When God looked upon the plant and animal life that He created, He saw that they were good. Good creatures do not need drastic evolutionary improvement. Furthermore, creatures that God made and called “good” do not mutate because of broken genetics, and they certainly do not die. Therefore, the Bible rejects the possibility, the assumed necessity, and the proposed means of Evolution. And so must we.

As a freshman biology major, I needed no convincing of the Theory of Evolution. Raised on the Discovery Channel and Bill Nye the Science Guy, I’d been an Evolution evangelist for years. But by the end of my first year in college, I rejected the Theory I once loved. My grounds were scientific in nature.
I had realized that the untestable Theory runs afoul of the scientific method, is built upon the inexplicable singularity of the spontaneous generation of matter, energy, life, and all natural laws, it violates Newton’s second law of thermodynamics concerning total entropy of a system (i.e., chaos does not tend toward complexity), and the vaunted fossil record for human Evolution is as much plaster as it is fossil and could fit into the trunk of a Honda Civic. But years later, I was confronted by even better, biblical reasons to eject evolution.
1. The Span of Creation
Evolutionists claim that life on Earth descended from a single-celled, self-replicating organism via naturally selected, random mutations which were passed down from generation to generation leading to ever-increasingly complex organisms. How long does something like that take? In his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution, suggested that this process has been running strong for “an almost infinite number of generations.” His initial suggestion, hundreds of millions of years, has since ballooned to the current scientific consensus of about four-to-five billion years.
But the Bible presents a very different timeline: “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Ex. 20:11). There are compelling reasons to understand the six days of creation as literal, 24-hour days.
First, the record of God’s work of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 bears the linguistic, Hebrew hallmarks of historical narrative.[1]
Second, the plain reading of the text begs for a literal interpretation. Consider Genesis 1:5, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” We find that same formulation five more times in Genesis 1. What could Moses have said to more clearly describe a literal day?
Third, while the Hebrew word yom or “day” sometimes refers to an unspecified period of time, whenever it is qualified by an ordinal number (i.e., “first,” “second,” etc.) its meaning is always literal.[2]
Fourth, and most significantly, every other mention of the creation account in the Bible refers to a literal event as recorded by Moses. So, even if evolution could occur within five billion years (which it could not), the Bible does not allow for that span of time.
2. The Kinds of Creation
In 1831, Charles Darwin began his five-year expedition aboard the British Royal Navy survey ship HMS Beagle. In the Galapagos Islands, he noticed slight variations between species of finches on different islands. He concluded that these various specimens must have descended from a common ancestor and changed over time to survive in their varied environments. Darwin applied his theory of change, or Evolution, to all life on Earth which, he speculated, must have descended from a common ancestor.
This hypothesis is incompatible with the biblical account of creation. Every living thing God made was created, “according to its kind.” This phrase is repeated ten times in Genesis 1. As God separated light and darkness, the waters above and below, and the sea and earth, he also built biological barriers of “kind” that govern all life on earth. Though He kindly endowed His creatures with the ability to adapt to suit their environments, no creature can transcend the Creator’s wall of kind. Cotton seeds bring forth cotton. Chickens emerge from chicken eggs. And people make people. Darwin’s Evolution is a lie designed to rob God of His glory by seeking to explain the brilliance, beauty, and biodiversity of His world without Him.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R. Scott Pace and Jim Shaddix |
Monday, July 15, 2024
Many preachers who desire to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3) and recognize our responsibility to “rebuke those who contradict” with sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) will adopt a defensive posture in the pulpit. While these are crucial aspects of our role, our preaching should not be characterized by an argumentative demeanor or confrontational rhetoric. And beyond our posture and tone, we must also be careful that our messages don’t focus on unnecessary issues of debate and controversy.

Note: This article is part of the Dear Pastor series.
Dear Pastor,
In seeking to be good stewards of God’s truth and his church, we must be mindful of the common pitfalls that can undermine our efforts to lead well. This begins by recognizing that sensible leadership from the pulpit is defined as much by what it avoids as what it includes. Practically speaking, this means that we must be diligent to avoid preaching landmines that can sabotage our ministry leadership and leave God’s people dazed, confused, angry, or hurt. Sensible leadership recognizes how to identify and navigate these dangerous preaching hazards and avoid common contemporary pitfalls. Overall, there are three particular danger zones that we should make an intentional effort to evade.
One of the main ways we can exercise sensible leadership from the pulpit is to avoid public arguments. While this may seem obvious, it’s actually one of the easiest and most common ways we detour into threatening territory in our preaching. Perhaps this is most apparent by how Paul continually addresses our propensity as pastors to be distracted from our primary role as preachers and cautions us against being lured into disagreements and disputes that we should avoid.
While repeatedly outlining for Timothy and Titus what to teach in the pastoral epistles, Paul also repeatedly outlines specific things to “stay away” from or “shun.” Other than steering clear of certain types of people (2 Tim. 3:5), Timothy should also “avoid” things related to the content of his public instruction and personal interaction (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16; Titus 3:2, 9).
First, in both of his letters to Timothy, Paul specifically cautions him to “avoid irreverent babble” (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16). In our previous section regarding stewardship of the pulpit, we briefly mentioned his first admonition to avoid “pointless discussions” and “unholy chatter” in order to guard the truth of the gospel (1 Tim. 6:20). Interestingly, Paul’s parallel warning in his second letter to Timothy immediately follows his command regarding diligence in studying and dedicating himself to “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The sequence directly contrasts his handling of God’s word with the “irreverent babble” he’s called to “avoid” (2 Tim. 2:16). Perhaps most significantly, he cautions Timothy that his failure to do so “will lead people into more and more ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:16). In other words, avoiding these things and focusing on God’s word determines the direction and effectiveness of a pastor’s leadership from the pulpit.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the same sense, why does a minority insist on allowing the false teaching of ordaining self-described homosexual men to be pastors and church officers in the PCA? Why don’t they simply seek ordination and service in a denomination that is already set up to welcome them?

In 1967 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), in an attempt to compromise with the culture, changed the wording of its Confession of Faith. A key statement from PCUSA’s Confession of 1967 is as follows:
“The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture”  [Book of Confessions 9.29].
That statement directly contradicts Scripture.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV).
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV).
If Scripture is nothing more than “the words of men,” then Scripture can be twisted to fit any agenda. Matthew A. Johnson, Chairman of the Board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee stated:
“The Confession of 1967 was the first step of many in a departure from the historical standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It took the denomination from relying on Scripture as its source of authority to everyone doing what was right in his own eyes.”
And that is exactly what happened.
A pastor in the National Capital Presbytery, Mansfield Kaseman, was charged with apostasy because he denied Christ’s sinlessness, bodily resurrection, vicarious atonement, and deity. When the case was heard before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly Mr. Kaseman was acquitted. He was allowed to remain in good standing as a pastor in the PCUSA and allowed to continue teaching heresy. By acquitting Mr. Kaseman, the Judicial Commission itself became complicit in apostasy as well.
With the door open for pastors to teach as they pleased without regard to the Word of God many churches voted to withdraw the PCUSA. Many joined the newly formed (1973) Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which affirmed that the Scriptures are the Word of God and affirmed the Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
However, now almost fifty years after the formation of the PCA it finds itself tempted to compromise with false teachers. At the PCA’s 2021 General Assembly, one of the issues appeared to be a growing number of PCA church officers who self-identify as homosexual. These men claim to be committed to celibacy and refer to themselves as same-sex-attracted as their “sexual orientation.”
In July 2018, Memorial PCA in St. Louis, pastored by Greg Johnson, hosted the first Revoice Conference celebrating “Gay Culture.” Since that time Pastor Johnson has continued to participate yearly in Revoice conferences in order “to support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians.” In his recently published book, “Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality,” Pastor Johnson writes about “the relative fixity of sexual orientation” teaching, as his subtitle implies, that the Holy Spirit cannot change his “sexual orientation.”
Because of Greg Johnson’s association with the Revoice Conference, several presbyteries, sessions and individual PCA members requested Missouri Presbytery (MOP) to investigate his views. MOP claimed that there was not enough evidence to formally charge Dr. Johnson for his views and teachings.
I am reminded of the situation in Micah’s day when he asked: “What is the disobedience of Jacob? Isn’t it Samaria? (Micah 1:5).
In the same vein I ask: What is the disobedience of the PCA? Isn’t it Missouri Presbytery?
We must remember that the Scripture repeatedly refers to homosexuality as an abomination (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27); that the Scriptures teach that pastors and other church officers are to be above reproach (Titus 1:7); and that Christians are a new creation in Christ, by the incomparable power of the Holy Spirit, and are no longer in union with their old sinful nature (2 Corinthians 5:17). And now the PCA General Assembly is currently considering two overtures to amend its Book of Church Order to clarify that those being considered for church office, who insist on self-identifying by their continued union with their old sinful nature, are not qualified to be ordained.
At this point the outcome of this debate is unclear. Despite overwhelming support for the proposed amendments at the General Assembly, it is clear that there is a small but determined group of pastors and elders working to defeat the proposed amendments. Some have even strongly suggested that if this minority prevails in preventing the amendments from being approved, there may be a fracturing in the PCA.
Referring to Micah again when he asked: If the people wanted to worship Baal why not simply go to the temple of Baal and worship him there? Why insist in bringing that abomination of false worship into the Lord’s Holy Temple?
In the same sense, why does a minority insist on allowing the false teaching of ordaining self-described homosexual men to be pastors and church officers in the PCA? Why don’t they simply seek ordination and service in a denomination that is already set up to welcome them?
Richard Loper is a member of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ellicott City, Md.