Truth Defined Online Blog

INTRODUCTION

As we examine the claims of Evolutionary Thought and Theory, it is important to be aware of the fact that while Naturalism and Evolutionary Theory are founded upon the premise that all of life here on earth originated from a RANDOM CHANCE EVENT that started the process of life without an intelligent creator, the same people who have founded and support Naturalism and Evolutionary Theory have, for a long time, been seeking to find possible life forms in other parts of our galaxy and universe AS IF THE RANDOM CHANCE EVENT THAT STARTED LIFE COULD ALSO BE A COMMON OCCURRENCE THAT REPEATS ITSELF IN THE REST OF OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE.

But think about this for a moment:

How can something that happens as a RANDOM CHANCE EVENT also be at the same time A REPEATABLE COMMON OCCURRENCE? Every known use of the principle of random chance in our world, and for that matter in our society, such as gambling, the lotto or sweepstakes, is based upon the fact that a system based on random chance choices is not intended to repeat itself to gain the same outcomes.

Another thing to consider is the fact that all methods of gambling that involve random numbers, such as the lotto and slot machines, use a predetermined number of choices to choose from to result in a finite set of random numbers which can be thus gambled upon to result in some wins, but many losses. If the number of choices were not predetermined to result in a finite set, practically nobody would ever win at gambling. This shows that gambling, though it uses random chance, is also a result of intelligent design to make it possible for some gamblers to win.

The point to be taken here is that in order for random chance to be useful to produce a desired outcome, it must be limited to a predetermined number of choices by intelligent design. No amino acids that spark life would be possible if left to an infinite number of circumstances and elements from which to stumble upon.

Also, the same reasoning that was used to theorize how and when “organic goo” produced the first amino acids by random chance, also had to use an already known determined set of elements and catalysts to surmise how such a process could have occured. This presupposes what things had to be in the “organic goo” to start life. But that is not random chance! That is intelligent design! If we had started with the basic ingredients that exist within dishwashing liquid, would we then conclude that a proper catalyst would spark life?

As far as I can tell, it is impossible to investigate the theory of random chance regarding the origins of life without bringing intelligent resources along to use in the investigation. There is no other way to compare existing evidences to possible theories in order to determine what possible outcomes would, or have, occurred that were a result of reactions between existing elements, and energies or intelligence that were involved in the origins of life.

No, as long as there are intelligent agents (humans) who do the investigating using thinking minds, then Intelligent Design remains a reality that can not be avoided. No theories can exist without it. No evidence can be examined without I.D. to arrive at a conclusion. Unless you just don’t really want any answers, you must use I.D. in order to do your investigation, and you must consider I.D. itself as a possible reason for the source of our origins.

Also, as was stated earlier, if random chance was the source of the beginnings of life, it would not be possible without the existence of Intelligent Design to limit the number of choices and to determine the finite set of circumstances and elements involved to actually make it happen.

INTRODUCTION

As we live our lives in today’s world, we can embrace the beauty of life around us. We can appreciate the beauty of an evening sunset, or we can go to the mountains, and appreciate the view of the valley and rivers below, filled with wonder in our hearts as we see the majesty of the plant life, and the diversity of the animals, as they gather food and play hide and seek with us in our attempts to follow them. 

We also have a passion to know more about ourselves, and our reason for being – our purpose in life, and the meaning behind our diversity of gifts and talents – the many ways that people are gifted and equipped to bring meaning to our world and our existence.

Naturalists have sought to understand the world around us by the study of nature and the interactions between animals and their environments. Biologists have sought to understand the workings of biological creatures, including us, and how to solve the dilemmas and meet the needs that they encounter as they seek to thrive in their environments. Both Naturalists and Biologists have brought many important discoveries and knowledge to us which have given us the ability to preserve and heal many animals and people – how to reverse the effects or to cure diseases, how to nurture injured animals back to health, and how animals are equipped to adapt to their environments for their own survival.

Many of the people in this scientific realm of naturalism and biology have been influenced by and believe in the theory of Darwinian Evolution, one point of view which attempts to explain the origins of our universe and our existence. There are also people in other fields of science, such as astronomy and astrophysics, who have also been influenced this way. Yet, these men and women who have devoted their lives to research and discover things that could help the survival of our planet, ourselves, and the animal life around us, have faced an alternative point of view known as Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is a viewpoint held by many who have worked in the same fields of science as those who have believed in Darwinian Evolution. Some of the scientists who have held to Intelligent Design are:¹

• Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) – Physics; Astronomy
• Johann Kepler (1571–1630) – Scientific Astronomy
• Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) – Hydrostatics; Barometer
• John Ray (1627–1705) – Natural history
• Isaac Newton (1642–1727) – Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation Law; Spectrum of light
• Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) – Botanist; Zoologist
• John Dalton (1766–1844) – Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

Darwinian Evolution proposes to explain the origins of our existence by stating that we are merely the results of Random Chance Organic Processes, which were put in motion by merely Coincidental Occurrences, Without the Intervention of any Intelligent Being.

Conversely, Intelligent Design states that our existence was the willful intention and design of a Loving Divine Creator, who is an Intelligent Being that created us, and imparted to us both intelligence and personality, giving us dignity, purpose, and the ability to appreciate all that He has given us to experience and enjoy within the world and universe that He Created. This gives us a very different view of our significance than that of Darwinian Evolution.

Today these two alternative viewpoints, Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design, have taken the center stage of discussion about the origins of our universe and existence. So why is there this difference of opinion between colleagues within the same scientific fields of study? If Intelligent Design was popular among prominent scientists who lived between 1564 and 1844, then how did Darwinian Evolution gain its significance in 1859 with the publication of Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species?²

ORIGINS OF THE SHIFT AWAY FROM AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR

According to an article on History.Com: 

“European politics, philosophy, science and communications were radically reoriented during the course of the “long 18th century” (1685-1815) as part of a movement referred to by its participants as the Age of Reason, or simply the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers … questioned traditional authority and embraced the notion that humanity could be improved through rational change.”³

Enlightenment thinkers questioned traditional authority of the day most likely because of the Thirty Years’ War (1618 to 1648), and because of centuries of mistreatment at the hands of monarchies and the church.⁴

The Thirty Years’ War was a 17th-century religious conflict that started as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire. It was one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict. As the war progressed it became less about religion and more about which group would ultimately govern Europe. The ending resulted in the conflict changing the geopolitical face of Europe and the role of religion and nation-states in society.⁵

In consideration of this, it is evident that the shift away from the idea of an Intelligent Creator was primarily due to thinkers during the Enlightenment wanting to find an alternative explanation due to the mistreatment of people by monarchies and the church, and due to the Thirty Years’ War, which started between Catholics and Protestants, who were supposed to be representatives of their Divine Creator to the world. Enlightenment thinkers thus sought a way for humanity to be improved without an Intelligent Creator.

THE ENTRANCE OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

Charles Darwin was not the first to develop Evolutionary thought. Evolutionary thought, the concept that species change over time, was in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and in medieval Islamic science. In the late 17th century two opposing ideas influenced Western biological thinking: Essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable, a concept which developed from medieval Aristotelian metaphysics, and the new anti-Aristotelian⁶ approach to modern science, which claimed that in biology there were no essential characteristics of a species. As the Age of Reason (the Enlightenment) progressed, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; and the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined static views of nature.⁷ 

Before Darwin, in the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, which was the first fully formed theory of evolution. Then finally, in 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, which was later explained in detail in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life, meaning that two very different species could share a common ancestor. Darwin based his theory on the idea of natural selection, synthesizing a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology. Debate over Darwin’s work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism of natural selection was not widely accepted until it was revived by developments in biology that occurred during the 1920s through the 1940s.⁷

INTELLIGENCE FUELED DARWIN’S THEORY

Intelligence fueled Darwin’s theory, NOT direct observation. To this day, there have never been any direct observations of one species evolving into a completely new, different species. This is also known as Macroevolution^.8 Although there have been observations of variability within a species, which is Microevolution,⁸ Macroevolution is based entirely on theory using observed mechanisms within Microevolution as its basis for support. For example: Microevolution would give us the reason for the existence of different breeds of dogs, but Macroevolution would propose that because dogs have evolved into different breeds, then it must be possible for dogs to evolve into an entirely different animal, such as a horse. You see the difference? One is observation (Microevolution), the other is supposition (Macroevolution) or in other words, theory. 

The essential characteristic of a Theory, which is different from an Observation, is that a Theory is formed entirely in thought, without any real need for a direct observation. A Theory may use some kind of observation for its basis, but in the case of Macroevolution that basis is a smaller observation, not the one being promoted. Microevolution would state “we have observed,” but Macroevolution would state “we might observe, but for now we propose.”

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION THUS DEPENDS UPON INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Because Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is equivalent to Macroevolution, then we must be honest with ourselves and understand that his theory is entirely dependent upon his own Intelligent Thinking. The only observable evidences that Darwin could use for the basis of his theory were smaller changes within different species (Microevolution), and the mechanics of those smaller changes. I can thus surmise that The Theory Of Darwinian Evolution Is Therefore Based Upon Intelligent Design. 

So here’s the main point of this discussion:

“If it takes Intelligent Design for the Theory of Darwinian Evolution to explain how one simpler species evolved into another more complex one by a logical step-by-step process, then how could the actual process have accomplished this by mere Random Chance, without Intelligent Design?”

Here’s a crude analogy to illustrate this point:

“Let’s say that I am, by my own intelligence (i.e. Intelligent Design), explaining to you a simple mathematical equation – 50 coins minus 20 coins equals 30 coins (50 – 20 = 30), and that the methodology of this equation happened by mere chance. Then, to physically show you how this works by random chance, I open a folding table and place it between us. I then take 50 pennies in my hands, and then throw them on the table with a certain amount of force so that a percentage of them fall on the floor, leaving a remaining amount of them on the table for us to count. What is the statistical probability that we will find exactly 30 pennies remaining on the table? How many times of throwing the 50 pennies on the table will it actually take to leave 30 on the table? How long can you wait to find out exactly when it causes 30 to remain?”

“Now, take that crude analogy a bit further and increase the amount of pennies to 1 million, so that our equation is now 1 million minus three hundred equals nine hundred ninety nine thousand seven hundred pennies (1,000,000 – 300 = 999,700). Now how many times of randomly throwing the pennies on the table will it take to leave exactly 999,700 pennies remaining on the table? It would have been easier for me to show you by Intelligent Design how 50 pennies – 20 pennies = 30 pennies by carefully placing (not throwing) the handful of pennies on the table and then counting off and removing 20 pennies leaving 30 pennies remaining on the table for us to count and verify, thus proving the equation to be true.”

Darwin didn’t have millions of years to test or illustrate his theory, all he had in his limited life span was the time to examine Microevolution, a species adapting to their environment for survival, and remaining the same type of species, NOT mutating into a completely different species of animal. Darwin’s Theory just doesn’t have any real Direct Observations of one animal evolving into another completely different animal. It may be supposed that Macroevolution takes millions of years, but how can one truly support that without question? A theory of this magnitude, existing as an intellectual proposal, still needs to have some kind of observable evidence that shows one animal to have evolved into another – and to this day no known evidence, fossils or otherwise, have proven Darwinian Evolution to be true; In fact, it has taken artists using their own creative ability to make pictures based on his theory, and other people who have pieced together fossils that really were not related, to fabricate some kind of a fossil record or illustration to support man’s supposed evolution from apes, such as the “Piltdown Man” forgery.⁹

Why is it necessary for men to perpetrate a hoax to support the Theory of Darwinian Evolution, if there truly are other existing fossil records that actually are transitional forms of life which thereby connect different species of animals together showing them to be related?

Another very important thing to consider is the very existence of Intelligence itself. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that God does not exist, and that the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution actually is true, which without an Intelligent Creator, God, could only have happened by pure chance:

• How would the mechanisms supposed by Darwinian Evolution, caused by pure chance, actually cause a species to progress from one simpler animal into a more complex animal, moving in a logical, forward, progression, without any intelligence to design it that way?
• How can a random event that started life on earth, proposed by Darwinian Evolution and other similar theories, result in the symmetry and order that exists between organic beings, such as people and animals, and their environment – oxygen atmosphere, plants, food, and water VS lungs, teeth to chew, stomachs, and thirst – without an intelligent source?
• If we are, as organic mechanisms created by chance, fully dependent upon the chemical processes that govern our thinking and our actions, then why aren’t we just living by compulsion in everything we desire and do? If there is no real intelligence governing our chemical processes, then how is it that we seem to have control over our choices, decisions, and actions, as long as we are in good mental health?

Intelligence is an actual ability that we have, and can use. I could not be writing to you without it. Also, it is statistically improbable that intelligence is merely a product of accidental, chance events. Who would ever say, “My thinking and intelligence are merely the result of accidental, random chance events with no real meaning?”

The fact that I am able to write this article for you to read gives evidence that I have the intelligence and the free will to choose the words and ideas that it presents to you. I am not doing this by some sort of uncontrollable compulsion governed by a random set of chemical reactions; No, I am actually able to write to you a thoughtful, orderly, presentation of some things that I have personally studied and examined, and determined to be true or false based upon my own observations.

No random idea-generator can do that! No roll of the dice can send you an orderly sentence of words that will then be intercepted and interpreted by your own random set of dice rolls to compare it to. Random-to-Random communication will never work to achieve an understandable message. Understandable messages can only be achieved where Intelligence is involved, using a palatable methodology. Intelligence is not a random process – it is a determined, willful, ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.¹⁰

The same can be said of theories – theories are not a randomly arranged set of ideas or letters of the alphabet, they are well-thought-out treatises that are based upon an intellectual premise. Intelligence, more than observation, is the basis for the formation of theories.

CONCLUSION

This short article was written to show that not only does Intelligent Design conclude that we came from Intelligent Origins, but the Theory of Darwinian Evolution is itself a product of Intelligent Design, from which we can therefore conclude that neither animals, human beings, nor human intelligence, came from Ungoverned, Random, Organic Processes. 

Although originally there were many people who believed in God, and claimed to follow Him, the time of the Thirty Years’ War (1618 to 1648), and the centuries of mistreatment at the hands of monarchies and the church led thinking people to question God’s existence and to look for an alternative way to justify man’s existence on earth, and to find a way for humanity to be improved through rational change. This is how men began to believe in an evolutionary process without God, hoping to find peace, and meaning in life, on their own.

This, in reality, did not disprove the existence of God, rather, it quite literally shows that mankind is sinful in nature, even those who claim to know God, and we are subject to fail in our efforts to know God, and to do what God tells us to do, if we do not fully submit our lives and our will to Him. Wars are caused by people who cannot love one another. But it truly does not have to be this way – we need to choose. God is always for us, not against us.

I hope that you are encouraged to examine what you really believe about life, and that you seriously consider that you are not an accident of nature, but you are a valuable person, created by God, who passionately loves you and has a true purpose and plan for you and your life.

NOTES

1. “Scientists of the past believed in a Creator”.
   Creation.Com: Creation Ministries International.
   https://creation.com/creation-scientists#medieval. 2018.
2. “History of evolutionary thought”.
   Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought. 2018.
3. History.com Editors. “Enlightenment”.
   History.Com.
   https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/enlightenment. 2009, 2018.
4. History SparkNotes. “The Enlightenment (1650–1800) Summary: Brief Overview”.
   SparkNotes.Com.
   http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/enlightenment/summary. 2018.
5. History.com Editors. “Thirty Years’ War”.
   History.Com.
   https://www.history.com/topics/reformation/thirty-years-war. 2009, 2018.
6. Ralph Kenyon. “Anti-Aristotelianism”.
   Xenodochy.Org: Cognition and Xenodochy.
   http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/antivsnon.html. 2009.
7. “History of evolutionary thought”.
   Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought. 2018.
8. Austin Cline. “Microevolution vs. Macroevolution”.
   ThoughtCo: Lifelong Learning.
   https://www.thoughtco.com/microevolution-vs-macroevolution-249900. 2018.
9. “Piltdown Man”.
   Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man. 2018.
10. Oxford University Press. “Intelligence”.
    English Oxford Living Dictionaries.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intelligence. 2018.

Because of the continued violence of Isis, and other terrorists, who openly kill people and commit public executions, I must speak the truth regarding Isis’ actions as compared to the 10 commandments, which God gave to Moses, as many people know and believe, including Muslims.

God has inspired me to speak up. It is God’s word, and His commands, that have the authority to tell us how He wants us to live for Him and with each other. There is no other greater authority than His. Not man’s authority, not a movements authority, not a groups authority, there is no other authority neither in Heaven or on Earth that is greater than God.

It is known that the people of Isis believe themselves to be “True Islam.” They tell the world that they are “True Muslims.” But there are other, “peaceful” Muslims, that do not agree with them. They do not believe Isis to be true Muslims. In fact, I know and have watched a documentary of how several groups of Muslims got together to oppose Isis in their own country. Isis had taken control of their city, and these other Muslims fought back against Isis and took back their city from them. They cared about their families and friends, and their city, and they did not want Isis to be their masters, they wanted to have God as their master.

So how can we know whether or not God has commanded Isis to do the things that they are doing in the name of “True Islam?” By comparing what they say “God has said” with what we know “God has said,” and by comparing what “God has said” to what they are in fact doing and practicing.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews, all know, and believe, and agree, that God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, which God intended that all people would believe and obey.

God’s 10 commandments are not arbitrary, they are absolute. Muslims include the 10 commandments, and the Torah, as being Holy Books from God that He has given to us to be obeyed, that we would love Him, and each other, in a God-given, right relationship.

The 10 commandments are all about “relationship.” God has always wanted mankind to live in a true “relationship” with Him. Even Jesus Christ, in quoting the 10 commandments, has stated:

“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37 – 40 NKJV)

1. Killing People including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people including some children.
2. Stealing Children away from their parents.
3. Raping Women (definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)

The 4 commands in the 10 commandments:

1. “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)
2. “You shall not steal.” (Exodus 20:15)
3. “You shall not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14)
4. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Exodus 20:17)

Jesus Christ has said:

“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10 NKJV)

Our common enemy, satan, or the “devil,” is in fact the “thief” that Jesus is speaking of, and satan is the one who deceives people into following evil ways to “steal”, “kill”, and “destroy.”

So these acts committed by Isis are NOT commanded by God, according to His 10 commandments – they are in FACT the will of satan, who desires that men should kill and steal from each other and deny God’s commands, even destroying the institution of marriage by committing adultery.

I therefore plead with those of you who know these things to be true. Who know and agree that the 10 commandments are in FACT from God. I plead with the members of Isis. You who have read and believed the 10 commandments as were given to Moses.

STOP BEING DECEIVED! Satan is a very deceptive being – especially for those who do not study nor take heed to God’s Word. His Laws Are Above Every Law, even those created by man. If a man’s laws do not agree with God’s Laws, then God is against those laws.

“Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.” (James 1:16 – 17 NKJV)

REPENT! Stop committing Murder, Theft, and Adultery!
What crime have Christians, other Muslims, and Jews, committed against God by seeking to follow Him? There was a time in the past where Christians and Muslims were in common peace. Christians were called “the protected ones” by Muslims. Muslims were at that time “protecting” Christians! Research your own history – you will see.

Don’t believe everything that you hear from other people, believe what God has said – what He has commanded us to do – what we know is true from His Word, in this case, the 10 commandments.

First, the Trinity is not merely a doctrine that we believe in, although in theological discussions many of us, in our ignorance, have treated Him that way. The Trinity IS God. God IS The Trinity. The Trinity is the truth about God as He exists eternally as Three Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures declare in 1 John 4:7 that God is Love, and Love is best expressed in relationships. So God, as a Triune Being, is a living relationship of Three Persons co-existing eternally as the One God.

When someone such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses declare that the Trinity is “unreasonable” the declaration that they are making is not just denouncing a doctrine, it is denouncing God! God is the most intelligent being in the whole universe, and in their ignorance they are saying that He is “unreasonable” if He expects us to believe that He is a Triune Being. God tells us to understand Him in Isaiah 43:10-12:

“You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, And there was no foreign god among you; Therefore you are My witnesses,” Says the LORD, “that I am God.”

Those words “…understand…besides Me there is no savior…I am God” in that passage declare that we are to understand that the Lord is God and there is no other. None before Him, and none after Him. He alone was, and is, and will continue to be the only one and true God. And as we study the rest of the Holy Scriptures, we find that there are actually Three Persons who are shown to be God. Refer to this table:

Either God is confused when He says “I am God and there is no other” while the rest of His word shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are also called God, OR, the only conclusion that makes sense of it, the One God somehow exists as Three Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are many more scriptures that show each of the Three Persons to be God, and not just a part of God. So in light of the Scriptures that show God to be Triune, when God states in Isaiah 43:10 that He wants us to “understand” that He is God, He is also asking us to “understand” that He is a Triune Being.

This is the only rational conclusion when viewing the Scriptures as a whole entity as being divinely inspired by God, and True.

Now on to Part 2…

It has been claimed by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the idea of a Triune God, or Trinity, leads to confusion of the mind and so it cannot be true.  They believe that the Trinity is an “unreasonable” concept.  I first discovered this about the Jehovah’s Witnesses while listening to Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults tape set that I had purchased from the Christian Research Institute (CRI). Walter Martin’s tape set planted the seeds of a beginning zeal for studying the Bible and getting to know the real Jesus, and to find out more about the God who loved me.  I had been in a New Age Cult before accepting Jesus as my Saviour, so I was very interested in the ministry of Walter Martin and CRI.

With each tape that I listened to I noticed that many, if not all, of the Cults – Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc – denied the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.  This claim by Jehovah’s Witnesses accusing the Trinity of being “unreasonable” was the catalyst that inspired me to begin a search for truth regarding reason as it relates to the Trinity.

Some years later I had a Bible college class where our assignment was to prepare a demonstration showing how to share the truth of Christ with Jehovah’s Witnesses.  While I was spending some personal time studying the Bible at a picnic table the Lord began to speak to my heart in a powerful way regarding the claim that the Trinity was unreasonable.  I guess you could say that this was my first memorable experience with the “anointing” of the Holy Spirit.  He spoke a Scripture to me that is from Proverbs 21:30:

“There is no wisdom or understanding Or counsel against the LORD.”

Then Romans 1:20 was next:

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”

Those words “…since the creation of the world” sparked my memory of some things from the elementary science of my childhood education, and further Scriptures and insights were added to my thoughts by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that weaved together a very powerful answer to the challenge of the Jehovah’s Witnesses against the Trinity. Note: The things that were given to me were not things that I had heard or read before in any study or discussion on the Trinity. In 2004 I was again inspired to take the insights and write a book that was first titled “Physics and the Trinity,” and was later titled “Reason and the Trinity.”

The next post will begin a detailed report of evidence that supports the reasonability of the Trinity that we can see in elementary science and Scripture.

Driving on the way home today I was thinking about how the lives of the disciples of Jesus were changed during the time that they knew Him before His death, then again when Jesus appeared to them after His resurrection.  If the resurrection really never happened, then the disciples’ boldness to continue preaching about Jesus and support of one another beyond three days after His death makes no sense.

Before they came to know Jesus, these Jewish men had some problems getting along with one another.  Matthew was a Tax Collector, and as such he was probably shunned by most if not all of the common Jewish community who already hated having to pay taxes to Caesar.  How could they get along with a fellow Jew who had defected to the Romans (in their opinion).  Peter being a fisherman was not one of the social crowd either, and he probably was not used to being around the upper class such as tax collectors.  He was sure to have some issues getting along with Matthew.

Without thinking upon more details about the disciples, these thoughts came to mind – Peter and Matthew would have never been friends or companions unless Jesus had called both of them into His fold where they were taught by Him to Love one another as Jesus had loved them (John 13:34-35).  After Jesus’ arrest, Peter fled away, as did the other disciples, thus again separating himself from Matthew and the others.  He was not even the first to go to Jesus’ tomb on the third day when the tomb was found empty – it was the women who loved Jesus who first found the empty tomb, who then reported this to the others.

After their experience seeing the risen Jesus, the disciples once again were all together, including Peter and Matthew.  Once again Peter and Matthew were comrads, opposites otherwise in the social order of their world.  Jesus was the only one who gave them a reason to co-exist together – their lives also changed from selfish interests to serving God.

Now here is the point: If Jesus Christ had never risen from the dead, would not the disciples who had once followed Him have gone back to their old lifestyles?  They had believed that Jesus was their Messiah, that He was going to save them from their sins and change their world for the better.  They did not remember that Jesus had told them He would rise on the third day until they experienced the empty tomb.  Unless they really did see their Risen Saviour, who would have kept them from returning to their old sins of racism and hatred of one another? Who would have brought Peter and Matthew back together to the point that they would even become martyrs for the sake of following Jesus whom they claimed had risen from the dead?

Peter and Matthew had no good reason to lie to protect a false testimony, if Christ was still dead.  Matthew would again prosper as a tax collector, and Peter as a fisherman, and would soon return to their old ways and the social problems caused by the oppression of the Romans. Although I am sure that they had their opinions and arguments with one another regarding their roles under Roman rule, Matthew and Peter never had any arguments concerning Christ’s Resurrection.

The future destiny of mankind is probably the most important topic to consider in the discussion of evolution and/or theistic evolution, even more so than man’s origins. In the course of discussion regarding creation vs. evolution the focus is most of the time, if not all of the time, on the question of man’s origins. But let’s consider for a moment a statement by Charles Darwin from his book on Origins:

“…we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection.”¹

But what is this perfection that he is talking about? What is his reference point? What is the goal of natural selection, to evolve life into the ultimate perfect being (God)? What will happen then? Once perfection is achieved, will evolution then be obsolete, no longer necessary since the ultimate goal has finally been reached? Will evolution then stop altogether? And if not, then how could Darwin ever have declared natural selection to be progressing toward perfection? If evolution would never stop, then how would it ever achieve its goal? And how could we “look to a secure future,” as stated by Darwin, if natural selection never achieves perfection?

The Bible gives us a very different picture of the future than that of an endless “natural selection.” In the book of Revelation (21:1-4) the “first heaven and the first earth” has passed away – in the new heaven and the new earth, “God will wipe away every tear,” and “there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.” There shall be “no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” There will be no more “struggle for existence.” If evolution were used by God, then it would now stop, become obsolete, cease to exist altogether! Since death was instituted as a curse upon life because of sin, and since evolution depends upon death as a means for creating or perfecting new life, then how could God possibly have used evolution to bring life into being? And since, according to the book of Revelation (21:1-4), God eliminates death, sorrow, crying, and pain, and thereby brings his creation into perfection without them, why would He ever use death as a means for creating or perfecting new life in the first place, especially considering the fact that “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good…”? (Gen. 1:31).

This obvious contrast between Darwin’s statements and the declarations of Scripture regarding the future show the two to be incompatible thus challenging the viewpoint of those who believe in Theistic Evolution. It also demands an answer regarding the “perfection” that is claimed to be achieved by Evolution. I have not yet seen any progression towards this “perfection” professed by Darwin in our present world. I have, however, seen the changes made in a person’s life when they truly accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and begin to live for Him. Evolution as taught in public schools does not, in my opinion, give us any reason to have hope or to find meaning for our lives that has any real ultimate purpose or conclusion. I put this discussion as a challenge to those who are considering the question of their origins, and of their ultimate destiny at the end of their life.

NOTES

1. Charles Darwin. The Origin Of Species. New York: Hurst & Company, 1859. 473-474.