Presenting A Different Jesus

"The Jesus being presented in many churches today is different because He is not the One we find in the Bible. The popular Jesus being presented is the one who fills churches to the rafters with fans and not disciples. People are following a genie in a bottle that will grant them all of their hopes and dreams. He is a Hallmark card version of Jesus who is willing to overlook sin and just be a good friend to pal around with. He never makes us feel bad or consider ourselves less than number one.

Many of our modern churches focus on self-improvement instead of dying to self. This is works based nonsense and basically, the same thing practiced among many pseudo-Christian cults including Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. The logic is if you work hard enough and be good enough, you can earn eternal life.

Instead of lovingly warning people about fleeing the wrath to come, we decide we know a better approach. We attempt to woo people into the Christian life by presenting its features and benefits much like a good salesman. This isn't the biblical model of how to present the gospel and it is certainly not the way to make disciples.

The local church's main purpose isn't to help people improve their financial planning skills, have a better marriage, or to get them connected into activities galore for the whole family. What people desperately need is to hear the gospel to come to the end of themselves and be truly born again. We don't want to present a different Jesus who is a cosmic genie who caters to our felt needs and desires.

Trouble begins when seeker-sensitive hirelings who are not shepherds water down the gospel. They present a different Jesus and this is a deception plaguing many churches today. These preachers may want to improve their image, popularity, or ministry numbers, so they make coming to Jesus about life enhancement, not dying to oneself.

I feel the uneasy tension when [speaking] to people about heaven, hell, eternity, sin, and repentance. The Lord never promised it would be easy to be His disciple but he promised to be with us always and give us the words to say when we testify about Him. It's my deep desire and prayer for each of us to renew our commitment to speak the truth, with love as the motive and do it with boldness as the Holy Spirit directs us. While many are compromising and presenting a different Jesus, I pray the faithful remnant will continue to make Him known."

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/presenting-a-different-jesus-howard-green.html

Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Teach That Apostates Cannot Be Forgiven?

        The text of Hebrews 6:4-6 has been a source of controversy amongst Christians as to its meaning. It certainly is thought-provoking in a solemn sense. In fact, it has put believers into a state of needless panic over it seemingly teaching that those who stumble into sin are beyond any hope of obtaining forgiveness from God. That statement would be true only in the case of one who dies in a state of unrepentance and persistent rebellion. Scripture elsewhere exhorts us to spiritually assist backsliders in coming to repentance (Galatians 6:1). Exposure to the truth of the gospel does not result in regeneration except if it reaches the heart.

        What may serve as an antidote to this difficult passage of Scripture is the recognition that the audience to which this epistle was originally written was of a Jewish background. It was primarily addressing Jewish Christians who were thinking of reverting to Judaism in the face of upcoming persecution. In summary, the author of Hebrews goes on to demonstrate Christ as being superior to the Old Covenant. He urges them to fervently hold fast to the gospel. They were in need of spiritual edification (Hebrews 6:1-3).

        This epistle goes in depth concerning various types, shadows, and how they are fulfilled in the New Testament. It describes Christ as being greater than Moses and the angels. It affirms Him to be our Sabbath and High Priest. The author of Hebrews affirms Christ to be greater than the temple and its sacrifices. He is the fulfillment of the Law, which cannot save us. Its customs are useless to us. Jesus established the New Covenant. The Jewish Christians were encouraged to continually remain faithful to the Lord and endure persecution for His sake (Hebrews 10:23-39).

        So, the point of this passage is not to say that God will refuse to forgive the sins of those who humbly turn to Him in repentance. Rather, those who persistently seek the Law as a means of justification are only destining themselves for eternal condemnation. These people are inexcusable because they already know and understand the truth of the gospel. Sacrificial alters have no power to redeem us. The priesthood cannot atone for our iniquity. Jesus Christ has already made full atonement for our sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). We are place our trust in His work for salvation. Those who attempt to reinstate Old Covenant practices are putting Christ to an open shame. They are rejecting the sufficiency of His work.

The Myth That Roman Emperor Constantine Changed The Sabbath

           Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Jewish Sabbath Day from Saturday to Sunday during the reign of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. They argue that we must avoid gathering on that day due to participation allegedly being the mark of the Beast. Typical attempts to substantiate their claims involve the citation of various nineteenth century authors, who simply made guesses regarding the methodology of early Christian worship services. However, any notion of Rome changing the Sabbath Day to Sunday is false. Mandatory Sabbath observance was only meant for Israel. The tradition of gathering on Sundays for worship has been practiced since the first century in correspondence with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

          The text of Acts 20:7-12 very clearly describes Christians as having fellowship on Sunday. People came together and broke bread. The New Testament records the existence of this tradition elsewhere in passages such as John 20:19-20, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and Revelation 1:10. The point is that Christians have always gathered on the first day of the week. Constantine therefore could not have made such a change to the Sabbath, even if he wanted to. The tradition of gathering on Sunday can be found in the earliest existing sources outside of the Bible:

          "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

          This text speaks of brethren offering pure spiritual sacrifices to God. They were to be done in a state in which people were not at variance with each other. Personal conflicts or grievances were to be resolved, if they existed. Believers set aside time weekly to have fellowship with each other. The "Lord's Day" is a reference to Sunday.  

          "[T]he Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who have descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter XXVI)

          The Gentiles are said to be members of God's kingdom, even though they never previously observed Jewish customs or feast days. Converts from that background were described in a continuous sense as not observing the Sabbath. That is not the basis of receiving the inheritance which God promised to our forefathers.

            "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death." (Ignatius of Antioch​​​​​​​, Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110])

            This text says without qualification that Sabbath observance is not a part of the Christian life and distinguishes that day from the "Lord's Day."

            It is simply invalid to assert that the Roman Emperor Constantine altered this Jewish day of observance from Saturday to Sunday. No one on earth has the power to change the Sabbath because it was originally instituted by God for the Jewish people.

Does Philippians 2:12 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

          "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)

          In the Old and New Testaments, the word translated as "salvation" often has the meaning of physical deliverance. It is used in that sense in Philippians 1:19. In Philippians 1:28, it refers to the deliverance of our bodies from the destruction of the wicked. Even when used in a theological sense, the term salvation can be a reference to justification, sanctification, or glorification. 

          The salvation spoken of in Philippians 2 is not of redeeming a lost soul, but liberation from disputes and strife. "Working out" refers to the resolving of such problems. Paul urged his readers to put on the mind of Christ. Holy living is the logical outworking of our justification before God. He is the source of our spiritual growth in Christ (Philippians 2:13).

         The phrase "fear and trembling" indicates the proper mindset that we are to have toward God (Psalm 2:11). It does not denote uncertainty as to our standing before Him in Christ. Rather, the expression indicates an attitude of awe and reverence toward one's own Creator. It is with this frame of mind that one lives a life of honorable service to God.

The Twin Pillars of Christian Life: Pursuing Peace and Holiness

Our apostle having now finished his exhortation unto patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel under all sufferings and afflictions, he now proceeds to a prescription of practical duties incumbent upon Christians at all times in the daily course of their conversation, two of which are contained in this verse, namely to follow peace and holiness; the former contains our duty to man, the latter, our duty to God.

Here observe, that both duties are enjoined in one and the same precept, and also with one and the same penalty: Without which, that is, without following of both which without pursuing and endeavouring after both, no man shall see the Lord.

Indeed, if a person follows holiness, though he cannot obtain peace, he may see God provided he pursues peace, and the fault is none of his that he doth not find it; but if he does not pursue peace, though he pretends never so much to holiness, he cannot be happy, for a Christian must be of a peaceable as well as of a pious, conversation; peace and holiness, peacableness and purity, are here joined together, and he neither can be happy in this or the next world, that puts them asunder.

Observe farther, The manner how peace and holiness must be followed, namely, with intense endeavours: The original word imports a vehement pursuit, a metaphor taken from huntsmen, who follow the chase, and pursue their game though it flies before them; if peace be had, though it be upon hard terms, we must endeavour to secure it, for it can never be bought too dear, if it be not purchased by sin and baseness.

A frame and disposition of seeking peace with all, is eminently suited unto the doctrine and grace of the gospel. A forward spirit, ready for strife and contention, easily provoked, and retaining long a sense of injuries, is directly contrary to the spirit and temper of the gospel.

Observe likewise, How that holiness towards God must be accompanied with peaceableness towards man. It is evangelical holiness which is here required; which must be an inward holiness, an universal holiness, a sincere and real holiness, an humble and self-denying holiness, a growing and progressive holiness, and such a holiness towards God as is always accompanied with righteousness towards men.

Observe lastly, The absolute necessity of holiness in order to eternal blessedness, Without it no man shall see the Lord. The future sight of God in glory depends peremptorily on our present holiness, not as the meritorious cause of it, but as a necessary qualification and preparation for it, and as it is the indispensable condition of our obtaining of it. The soul is by holiness made meet and fit for the enjoyment of God in happiness, Colossians 1:12.

Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Hebrews 12:14". Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/hebrews-12.html. 1700-1703.

Biblical Evidence Against The Apostle Peter Being The First Pope

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ made the Apostle Peter its first pope and that He had built His church upon him. It is also asserted that Jesus gave Peter a unique position of authority over His church, which was to get passed on through apostolic succession to present-day popes. This is the underlying basis for the Roman Catholic Church proclaiming itself to be the infallible preserver of divine truth. These claims to authority made by Rome have spewed a great deal of controversy amongst the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.

• General Absence Of The Papal Office Throughout The New Testament: 

          -The New Testament contains various passages discussing the types of offices and qualifications necessary for obtaining such positions in the church (Ephesians 4:11-15; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 1 Timothy 5:1-19; Titus 1:5-9). Yet, the concept of a pope is absent in these contexts. Paul does not distinguish Peter from the other apostles in the lists where that specific role is mentioned. Scripture describes individual congregations as being ruled by pluralities of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17). Moreover, the New Testament says nothing regarding the establishment or existence of a one-head bishop hierarchical church structure. There is no mention of a single human leader rightly claiming to have been bestowed a gift of infallible teaching authority.

• General Absence Of Papal Titles Throughout The New Testament:

          -Peter was never addressed by titles of exultation such as are used to honor popes of later times. In other words, he was never called "Pope," "Chief Shepard," "Head of the Church," "Holy Father," "Sovereign Pontiff," or any other religious titles used to honor popes today. Instead, he was simply called an "apostle and servant" (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and "fellow presbyter" (1 Peter 5:1). Such titles logically place Peter on the same level of authority as any other elder in the church. The Apostle John also referred to himself as an "elder" (2 John 1; 3 John 1), thereby implying that he had the same authority as Peter. 

           *Some may argue that the Apostle Peter avoided these titles because he was humble and modest. But if that is the case, then why do modern popes refuse to follow Peter's example? The truth of the matter is that the Lord Jesus Christ forbade the practice (Matthew 23:8-12).
          -Jesus is the "Chief Shepherd" of the flock (John 10:10; 14-16), not the pope. Christ is the "head of the church" (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23-25), not the pope.

            *Roman Catholics believe that the pope is the "visible" head of the church and that Christ is the "invisible" head. However, Scripture reserves no such position for any man. The kingdom of God is spiritual and so does not require a single earthly leader to guide it.

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Behave As If He Were A Pope:

          -The Apostle Peter was not a wealthy man as are modern-day popes (Acts 3:6-7). In other words, he did not have a throne, wear a crown, or showcase any other kinds of riches, as successive popes have enjoyed for centuries. Peter did not allow men to bow before him religiously (Acts 10:25-26), but modern popes have accepted and encouraged this kind of behavior. We are not to bow before people to honor their religious office or affiliation (Revelation 22:8-9).

• The Absence Of Papal Office In Contexts Relating To Church Unity:

          -Paul never mentioned the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as being the means of preserving ecclesiastical unity in passages relating to that very topic (Ephesians 4:4-7; Philippians 4:2-3). Jesus Christ does not refer to a Papacy in His prayer to God for unity amongst brethren (John 17). That should make one doubt whether the papal office existed in the first century, since it claims to have been established by Christ for the very purpose of maintaining unity amongst believers.

• The Apostle Peter Viewed Himself As Having No Supremacy Over The Church:

          -"Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:1-5)

           *Peter did not recognize himself as having an exalted position over other elders in the church, but instead spoke as if he had the same authority as they did. He certainly was not aware of any unique authority bestowed upon him by Christ if he did, in fact, have it. This casts doubt on any idea that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

• Peter Was Sent By Others To Travel And Preach The Gospel:

          -"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them." (Acts 8:14)

            *It the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why would he take orders from men who were allegedly lower in the chain of command than himself?

• The Apostle Paul Worked Harder Than Peter: 

          -"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).

           *If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why did he not write more Scripture?

• The Apostle Peter Was Only Known As The Apostle To The Jews:

          -If Peter was appointed by Christ to govern the entire Christian church worldwide, then why is it that Paul was the one commissioned to evangelize the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8)? In that same context, the Apostle Peter is only referred to as "one of four pillars," with James being listed as first in order (Galatians 2:9).

• The Apostle Paul Rebuked Peter As Though He Were His Equal:

          -The text clearly shows that Peter and Paul had equal authority because the former boldly confronted the latter for his sin. Peter is not in an exulted position. Any person courageous enough to publicly repudiate the claims of a Roman bishop in later centuries would most probably get himself or herself executed, if done in the manner as Paul did in the text of Galatians 2:11-14.

• Paul Never Mentioned Or Greeted "Pope Peter" In His Epistle To The Romans:

          -If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why is it that Paul wrote such a theologically rich epistle to the Romans? How come he never bothered to mention such a prominent figure in his greetings (Romans 16)? Where was "Pope Peter" when everybody else had deserted Paul (2 Timothy 1:15; 4:16)?

• The Apostle Peter Himself Seemed To Be Unaware Of Apostolic Succession:

          -"I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder." (2 Peter 1:13)
          -"And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind." (2 Peter 1:15)
          -"This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." (2 Peter 3:1-2)
           *How come Peter failed to mention the papal office in the two epistles that he authored or discuss his potential successors?

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Exclusively Exercise Authority In Church Government:

          -The Apostle Peter was not in charge of the replacement apostle after Judas was dead (Acts 1:23-26). In other words, he did not occupy his supreme authority on this issue of church government like popes would. Instead, all of the apostles nominated two candidates (not Peter alone) and prayed to Christ for an answer (not looking to Peter). Afterwards, they all cast lots to see who the new apostle would be (Peter did not cast any). This passage certainly weakens the Roman Catholic claim that the pope has power over church government.

          -"In Acts 11 Peter is called to answer for his actions in going to Cornelius' house. Does he give evidence of Papal prerogatives here? Does he answer as Innocent III, or Alexander VI? Hardly. There is no mention of his position as Pope. Instead, rather than pleading his position as Vicar of Christ, Peter relates the supernatural vision and direction that had been given to him to proclaim the gospel message to the Gentiles. This no more makes Peter a Pope than Paul's guiding vision in Acts 16." (James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 112)

Altar Calls: An Unbiblical Tradition

        The practice of altar calls, where individuals are invited to come forward at the end of a church service to make a public commitment to Christ, has been a topic of much debate. One of the most significant critiques of altar calls is their historical absence from early Christian practices. The altar call did not become a common practice until the 19th century, primarily through the influence of Charles Finney. Critics argue that Finney's introduction of the altar call was based on questionable theology and a man-centered, manipulative methodology. Historically, the early church did not rely on such methods; rather, they focused on teaching, baptism, and the sacraments as means of fostering faith. The historical novelty of the altar call suggests it is more a product of modern evangelistic techniques than an apostolic tradition. This raises important questions about the theological integrity of altar calls and emphasizes the importance of adhering to traditional practices that have stood the test of time.

        Another strong argument against altar calls is the potential confusion they create between the physical act of "coming forward" and the spiritual act of "coming to Christ." While the two can happen simultaneously, there is a risk that individuals might equate the physical act with the spiritual commitment. This confusion can lead to misunderstandings about what it truly means to come to Christ, potentially undermining the depth and authenticity of one's faith journey. For example, a person might mistakenly believe that the act of walking to the front of the church equates to a genuine conversion experience. This conflation can dilute the profound and personal nature of a true spiritual awakening, leading to a superficial understanding of faith and salvation.

        Another objection to altar calls is the pressure they place on individuals to make a public decision for Christ. This environment, often characterized by emotional music, dimmed lights, and passionate appeals, can lead to decisions driven more by the heat of the moment rather than genuine, heartfelt commitments. There is a significant risk that individuals might respond to emotional pressure instead of true spiritual conviction. Consequently, such decisions may not be deeply rooted in personal faith, resulting in a lack of lasting commitment and spiritual growth. This highlights the importance of allowing individuals to make thoughtful, considered decisions about their faith journey. People ought to be free from external influences that might sway their true intentions.

        The final compelling argument focuses on the significance of adhering to biblically prescribed worship practices, such as preaching, prayer, fellowship, and singing. Introducing new practices like altar calls may shift the focus away from these core elements of corporate worship. God's guidelines for worship should remain the primary focus to ensure that worship practices are aligned with biblical teachings and emphasize what is truly important in the faith. By adhering strictly to these prescribed elements, congregations can maintain a clear and undistracted focus on the key aspects of worship that nurture and deepen faith. This argument highlights the potential risk of diluting worship with practices that, while well-intentioned, may not have the same theological grounding or scriptural endorsement.

        In today's cautious and relational age, many people come to faith over an extended period and often with the guidance of a trusted friend or mentor. The altar call, with its immediate and public nature, may not align with the gradual and relational process through which many individuals come to faith. This method can be seen as too abrupt and impersonal, potentially alienating those who would benefit more from a thoughtful and supportive journey to faith. Modern evangelism often recognizes the importance of personal connections and long-term discipleship. Thus, relying on altar calls might miss the opportunity to engage individuals more deeply and relationally, fostering genuine, long-lasting faith commitments.

Romans 5 Is A Problematic Passage For Calvinistic Limited Atonement

• Discussion:

          -"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

          -"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." (Romans 5:17-18)

          Just as the curse of sin infected the entirety of mankind through the fall of Adam, so the Lord Jesus Christ made atonement for the sins of the whole world. Salvation is not given only to an elect group of individuals, anymore than condemnation was passed on only to an elect group. In other words, there is a universal problem presented alongside a universal solution. The consistency of this message is incompatible with Calvinist limited atonement. Romans 5:6-10 expressly tells us that Christ died for the ungodly, which would include us all. 

Spontaneous Generation Is Delusional Thinking

"No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid."

Louis Pasteur, “Sorbonne Scientific Soiree” of April 7, 1864

Why I Reject Darwinism As Science

        The concept of evolution revolves around changes in physical structures, which take place over given periods of time. Some may either perceive this to have cosmological implications or strictly biological ones. According to the Theory of Evolution, a source of matter brought about all existing life forms that we see in our world today. It is maintained that all this took place stochastically through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection. Microevolution is the small, rapid changes within a particular animal species. Macroevolution is the very gradual, major evolutionary transition which takes place among the different species of animals in becoming different types of organisms.

        The first major promoter of evolution was Charles Darwin. His ideas are now taught as a proven fact by most in the secular world. Darwin fundamentally changed the the landscape of not only science, but also philosophy, ethics, and religion. However, his ideas stand in stark contrast to the creation narrative of Genesis, which has God creating the universe and giving meaning to life. Over the course of his studies, Darwin gradually shifted away from traditional theistic perceptions of God toward agnosticism. He taught that all forms of life have a common ancestor. Further, he knew that people would make objections to his novel scientific proposals:

        "...why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not nature all in confusion, instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?" (The Origin of Species, chapter six)

        On the contrary, we have never observed life forms reproduce different life forms. That is the kind of evolution for which we still have no reliable evidence. In other words, all life forms produce after their own kind. Thus, the life reproduction pattern laid out by the Book of Genesis is more consistent with science than what Charles Darwin theorized. In addition, transitions between basic features in organisms are rendered improbable by the fact that other vital functions would simultaneously be disabled. How did essential organs such as the heart, lungs, and stomach form to begin with? Biochemists D.E. Green and R.W. Goldberger said the following in their book Molecular Insights into the Living Process, p. 407:

        "The macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture."

        Consider also this excerpt from Associate Professor of Biochemistry Douglas L. Theobald:

        "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, 7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope 1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15."

        It would be a stretch to say that the above cited scholar is a creationist. He is not by any means sympathetic to supernatural worldviews, but admits that the idea of universal common ancestry has difficulties. Following is an excerpt from a paper written in 2011 by Denis Noble, a secular biologist, who criticizes aspects of Darwinism:

        "Must higher level biological processes always be derivable from lower level data and mechanisms, as assumed by the idea that an organism is completely defined by its genome? Or are higher level properties necessarily also causes of lower level behaviour, involving actions and interactions both ways? This article uses modelling of the heart, and its experimental basis, to show that downward causation is necessary and that this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes. These insights are then generalized. A priori, there is no privileged level of causation. The relations between this form of ‘biological relativity’ and forms of relativity in physics are discussed. Biological relativity can be seen as an extension of the relativity principle by avoiding the assumption that there is a privileged scale at which biological functions are determined."

          Consider this excerpt from an article titled The Comet Comith: Evolving Developmental Systems, by Johannes Jaeger, Manfred Laubichler, and Werner Callebaut:

          "One of the main reasons for Duboule’s pessimism about the return of the EvoDevo comet is the staggering complexity and diversity of cellular and developmental regulatory processes. The configuration space for realistic models of such systems is vast, high dimensional, and potentially infinitely complex."

          This underscores the vast complexity and diverse regulatory processes in cellular development, which strongly suggests intelligent design. Such intricate systems, with their high-dimensional configuration space, are unlikely to be the result of random evolution alone. Instead, they point to a purposeful and intelligent creator behind the sophisticated mechanisms governing life's development. Another excerpt from that same piece says profound genetic similarities exist which do not prove common ancestry:

          "Because of this, similarities in gene expression patterns or morphological structure often do not necessarily imply common ancestry, since they may as well reflect the frequent reuse of the same regulatory or morphogenetic modules." (Ibid.)

        Genetic mutations are rare, and, whenever they do occur, usually cause harm to living organisms. Changes can be made, but new genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code (which is what is required for the sort of evolution touted by Darwin to work). How did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species? Did some mysterious creature that had both pairs of genitalia have intercourse with itself? Did DNA (which produces proteins) come first or did proteins (which are required in order for life to exist) come first? How could the precise, natural process of blood clotting arise from blind, unguided chance? Why is it that some organisms have supposedly evolved to a certain state of complexity over millions of years just to cease in the process since (e.g. we have found snakes and spiders that are dated back millions of years that are the same today as they were back then)? How does one account for the fact that humans have characteristics that provide no advantages for survival such as music and religion? Why do we find other animals species cute? These are only a few issues that render naturalistic evolution inadequate as a scientific postulate. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek raise other points that are worthy of consideration:

        "Darwinism asserts that only materials exist, but materials don’t have morality. How much does hate weigh? Is there an atom for love? What’s the chemical composition of the murder molecule? These questions are meaningless because physical particles are not responsible for morality. If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did—he just had bad molecules. This is nonsense, and everyone knows it. Human thoughts and transcendent moral laws are not material things any more than the laws of logic and mathematics are material things. They are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured. As a result, they can’t be explained in material terms by natural selection or any other atheistic means." (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, p. 187)

        A commonly accepted postulate by defenders of Darwinism in regards to how the universe began is the Big Bang Theory. It states that the universe began as a very hot, small, and dense ball of cosmological matter, called a singularity, which expanded and transformed into what we call the universe. The universe is continuing to cool down as it continues to spread out further. This in and of itself is a problem for atheistic worldviews because of its theistic underpinnings. It points to the fact that our universe had a beginning. Further, it is contrary to reason to suggest that something can originate from nothing. We know that from nothing comes nothing. Living matter cannot originate from non-living matter and chemicals. Nothing cannot be the cause of a cosmic expansion of matter. What caused the universe to go into motion? Something cannot put itself into motion. Why did this happen? 

        Another view on the origin of the universe as we know it, yet is less commonly held to, is called the Oscillating Universe Theory. It states that the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the same cycle for all eternity. This idea is highly improbable because the universe is not closed and consequently continues to expand outward. In fact, the accelerating force has continued to increase. We have no evidence for a decreasing speed. The concept of an eternal universe is also irrational at face value. It would mean that we could never have reached a point in time when this paper was typed up. Rather than engaging in foolish speculation, it is more reasonable to believe that God created all things ex nihilo. It is a fact that atheistic evolution cannot account for the origin of life.

        The overall design and complexity of our universe cannot simply be accounted for in an atheistic evolutionary worldview. Naturalists have ascribed the role of creation and the reason for our finely-tuned universe to mere accidents. Thus, proponents of Darwinism have literally attributed to blind chance the power of producing intelligent, functional, meaningful systems. If "blind" is not a proper word to use in describing "chance" in creating our universe, then what other word would better fit the bill? It is not as though "chance" has any mind of its own to make decisions for itself. This is nothing short of creating myths. The origin and history of life on earth cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural selection, mutations, and genetic exchange alone. It would be more proper to treat the Theory of Evolution as a testable hypothesis than a worldview.

        Science does not say anything by itself. It is the scientists who interpret available data in accordance with their underlying philosophical presuppositions about life that speak. Our scientific reasoning will inevitably be colored by our preconceptions about reality. Scientific data is subject to interpretation. Everybody brings a set of foundational assumptions to the table in the process of scientific investigation. There are basic facts of science that everybody agrees on such as the existence of gravity and the movement of tectonic plates. However, a person either studies the natural world with the belief in a Creator or no Creator at all.