Category: Evolution

It makes no sense at all to acknowledge the existence of a supreme being who has the ability to create a universe and the life in it, and then be unconcerned about knowing who that God is, and what He is like. And it is just as illogical to think that you can know who He is and what He is like unless He has revealed Himself to you!

When people accept at face value what Genesis is teaching, they will have no problem accepting and making sense of the rest of the Bible. God’s people need to realize that the word of God is something very special. It is not just the words of men (Proverbs 30:5-6; Isaiah 66:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Think about the Cosmos, the Stars, the planets, our own wonderful world. Consider the largest mountain, and the smallest plant. Think about our own wonderful body, and consider the wonder of the process of thinking itself! The evidence is right there in front of you. Yes, God exists!

Brethren need to understand the danger of conforming God’s will to popular thought. Such attitudes resulted in Israel clamoring for a king (cf. 1 Samuel 8:5-7), the Judaizers binding circumcision upon the Gentile (cf. Galatians 6:6-9), and the Gnostics denying the humanity of Christ (cf. 1 John 4:2-3). It led to the adoption of ecclesiastical heiarchy leading to the establishment of the Catholic church, the embracing of the instrument in Christian worship, and the acceptance of the social gospel concept in our generation. And, it is leading some to deny the literal nature of God’s account of His creation of the world.

Brother Roberts may attempt to turn the tables and place the blame on myself and others like me if he would like, but this entire present controversy really falls back upon him. I did not initiate an attack upon Phil Roberts or his views. Phil initiated an assault upon my writings. He is the one who wrote those handouts. He is the one who delivered those messages. He is the one who is doing all he can in his speeches and lectures to make plenty of room in the hearts and minds of the Lord’s people (and especially the students at FC) for these competing views of the creation, posited by his brother Hill and those like him, and at the same time attempt with all of his might and mane to poke holes in the literal approach to Genesis 1.

Having made a cursory review of Dan’s lengthy articles, I am not convinced that he understands either the main thrust of the lecture or the particulars of many of the individual arguments or hermeneutical issues involved. All the criticisms regarding what I did or did not say in representing him lack foundation in fact, as Dan would have known had he been present.

If something can be found in the Bible which is not scientifically accurate, then it is not true. And if it is not true, then the rest of the Bible falls apart like a house of cards. Modernists know this, and this is the reason they set forth the arguments which they do. They do not believe in plenary, or “full” inspiration of Scripture, and they are anxious to find fodder for their cannons. “Pre-scientific world-view” arguments are therefore common in their writings.

Phil repeats the same two arguments which Shane Scott has made to justify his view of long creative days (Day-Age Theory): He says the “clues” which indicate the days are not regular 24 hour days include “Naming all the animals in one day” and “Lack of termination for the seventh day.” We will not discuss these issues here, since they have been often and adequately refuted, but we do want to make one important observation. The fact that he argues thus, clearly indicates to us that the Florida College Bible department is not free of this error simply because Shane Scott has left the school.

Why did he not choose the earlier date of the two? He knows that all conservative Bible students consider the round figure 2000 BC to be the approximate age of Abraham. He also knows that 1700 BC is the approximate age in the mind of the modernist for Abraham‘s era. Why did he choose to connect me with the late date crowd, i.e., the modernists? Nothing in my article would suggest that I hold to the late date as the period of Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs. Nothing that I have ever said to him or written in any other article would give him that impression. Why would he engage in such distortion? Why would he imply that I do not accept the inerrancy of Scripture with his suggestive phrase “the late date is not generally accepted among those who accept biblical inerrancy”? I am absolutely appalled by his use of such methods!

Likewise, we may be tempted upon a surface reading of the Genesis genealogical material to see the genealogies as absolute chronologies, but that is not what the Bible calls them, and that is not what the entire biblical context shows them to be. As Benjamin B. Warfield has written, “The general fact that the genealogies of Scripture were not constructed for a chronological purpose and lend themselves ill to employment as a basis for chronological calculations has been repeatedly shown very fully. These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the purpose for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted” (“Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race” in Biblical and Theological Studies 240-241).

I do not consider that those materials which we are about to review constitute a serious attempt at refutation of my work on the geneologies, for if it were actually possible to refute it, I believe that would have been done at the time it first appeared. Moreover, I am convinced that our opponents would have jumped at the chance to formulate a written repudiation of my article, and that has not yet seen the light of day.

Scientists pour millions of man hours into a project designed to, in some limited way, mimic man’s emotions and intellect. These same scientists deny a Designer in the original. This shows them to have a prejudiced mind. Too often Christians fear the so-called knowledge of the “experts.” We are intimidated by the terminology, ill-prepared to counter the bold assertions, and cowed by the letters behind the names. Rather, we should see such men who rail against the revelation of God as ineffectual children who “won’t see it” because they refuse to “open their eyes.”

God’s creation was not done in several ways, therefore, we cannot choose any way that satisfies us and still be right in God’s eyes. It was done one way, and only one way; to say otherwise is to refuse to sanctify God in the eyes of man.

Hebrews 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” The word “framed” comes from katartidzo which means “to make perfect,” “to furnish completely.” We must conclude that the universe, as God created it, was perfect for what He intended, even to declaring his power and divinity, Romans 1:18-23. The testimony of inspiration is that God only had to “speak” what He wanted and it happened. It was framed “by the word of God.” Genesis one simply records that “God said” and it was so.

The following lines represent an open letter to brethren Hill Roberts, Shane Scott, the Bible faculty and administration of Florida College, with particular reference to…

The General Theory of Evolution is an intellectual house of cards. It will eventually go the way of all of the great scientific errors that preceded it. Meanwhile, the plain truth stands unblemished and irrefutable: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Man may hide from this all-important truth, but he cannot escape it.

At some point, we stubborn humans are going to have to submit to the even more stubborn facts, and confess that the great evolutionary processes that our children are forced to learn in school do not exist – outside of the imagination of man. There is a God in heaven, and we ought to stop trying to explain Him away.

Darwin said the fossil record would prove his theory, but time, excavation, and research have not shown this to be true.

An Annotated Bibliography for material presented in the Theme Articles: Biblical Evidences VS Unbiblical Compromise