such as rape and child molestation and murder,particularly when those crimes are committed against them and their loved ones.Three, God was merciful to those like Rahab who believed (Joshua 2). The whole tenor ofScripture teaches that God delights in mercy more than in punishment. He “is longsuffering tous-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).He wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).Four, it was necessary for those wicked pagan nations to be overthrown so that Israel could beestablished in that land as a light to the world. Had they been left alone, Israel would have beencorrupted morally and religiously within a very short time (Deut. 7:2-6). The destruction of thosenations was actually an act of great compassion on God’s part. The pagan nations that weredestroyed deserved what they got, and by exercising His righteous judgment on them at that timeGod was providing blessing for the whole world. Through Israel, God gave the world His divinerevelation in the Bible, and through Israel He brought the Saviour into the world to providesalvation. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoeverbelieveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).Those who charge God with injustice and cruelty ignore the fact that God Himself paid the pricedemanded of His own holy law so that men can be saved. The heart of God was revealed in theamazing words that Jesus spoke from the cross in regard to the people who had so terribly,unjustly abused him: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The God revealedin the Bible is the most compassionate Person in the universe. In fact, He is the source of all truelove and compassion, but He is also a thrice holy, lawgiving God, and He cannot be judged byman’s puny, inconsistent standards.9. DID JESUS GO TO INDIA TO LEARN WISDOM?Some books purport that Jesus went to India during his youth to learn the wisdom of the gurus.Before I was a Christian, I learned this from the book The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christby Levi Dowling, which I read in about 1972. At the time, I was convinced that it was true.The book claims that Jesus spent 18 years of his life (called the “hidden” or “silent years,”between age 12 and 30) studying under Eastern religious gurus in India, Tibet, and Egypt. Bythis means Jesus achieved the “Christ” consciousness and then set out to teach others. According376

to this doctrine, Jesus and “the Christ” are different. Jesus was an ordinary man who learned howto be “the Christ” through initiation into the secrets of mystical wisdom.In replying to this we would say, first, that it lacks any evidence. Levi, for example, claimed thathe received this “knowledge” about Jesus from the “Akashic Records,” an immense energy fieldallegedly surrounding the earth that contains all knowledge. But there is zero evidence that theAkashic Records exist, and there is no evidence for this doctrine about Jesus from history.Second, the “guru Jesus” is contrary to the Bible’s teaching about who Jesus was, and the Biblegives clear evidence of being the Word of God. Jesus was not an ordinary man who learned howto be an exalted guru. Born miraculously of a virgin, Jesus was the eternal Son of God from Hisbirth. He trusted in God on His mother’s breasts (Psalm 22:9). Obviously this was no ordinarychild! The Bible says that Jesus already knew who He was when He was very young. At age 12He told His parents that He was God’s Son and explained to them that He had to accomplish thework He had been given to do (Luke 2:49). The Bible says that Jesus is the Creator and has allwisdom (Colossians 1:16; 2:3). As such He did not have to learn esoteric knowledge at the feetof gurus!Third, the term “Christ” is not something that Jesus achieved but is something that He was frombirth. It was His title as Israel’s promised Messiah. The name “Jesus” means Saviour (Matthew1:21). The title “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning“anointed” (John 1:41). It refers to Jesus as the Messiah promised in Old Testament prophecy(Daniel 9:25-26; John 4:25; Acts 2:36). In the Old Testament God promised to send His Anointed(Psalm 2:2; Isaiah 61:1-2). The prophecies said that the Christ or the Messiah or the AnointedOne would be God Himself (Psalm 45:6-7). Jesus was called Christ the Lord at His very birth.“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke2:11). His name is Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Therefore, Jesus is Christ and Christ is Jesus.Fourth, the idea of a “guru Jesus” contradicts the Bible’s teaching about why Jesus came to earth.According to the Aquarian Gospel, Jesus came to earth to be man’s example and teacher in orderto show us the way of reincarnating into perfection. But according to the Bible, Jesus came toearth “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). This refers to saving men from theconsequences of sin by dying on the cross to take the punishment that we deserve. By thismeans, Jesus provided eternal salvation to those who believe in Him. According to the Bible,there is no reincarnation. The Bible says that “it is appointed unto men ONCE to die, but afterthis the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). According to the Bible, there is no other way of salvationexcept through Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).Fifth, if Jesus had gone into India and learned from gurus, the Jewish leaders would have usedthat to discredit him. They were opposed to Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry atage 30 and they searched for every possible way they might discredit Him. The Jewish leadersconsidered all other religions as pagan and false, and the fact that they didn’t mention anythingabout Jesus going to India to learn from eastern religions is proof that He did not do this. The377

people in Nazareth where Jesus grew up knew Him. If Jesus had studied in the East, thetownspeople would have known it and would have said, “He thinks he is a great pagan gurubecause He studied under them.” Instead, when Jesus started preaching they asked, “Whencehath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not hismother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters,are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” (Matthew 13:54-56).10. IF ADAM WAS GUILTY, WHY BLAME ME?If we inherited the sin from the first man Adam, why does God blame me individually?The Bible teaches that we inherit sin, but it also teaches that we also sin personally andvolitionally. Consider the following verses:“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid onhim the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).Each man is accountable to God for his life on earth.“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the wholeduty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, orwhether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).No man can blame someone else for his sin against God. We make our own choices in life. Ourconscience speaks to us and tells us that there is right and wrong, but we ignore our ownconscience and sin anyway.The good news is that God loves us and He came into this world and suffered on the cross tomake reconciliation possible. We sinned but God suffered for that sin. How can we blame Godfor any injustice toward us?“The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD” (Proverbs 19:3).11. WHY DOESN’T GOD JUST FORGIVE PEOPLE?God is a holy and just lawgiver and must exercise judgment when His law is broken. Otherwise,there would be chaos and anarchy in His universe, just as has happened on earth. When the lawis not punished, it ceases to have any effect. We can see this in this world. In Nepal, for example,the streets are very dangerous because the drivers don’t follow any laws. The government hasdriving laws, but they aren’t enforced, so people drive as they please. Likewise, there are laws378

against stealing and bribery and other crimes, but it is often possible to bribe your way out ofpunishment. Since punishment is not properly enforced, there is anarchy.God told the first man Adam that if he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,he would die. Eternal death is God’s judgment for sin, and no one can give God a bribe or hire aclever lawyer to get out of this punishment. God’s punishment is sure. Every infraction of Hislaw will be punished.At the same time, God made a way of salvation by taking man’s punishment upon Himself on theCross and He offers forgiveness to every man who will come to Him by faith. The cross of Jesusshows us that God is holy and punishes sin, but it also shows us that God is love and desires tosave men more than to judge them.12. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT REINCARNATION?The Bible does not teach reincarnation; it teaches resurrection. The following verse shows thatman does not return to this earth in a cycle of reincarnation:“And as it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).Man is born once and dies once and then faces God.According to the Bible, man has no pre-existence before he is born into this world. Eachindividual’s existence begins at conception and he is formed by God in his mother’s womb(Psalm 139).Every man and woman will be resurrected. This is a bodily resurrection, and it is a resurrectioneither to eternal death or to eternal life. There is a resurrection of the just and a resurrection ofthe unjust (Acts 24:15). There is everlasting punishment and everlasting life (Matthew 25:46).Those who put their faith in Jesus Christ are forgiven and they will be resurrected to eternal life.Those who die without the Saviour will be resurrected to stand before the Great White Thronejudgment and will be judged according to their works and then cast into the lake of fire(Revelation 20:11-15). This is because all men commit sins and break God’s law in countlessways, and each sin will be judged.13. DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT WOMEN ARE INFERIOR?Actually, the Bible is a liberating book for women. If you contrast Bible Christianity with otherreligions, it is far more liberating. It teaches that the man and woman are equal before God butdifferent in their roles in this world. They are equal in that both are made in God’s image andboth have eternal spirits. The husband and wife are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet.3:7), but they have different purposes. The husband’s business is to lead the home and to providefor his family while treating his wife with love and patience (Eph. 5:25-29; Col. 3:19; 1 Tim.379

5:8). The man is the head of the relationship but this headship is to be exercised in Christ-likekindness rather than worldly severity. The woman is his wife and loving companion, not hisslave or his doormat. She is his own body, and how foolish it is for a man to mistreat his ownbody. If the husband focuses his attention on his responsibilities before God and be thecompassionate husband that God wants him to be, the wife will usually respond by being a betterwife. The wife’s business is to submit to the husband and serve him (Eph. 5:23-24; Titus 2:5). Ifshe focuses her attention on this, the husband usually responds by being a better and more lovinghusband. On the other hand, if the husband tries to force the wife to obey him and if the wifetries to force the husband to love her, it doesn’t work and no progress is made in the marriage.The Bible teaches that the husband and wife are to “leave father and mother” and establish theirown home (Genesis 2:24). Thus, the wife is to have only one head, her own husband, and is notto be a slave to her in-laws.The Bible teaches that the man and woman are equal, but they have a different purpose in thisworld. The woman is not inferior to the man; she is different. She is very valuable. She was madeto be man’s helper. She was made to bear and nurture children, and she is designed for thatpurpose.14. WHY DO CHRISTIANS FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS?Bible-believing Christians do not force their beliefs on anyone. We tell people about Jesus, buteach person must make his own choice. Jesus commanded His disciples to “go into all the worldand preach the gospel to every person” (Mark 16:15). Preaching is not forcing. Preaching iseducation. We believe in freedom of conscience. We believe that every man must make his owndecision about matters pertaining to God. But a man cannot make a decision about Christ until hefirst hears about Him.According to the Bible, salvation is a matter of the heart. Salvation is to believe in Christ fromthe heart (Romans 10:9). Thus, salvation cannot be forced or coerced. If we offered a largeamount of money for people to convert to Christ or if we threatened dire punishment if theyrefused to convert, many would submit, but they would not be true Christians. They would onlybe imitating Christianity externally, but that is not true Christianity. True Christianity must comefrom the heart; it cannot be forced or purchased.On the other hand, there are false Christians that have forced people to convert. Jesus warnedthat there would be many false teachers (Matthew 7:15). His apostles also warned that falseteachers would create a false type of Christianity (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 3:13; 4:3-4; 2 Peter2:1; Jude 3-4). The Roman Catholic Church is an example of false Christianity. The RomanCatholic Church doesn’t follow the Bible. Instead it follows its own man-made doctrines, such assubmitting to the pope and praying to Mary and baptizing infants. The Roman Catholic Churchdominated Europe and other parts of the world for a thousand years, and it forced people toconvert to its brand of Christianity. It even persecuted and murdered Bible-believing Christians380

ecause they would not submit to the pope. This type of thing is wrong and it has never beendone by true followers of Christ.We preach to people because we are convinced that Jesus is the only way to God, just as He said.“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Ifwe don’t preach this gospel, we show that we don’t care for men’s souls. If evolution is true, itdoesn’t matter what a man believes or how he lives, because he is nothing more than the productof chance and when he dies he is finished. If Hinduism is true, there are many paths to God. Butif the Bible is true, there is only one way of salvation. This is what we believe and therefore weare compelled to preach Christ.Let’s say a terrible disease is spreading throughout the world but it is a disease that has fewsymptoms and the people are not aware that they are dying. In fact the disease has a strangesymptom in that it gives the people a pleasant feeling that they are well and happy. Because ofthis, the people actually enjoy the disease. A doctor comes up with a cure and tells his associatesto go out and warn the people that they will die if they don’t come and obtain the propermedicine. If his associates did not go and make this announcement, they would be doing thepeople a great disservice. But what if the people mock the messengers and even abuse and killthem? They think that the messengers are lying. They think that their own medicines are goodenough. Should the messengers still go out and make the proclamation, or should they just let thepeople die?Jesus died to provide salvation for mankind, and He sent His followers into all the world topreach the good news that people can be forgiven of their sin and have eternal life. For 2,000years Christians have been obeying Jesus and going throughout the world to tell people that theyare sinners and that they will be punished by God, but they can be saved if they put their faith inJesus. Most people don’t like this message. They don’t believe that they are bad or that God willpunish them. They don’t believe in the existence of hell. They think that their own religions aregood enough. Therefore they have often hated the Christians and abused them. Yet the Christianscontinue to go and to preach.This is because Bible-believing Christians want to obey their Master and they love the peopleand do not want them to perish in eternal hell.Bible-believing Christians have paid a great price to preach Jesus to the nations. It is not an easyjob. At best, people laugh at you and ridicule you for preaching. And countless Christians havebeen beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and killed for their preaching.15. AREN’T THE HINDU SCRIPTURES OLDER THAN THE BIBLE?Many people think that the Bible is 2,000 years old, because that is when Jesus lived. Butactually the Bible has two major parts, and only the newest part, called the New Testament, is2,000 years old. The first book of the Bible, which describes the creation of the heaven and the381

earth, was written by Moses in about 1500 B.C., but it was based on written prophecies mucholder. The prophecy of Enoch, for example, was written in about 2,500 B.C. (4,500 years ago),which is only a few hundred years after the first man Adam died. God began to give propheciesto men as soon as Adam and Eve sinned and were evicted from the Garden of Eden. Adam’ssecond son, Abel, was the first prophet. That was 6,000 years ago!The written Hindu scriptures are not nearly that old. The Vedas were written about 300 B.C.(though they are said to have been transmitted orally for a thousand years before that). TheUpanishads were written between 800-600 B.C. The Mahabharata was written over a periodfrom 400 B.C. to 400 A.D. The Bhagavad Gita, the most popular and influential of the Hindubooks, was added to the Mahabharata in about the first century A.D.16. WHY HAVE CHRISTIANS DONE BAD THINGS SUCH AS CAUSE WARS?The term “Christian” is a broad one that includes those who follow the Bible’s teaching andthose who don’t. The fact that there have been “Christians” that have brought reproach upon theBible and the name of Jesus is evidence that the Bible is true, because this was prophesied in itspages. Beginning with the words of Jesus Himself, the New Testament part of the Bible containsmany prophecies that describe the entire period of time from when Jesus ascended to heavenafter His resurrection to when He returns to establish His kingdom on earth. These prophesiessay that many who will claim to follow Jesus will create a different type of Christianity than theone presented in the Bible. They will not follow the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. This iscalled “the apostasy,” or the falling away from the true Christian faith. Consider some of theseprophecies:“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.(Matthew 7:15).“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have castout devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22-23).“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:11).“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuchthat, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matthew 24:24).“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13).“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap tothemselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall beturned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, whoprivily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselvesswift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evilspoken of” (2 Peter 2:1-2).“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there manyantichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if theyhad been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be mademanifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:18-19).382

In fulfillment of these prophecies, the nearer we draw to the return of Christ, the more we canexpect to find large numbers of false Christians. One group of these is the Roman CatholicChurch, which we have already mentioned. It was formed a few hundred years after Jesusreturned to Heaven, and it does not follow the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church has a pope, aspecial priesthood, the Mass, infant baptism, prayers to Mary, and many other things that we donot find in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church ruled over Europe for a thousand years andrequired that everyone submit to the pope. Those who refused were persecuted and even put todeath. The popes and priests lived very wicked lives. All of this is contrary to Jesus’ teachings,and it brought great reproach to Christianity.17. WHAT IS THE TRINITY?The Bible teaches that there is one God, but He is revealed to us in three ways: Father, Son, andHoly Spirit. There are not three Gods. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one in purpose and mindand character and ways. They operate in perfect harmony. Following are a couple of Biblepassages that teach the Trinity:“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three areone” (1 John 5:7).One way to understand the Trinity is to think of man. The Bible says man is body, soul, andspirit. Every man has these three aspects, but he is one man. Also, a man can have three roles.For example, I am a son, a father, and a grandfather, but I am the same person.Another way to understand the Trinity is to think of H2O. It can take the form of water, vapor,and ice, but it is still H20.Another way to understand the Trinity is the Word. The Bible says that Jesus is the Word of God.A word is the expression of the person. The words you speak are the expression of yourself.Likewise, God expresses Himself in three different ways: as the Father, as the Son, and as theHoly Spirit.The doctrine of the Trinity is entirely different from the Hindu concept of God. ThoughHinduism claims to believe in one God or Supreme Deity, it is a God who has many faces,thousands, in fact. Many of the Hindu idols display this concept by having a multiplicity offaces.Shiva, a member of the Hindu trinity (composed of Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva), has fivemanifested faces, but his faces are contradictory. He is said to be both benevolent and malevolent(Harendr Upadhyay, Hindu Gods and Goddesses, Varanasi: Pilgrims Publishing, 2004, p. 74).383

Shiva is “a bad-tempered god” who must be appeased so that he will become generous (T.C.Majupuria, Gods and Goddesses, Lashkar: M.D. Gupta, 2000, p. 40). Shiva is both “erotic” andascetic. He has one wife and multiple wives. The Hindu god encompasses both good and evil.According to Hinduism, God can be worshipped in any form and by any name. “Worship of anydeity amounts to the worship of the ultimate deity or the Supreme Reality called Brahman. ...This means countless people can worship countless deities in their own countlessways” (Upadhyay, Hindu Gods and Goddesses, foreword).This is entirely different from the God revealed in the Bible. He has only one face, and we seethat face in Jesus Christ.“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of theknowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).The true God does not have different characters depending on the situation. He is not a mass ofcontradictions. He is always holy, always pure, always true, always honest, always love, alwaysjust, always Almighty. He does not change. He says, “I am the Lord; I change not” (Malachi 3:6).He has “no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Jesus is “the same yesterday,and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). The true God is light and there is no darkness in Him.The fact that we cannot fully understand the Bible’s teaching of the Trinity is not surprising. Itwould be unreasonable to demand that we understand everything about God. We do not evenbegin to understand man or the world in which we live. How can we expect to fully understandAlmighty God?In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is an evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. “If manhad written the Bible, he would have left the Trinity out of it; for it is too hard to understand; themind of man cannot comprehend it. The only thing we can do is to accept it by faith” (MarkCambron, Bible Doctrines).18. WHAT IF I WANT TO BELIEVE BUT I AM HAVING DOUBTS?If you want to believe in Jesus but are having doubts, I suggest that you do the following:First, give attention to the Bible. Faith comes by reading and hearing the Bible.“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: Butthese are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye mighthave life through his name” (John 20:30-31).Reading the Bible is the best way to get faith, but the Bible is a large book. I suggest that youbegin by reading Genesis, Luke, John, and Acts.384

A book that can help you understand the Bible is The Amazing Story of the Bible, which isavailable from Way of Life Literature (www.wayoflife.org). It features excerpts from the Bibleunder 205 headings. More than 200 footnotes explain the story of the Bible and the Gospel ofJesus Christ.Second, separate from unbelieving thinking and philosophy. Consider the following warnings:“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, norsitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate dayand night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season;his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper” (Psalms 1:1-3)“Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge” (Proverbs 19:27).“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions ofscience falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20).You cannot believe if you continue to listen to unbelief and scoffing. You need to get alone withGod and hear Him through His Word. I suggest that you set aside a month in which you read theBible every day and meditate on its words and pray to God for wisdom. During this time, do notread books or listen to people who try to tear down the Bible and Christianity.Third, consider the proofs of the Bible.“To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them fortydays, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).Christian faith is not blind faith. It is based on “proofs” and “evidence.” We have listed many ofthese proofs in this report. Go back through those one by one and consider them.Fourth, pray to Jesus. He is not dead. He is alive and can hear your prayer. Be honest with himabout your doubts and ask Him to help you. He has invited you to come to Him. Take Him at HisWord.“Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, andlearn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, andmy burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him,and will sup with him, and he with me” (Revelation 3:20).385

SUMMARY OF “AN UNSHAKEABLEFAITH” APOLOGETICS COURSEThis section contains a summarization of the major points from this apologetics course for thepurpose of review, memorization, and training.1. The Bible warns of an explosion of unbelief and skepticism at the end of the church age. SeePsalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13; 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:3-7; Jude 3-4.2. The evidence for God’s existence is irrefutable and only willful blindness accounts for itsrejection. The Bible does not argue for God’s existence. It simply begins with a statement ofGod’s existence as the Almighty Creator (Genesis 1:1). The Bible twice says the atheist is a fool(Psalm 14:1; 53:1). This is because the evidence for God is written in nature and in man’s ownheart (Romans 1:19-20).3. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 10:6).4. The Biblical faith is not a blind leap in the dark; it is based on many infallible proofs (Acts1:3).5. Unsaved men are spiritually blind (2 Corinthians 4:4) and the blindness is lifted when theysubmit to God and believe in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:15-17).6. The Bible was written by holy men who wrote the words that God gave them (2 Timothy3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21).7. The Bible must be interpreted literally rather than allegorically for the following three reasons:First, God gave the Scriptures to REVEAL truth to man, not to hide it (Deut. 29:29). Thus, it isreasonable to believe that God uses the normal rules of human language. Second, if the literalsense of the Bible is not followed, we cannot be certain of the true meaning. By the allegoricalmethod the mind of the interpreter becomes the authority. Third, the Bible’s prophecies havebeen fulfilled literally, which means that the Bible must be interpreted literally.8. Fulfilled prophecy is a powerful evidence for the divine inspiration of Scripture (Isaiah41:21-23).9. The Bible is scientifically accurate from its earliest pages. Though it contradicts evolutionarytheories, it does not contradict any established scientific fact.386

10. The Bible’s teaching about salvation is dramatically different from that of any other religiousbook. Only the Bible teaches the doctrine of salvation by grace (Ephesians 2:8-10). Every otherone teaches salvation by works.11. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the Old Testament was written before Christ was bornand therefore contains pre-written history in the prophecies of His life.12. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible which was printed in the ProtestantReformation is accurate.13. The Bible warns that there will be many false teachers and there will be a great apostasy orfalling away from the New Testament faith (Matthew 7:15; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4; 13-15;Ephesians 4:14; Philippians 3:17-19; Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:13; 4:4-5; 2Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3-4).14. There is a basic simplicity to sound Bible doctrine (2 Corinthians 11:3).15. Four great principles of Bible interpretation are to interpret according to context, to compareScripture with Scripture, to interpret difficult passages with clear passages, and to interpretScripture by its literal sense.16. The historicity of Jesus was not disputed until recent times and is attested by many extrabiblicalsources, including Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and the Jewish Talmud.17. Three great evidences for Christ’s resurrection are the prophecies that were written downbefore His birth, the empty tomb which can only be explained by the fact that Jesus actually rosefrom the dead, and the changed lives of the disciples.18. The great prophecy of Deuteronomy 28 described the entire history of Israel before she evenentered the land of Canaan.19. The great prophecy of Ezekiel 37 described the two-staged return of Israel to the land: first ina condition of unbelief and spiritual blindness followed by conversion at the return of Christ.20. Archaeological research at Ur confirms the Bible in four ways. It shows that ancient Ur wasan advanced literate society, that it was devoted to pagan idolatry, that it was a powerful citystate, and that it was all of this at the exact time that the Bible describes in the early chapters ofGenesis.21. The pagan accounts of the Flood, such as the Gilgamesh Epic, are legendary on their veryface, with their stories of foolish gods and goddesses and an ark with the wrong dimensions forocean travel.387

22. Archaeology confirms the Bible’s account of Israel being in the land of Canaan as asignificant nation in the 13th century B.C. (the Merneptah Stele), David’s Palace, Solomon’s cityat Megiddo, Israel’s kings, Babylon’s tower, the rise of powerful rulers and city states in Shinarfollowing the Flood, Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s conquering ofJerusalem, Jehoiachin’s captivity in Babylon, Belshazzar, Assyria’s military might and cruelty,the tribute of King Menahem to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser, the captivity of Galilee byTiglath-pileser, the assassination of king Pekah, the enthronement of Hoshea, Ahaz’s tribute toTiglath-pileser, the slaying of Rezin of Syria, the fall of Samaria and the captivity of the northerntribes, the destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib, the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, thedestruction of Assyria and her capitol at Nineveh, the military might of Medo-Persia, the Persianking Cyrus and his custom of granting religious liberty, the glory of the Shushan Palace, peoplementioned in the book of Jeremiah, the building of Nehemiah’s Wall, the pavement in Pilate’scourt, the destruction of the Second Temple, and the historical accuracy of Luke and Acts.23. Peter prophesied of scoffers at the end of the age who would deny the global Flood (2 Peter3:3-7).24. Two major evidences for the global Flood are the worldwide sedimentary rocks and the fossilgraveyards.25. Noah’s ark described in Genesis was the correct dimensions for stable ocean travel and waslarge enough to contain all of the different “kinds” of animals. Most of the now-extinct dinosaurswere small, and the large ones could have been transported as juveniles or in eggs.26. Many scientists believe the Bible’s account of a six-day creation and a global flood.27. Jesus promised that a man can know the truth if he is willing to obey (John 7:17) andcontinue in God’s Word (John 8:31-32).28. Those who want faith must read and hear God’s Word (Romans 10:17; John 20:30-31).The evidence against evolution is summarized at the end of that section of the course just beforethe section on Noah’s Ark and the Flood.388

COPYRIGHT AND DISTRIBUTIONNOTICEThis apologetics course is distributed in both print and eBookeditions and is part of a package that includes severalPowerPoint/Keynote presentations. The eBook and PowerPointsare not for free distribution to one’s friends or for posting to theInternet, etc.Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable andnon-sharable.Things that we encourage you to share include the audiosermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and thehundreds of FBIS articles that we place for free access at theweb site. You are welcome to make copies of these at your ownexpense and share them with friends and family. You are alsowelcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that yougive proper credit.Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are itemslike the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, the print edition ofour books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken yearsto produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we usethe income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry.We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrityof this policy.389