Sufficient Proofs For The Word Of God

"Men crave in these days some demonstration from the unseen world. Here is abundance of such evidence—Here is clear proof of an unseen and almighty intelligence presiding over human history, and showing us that He does so by describing beforehand the whole course of its events. What need we any further proof? The order of the visible world is evidence of the invisible to him who reads history in the light of prophecy! He beholds the hand of God in human experience, and watches the development of the Divine plan in the progress of the world. He knows, moreover, what events to expect, for he discerns his own chronological position in the stream of time; and as nine-tenths of the program have already been fulfilled, he doubts not that the remaining tenth will be in its predicted and fast-approaching season. And further, it is clear that if by so many infallible proofs we are convinced that the Bible as a whole is from God, no difficulties as to the mode of its inspiration, no scientific or critical objections, should be suffered to interfere with our hearty and thankful reception of its revelation. If God has spoken, man is responsible to hear, to believe, and to obey. And lastly, may we say, that to study the Christian evidences, whether of this or of any other kind, is merely to examine the foundations of the house. It is well at times to do this. But it is better to enter and abide in the house! It is infinitely better to avail one’s self of its shelter from the stormy blast, to enjoy its rich and spacious accommodation, to dwell in safety and peace under its blessed roof and to gaze on the widespread prospect from its windows."

Henry Grattan Guinness (1835-1910)

The Biblical Definition Of Repentance

        There is disagreement amongst professing Christians as to what repentance from sin consists of. The main point of dispute centers around whether it involves a change in mind or a change in ways. Scripture does lay out an answer that is not beyond the comprehension of most people, but it does not appeal to many in our culture or to those who preach a watered-down version of the gospel. Nowadays, it is generally assumed that human beings are good as they are. People therefore take offense when they are told that they need to change their ways. The gospel is a message of moral transformation, so its lack of appeal is unsurprising in our kind of environment. Its reception is to be followed by a change of heart from sinful ways to godly living, and the Holy Spirit is the agent of that change.

         Scripture defines the idea of repentance as being more than just thinking differently about our personal conduct. It involves turning from sinful ways to serve the living God. It includes entrusting oneself to Him, who forgives our sins. Repentance is not a work of religious merit, but a change in heart. It is a change in purpose and perspective. Repentance is crying out to God, admitting the futility of remaining in sin. This theme is echoed by the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:30-31). We must repent of our sins or perish in them. Repentance can be accompanied with godly sorrow and grief (Luke 22:62-64), but that is not a necessary component. Further, consider how the men of Nineveh responded to the preaching of Jonah:

         "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.” When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it." (Jonah 3:5-10, emphasis added)

         The response of the people who heard his message was not rejection, but covering themselves with sackcloth and ashes. That is how the Ninevites expressed sorrow for sins such as idolatry, sexual perversion, and deceit. They repented of their sins and so obtained for themselves mercy from God. The narrative contrasts the longsuffering of God with self-righteous Jonah who held the Ninevites in disdain. There was no goodness in them to invite His favor. Observe how Jesus Christ used this event in calling the Pharisees to repentance:

         "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41)

         He shamed them for their wholesale rejection of His messiahship. Their reaction to His preaching was diametrically opposed to how the men of Nineveh received the message of Jonah. The Pharisees felt wholly adequate with their standing before God, whereas the Ninevites correctly sensed their unworthiness. Thus, repentance comes only to the humble of heart. It is also clear that Christ Himself viewed repentance as turning from sinful ways. 

          If we define the term repentance to mean a change of mind, then we give an incomplete explanation of that concept. An aspect of repentance is the conviction that sin should no longer persist in our lives. We must recognize that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners, totally in need of God's grace and redemption. Moreover, the word order of faith and repentance in the New Testament indicates that both are inseparable (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). If there is no repentance from sin, then there can be no forgiveness of it by God. If God does not forgive our sins, then we stand eternally condemned before Him. If repentance is removed from the equation of salvation, then the gospel itself falls apart. 

Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 In The Würzburg Glosses, 8th Century

.... Very interesting: Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, from an Irish theologian in the 8th Century:

"23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace [that is, by faith alone, i.e. the faith of belief in Jesus Christ], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [that is, it is He that has redeemed and it is He also that is the ransom, i.e. by the blood] 25 Whom God had proposed to be a propitiation [that is, it has been set forth in the mysteries of the Godhead, to make atonement for those who believe his liberation would be in the blood], through faith in his blood, [that is, through the faith of every one who believes in his salvation through His blood] to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins."

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/03/per-fidem-solam-romans-324-in-wurzburg.html

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

          The passage in Hebrews 6:4–6 has long been a source of theological debate, often evoking anxiety among Christians about its implications. It carries a sense of solemnity, as it appears to suggest that those who fall into sin are irreversibly excluded from God’s forgiveness. However, such a conclusion would be accurate only in the case of individuals who persist in unrepentant rebellion until death. Scripture provides abundant clarity elsewhere, emphasizing the importance of restoring those who have backslidden and aiding them in repentance (Galatians 6:1). True regeneration occurs only when the gospel takes root in the heart and transforms the individual, rather than merely being heard or superficially acknowledged.

          To better understand this challenging text, it is helpful to consider its original context and audience. The epistle of Hebrews was written primarily to a Jewish-Christian audience who faced significant pressure to revert to Judaism under the looming threat of persecution. These believers were at a spiritual crossroads, and the author of Hebrews sought to encourage them to remain steadfast in their faith. The exhortation to spiritual maturity is evident earlier in the chapter (Hebrews 6:1–3), urging these believers to progress beyond foundational teachings and deepen their commitment to Christ.

          A key theme throughout Hebrews is the supremacy of Christ and the New Covenant over the Old Covenant. The author skillfully illuminates how various types and shadows in the Old Testament find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. He demonstrates that Jesus is greater than Moses, the angels, and the temple itself. Christ is affirmed as the eternal Sabbath and our perfect High Priest, whose sacrifice surpasses all others. Unlike the Law, which exposes sin but cannot save, Jesus fulfills the Law and establishes a New Covenant, one based on His all-sufficient atonement (Hebrews 10:10–14). Consequently, the former customs and rituals of the Mosaic Law hold no saving power.

          Thus, the central concern of Hebrews 6:4–6 is not to assert that God withholds forgiveness from repentant sinners but to warn against a persistent rejection of the gospel. Specifically, those who deliberately abandon the truth of Christ’s sacrifice in favor of Old Covenant practices are rejecting the only means of salvation. Such actions amount to crucifying Christ afresh and bring disgrace to His name. These individuals are without excuse, as they have already encountered the truth yet willfully choose to rely on inadequate systems of atonement, such as the sacrifices of the temple and the Levitical priesthood.

          This passage serves as a powerful reminder to place unwavering trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation. For Jewish Christians, the call was to stand firm in their faith amid persecution, fully embracing the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice. The same remains true for believers today. The gospel calls us to abandon all attempts at self-justification and rely wholly on Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Those who endure in faith, rather than returning to systems that cannot save, will find eternal life and peace in Him.

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 New Testament:

          "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" here 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. Moreover it was never for outsiders to observe in the first place.

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.

Biblical Evidence Against The Apostle Peter Being The First Pope

• Defining The Issues: 

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

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

          -The New Testament contains 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 of bishop is mentioned. Further, the New Testament describes individual congregations as being ruled by pluralities of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17). It says nothing regarding a single human leader rightly claiming to have been bestowed a gift of infallible teaching authority by the Holy Spirit over the entire Christian church.

• General Absence Of Papal Titles Throughout The New Testament:

          -Peter was never addressed with the exalted titles later applied to popes. Nowhere is he called “Pope,” “Chief Shepherd,” “Head of the Church,” “Holy Father,” “Sovereign Pontiff,” or any similar honorifics used today. Instead, Scripture refers to him simply as an “apostle and servant” (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and as a “fellow presbyter” (1 Peter 5:1). These descriptions place Peter on the same level of authority as other elders in the early church. Likewise, the Apostle John referred to himself as an “elder” (2 John 1; 3 John 1), suggesting that he viewed his own authority as comparable to Peter’s.

           *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 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? Why does Paul, not Peter, shape the theology of the early church?

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

          -If Peter was appointed by Christ to govern the 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). If Peter were the universal bishop, then his ministry would not have been geographically and ethnically limited. Paul would not have been the one entrusted with the global mission.

• 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 could have gotten himself 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 even allude to his potential successors?

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Exercise Exclusive 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.

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.