Up My Nose

There are several things that just, as the British say, "Get up my nose", or irritate me. One thing is when people who profess to be Christian allow racial prejudice in their assemblies. This is particularly irritating to me when the Pastor of the Church knows and tolerates this sort of behavior amongst the flock, for the Scripture says:

Acts 10:34-35 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

and,

Revelation 5:9-10 "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;  And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."

I am also irritated when Liberal Humanism equates homosexual behavior with racial intolerance, knowing that the two are not even closely related. God does not refuse salvation to anyone based on race, yet He considers homosexuality abominable:

Leviticus 18:22  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Among other irritations is when medical science equates alcoholism with a behavior pattern that can't be helped, because:

1 Corinthians 5:11  "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

... the Scripture teaches that drunkenness can be helped, is not a disease, but is a preventable behavior pattern. All these irritations have one thing in common: they are deliberate attempts by the perpetrators to ignore that which is true in favor of a lie. And I guess that is the number one thing that gets up my nose - liars.

Which brings me to my subject. There is a concerted effort in the Scientific and Liberal communities to support the doctrine of Evolution at all costs. This movement has grown over the past 30 or so years to where it has entrenched itself into our School systems like a cancer - and no longer concerns itself as to whether the "protected theory" is true or false.

Now, you may not believe in the same God that I believe in, yet there is, indeed, conclusive evidence in nature that our world was created by an Outside Intelligence. Need a few examples? There are literally hundreds, yet try these on for size.

Up until 1982 we presumed that life exists on this earth because certain "evolutionary conditions" existed to make that life possible. We presumed that life started because there were oceans where life could just naturally exist, this life crawled out of the ocean, grew legs, and became higher life.

In 1982 John A. Baross and Jody W. Deming discovered something that should cause us all to think. At the bottom of the ocean, some 8000 feet under water, there are sometimes open vents where the core of the earth vents heat. These vents spew superheated sea water at extremely high pressures, with temperatures exceeding 300 degrees Celsius. These scientists discovered, in the midst of these pressurized vents, living organisms - bacteria - that can only be killed if you cool them down by placing them in normally boiling water. How could such a thing evolve? What would be its "next step" in evolution?

Then consider the beetle Oncideres and the Mimosa tree. The Mimosa tree, unpruned, has a life expectancy of only twenty five to thirty years. Yet if pruned and tended, the tree can last indefinitely.

The Oncideres beetle seeks out and climbs the Mimosa tree, ignoring all other kinds of trees. She climbs out on the Mimosa limb, makes a slit in the limb, then deposits her eggs within this slit. Yet there's a problem. The Oncideres larvae cannot survive in living wood, so the mother backs up about a foot from where she deposited her eggs and cuts a neat girdle all around the limb through the bark. This takes her eight hours to accomplish.

Because the limb is girdled it falls to the ground in the next breeze. The larvae grow into the next generation of the Oncideres, and the Mimosa tree is pruned.

No God? Then Who designed this? How did the Oncideres learn such behavior? The answer is, it didn't, but this behavior was programmed into the beetle by an Outside Designer. The evidence of an Outside Designer is clearly seen in nature, if each person would only open his or her eyes and look. Yet Liberal Scientists and Textbook manufacturers have, for years, propagated the lie of Evolution within the Scientific community and within our schools. Why? The Scripture says:

Romans 1:22-25 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Some propagate this lie because they reject the idea of God. Rather than admit error, they will lie, steal, cheat - do whatever is necessary to protect their feeble position. Others lie because they want money for authoring or producing Evolutionary texts. The High Courts outlaw teaching Creationism (for which there is evidence in nature) in our Schools while they allow the teaching of Evolutionary Theory as truth (when it is patently false).

Need proof? In the American Spectator's December 2000 issue Doctor Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from UC-Berkley, author of Icons of Evolution) wrote an article called "Survival of the Fakest". I knew some of the lies that Darwinism Evolution taught before reading this article, but I never realized the fiction was so widespread. Here are some examples:

1. Dr. Wells notes that the textbooks that he used to achieve his Ph.D. used drawings of vertebrate embryos (fish, chickens, humans, etc.) to show similarities between these embryos. These similarities are used by Evolutionists to support the theory that all living creatures have descended from a common ancestor. Yet Dr. Wells said that, though he was studying embryos under the microscope himself and seeing little similarity between humans and other life forms, he discounted what he was seeing because it had little effect on his work. Yet years later he regained interest in these "representational drawings" and found out that they were fraudulent. Yes, fraudulent. Dr. Wells stated:

".... this was no recent fraud ... The embryo drawings that appear in most every high school and college textbook are either reproductions of, or based on, a famous series of drawings by the 19th century German biologist and fervent Darwinian, Ernst Haeckel, and they have been known to scholars of Darwin and evolutionary theory to be forgeries for over a hundred years ..." (American Spectator, December 2000, pg. 19, col. 2)

Did you catch that? These illustrations, commonly used to teach our children the lie of evolution, have been known to be fakes for over a hundred years - yet they are still touted as the truth. Dr. Wells went on to say that his research proved that:

"In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel's contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations, and charges or fraud abounded in his lifetime. {emphasis mine}" (American Spectator, December 2000, pg. 20-21)

In 1997 Dr. Michael Richardson and his international team of experts conclusively proved that Haeckel's drawings were rigged and false, yet these same drawings are still illegitimately used in high school and college textbooks today to support Darwinism. As the Scripture says, these "great men" changed the truth of God into a lie. The Bible warns of the liar:

Revelation 22:14-15  "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.  For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whore mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie"

There is coming a time these liars will have an eternity to repent of their deceit, God help them!

2. In 1953 two "Scientists", Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, created what they called one of the building blocks of life in a bottle. They imitated what they thought the earth's atmosphere was at the beginning of life in a test tube, applied an electrical charge, and created amino acids, one of the building blocks of life. Scientists quickly pointed to this valuable research as conclusive proof of evolution.

Yet in 1970 scientists began to doubt the Miller-Urey experiment because they felt it began with a flawed premise. Miller-Urey thought that earth's initial atmosphere was a hydrogen rich environment, yet scientists in the 70's (particularly geochemists) believed that volcanic gasses were predominant in our atmosphere. When volcanic gasses are used the Miller-Urey experiment does not work. Dr. Wells states:

"What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact?  By and large they ignore it and continue to use the Miller-Urey experiment to convince students that scientists have demonstrated an important first step in the origin of life ..." (American Spectator, December 2000, pg. 20, col. 1)

Hey, who wants to lose textbook sales just because of pesky facts? Ignore the truth, print the lie, and lead the children into a false reality.

3. Even Darwin himself knew and hid the truth about evolution. Says Dr. Wells:

"The fossil record shows the major group of animals appearing fully formed at about the same time {emphasis mine} in a "Cambrian explosion" rather than diverging from a common ancestor. Darwin knew this {emphasis mine}, and considered it a serious objection to his theory. But he attributed it to the imperfection of the fossil record .... " (American Spectator, December 2000, pg. 21, col. 1)

In the 70's scientists began examining the molecular biology of Darwin's "Tree of Life" by comparing molecules in various species. The results? Utter confusion. There was no conclusive evidence that all animal life descended from a common ancestor based on molecular biology. Yet biology textbooks still promote Darwin's "Tree of Life" as irrefutable proof of evolution, though real fossil and molecular evidence shows otherwise.

4. Biology textbooks show drawings of vertebrate limbs to support the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor (this is called "homology"). Dr. Wells says:

".... biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. ... there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design" (American Spectator, December 2000, pg. 22, col. 2)

Would you like me to restate that? In a nutshell, the alleged similarities show nothing more than the fact that all vertebrate life form has a similar design, and therefore it is possible that all vertebrate life forms have a Designer. For instance, when I look at cars, trucks, and motorcycles they all have similar things in common. They have seats, steering mechanisms, round wheels, etc. Whether it's a car or a truck, either always has round wheels because these are the best type of wheels to use for transportation on planet Earth. Since it is the best design, it is designed into all types of land bound motor vehicles. It is designed into these motor vehicles by an outside Designer, not by the automobile itself. DUH!

In like manner, all vertebrate limbs are designed to function in this earth's atmosphere and gravity. As such, there will be similarities between hands and arms of a man, a frog, or a raccoon, but there will also be dissimilarities. The similarities as well as the dissimilarities serve the prove that all were made by an intelligent Creator who had our best interest at heart. This is no absolute proof of evolution, as the proof can be used just as realistically for Creationism.

5. Darwin believed in the doctrine of "Natural Selection", that is, when the environment dictated change in a species was necessary for survival, then that species would evolve or die. Yet Darwin had no proof of this doctrine until 1950 when Dr. Bernard Kettlewell seemed to supply the proof.

During the century Peppered Moths had gone from being light colored to very dark in color in England. Kettlewell advanced the theory that the moths evolved to the darker color wings in response to the pollution prevalent in England. Pollutants were darkening tree trunks where these Moths lived, so they responded by darkening their wings so as to appear to be less obvious to predators when they landed on these dark trunks. To prove this Kettlewell released moths of both colors in polluted forests and in non polluted forests. As expected, the light colored Moths were quickly eaten in polluted or darkened trunk forests, whereas dark colored Moths were quickly eaten in non polluted or light trunk forests. Kettlewell went on to propose that this was incontrovertible proof of Natural Selection, and took pictures of the Peppered Moths sitting on the dark and light colored trunks of trees. Says Dr. Wells:

"In the 1980's, however, researchers discovered evidence that the official story was flawed - including the pertinent fact that Peppered Moths don't normally rest on tree trunks {emphasis mine}. Instead, they fly by night and apparently hide under upper branches during the day. By releasing moths onto nearby tree trunks in daylight, Kettlewell had created an artificial situation that does not exist in nature {emphasis mine}. Many biologists now consider his results invalid, and some even question whether natural selection was responsible for the observed changes."

Where did all the pictures of Peppered Moths sitting on tree trunks come from? Photographers literally glued dead moths onto tree trunks for the photographs! Again, a clear indication of hiding the lie rather than promoting the truth.

In a similar instance, evolutionists cite how the finches of the Galapagos Islands "evolve" so that their beaks are 5% larger after an extreme drought. The reason? So that the birds can eat the hard to crack seeds that are propagated because of the drought. Yet these same evolutionists fail to mention how the beaks on these same finches return to normal after the drought has passed! This is not evolution, but adaptation that reverts when the problem passes. I have had a similar incident happen in my life. When I was a factory worker my hands were toughened, hard, cracked and calloused because of the work that I did. For about a year I left the factory and went into a desk bound job. As a result the callous disappeared and my hands became soft once more. Now I am a bi-vocational Pastor in a factory job once more, and my hands are again tough and calloused. Is this evolution? Absolutely not! It is mere adaptation to the environment, an adaptation that will pass when my needs are met. The same was true of the finches.

6. Though Neanderthals had been discovered by scientists, there was no link between Neanderthal and modern man. In fact, Neanderthals were not considered the ancestors of man - that is, until 1912 when an alleged Paleontologist Charles Dawson found this "missing link" in Piltdown, England. This was touted as absolute proof of evolution until about forty years later when a team of scientists discovered that this "missing link" was a hoax. Piltdown man was a hybrid created from the skull of a modern man and the jaw fragment of a modern orangutan. The jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and the teeth were filed down to make them look human.

When this last fact is brought up to evolutionists, rather than hanging their head in shame they just state "well, science is self correcting. We admit that error." If this is true, then why not admit all the errors evident in evolutionary theory? Evolution is, when all is said and done, no more than a Faith in something unseen. Evolution is a religious belief, just as Creationism is a religious belief. If Creationism has no place in our schools because we must separate Church and State, then Evolutionism should also be removed. Mention nothing of creation, or the beginnings of nature .....

.... but in the name of all that is holy and right, quit lying and calling it truth. As Judge Judy says on her television program, "stop (urinating) on my leg and telling me it's raining".  Be a person of integrity and admit the lies are just that - lies, not truth. Admit that Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that you believe in this invisible "Big Bang" just like I believe in the unseen God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ.

I may not believe with you, but at least I'll respect you more than I do right now. For no one likes or respects a deceiver, whether that person deceives from a laboratory, a textbook company, a political office, or from a pulpit. Whether we agree or disagree, do so from a position of integrity.

Anything else just crawls up a honest person's nose.