The spiritual beauty of the Father and the Savior seemed to engross my whole mind; and it was the instinctive feeling of my heart, “Thou art; and there is none beside Thee.” I never felt such an entire emptiness of self-love or any regard to any private, selfish interest of my own. It seemed to me that I had entirely done with myself. I felt that the opinions of the world concerning me were nothing, and that I had no more to do with any outward interest of my own than with that of a person whom I never saw. The glory of God seemed to be all, and in all, and to swallow up every wish and desire of my heart.
Sarah Edwards

A Modern Babel

A Modern Babel

This article is brought to you compliments of: HIS BOARD — (805) 652-1478 Sysop: Bob Harris

{CS

A MODERN BABEL?

CONFUSION IN AMERICA

by Ken Ham

In Isaiah 5:20,21, we read, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!”

During an interview on the origin of life, the talk-show host insisted that there was a lot of evidence for evolution– that millions of years ago life arose by chance random processes in some primordial soup. Somehow, he explained, life arose from chemicals. He insisted that the evolution of life was a scientific theory–but to believe in creation, as I did, was just a religious idea.

EVOLUTION IS BELIEF

I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, “science” is defined as “knowledge,” and that which can be “observed and repeatedly tested.” I insisted that evolution was belief–NOT science.

A rather irate professor from a local university called in to say that evolution IS science because you can investigate it in a laboratory. He went on to say that one can set up apparatus in a laboratory to simulate the original atmosphere and oceans (the presumed original conditions on the primeval earth) to show how life may have formed millions of years ago. I then told the professor that in doing this experiment he could never prove life evolved by chance because he was obviously putting intelligence into his experiments. He then yelled at me over the telephone, “we are not putting intelligence into our experiments!” In a sense, I was inclined to agree with him. However, I believe the talk-show host (and, I hope, the listeners) got the point. Even if scientists did make some form of life in the laboratory, this would have nothing to do with chance, but everything to do with intelligence. If it took intelligence the second time, then, obviously, it took intelligence the first time.

When professors start insisting that using their intelligence to design experiments can help them understand how chance and randomness produced life, one starts to wonder if we are speaking the same language. This reminded me of John 1:5, “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” John 3:19 states, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

Even though everything we observe fits with what the Bible says about the origin of life and the history of the world, the evolutionists insist that evolution is a scientific fact. What we observe in the present DOES NOT fit with evolution, but DOES fit with the Bible. The Bible then must be the basis of TRUE science. WHY is it that the courts are ruling in the evolutionists’ favor? Why is it that evolution can be taught as science but creation is considered to be religion in the public education system? Is science no longer interested in truth?

GOD ELIMINATED

What has happened is that the evolutionists have changed the definition of science. It was once accepted that a scientific explanation was the same as a feasible explanation. For example, if the evidence fitted with there being a Designer (God), then that explanation was accepted as a possibility. However, because many scientists want nothing to do with God, they have determined that science must be defined in terms of explanations that can have nothing to do with God. In other words, an arbitrary decision has been made by fallible humans to insist that to be scientific, God cannot be a part of the explanation. The reason for this should be obvious. If there is a God and the Bible is true, then men and women would have to obey HIS rules for their lives.

WARNING

It is not just that these people want evolution accepted–they want a total man-centered philosophy. And yet the Scripture tells us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7;9:10). Man is redefining words to make them fit his anti-God philosophy, even though the evidence is obviously totally opposite to what he is saying. Don’t be led astray by “science falsely so called” (I Timothy 6:20). Don’t be led astray “through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). Help ICR to warn the nation of America “that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Ephesians 4:17,18).

Woe to those who have redefined science, to those who want evolution presented as fact: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

{PB