See Enlightening Article on God's Divine Qualities
Professing atheism has become a fashion these days. Many illiterate people also proudly identify themselves with these beliefs. In addition, some political parties adopt this theme as their party principle. Against this background, those who believe in God appear foolish to the people who deny the existence of God. But the Bible calls those who deny the existence of God, fools (Psalm 14:1).
Science is not superior to the Bible. There are many who consider science as their God. What is even worse is that they believe in the theory of evolution. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) theorized that earth was round, without support and revolves around its own axis. The Roman church branded him a heretic and ostracized him. The Bible knowledge of the Roman church was grossly inadequate. It is because of a few of their mistakes that the Bible is thought by some to be incompatible with science. The Bible is superior to science. Centuries before Galileo's discovery, Isaiah wrote of God as "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). In Job 26:7, we read, " He hangeth the earth upon nothing". All these truths have been foretold in the Bible long before man discovered them. A few shortsighted Christians with little knowledge of the Bible may have contrary opinions.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) put forward the heliocentric theory of planetary movement wherein, in contrast to the views held earlier, the sun and not the earth is at the center of the universe and other planets including the earth revolve around the sun. In light of the above, what is mentioned in Psalm 19:6 about the sun rising at one end of the heavens and making its circuit to the other might have appeared senseless. However we know today that although the sun, does not revolve around the earth, it does move on its predestined path.
As we read the Bible we are struck by the fact that although it is not a book of science, it enumerates numerous scientific facts that were included there long before their discovery. All these were written in the Bible many centuries ago. They reveal the nature of God and His creations. Charles Darwin ( 1809-1882) and his colleagues Thomas Henry Huxley and Ernst Haeckel propounded the theory of evolution wherein they claimed that humans share many anatomical features with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans and they argued Homosapiens probably evolved from a primitive species that resembled these apes in many respects.
Is evolution correct? No.
Firstly, it is nothing but a hypothesis. It is not a postulate proved beyond doubt by rigorous experimental verification. When even the facts so proved are being revised or set aside in the light of emerging new facts, how long can these guesses stand? To mention a few parallels, all the following phrases can pass for amusing old fables but are not worthy of serious consideration:
Because a cat resembles a tiger, proposing that a cat as it grows up turns into a tiger;
Because a bandicoot resembles a rat, proposing that a rat is the offspring of a bandicoot, and;
Because a lizard looks like a crocodile, proposing that a lizard when it enters the water, slowly evolves into a crocodile.
Secondly, since evolution does not appear to happen today, We deny this proposition. It could be true perhaps that man has turned into an ape in his thoughts and deeds but certainly nowhere can we see an ape turning into a man physically and none has seen this happening either. Even if none had seen it, is it a workable proposition? If evolutionary theory were to be true, there ought to have existed millions of intermediate forms between humans and apes. There are none forming the link. The evolutionists have no answer for this and so the search for the 'missing link' continues.
The differences between man and ape are so vast that a person of the meanest intelligence will know that man could not have evolved from an ape. Realizing this slip, evolutionists have now modified this theory. Citing fossil evidence, they now claim that both pongid (ape) and hominid (human) originated from a more primitive ancestral group of small ratlike animals. When an ape is several steps lower than humans, and the ancestral primates of apes are still several steps lower, the suggestion that man originated from these early primates appears more ridiculous than ever. Evolutionists project the similarity in skeletal structures and muscular anatomies as evidence in support of their theory. If it were so, can we presume that similar looking wooden articles came from one another ? Can we further presume that two houses of similar construction evolved from each other ? When the similarity existing among various articles point to a common human knowledge, do not these observed similarities among the various living beings reveal the hand of a creator ? Evolutionists have conveniently forgotten the differences in skeletal structures between the birds flying high and the animals on the ground. Most amazing is the origin of life in all living creatures. It has been claimed that a part of the sun separated out to form the earth and when the earth cooled down, chemical transformation took place at specific climatic conditions following scientific principles and life originated. One fails to understand how from a sun, a gaseous sphere, earth could have separated out. A burnt seed does not germinate. Similarly it is very improbable that life could have originated on an earth that was separated out of the burning gaseous sphere.
Thus we find the very first step of this theory appears to be grossly illogical. But these eminent men do not acknowledge their error. They continue to write and speak to fool others. Let us see further.
Is evolution correct?
These days as rapid advances are being made in the fields of science and education, a section of people hold the view that this world and everything in it came into being on their own thus rejecting the role of God. We are not great scientists to refute the theory of evolution which proposes that man originated as the result of gradual evolution of living organisms from one another. However we shall explain a few more incongruities in this theory that makes it unacceptable to intelligent people. In the first place, it is not possible for us who believe in the existence of God to accept the theory of evolution. When there is a Supreme Being , it is far easier to believe that all these things were created by Him rather than presuming that, all these came into being accidentally, which anyway is plain foolishness.
Let us examine this further.
Assuming that somehow life originated on earth and taking the case of a single celled organism which is at the lowest level of evolutionary scale, these organisms are said to have evolved into a different but more adaptable state over a period of time. However we find such organisms existing even today. Which scientific principle could then have operated on these organisms that made a selected few pass through the evolutionary process while leaving the rest at their original state? If all the forms of living organisms are continuously evolving, none of the organisms that preceded the human evolution could be found today. From these one celled organisms, upto frogs, evolution occurs within water. However after a certain stage, worms, insects etc. come out of water and begin to live on land. When the organisms before and after them on the evolutionary scale live on water, the reason for them alone choosing to live on land is known to none. Did evolution occur after these came to land? Not at all.
Therefore asserting that nature operates on the basis of these contradictory principles is nothing but insult to nature itself. The final stage of evolution within water is said to be the frog. Because their earlier forms viz. tadpoles, has tails and as they grow up the tails become shorter and shorter, it is argued that the predecessors of frogs had tails. If that is so, how did some of their successors on the evolutionary scale come to possess tails? And how, for the man who is said to have evolved still later, tails are absent? What is that magic displayed by nature in creating some beings with legs and some others without legs at different stages of evolutionary process? The theory of evolution claims that after frogs had come to live on land, from them birds and beasts evolved.
Among the reptilian species, some have legs and some do not. The birds that are supposed to have come from them have two legs and beasts have four. What is the uniqueness of these creatures that they could bring forth, from time to time, some creatures with legs and some without legs and numerous other creatures with different number of legs? What is that principle that directs some frogs to progress on the evolutionary scale and some other frogs to remain as frogs? When some animals and birds with more advanced features than frogs continue to live in water, does not some creatures with less advanced features than frogs and at the evolutionary level of fish, live on land? How is it possible? Whether such phenomena goes against the evolutionary theory or just exceptions ? How can they explain these improbabilities?
Seeing the birds flying in the air, man too aspired to fly and he does fly today. But we do not know what made some of the reptilian species wish to fly. Even if these reptilian species wanted to fly, how did their scales turned into feathers, their forelegs became wings and how did their hard and weighty bones became so light? What is the mystery that nature favoured a section of reptiles alone? Why did the same nature decline to help man who wishes to fly, by growing wings on him? He has to make airplanes and travel in them.
According to the evolutionists, for some of the birds, the life of their ancestors was sufficient. Therefore some birds wanted to live on land and some others in water. Nature came to the help of those which chose to live on land by giving them hard bones and weighty body. Likewise those birds which wanted to live in water tried out by descending on watery regions though some could have died in the process; the rest slowly acquired adaptive features for their successive generations and at last they became fully adaptable to water. These are the details of the evolutionary theory.
Why these birds alone aspired to live in water? Whether they acquired the necessary adaptive features to live in water as a result of their aspirations or whether they live in water because they were created with the necessary features to live there , let the intelligent people answer. What are the reasons for crocodiles and whales which belong to different species, to aspire for living in water ? Did the nature, on knowing the aspirations of these creatures, readily oblige them by giving the necessary adaptive organs?
Therefore those eminent men who go astray by believing that the nature, changing its rules with the changing circumstances creates so many different creatures will do well to realize that it is far easier to believe that God created all these creatures capable of living in different environments.
During the time when various living creatures were gradually evolving, the amazing way in which different specialized organs appeared in them, is beyond the reach of human comprehension.
For instance, let us take the case of the proboscis of a butterfly. At what point of time it evolved to this level? Initially the butterfly could not have had the proboscis and therefore nectar could not have been its food.
What made that insect desire for honey whose food was till then confined to worms? Perhaps it desired for honey because the food it was taking then was not sufficient to cater to the needs of all butterflies. But what to do! Honey is only available deep inside the flower. Suddenly it started to think in the following manner. It thought, 'Mother nature! If only you could help me by giving a lengthy organ, I can have this honey and eat. But now I am almost starved.' The sympathetic nature, though could not help it readily, caused the growth of proboscis to its descendants gradually. When the proboscis grew just long enough to reach the nectar, its growth stopped! Such tales are fit for children though surprisingly, some intelligent people too subscribe to this view. What a pity! How easy and worthy of belief it is to trust that by giving such an organ to that insect, God made suitable arrangement to help the butterfly drink the nectar and satiate it's hunger and also to cause the reproduction of plants.
What is the principle of nature that caused horns to grow on goats and cows and not on dogs and horses? When all the other teeth of elephant are arranged in a line, what caused two of the teeth of male elephant to protrude forming beautiful tusks? Besides showing partiality from one species against another, is it not an unpardonable error of nature that it chose to differentiate between male and female of the same species? Giraffe's neck grew lengthy because it yearned to pluck and eat the leaves of trees! In the same way could not have the elephant's neck also grown lengthy? Why nature chose to give the trunk as a separate organ for that purpose but made it's neck shorter. What principle of nature is it that helped a camel to have a bag (hump) to store water and a kangaroo to have a bag for carrying its babies? What is the reason that for a snake, eyes are to be used both to hear and see? How marvelous are the creations of feathers of a peacock and the quills of a porcupine! Why did nature gift the snake with fangs, scorpion and honeybee with stings?
Thus we see special organs that are specific to each species. To propose that all these appeared in answer to different circumstances is untenable. It is foolish to believe that nature sensed the needs of different organisms and gave them suitable organs. Those organs that are not grown fully can not be put to use. And such unused imperfect organs must have ceased to exist and natural laws are not favorable to help them reach perfection. How easy it is to believe that God created different specialized organs for various species at the beginning itself in order to help them seek food and escape from various dangers! This alone is truth.
Similarly, let us take the case of the strong beak of a parrot which cracks hard nuts and the beak of a woodpecker which cracks the barks of the tree to feed on the worms inside. Were they created so strong or they became so as a result of circumstantial necessities?
Certainly it is more plausible to believe that depending on the purposes, each of these creatures were created with appropriate organs to suit the circumstances in which they live. Therefore it becomes clear that there is no place for evolution here.
Starting from small creatures, all are created in one state and they live and die in the same state. They don't become different creatures. Some more organisms depend for their lives on other organisms.
Parasite is an example. They always live depending on other organisms at a higher level than themselves. Let us consider the ring worm and tape worm which are found in the stomach. These worms live on the food that we eat. According to the evolutionary postulate, these must have appeared on earth millions of years ago.
Where could they have lived till the appearance of man? What did they have for food till then? What made them desire for entering into man soon as he appeared?
We can go on adding more and more such examples. Therefore it appears that certainly these kind of organisms could not have appeared earlier. If they had appeared later, then the evolutionary theory becomes wrong. What explanations do the scientists offer for these? Hence we understand that these creatures did not evolve into what they are in tune with the changing circumstances and opportunities but were created with specific purposes and capabilities.
Having created all types of creatures, God has not only provided for their suitable livelihood but also made appropriate organs to lead their lives. Each creature follows a different method in seeking its food. Each has been provided with a body structure appropriate for its food and the necessary abilities to flee from enemies.
Some attack their enemies and some swiftly run away. Each creature is given suitably strong body and sound organs. God has given the necessary wisdom for some creatures to escape skillfully.
Some kinds of fish possess electricity in their bodies and they seek protection from their enemies by releasing them. Some creatures create nauseous environment around them as a technique of avoiding the approach of their enemies. Apart from creating them all with suitable faculties for survival, God has made some of them submissive and some others not so submissive to man. God has created man to rule over them all. But man has failed to give glory to God but equated himself with animals. There can not be a more foolish act than this.
Brother, will you not know your creator at least on seeing the creation around you? We read in Genesis 1:25 that "God made the beast of the earth according to its kind and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind". As we see other verses in the chapter, we are convinced that there are differences among every class of creatures which is prevalent even today. Though some changes take place within the same class of creatures, there are no instance of one class of creature becoming another. For example, in the case of dogs, we find hundreds of kinds of dogs but there are no instance of a dog changing into or giving birth to a horse. In the same way, we can segregate horses into various categories by virtue of their color, height, strength and breed but they all belong to the same class. But has a horse ever given birth to a donkey? Therefore evolutionary theory is not a plausible proposition.
Accrual of qualities in progress with the generation can not be taken to be supportive of the evolutionary hypothesis. Because among the honey bees only the queen bee lays eggs. When the eggs hatch, out of them emerge, queen bee, worker bees and drone bees. Why did nature form a separate rule for this species alone? Therefore don't we see the hand of a creator here? In the same way, some instances of deviation from hereditary practices go against the evolutionary theory. For example, in hatching eggs, only the female members display concern. But among sea horses, when the female conceives and as the time approaches for laying eggs, it chases the male and lays its eggs in a pouch underneath its stomach. When the eggs hatch, the male ejects the young ones with great pain. Then is it a trick of nature that made even the male of the species to share in the birth pain?
Also, the male of another type of fish swims about with eggs laid by the female in its mouth and it even protects the young from enemies for a few days even after they are hatched. Till the time the eggs are hatched, the male can not take food. Why did nature make the male fish alone to take part in the process of procreation even under the condition of starvation?
Let us see some more of such amazing facts. If we watch the ants, it is only at the time of mating that wings grow on the male ants and queen ants. Soon after mating the male ants die and the wings of queen ants fall. Thus defying all natural laws, wings grow on them only for a specific purpose. In the same way, soon after procreation, female scorpion kills the male scorpion. How can nature be justified in doing this? In this way, nature and all the various creatures existing in it bear witness to the work of creation. Besides, man who is the crown of nature, too declares the work of creation through his life. In Job 35:10, we read that man is wiser than the beasts and birds. We know very well how true it is.
Man is many times nobler than other creatures. He has a language, the ability to think and determine, has wisdom to know the truth and sharp intelligence to invent novel things. All these are not possessed by monkeys which are thought by some scientists to be the basis of man's origin. Man's body and it's organs, the manner and the order with which these organs function, all bear testimony to the work of creation.
Body is a machine that is capable of correcting itself. When the body is wounded and the skin is destroyed, the surrounding skin grows up and covers the gap. If a finger is cut, the skin grows up and covers the wound. Also when the body temperature rises above 98.4 degree Fahrenheit, sweating takes place. The evaporation of sweat results in cooling of the body and this way the temperature of the whole body is controlled.
Does nature have the ability to regulate the bodily conditions so well? Moreover, the definition of 'will' is not easilily comprehensible. It is not made up of any solid matter. Likewise it is impossible to determine the nature of 'mind' by scientific means. But we see the working of 'mind' and 'will' through our experience.
Similarly, it is impossible for anyone to point out clearly the nature and origin of 'conscience' inspite of our awareness of wrongdoing when an evil act is done. If man had originated from monkeys how can we reasonably expect such things from him?
Scientific Accuracy of the Bible
An Analysis of Genesis
Belief in the Bible
Belief in the Bible
Golden Chapters of the Bible
Know your God
Christians and Sunday