Church of God News

COGwriter

PCG posted the following:

Belief in Creationism at All-time Low

September 6, 2024

he percentage of United States adults who believe God created humanity in His image has fallen to a record low. Only 37 percent of adults now accept that God created humans in their present form at some point within the past 10,000 years, according to a Gallup poll published on July 22. There are still more Americans who believe God created humanity in His image than believe humanity evolved without God’s help. Yet the most common explanation for human origins is that humans evolved from a simpler life form.

Overall, 58 percent of U.S. adults believe in some form of human evolution from less advanced forms of life. More specifically, 34 percent of adults believe God guided the process of human evolution over millions of years, while 24 percent believe God had no role in man’s development from less advanced forms of life.

This belief in human evolution is most stark among those with a university education. According to the most recent Gallup data, 69 percent of Americans with a college degree believe in human evolution, while only 51 percent of those without a degree believe it. This means that if you ask a college graduate how human life arose, you will likely hear an answer that has little or nothing to do with God or His master plan.

Of course, many politicians and educators still pay lip service to the Bible and Christianity, but the core of modern American education and culture is neo-Darwinian evolution. Roughly 34 percent of Protestants and 46 percent of Catholics believe God guided the process of human evolution over millions of years, so even many religious people now reject the Bible as a source for humanity’s ultimate origins. https://www.thetrumpet.com/30055-belief-in-creationism-at-all-time-low

The Bible teaches:

1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works, (Psalms 14:1)

It is absurd that the more educated in the USA are fools.

USA education needs to be reformed.

It is academically proper to believe in God.

False education leads to bad results. Belief in a Creator is scientifically logical and sound.

Is it logical to believe the view of ‘spontaneous generation’ often pushed by well known people claiming to be scientists?

Is it logical to believe that life evolved from spontaneous generation of tiny organisms to human beings?

No.

The “father” of modern evolutionary theory was Charles Darwin.

Yet, even Charles Darwin saw people were making too much out of his writings when he was alive:

Darwin himself said: “I am in a hopeless muddle concerning the origin of things. Our ignorance of the derivation of things is very profound. I must be content to remain agnostic.”

However, as he lay dying, he embraced the concept of creation. He also reflected on his life work, saying: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them. (Keith B. Scopes II: The Great Debate : Creation Vs. Evolution. Huntington House, 1982, p. 47)

Sadly, many who wanted reasons NOT to believe in God pointed to his writings and claimed that they were more enlightened and/or scientific than the biblical account. They made a religion out of his theories.

Many have false intellectual vanity. This is not a new phenomena as the Apostle Paul warned Timothy:

²⁰ O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — ²¹ by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, NKJV)

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)

Problems of contradictions of what is called ‘knowledge/science’ exist to this day. If there ever is an apparent contradiction between the Bible and what is called ‘science’ remember that the Bible teaches:

⁴ … Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

The Bible is scientific and reliable. Not all scientists are. Nor are all theologians.

Here is something from our free online book Is God’s Existence Logical?:

Truth and Logic

Many who believe in God have merely assumed the existence of God.

Why?

Usually because they were taught it from childhood. It has been believed in the circles in which they have lived or associated.

The Apostle Paul was inspired to write:

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV)

If you believe in God, have you proved it?

What about secular scientists?

Well, they should prove their beliefs as well. Yet the vast majority of people who accept evolution, whether they think they are scientists or not, at least passively, have accepted it because of their environment as well as exposure to it in school. Long ago, evolution became the scholarly “IN” thing. The opposite belief, special creation, is not widely taught.

Sadly, many who teach a divine creation do not always teach a view that is consistent with scripture and truth. Most people have not truly objectively examined evolution. Furthermore, proponents often utilize the psychological ploy that it is a badge of scholarly status to accept evolution, and a stamp of ignorance or intellectual inferiority to doubt the theory/evolutionary model. Consider that this basically means that people tend to believe what they do simply because they have been taught it, or because it has been accepted in their particular social environment.

In general, most people’s beliefs—religious or otherwise—are formed without examination or proof! Christians are supposed to believe in truth (John 8:31-32, 45-46, 14:6) and logic (cf. Isaiah 1:18; Job 36:3, ISV; 1 Peter 3:15; Acts 19:8-9). Now, what is science?

Merriam-Webster defines science as follows:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study …

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Therefore, real scientists should believe in truth and logic.

Yet:

16 The lazy man is wiser in his own eyes Than seven men who can answer sensibly. (Proverbs 26:16)

Sadly, most who consider themselves scientists throw aspects of truth and logic out when they are discussing the origin of the universe or the origin of life. They take a non-scientific approach that they like to portray as wise. They tend to very dismissive of biblical truth, without having solid reasons.

Nobel Prize winner Dr. George Wald, from Harvard University, stated the following:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation (life from nothing); the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position . . . One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation. (Scott I. The God Solution: Are You Ready? Xlibris Corporation, 2013, p. 41)

This is an astounding admission. Dr. Wald is saying that he chose to believe the impossible. And “scientists” claim that those who believe in a Creator have blind faith with no proof, but instead believe the impossible!

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines impossible as “incapable of being or of occurring.”

It is a falsehood to believe in something that is impossible–it is illogical.

Consider the following from the Bible:

¹⁴ Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. ¹⁵ But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. (Revelation 22:14-15)

Would not professing belief in something you know is impossible be loving and believing a lie?

Here is more from our free online book Is God’s Existence Logical?:

Probabilities or Impossibilities?

Some who claim evolution is improbable point out the fact that various amino acids (which always occur 50:50 in nature in the levo and dextro forms) must have for some unknown reason, only congregated in the levo forms which are the only forms in living proteins (other than the membranes of some bacteria). These amino acids would then have had to line up in liquid in a particular sequence for certain proteins, including genes, to be produced. This improbability has been estimated to be so high that it could not have been expected to happen by chance (also, even having amino acids in sequence would not cause them to form the necessary proteins without some type of external catalyst). It has been claimed that it takes 150 amino acids in the proper sequence to produce a functional protein.

Consider the odds as calculated by Dr. Stephen Meyer:

This calculation can be made by multiplying the three independent probabilities by one another: the probability of incorporating only peptide bonds (1 in 1045), the probability of incorporating only left-handed amino acids (1 in 1045), and the probability of achieving correct amino-acid sequencing (using Axe’s 1 in 1074 estimate). Making that calculation (multiplying the separate probabilities by adding their exponents 1045+45+74) gives a dramatic answer. The odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebiotic soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. It {is} almost impossible to convey what this number represents, but let me try. We have a colloquial expression in English, “It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.” . . . Now consider that there are only 1080 protons, neutrons, and electrons in the observable universe. Thus, if the odds of finding a functional protein by chance on the first attempt had been 1 in 1080, we could have said that’s like finding a marked particle – proton, neutron, or electron (a much smaller needle) – among all the particles in the universe (a much larger haystack). Unfortunately, the problem is much worse than that. With odds standing at 1 chance in 10164 of finding a functional protein . . . the probability is 84 orders of magnitude (or powers of ten) smaller than the probably of finding the marked particle in the whole universe. Another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specified particle among all the particles in the universe. And the problem is far worse than that . . . Axe’s experiments calculated looking for a relatively short protein by chance alone. More typical protein have hundreds of amino acids . . . RNA polymerase . . . has over 3,000 functionally specified amino acids. (Meyer S. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. Zondervan, 2009, pp. 212-213)

Functional cells require more than one protein, hence the probability against these amino acids randomly forming some type of even primitive cell is enormous. On the other hand, some supporters of evolution point out the belief that since there are vast numbers of stars (between 1022 to 1024 per a European Space Agency estimate viewed online 04/04/18), and probably several planets per star, there are enough possible random sequences to overwhelm the probability in favor of such improbable occurrences. But that does not seem to be the case.

One version of this theory, embraced by some who believe aliens inhabit other planets, is known as the Drake Equation. Of course, those who make this argument must realize that the probability of any planet other than Earth having what it takes to support life is remote (the Drake Equation, which was developed based on assumptions in the 1960s, seemingly vastly overstates the percentage/number of apparently suitable planets). However, even supporters of that have noticed a problem known as Fermi’s paradox. The Fermi paradox ”is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extra- terrestrial civilization and humanity’s lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations” (Drake Equation, Wikipedia, viewed 09/03/14).

“The Fermi paradox is a conflict between arguments of scale and probability that seem to favor intelligent life being common in the universe, and a total lack of evidence of intelligent life having ever arisen anywhere other than on the Earth” (Fermi Paradox, Wikipedia, viewed 04/04/18).

So, it is reported that there is a “total” lack of evidence. Consider also the following report in 2018:

Researchers at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute came to the conclusion that humans are alone in the universe while examining the so-called “Fermi Paradox” — which ponders why scientists believe in extraterrestrials despite having zero proof. “We find a substantial probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it,” researchers say in the report … There’s likely no intelligent life outside of Earth — so there’s no need to waste time theorizing about humanity’s relationship with aliens, notes the paper, dubbed “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox.” (O’Neill N. Scientists say humans are alone in the universe. NY Post, June 26, 2018)

The above researchers concluded that calculations about life on other planets are based on overly optimistic probabilities. So is the fact that other planets do not appear to have enough phosphorus to sustain life (Adamson A. Substantial Lack Of Phosphorus In The Universe Makes Finding Alien Life Unlikely. Tech Times, April 5, 2018).

But despite these issues, the supporters of the Drake Equation tend to point to evolution as at least a possibility for the origin of life. Thus, in debates about origins, both creationists and evolutionists tend to argue that the laws of probability support their position. But, probability estimates I have reviewed (from both sides) greatly favor the creationist position.

Notice also the following:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

In 1966 … the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about a septillion—1 followed by 21 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life- supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest. . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” (Metaxas E. Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. The Yeshiva World, December 29, 2014)

Evolution is not even improbable. As the origin of life, evolution is impossible. Teaching otherwise is a ‘scientific’ myth.

It rarely fails to astound me how the supposedly educated can insist that evolution is scientifically accurate and why they want people to mindlessly accept such a preposterous explanation of the origins of life. More on why there is a God and why evolution is not scientific is in the free online book Is God’s Existence Logical?

The fact is that evolution functions as a false religion that many cling to. Therefore, many who hold to it do not bother to look into the truth about why they are on this planet nor what their life really is supposed to be about.

The Continuing Church of God put out two short animations related to this general topic on our CCOG Animations channel:

Here is a link to our video: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator?

Here is a link to our animated video: A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

As far as some of the “educated” go, the Apostle Paul also wrote the following to Timothy about some who were:

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Is it really logical to believe in God? Yes! Would you like Christian answers to give atheists? This is a free online booklet that deal with improper theories and musings called science related to the origin of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution. Two animated videos of related interest are also available: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator? and A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?
Does it Make Physical Sense to believe in God? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Is There Another View of Evolution? and another titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Gap Theory? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Were the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long? Here are links to two sermons: Gap Theory: Doctrine or Modern Heresy? and Genesis, ‘Prehistoric man,’ and the Gap theory. Here is a link to a related article in Spanish: ¿Cuán vieja es la Tierra? ¿Cuán largos fueron los Días de la Creación? ¿Teoría de la brecha?
Why Did God Create Anything? Why did God make you?
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient? Here is a biblical article which answers what many really wonder about it.
Has time been lost? It Saturday the seventh day of the week?
Why Were You Born? Why did God make you? Herbert W. Armstrong wrote this as a booklet on this important subject. You may also wish to read the article What is Your Destiny? or watch the video, also titled What is Your Destiny?
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally? There is also a video titled What is the meaning of your life?
The MYSTERY of GOD’s PLAN: Why Did God Create Anything? Why did God make you? This free online book helps answers some of the biggest questions that human have, including the biblical meaning of life. Here is a link to three related sermons: Mysteries of God’s Plan, Mysteries of Truth, Sin, Rest, Suffering, and God’s Plan, and The Mystery of YOU.

Tweet

This entry was posted on Friday, September 6th, 2024 at 6:30 am and is filed under COG News, Doctrine.

• You can quickly disprove evolution as the cause of life
• Can you quickly disprove the evolutionary theory for the origin of life?
• BibleNewsProphecy: Quickly disprove evolution as the origin of life
• Scientists Agree With Bible that Universe Will Expand Forever
• Short Explanation Disproving Evolution as the Origin of Life
• Scientists realize that the universe is expanding and that ‘spontaneous generation’ is impossible
• Scientists admit universe is expanding and it is impossible for life to occur spontaneously on its own
• Richard Dawkins refers to ‘mysterious origin’ of the universe
• Real scientists realize that the evidence proves that there must be a Creator
• Quick explanation disproving evolution as the origin of life