Sunday School Class: “Creation as Foundational Truth,” Week 9

“Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,
Who gives breath to the people on it,
And spirit to those who walk on it” (Isaiah 42:5, NKJV).
 
“He has made the earth by His power,
He has established the world by His wisdom,
And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion” (Jeremiah 10:12, NKJV).
 

More information on Natural Selection (Added to Section 6, “Icons of Evolution”)

 

This information is taken from the article, “The Peppered Moth: Popular ‘Proof’ That Doesn’t Prove Evolution,” by Ken Ham on May 4, 2016.

 

A recent evolution article, entitled “8 Animals That Are Evolving Quickly”

(http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/8-animals-are-evolving-quickly/rapid-adaptability), gave an explanation for quick evolution:  “rapid adaptability.” However… “rapid adaptability” is not evolution. In fact, it’s really the opposite of a molecules-to-man type of supposed process.

 

The first caption in the article reads, “Whether it’s climate change or other environmental conditions, animals are constantly evolving (My note:  "Adapting would be a much more accurate word.) to better survive. Most people think of animal evolution as being something that takes place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. But this isn’t the case for the resilient species listed here.”

 

All of the examples given show animals adapting to new and changing environments using information that was already in their genome.

 

“A genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome — more than 3 billion DNA base pairs — is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.” (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/hgp/genome)

 

Can anyone seriously say this is a result of random, accidental natural processes? This should cause every scientist to stand in awe before our Creator.

 

“I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:14, NKJV).

 

None of the animals created new genetic information to form a brand-new feature.

 

Environmental pressure simply resulted in the expression of a new variation of already existing genes or the increased survival of a certain variety of that created kind.

 

Though the animals the article talks about can’t actually be used as examples of evolution, they do highlight how quickly animals can adapt and change to new environments, using the information God placed in their DNA. This showcases the creativity and wisdom of our all-powerful and all-wise Creator.

 

The idea that evolution and natural selection are one and the same is a very popular idea. But they aren’t the same thing. In fact, they are complete opposites. Natural selection leads to the reshuffling or loss of genetic information. But evolution requires the addition of brand-new information, a process that has never been observed.

 

The observational evidence confirms God’s Word:  kinds always reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1:24–25).

 

From a creationist perspective, natural selection is a process in which organisms possessing specific characteristics (reflective of their genetic makeup) survive better than others in a given environment or under a given selective pressure (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria). Those with certain characteristics live, and those without them diminish in number or die. Natural selection works with information that already exists. Therefore, the term “evolution” cannot be rightly used in the context of describing what natural selection can accomplish.

 

Natural Selection Can:

 

1.   Decrease genetic information.

 

2.   Allow organisms to survive better in a given environment.

 

3.   Act as a “selector.”

 

4.   Support creation’s “orchard” of life.

 

Natural Selection Cannot:

 

1.   Increase or provide new genetic information.

 

2.   Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.

 

3.   Act as an “originator.”

 

4.   Support the evolutionary “tree” of life.

 

Summary of Natural Selection

 

The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically.

 

Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds. Evolution requires an increase in information that results in a directional movement from molecules to man.

 

Natural selection cannot be a mechanism for evolution because it results in a decrease in information and is not directional. Speciation may occur as a result of natural selection, but it only occurs within a kind. Therefore, it is also not a mechanism for evolution but rather supports the Biblical model.

 

Natural selection is an observable phenomenon that preserves genetic viability and allows limited variation within a kind — nothing more, nothing less. It is a great confirmation of Bible truth.

 

Continuation of Section 8 from Last Week:  “Common Sense Reasons to Believe in Creation and Reject Evolution”

 

Remember John MacArthur’s statement:

 

“Believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible RATIONAL explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose, and for destiny.”

 

An appeal to common sense makes creation by God a much more sensible answer to origins than the absurdity of evolution. Following are a few common sense reasons, which are neither scientific nor theological, for accepting creation and rejecting evolution:

 

Creation requires miracles performed by a miracle-working God. Evolution requires miracles performed by blind chance, which means miracles performed by no one.

 

Creation requires that a designer be involved in the production of intricate design. Evolution requires that intricate design has been produced without benefit of a designer.

 

Creation requires a great “first cause” of all things, which is God Himself. Evolution requires that there is no “first cause.” Either matter itself is eternal, having never had a beginning, or matter was somehow created by accident out of nothing by no one.

 

Evolution is mathematically impossible. Chance could never intervene into natural laws to the extent of producing the universe, life, and all living things. Only the Creator could do that. If He did not do so, then we do not exist. There is a famous quote which says, “I think. Therefore, I am.” Even more true would be the statement, “I am. Therefore, I was created. If I was not created, then I am not here” or, “If God doesn’t exist, neither do I.”

 

The chance that God, who is all powerful, could create all species is 100%. The chance of one species evolving into another by mutations is, for all practical purposes, ZERO.

 

Also, there would have to be a huge number of such zero possibility sequences of evolution to explain all the life forms we have today.

 

This is one reason evolutionists demand massive amounts of time. They realize none of this could happen in a short time. Reality:  It couldn’t happen in a long time, either, even the amount of time they claim they have. All of the efforts to wish evolution into existence are futile. Bottom line on evolution caused by mutations:  Evolution is an absurdity and simply could not happen.

 

Creation requires that life came from the One who is the source of all life. Evolution requires that life came from non-life.

 

Creation requires faith in God. Evolution requires faith in blind chance, matter, Charles Darwin, etc., all of which are much less than God.

 

Creation is a positive teaching, elevating man to a special creation of God, and placing him in a position of responsibility. Evolution is a negative teaching, degrading man to the status of an animal which was produced by accident, removing all responsibility from him, and ultimately leading to anarchy.

 

There can be no law or civilization without God and His laws and principles. Regardless of all that, for the Christian, the very best reason for believing in creation is the fact that God says He created, and we ought to take Him at His Word. It is tremendous that the scientific evidence, when viewed honestly, points to creation and totally refutes evolution. However, even if we did not have that, we know that creation is true, because God, who cannot lie, has told us so.

 

“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3, NKJV).

 

 

Continued next week with Section 9:  “Genesis as the Foundation of Doctrine”

 

Following are some of the resources, in addition to the Scriptures, that have helped me a great deal as I have studied to teach this Sunday school topic. These include the following:

 

Materials from the Institute for Creation Research, including the book The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris.

 

Materials from the “Answers in Genesis” website, and the book The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham.

 

Sermons by John MacArthur from the website, “Grace to You.”

 

Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement.

 

The “Got Questions?" website.

 

Various other resources, both printed books and websites.

Sunday School Class: Creation as Foundational Truth, Week 8

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11, NKJV).

“But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; and the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; and the fish of the sea will explain to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this, in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?” (Job 12:7-10, NKJV). Animals do not really understand God, but if they could reason, they would certainly know there is a God. Atheism is limited to foolish humanity.

Continuation of Section 6, Icons of Evolution

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

The ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics is held up as a textbook example of evolution in action. These bacteria are being studied by evolutionary scientists with the hope that they will reveal secrets of how evolution could have happened.

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics.

Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form.

When bacteria mutate in such a way as to become resistant to antibiotics, they thrive in an environment with antibiotics. However, when the antibiotics are stopped, the mutant bacteria cannot function well and begin to die out, and the non-mutant strain survives and reproduces better. Everything goes back to where it started. Bacteria are still bacteria.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man -- functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few. Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind.

Section 7:  Cain’s Wife and Dinosaurs

Cain’s Wife

Skeptics keep coming up with the same lame arguments against the Creator, and each time someone comes up with such an argument, two things are true – he thinks he thought of it, and he thinks he has now proven beyond any argument or question that evolution is true: "The debate us over." This just proves that foolishness never stops.

“Where did Cain get his wife?” Generally that question is asked with an air of smug assurance and an utter confidence that asking a question that has been asked and answered many times before somehow refutes biblical creation forever and clearly establishes the truth of Darwinism. Obviously, Christians should run for cover when this question is asked, because there could not possibly be an answer. It is interesting that those who do not believe the Bible ask a question based on the Bible.

The Bible is consistent with itself on this and all other matters.

God who created all things certainly has enough wisdom to take care of reproduction so the race did not disappear after one generation. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Marrying one’s sister had no legal or medical implications back at the beginning. Laws relative to marriage had not yet been made, and the gene pool was not yet so polluted by the ravages of sin that marrying a close relative would be a problem. Quite some time later, Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah.

Evolutionists have much more difficulty explaining where the first man got his wife. The idea that man and woman both evolved in a timely way so as to make reproduction possible is patently absurd and laughable.

Dinosaurs

Some today think that somehow the very existence of dinosaurs somehow refute creation and the Creator. Dinosaurs were animals, created by God, just like all of the other animals. The animals we commonly refer to as “dinosaurs” are believed to be extinct, just like many other animals are extinct.

Of course, scientists are never wrong, are they? The Coelacanth, a fish that was “known” to be extinct for sixty-five million years, was discovered alive and well in 1938 and continues to exist today, and instead of admitting they were wrong, scientists began calling it a “living fossil.”

We ought never to be taken in by the agenda of those who are desperately looking for something to prove there is no Creator and therefore no Judge to whom we must answer.

None of the foolish questions men can ask have the slightest impact on the truth of Scripture. The foundation of all of the Bible is found in the book of Genesis, and that is why so many want to undermine it with foolish arguments.

“For it is written:  ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’  Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? … Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:19,20,25, NKJV).

Section 8:  Common Sense Reasons to Believe in Creation and Reject Evolution

There is a movie called “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The beginning section, which is entitled “The Dawn of Man,” brings to mind the essential foolishness of the philosophy of mankind today.  A number of apes, who were supposed to be “ape-men” or “hominids (or whatever), fought over possession of a pool of water. Great progress was made in the evolution toward human civilization when one of the creatures discovered that a bone could be used to crush a skull. The first weapon was invented. The scene then cuts to space travel, obviously skipping quite a span of time in the alleged evolutionary process.

The opening scenes of this movie, which was made in 1968, serve only to underscore the false assumption that all people swallow the story of evolution. This assumption is simply not true. Those who pretend to be scientists by passing off a very silly and absurd story as science do not speak for the majority of people. When the average person, educated or not, looks at the claims of evolution, the sensible response is, “Give me a break!”

Remember John MacArthur’s statement:  “Believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible RATIONAL explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose, and for destiny.”

While the average person may not understand spiritual truth, he/or she does not have to be foolish. An appeal to common sense makes creation by God a much more sensible answer to origins than the absurdity of evolution.

Next week, we will continue with a few common sense reasons, which are neither scientific nor theological, for accepting creation and rejecting evolution.


Following are some of the resources, in addition to the Scriptures, that have helped me a great deal as I have studied to teach this Sunday school topic. These include the following:

Materials from the Institute for Creation Research, including the book The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris.

Materials from the “Answers in Genesis” website, and the book The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham.

Sermons by John MacArthur from the website, “Grace to You.”

Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement.

The “Got Questions?" website.

Various other resources, both printed books and websites.

Sunday School Class: Creation as Foundational Truth, Week 7

Following are some notes from week 7 of our Sunday school study of "Creation as Foundational Truth." 

 

"I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well" (Psalm 139:14, NKJV).

 

"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3, NKJV).

 

Section 6:  Icons of Evolution

 

The author of Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, PhD, is not a young earth creationist and does not claim to be a born-again believer. Nevertheless, much of his book is good, because the scientific evidence has convinced him of the folly of evolution. He believes in “Intelligent Design,” which all open-minded scientists should accept, at a minimum. Not all Intelligent Design proponents are Christians. The next logical step after Intelligent Design is to become a young earth creationist and a Christian, but that doesn’t always happen.

 

An icon is a widely-known symbol, such as an icon on the desktop of a computer.

 

Even though these “icons” have been demonstrated to be false, they are still used as proof for evolution, since they have little else to support their flimsy idea.

 

Those who disagree are generally met with ridicule, mocking, and name-calling, which is the final tactic of those who have no legitimate argument for their position.

 

Information on the following “icons” is based partially on Wells’ book and partially on numerous other sources.

 

Miller-Urey Experiment

 

Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859. Is there an agenda in that title? We usually just hear the book referred to as The Origin of Species.

 

When he wrote this book, the biological cell was viewed as a globule of protoplasm consisting of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen. He knew nothing about DNA.

 

Even up until the 1950s, scientists believed that the building blocks of life could be produced by combining these chemical substances, such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen, in just-right proportions, under just-right conditions. Harold Urey and Stanley Miller produced a small yield of amino acids in a highly controlled experiment. In 1983, Miller discovered that if carbon monoxide is added, plus a large proportion of hydrogen, then glycine, the simplest amino acid, could be produced, but only in trace amounts.

 

Rather than demonstrating chemical evolution, all this really showed was that an atmosphere designed for life could be carefully guided to produce ONE of life's many building blocks. Their meager success depended not on a random and unguided process, but on an intelligently designed and managed experiment that started out with the necessary chemical components. While attempting to verify evolution by blind, materialistic means, they merely confirmed the need for an intelligent agent to create and control the conditions necessary for life.

 

This experiment does not pose any difficulties for the creationist. It actually strengthens our argument. “Life in the lab” would prove the necessity of an intelligent designer. “To claim this experiment as evidence for evolution would be akin to allowing water to flow over a bed of coal, and upon identifying a little ink-like substance, claiming the Encyclopaedia Britannica was produced by natural, random processes” (reference here).

 

Life is more than just chemistry.  A dead body has all the chemicals needed for life, but it is not alive. If life is just chemicals, and our brains just operate on chemical and electrical reactions, then how do we know we can trust our thoughts or conclusions?

 

One year after the experiment, other scientists unraveled the structure of DNA. With that, scientists learned that the instructions for life came from a code within the DNA molecule. As a result, the cell could no longer be thought of as a simple collection of chemicals reacting under the right environmental conditions. If evolutionists were truly honest, then the discovery of DNA should have forever ended the whole idea of evolution.

 

Darwin knew nothing of DNA. He based his conclusions on what he saw as similarities by looking at humans and various animals.

 

“Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules” (reference here). Speculation is not science, but it seems to be used a great deal in order to fit the agenda of evolutionists.

 

Most scientists have now concluded that “abiogenesis” (spontaneous generation of life) on earth is an impossibility. Two responses are offered in response to this:

 

(1)  “Life must have come from outer space” (reference here). This does not solve the problem, it just moves it.

 

(2)   “We don’t do origins” (see article here). In other words, “We don’t know how life started, and we don't care how life started. We just concern ourselves with what happened after it started.” Think about it. To now know and not care amounts to ignorance and apathy.

 

Both of these options amount to ducking the issue. We who believe what God has said face no such dilemma.

 

This experiment is much like Richard Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” experiment. A computer was pre-programmed to produce the sentence, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” It produced it in a very short time. He called this the Darwinian method. He apparently thinks everyone else is stupid.

 

Big problem:  He cheated. He even admitted it was “a bit of a cheat.” He left another computer running totally by random chance, and he admitted that it never did, never could, and never would produce that sentence. However, he still called the pre-programmed computer the Darwinian method. Quite obviously, the totally random one that had no chance of success was truly the Darwinian method. This is a segment of an entire video which is found here.

 

Haeckel’s Emnbryos

 

Darwin and others have reasoned that descendants along various evolutionary lineages would demonstrate similar embryonic development during the earliest stages.

 

Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a German biologist, provided a series of drawings which conveniently demonstrated just this. These pictures appear even today in many textbooks with no statement that this “evidence” is a well-established blatant fraud. Even Darwin, who called this his “strongest single class of facts,” was duped. Photographs of the embryos Haeckel selected demonstrate virtually no resemblance to his drawings.

 

A big myth is the claim that human embryos go through their alleged evolutionary past, including a fish-like stage, in which they display gill slits. These folds are not gills. In humans, they develop into other structures entirely, totally unrelated to breathing.

 

It is important to always be skeptical of those endless “proofs” for evolution. They reflect over-enthusiastic and selective use of data when it appears to support a pre-conceived evolutionary mind-set.

 

Haeckel’s Embryos are a known lie. However, Eugenie Scott, one of the most outspoken advocates for evolution in the United States says the following:

 

“It’s clear that Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now, does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution? Not a bit. The whole Haeckel’s embryos story has been greatly blown out of significance. It is a minor footnote in the history of science. And actually it’s been known for ten or fifteen years that Haeckel’s embryos are not to be relied upon. The reason why the diagrams are reproduced is because they’re easily available – there’s no copyright on them – it’s an easy way to illustrate a point. And I would argue that the basic point that’s being illustrated by those drawings is still accurate.” (Eugenie Scott’s statement, recorded on Icons of Evolution, Randolph Productions Inc, 2002.) Watch the video here.

 

It is not really a stretch to interpret her words as follows:  “The evidence is fraudulent, but the conclusion is consistent with my beliefs, so it is OK to continue to use the evidence, because it is convenient and available.”

 

Archaeopteryx:  The Alleged “Missing Link” between Reptiles and Birds

 

We so often think of THE missing link, meaning the single link between apes or ape-like creatures and man. The truth is, there would have to be a large number of  such links between every species that allegedly evolved from another, not just one. And we must not forget that there is a reason these alleged links are referred to as “missing.” They are not there, and the reason they are not there is that they do not exist.

 

When Archaeopteryx was discovered in 1861 (two years after Darwin had published his Origin of Species), it was widely heralded as a “missing link” predicted by Darwin’s theory — intermediate between reptiles and birds. However, most paleontologists now agree this member of an extinct group of birds is not the ancestor of any group of modern birds, nor is it a link between reptiles and birds.

 

Regardless of Archaeopteryx, where are the rest of those countless missing links required by the theory, had birds evolved from reptiles?

 

There have been many failed attempts by modern evolutionists to find fossil ancestors of birds. In 1999 there was the Archaeoraptor fraud. National Geographic had announced the discovery of this feathered dinosaur fossil in a blaze of publicity, but was left embarrassed when it was discovered to be a composite — a dinosaur tail glued to the body of a bird.

 

There have been other failed attempts to produce “missing links.” Wishful thinking (and sometimes outright fraud) is a key ingredient in these types of things.

 

Peppered Moths

 

The classic textbook example of evolution by natural selection says that most peppered moths were light-colored in the early 1800s. But with the Industrial Revolution, the proportion of dark-colored moths increased near heavily polluted cities because they could now camouflage themselves on soot-covered tree trunks. As pollution-reduction measures were introduced, the proportions reversed themselves. This has been used for years as the best example of natural selection in the wild.

 

How does this prove evolution? It doesn’t. In reality, it is what we would expect to find.

 

This tells us nothing about where moths’ alternative colors come from or how a moth could have evolved from a non-moth. And the “facts” of the story, repeated in countless biology textbooks, are badly flawed. The photographs, showing camouflaged moths on tree trunks, found in virtually all standard biology textbooks, have been staged. Dead moths had been glued to tree trunks in order to simulate what they believe had happened. Such weak “science” undermines their ideas, at least in the minds of those with open minds.

 

Bottom line:  When it is all said and done, moths are still moths.

 

This is very much like the fact that the white rabbits tend to survive longer than darker ones when living in the snow. The white ones have a better chance to survive and pass on their DNA to their offspring, so the darker colors are selected out.

 

This is in no way evolution, but it is a real example of “natural selection.”

 

No matter how you look at it, rabbits continue to be rabbits. This situation cannot explain any alleged change from one kind into another kind.

 

Darwin’s Finches

 

Fourteen species of finches were found on the Galápagos Islands, distinguished mainly by beaks necessary for different foods. Most creationists view this as an example of genetic variety present in the DNA of an ancestor (a finch, not a reptile or a blackberry bush).

 

During times of drought, some of the beak sizes tend to survive because they are more able to get the smaller amounts of food available. Those with larger beaks have the ability to crack open the few remaining harder seeds once the softer ones are eaten, so they have a better chanced of survival and of passing their DNA along to future generations of finches.

 

After the drought, the selection was reversed. There was no evolution. Oscillation in population proportion does not justify extrapolations to explain how the 14 species arose from something else. This is much like the survival rates of the moths and the rabbits.

 

Rapid speciation is not a problem to creationists. In reality, it is a prediction of the Creation / Flood / migration model. Darwin trained for the ministry. He was not a scientist but a rebellious student of theology. He saw what he wanted to see and interpreted the data consistent with his rebellion.

 

As Ken Ham points out, “When Darwin arrived on the Galapagos Islands, he found big finches and little finches with big beaks and little beaks. When he left, there were big finches and little finches with big beaks and little beaks. What do we find today? Big finches and little finches with big beaks and little beaks.” They are all still finches. Nothing is changing into something else.

 

The same is true of human beings. As we look around in any group of people, we see a great variety of sizes, shapes, skin colors, etc., but they are all human beings belonging to the human “kind” or human “race.” Nothing about variation within human kind offers even the remotest evidence of evolution from another kind. Such an idea is pure fantasy and speculation based on what evolutionists hope to find.

 

Four-winged Fruit Flies

 

Radiation such as x-rays will produce mutations and various frequencies and strengths of x-rays have bombarded these insects in the laboratory, producing many mutations.

 

Since 1910 geneticists have documented over 3,000 mutations in this creature, yet science journals have not documented a single fruit fly evolving into something else.

 

A geneticist showed that three strains of laboratory mutant fruit flies could be interbred to produce four-winged flies. The evolution-oriented textbooks use this to claim random mutations provide some useful changes on occasion, which natural selection then favors. The extreme unlikelihood such mutations happening in the wild is never mentioned.

 

A very serious problem is that no muscles are attached to these wings and a hopelessly non-aerodynamic creature results, which could never survive or reproduce in the wild. Some had four wings, but the extra wings had no function. Some had no wings, and all sorts of other non-beneficial mutations occurred.

 

By destroying the normal function, new non-functional wings were generated.  However, destruction of a genetic network cannot be construed as evidence for its evolution by chance any more than destruction of a house by an earthquake would demonstrate these had built the house in the first place.

 

None of the experiments turned up a single mutation that would benefit a fly in the wild. A fruit fly that can no longer fly is an oxymoron and should not longer even be called a fly.

 

An evolutionist said that the fruit fly seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Fruit flies continue to be fruit flies. They always have. They always will.

 

Continued next week with “Icons of Evolution – Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria.”

 

 

Following are some of the resources, in addition to the Scriptures, that have helped me a great deal as I have studied to teach this Sunday school topic. These include the following: 

·  Materials from the Institute for Creation Research, including the book The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris.

·  Materials from the “Answers in Genesis” website, and the book The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham.

·  Sermons by John MacArthur from the website, “Grace to You.”

·  Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement.

·  The “Got Questions?" website.

·  Various other resources, both printed books and websites.