There are two very different mainstream paradigms that seek to explain the origin of the wide
variety of plants and animals that exist on the earth today. One of these is Darwinian
evolutionary theory which claims that most modern species arose by a combination of chance variation
and natural selection operating over a long time. This theory typically goes even further
claiming that every plant and animal in existence has come from a single common ancestor.
The other theory is creationism which teaches that God brought into being the basic kinds of plants
and animals by the process of a sudden or fiat creation. Lest one should be tempted to say that
creationism is not mainstream, it should be remembered that nearly half the citizens of
the United States do not believe in evolution. Instead they believe that life was created by God
in something like its present form within the past 10,000 years. This video will examine the
belief worthiness of these two dramatically different theories in light of the philosophies
laid down by philosopher of science Larry Loudon. Using Loudon's influential book,
Progress and Its Problems, in addition to the Pulitzer Prize award-winning book on evolution,
The Beak of the Finch, this video will demonstrate that creationism is worthy of our belief
and that chance variation and natural selection could not have created the assortment of life
that exists on this planet today. According to Loudon, the first and essential acid test for
any theory is whether it provides acceptable answers to interesting questions. Whether,
in other words, it provides satisfactory solutions to important problems. When thinking about biology
and the origin of various plants and animals, a few very important questions come to mind.
What is life? Where did life come from? How did the first living thing come into existence?
Has life ever come from something non-living? These important questions are not addressed by
Darwinian evolutionary theory whatsoever. Over 150 years after the origin of the species was
first published, no significant progress has been made in answering these questions. Biologists
lament that they don't even have a coherent theory of what life is, let alone where it came from.
There is not even a detailed hypothesis, let alone theory, for how life came into existence
by natural means from non-living material. Virtually every biology textbook starts out by
saying that only life can beget life and that living things cannot come from non-living material.
They then proceed to wildly speculate about how the first living thing spontaneously came
into existence without a shred of evidence of this ever taking place anywhere in the universe at any
time. Countless observations show us that life cannot come from non-life and not a single
contradictory instance has ever been observed. Nevertheless, many scientists still believe that
life came into existence on earth spontaneously from non-living material, the evidence
notwithstanding. The theory of evolution does absolutely nothing to answer these important
questions, but yet it is put forth as an alternative to creation, which actually does
answer the question about the origin of life. Loudon further states,
Darwinian evolutionary theory bypasses the most significant questions
about the origins of the species and jumps right into seeking an explanation
for variation in plants and animals over time. The fact that animals change over time is beyond
question. Natural selection is certainly taking place in the wild and has been well documented.
However, it is a logical leap to go from these well-established phenomena to the idea that every
last organism on this planet came from a single common ancestor which spontaneously arose from
non-living material and grew ever more complex through Darwinian processes. Evolution fails to
solve the most significant problems with this worldview and instead quibbles about the length
of a bird's beak. This brings us to the discussion of The Beak of the Finch, a popular book that
claims we can observe evolution taking place directly in real time. This claim is absurd
in light of the fact that Darwinian evolutionary theory purports that the rise of species comes
about by a combination of chance variation and natural selection. The book uses observations
of natural selection and speciation among finches on the Galapagos Islands as evidence and boldly
states the idea that organisms evolve was transformed during the last century from conjecture
to fact. The problem with this logic is that the changes taking place in the finches on the
Galapagos are not due to chance variation. If they are supposedly due to chance variations
then why are they so incredibly predictable? The book gives many examples of the scientists
predicting exactly which way and to what degree the changes would go and even says
it would take about 20 selection events as intense as the drought of 1977 to turn a Fortis into a
Magna Ostrus. How could such a calculation be made if the variations were random? There are plenty of
examples of dog breeders who use artificial selection to create either standard poodles
that weigh 45 to 70 pounds or to create teacup poodles that weigh about five pounds and can fit
in the palm of your hand. However there are fixed limits beyond which the descendants from common
parents can never deviate from a certain type. According to the logic found in the beak of the
finch we should be able to breed dogs the size of houses by continuing to breed larger and larger
dogs with one another. By also picking the reddest dogs how long would it take to produce
Clifford the big red dog? This is ridiculous because the genetic variations that make either
dogs or finches get larger or smaller are not chance variations which is why there is an upper
and lower limit on the size of dogs and on the size of finches. What is being observed on the
Galapagos is no more evolution than a dog breeder making larger and smaller poodles is evolution.
At the end of the day a bird is a bird and a dog is a dog and they will never produce anything
other than their own kind as offspring. The fact that every plant or animal produces the same kind
of plant or animal as offspring presents a problem for the theory of evolution but it presents no
problem whatsoever for biblical creationism since Genesis 1 repeatedly teaches that everything
brings forth after its own kind. According to Loudon whenever an empirical problem has been
solved by any theory then thereafter it constitutes an anomaly for every theory in the relevant domain
which does not also solve it. Creationism solves the problem of the origin of life and also explains
why all animals can only produce their own kind. Both of these problems are anomalies for the
theory of evolution. Evolutionists have plenty of evidence for one species evolving into another
species but what they cannot demonstrate or observe is one kind of animal evolving into
another kind. In the origin of the species Darwin writes, I look at the term species as one
arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.
Just because someone arbitrarily decides that two animals are different species that does not
prevent them from being the same kind of animal. Even though there are 13 species of finches on the
Galapagos, Darwin's finches can interbreed and produce fertile young. They are all the same kind
of animal. There is no difference between the largest Fortis and the smallest Magna Ostrus.
Evolving from one species of animal to another does absolutely nothing to solve the problem
of where the various kinds of animals come from since all available evidence demonstrates animals
bringing forth after their own kind. Every finch on the Galapagos brings forth after its own kind.
The same goes for other species of animals that are supposedly evolving. Of the 161 species of
duck and geese in the world, 67 species have been known to hybridize. Almost one out of every two
species of duck and geese has been seen to interbreed in the wild. The actual incidence is
likely to be much higher. Therefore a change from one species of duck to another does not constitute
evidence for evolution from one kind to another since all of these species are clearly the same
kind of animal which is why they can mate with one another and produce offspring. The fact that
evolutionary theory defines human beings as animals and then proceeds to arbitrarily divide
animals into species based solely on their appearances and breeding habits presents a major
conceptual problem for evolution. In Loudon's chapter on conceptual problems he talks about
seemingly serious arguments being lodged against a scientific theory because of moral or ethical
worldview difficulties. He goes on to mention there is a prominent group of thinkers in
contemporary science and philosophy who have argued that worldview difficulties are only
pseudo-problems. Loudon on the other hand makes a strong case in his book
that a conceptual problem will in general be a more serious one than an empirical anomaly.
Conceptual problems should not be brushed aside or ignored. They should always be taken into
consideration when examining the belief worthiness of a theory and they typically have been given
important consideration throughout the history of science. The moral and ethical problems generated
by Darwinian evolutionary theory are one of the reasons why it should be abandoned.
Consider the fact that animals are often assigned different species based on their color.
Since evolutionists consider human beings to be animals,
do human beings of dramatically different colors represent different species? According to the
Bible, God has made of one blood all nations of men and there is no difference between the Jew
and the Greek. However, if we apply the logic of evolutionary biology to mankind we must conclude
that human beings represent multiple species since man varies from man more than animal from
animal of different species. The other thing that evolutionists use to divide one species from
another aside from appearance is sexual isolation and the maintenance of their separate identities
in nature. Yet the caveat is always that every once in a while a pair of them gets together
anyway. Take for instance the nation of Japan which for hundreds of years maintained a very
separate identity and rarely intermarried with other nations. Given their distinct appearance
and sexual isolation, do they represent a different species than for example Sub-Saharan
Africans? The creationists would say absolutely not. But if we follow the reasoning of evolutionary
theory to its logical conclusion, we are forced to divide human beings into multiple species
at various stages of evolution. This creates a huge moral and ethical problem for evolutionism
that does not exist for creationism since creationism does not teach that human beings
are animals. According to the creationist viewpoint, human beings are made in the image of God,
they are all of one blood, and they are all equal in the sight of God. Another conceptual problem
for evolution in the area of morality is that if we are nothing more than evolved animals there can
be no absolute standard for right and wrong. In the animal kingdom there's nothing wrong with
killing and stealing and there's certainly no prohibition on adultery. If we are to believe
that human beings are animals that arrived on this earth as a result of chance variation and
natural selection, then the case can easily be made that our lives have absolutely no meaning.
Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. Consider the implications of teaching children
such a worldview that logically leads to a nihilistic outlook. This is a major reason
why evolution should not be taught in public schools K-12. It does not benefit society to
teach children that they are evolved animals with no accountability to God. Teaching natural
selection and variation within kinds of animals is good science and presents no conceptual
problems with regard to mankind's status above the animal kingdom. However teaching unscientific
and unproven ideas like a biogenesis and the common ancestry of all organisms on earth
provides no valid educational benefit and only promotes an atheistic worldview that undercuts
Christian morality. Tax dollars should not be used to undermine religion and advance a
philosophy where science replaces God. If people want to specialize in evolutionary theory as
adults and delve into unproven subjects like astrobiology and a biogenesis then they have
the freedom to do so. How be it, Darwinian evolutionary theory should not be taught as a
fact to children since it is not only false but also creates an extreme worldview difficulty
with regard to morality that could be especially damaging to children. Aside from serious moral
problems as mentioned above there is also a major theoretical conceptual problem created by the
theory of evolution. Loudon says, a conceptual problem arises when a particular scientific
theory is seen to be incompatible with or not mutually reinforcing for some other body of
accepted but prima facie non-scientific beliefs. He goes on to mention theology as an example of
such a body of beliefs. Since the bible clearly teaches that plants and animals bring forth after
their own kind and that God created each of the basic kinds of animals in the beginning,
Darwinian evolutionary theory contradicts both the teachings of the bible
and the teachings of evangelical Christianity. It is not worth discarding the bible in order
to embrace the teachings of evolution which is why the vast majority of evangelical Christians
embrace creationism and reject evolution. There are far more reasons to believe the bible
than to believe evolution even if these reasons are not necessarily scientific reasons which is
why so many people when given the choice go with the bible. This is another reason why evolution
should not be taught in public schools. If approximately half of Americans don't believe
in evolution why should they be forced to pay for the teaching of evolution to their children
when it goes against their own beliefs and values. The theological conceptual problem produced by
evolution is considerable and should be given serious consideration both by our schools and
by individuals. According to Loudon, the overall problem solving effectiveness of a theory is
determined by assessing the number and importance of the empirical problems which the theory solves
and deducting therefrom the number and importance of the anomalies and conceptual problems which
the theory generates. Evolutionary theory fails to solve important problems such as the origin of
life and the origin of the first single-celled organisms. It fails to explain human consciousness
and the profound metaphysical differences between human beings and animals. Meanwhile,
it creates numerous serious anomalies and significant conceptual problems. This puts
Darwinian evolutionary theory squarely in the negative when examined using Loudon's formula.
Not only is the problem solving effectiveness of evolutionary theory lacking but it has also
failed to make sufficient progress over the last 160 years or so since the origin of the species
was published. Progress can occur if and only if the succession of scientific theories in any
domain shows an increasing degree of problem solving effectiveness. Rather than improving
its problem solving effectiveness and reducing its conceptual problems and anomalies evolution
has done the reverse since it was introduced. Darwin said in the origin of the species,
if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have
been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break
down. Since Darwin penned those words it has been discovered that every cell in our bodies
contains such complex organs and there is to date no detailed theory or even hypothesis
explaining how the extremely complex organelles of our cells came about or how exceedingly
complicated processes like cellular respiration came into existence by numerous successive slight
modifications without a designer. Also Darwin was writing before the discovery of DNA
which is an extremely complicated code providing the blueprint for life as we know it. Today we
know that even a single-celled organism is incredibly complicated with complicated DNA
so the problem of where the first single-celled organism came from is a much bigger problem today
than it was in Darwin's day when they were thought to be simple creatures. The beak of the
finch presents a truly laughable straw man as an example of such a complex organ before which
Darwin's theory would absolutely break down. Instead of choosing the DNA of amoeba proteus
with its 290 billion base pairs or any number of other ultra complex structures found at the
cellular level of plants and animals they chose the cross-billed beak. It is hard to imagine
anyone actually considering that this is what Darwin had in mind. Again Darwin said if it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.
A cross-billed beak is not complex whatsoever but there are plenty of other things at the molecular
level that are more complex than anything Darwin could ever have imagined yet this does not stop
the author of the beak of the finch from making the absurd statement that the cross-bill would
be the kind of problem before which Darwin felt his theory would absolutely break down.
In reality the complicated nature of cellular biology DNA and many other such discoveries made
after Darwin's death present major problems for evolutionary theory which are increasing rather
than decreasing with time. This represents the opposite of progress for the theory of evolution.
In the final analysis creationism solves more important and significant problems
than Darwinian evolutionary theory and creates less anomalies and conceptual problems in the
process so by Loudon's logic it is more worthy of our belief. However I personally believe along
with many other creationists that neither evolution nor creation can be tested as a
scientific theory so believers in evolution or creation must accept either view by faith.
At the end of the day neither evolution nor creation can be empirically proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt and much of the evidence is open to interpretation. Creationism really comes
down to believing the bible and evolution comes down to seeking an explanation for where we came
from that excludes God. People will ultimately believe what they want to believe but there is
of course an absolute truth. To those of us who believe the bible creation is not just a theory
or a research tradition it is absolute truth simply because the bible says
in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
You know the bible is really clear on salvation it's not based on how good you are.
A lot of people think they're pretty good you know yeah they're gonna get to heaven because
they're pretty good but the bible says for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
The bible says as it is written there is none righteous you know not one. I'm not righteous
you're not righteous and if it were our goodness that would get us into heaven none of us would be
going. Because the bible even says in revelation 21 8 it says but the fearful and unbelieving
and the abominable and murderers and sorcerers and whoremongers and idolaters and listen to this
and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is
the second death. I've lied before everybody's lied before so we've all sinned and we've done
stuff worse than lying let's face it. We all deserve hell but the bible says but God commanded
his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us and so Jesus Christ
because he loves us came to this earth the bible says he was God manifest in the flesh. God
basically took on human form he lived a sinless life he did not commit any sin and of course they
beat him and spit on him and nailed him to the cross. The bible says that when he was on that
cross he himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree so every sin you've ever done every sin
I've ever done it was as if Jesus had done it he was being punished for our sins and then of course
they took his body when he died they took his body and buried it in the tomb and his soul went down
to hell for three days and three nights. Acts 2 31 three days later he rose again from the dead
he showed unto the disciples the holes in his hands and the bible is really clear that Jesus
did die for everybody it says that he died not for our sins only but also for the sins of the
whole world but there's something that we must do to be saved the bible says it has that question
in Acts 16 what must I do to be saved and they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shall be saved in thy house and that's it he didn't say join a church and you'll be saved
get baptized and you'll be saved live a good life and you'll be saved repent of all your
sins and you'll be saved no he said believe and even the most famous verse in the whole bible
that's written on the bottom I mean the reference is written on the bottom of the cup at In-N-Out
Burger I mean it's so famous everybody's heard of it John 3 16 for God so loved the world that
he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
everlasting life and everlasting means everlasting means forever and Jesus said
I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish neither shall any man pluck them
out of my hand the bible says in John 6 47 verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me
hath everlasting life so if you believe on Jesus Christ the bible says you have everlasting life
you're going to live forever you can't lose your salvation it's eternal it's everlasting
once you're saved once you believe on him you're saved forever and no matter what you can never
lose your salvation even if I were to go out and commit some awful sin God will punish me for it
on this earth if I went out and killed somebody today you know God's going to make sure I get
punished I'm going to prison or far worse or the death penalty whatever this earth punishes me and
God's going to make sure I get punished even more but I'm not going to hell there's nothing I could
do to go to hell because I'm saved and if I went to hell God lied because he promised that whoever
believeth in him has everlasting life and he said whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall
never die that's why there are a lot of examples of people in the bible who did some really bad
stuff yet they made it to heaven how because they were so good no it's because they believed on the
Lord Jesus Christ their sins are forgiven other people who may have lived a better life in the
world's eyes or maybe even really they lived a better life they don't believe in Christ they're
going to have to go to hell to be punished for their sins
and let me just close on this one thought one thing that I wanted to be sure and bring up today
is that there was a question that was asked to Jesus by one of his disciples and that question
was this are there few that be saved that's a good question right I mean are most people saved
or is it few that are saved now who here thinks that most people are going to heaven most people
in this world are going to heaven yeah guess what the answer was he said in Matthew 7 for example
enter ye in at the straight gate he said because wide is the gate and broad is the way that lead
it to destruction and many there be which go in there at because straight is the gate and narrow
is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it and then he went on to say this
he said not everyone that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that do
with the will of my father which is in heaven many will say to me in that day Lord Lord have
we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils and in thy name done many
wonderful works and then while I profess unto them I never knew you depart from me that work
in equity and so you see there are people out there first of all the majority of this world
doesn't even claim to believe in Jesus thankfully the majority of this classroom claims to believe
in Jesus okay but the majority of the world does not claim to believe in Jesus but God warned that
even amongst those who claim to believe in Jesus even amongst those that call him Lord many will
be saying to him what if all our we did all these wonderful works why aren't we saved he's going to
say depart from me I never you that's why that's because salvation is not by works and if you're
trusting your own works to save you if you think you're going to heaven because you've been
baptized or if you think you well I think you have to live a good life I think you have to keep
the commandments to be saved I think you have to go to church I think you got to you know turn from
your sense you know if you're trusting in your works Jesus is going to say to you one day depart
from me I never knew you you have to have all your faith in what he did you have to put your faith
in what Jesus did on the cross when he died for you he's buried and rose again that's your ticket
into heaven if you're trusting all the things oh I'm going to heaven because I'm such a good
Christian and I do all these wonderful things he's going to say depart me and notice what he said
depart from me I never knew you not I used to know you because once he knows you remember I
mentioned this earlier it's everlasting it's eternal once he knows you you're saved forever
but he's going to say depart from me I never knew you because if you go to hell it's because
he never knew you because once he knows you he knows you it's just like my children will always
be my children you know when you're born again when you're his child you'll always be his child
you may be the black sheep of the family you know you may be somebody who gets disciplined by God
heavily on this earth you can screw up your life down here but you can't screw that up you know
you're saved it's a done deal and so that's the main thing that I wanted to present to you about
the end times and we do have just a few minutes for questions about either salvation or about
the end times
you