Darby – Evolution is not Scientific

Darby stated plainly that each species was distinct. Men and women produced human children; cocks and hens produced chickens. God may allow a horse and a donkey to produce a mule but mules do not reproduce. Scientific observation supports the biblical statement that each produces ‘after its kind’ (Gen 1:25).

Evolutionists cannot explain how protoplasm came about, but the Bible tells us that God was pleased when life began, even if it was protoplasm.

An OxymoronRecently I went to the National Museum for Natural History in London and saw some of the dinosaur skeletons.   How they fitted into the creational timeline, I do not know – God knows.  One thing which amused me – I should say concerned me  – was an oxymoronic title on one of the exhibits which spoke of Russel and Darwin discovering the theory of evolution.  I ask, ‘How do you discover a theory?’   You cannot discover a theory.  A theory is a theory – it’s not a fact.   So to discover a theory is completely unscientific.   Similarly, Darby in his paper ‘Evolution’ showed how unscientific this was.

charles darwinJ N DarbyCharles Darwin and JN Darby were contemporary with one another.  Darwin was nine years younger, but they died at 10 days apart in April 1882.  Of course there have been many discoveries and developments since the nineteenth century, but the thought process has not changed.  In my opinion, all new discoveries only bring out more questions and doubts about the so-called ‘science’ of evolution.

Darby stated plainly that each species was distinct.  Men and women produced human children; cocks and hens produced chickens.  God may allow a horse and a donkey to produce a mule but mules do not reproduce.  Scientific observation supports the biblical statement that each produces ‘after its kind’ (Gen 1:25).

Evolutionists cannot explain how protoplasm came about, but the Bible tells us that God was pleased when life began, even if it was protoplasm.  We can now say the same about DNA.  Darby said science is atheistical (I don’t quite understand this – studying physics, biology mathematics or astronomy makes us wonder at God’s creation – Pascal, Newton, Boyle, Fleming and many others were sincere believers).  However, it is clear that scientists follow what exists, and do not bring God into the equation.  Matter is what exists, and are as far as scientists are concerned matter, or the combination of matter and energy, is eternal.  But this cannot be proven.   Our finite minds cannot comprehend eternity.

Now as we were saying, each species is distinct.  Evolutionists will say that the one species evolved into another, but as they cannot prove it – it remains only a theory.  The Christian accepts God as the Creator: God created the animals.  ‘God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so’ (Gen 1:24).  The earth brought forth the animals, but God formed man.   The creation of man was quite distinct.  Our God gave man a face to look upwards towards Him, and He breathed into man so that he became a living soul.  That is not said of any of the animals. We do not know how this came about other than that Adam had a deep sleep, but we accept it by faith.

Scientists deal with phenomena.   Evolution from one species to another is not a phenomenon – it cannot be observed.  Whilst species adapt (evolution in a small sense), nobody man has observed the gradual migration of one species to another: half man, half ape for example. This would have been necessary were evolution to be true.  Evolution is therefore not scientific.

Darby asks what the answer is.  Though many scientists have faith, it would seem that infidel scientists choose to ignore the fixed laws of science, and are afraid to be honest.  Man’s mind cannot go further than antecedents and consequences: a point comes where speculation has to stop.

 

Based on J. N. Darby: Evolution – Notes and Comments Vol. 1, p 4

Sosthenes

 

August 2016

 

‘I hope that God accepts Me for what I’ve done’

A few years ago, the company I ran was going to be bought by a very devote Muslim businessman in Britain. I got on well with him, and in general he was upright in business, and generous to a number of charitable causes. At one break in a meeting he was talking about his work. He said ‘I hope that God accepts me for what I’ve done’. I immediately replied ‘Abdul*, I know that God has already accepted me because of what Jesus has done!”.

islam-to-christianity

A few years ago, the company I ran was going to be bought by a very devote Muslim businessman in Britain.  I got on well with him, and in general he was upright in business, and generous to a number of charitable causes.  At one break in a meeting he was talking about his work.  He said ‘I hope that God accepts me for what I’ve done’.  I immediately replied ‘Abdul*, I know that God has already accepted me because of what Jesus has done!”.

A few weeks later I was chatting with his son and daughter who ran their company.  They wanted me to be a guide to Ismail*.  We got talking about the differences between Christianity and Islam.  I asked ‘How good to you have to be to pass God’s test?  Is it like in an exam, 47%?’  Of course they had no answer.  That set me going with the gospel.  Ismail* was not really interested, but Faiza* was taking in every word.  I believe that secretly she had given her heart to the Lord Jesus.  But she sat there in her hijab, and didn’t admit to her faith.  I don’t blame her when you consider the possible consequences.    Thank God for His deliverance.

Not surprisingly, the next day I received an email from Abdul* terminating the relationship

* Not their real names.

The Irrationalism of Infidelity – Infallibility

God alone is infallible

 

‘Infallible’ means one who can in no way err

– it is the opposite of ‘error prone’ – not ‘fallibility’

 

  1. God alone is infallible
  2. Scripture is infallible, because it is of God – in it is perfect truth.
  3. I cannot discuss infallibility with an infidel.

The Irrationalism of Infidelity –Objections Dependent on “Science”

There is no inconsistency. As regards man, the science of physiology can only examine man as he is — in a state of mortality. This is not, according to scripture how God created him. To suppose that God could not have sustained man in an immortal condition, is to put limitations on God, who cannot be limited. We are taught that following the fall, man became a dying creature, subject to ‘wear and tear’

Although JND used the word ‘science’, this objection surrounds more the anthropological background to beliefs worldwide.

It is not related to technological developments about which JND could not have known. These are however irrelevant to this discussion. I do not believe anything of the bible has been disproved by the discoveries of the past 150 years.

Objection – The biblical account is inconsistent with modern knowledge.

The_Fall_of_Man-1616-Hendrik_GoltziusAnswer. There is no inconsistency. As regards man, the science of physiology can only examine man as he is — in a state of mortality. This is not, according to scripture how God created him. To suppose that God could not have sustained man in an immortal condition, is to put limitations on God, who cannot be limited. We are taught that following the fall, man became a dying creature, subject to ‘wear and tear’.

If we look into ancient texts we find various references consistent with the account in Genesis. For example Plato wrote, ‘They lived naked in a state of happiness, and had an abundance of fruits, which were produced without the labour of agriculture, and men and beasts could then converse together. But these things we must pass over, until there appear some one to interpret them to us.’ [I cannot locate Source – maybe the Republic]. Fragments of truth, amidst the mass of superstition, exist in Egyptian, Greek, Mexican and Hindu fables. However, none of the written accounts are older than about 700BC [National Geographic refers to Mycenaean writing around 1450BC, the time of the exodus, but that makes no difference].

The millions of years of Hindu chronology, or the more moderate thousands of Chinese dynasties, have disappeared before increased information. Indeed, we have some Chinese dynasties and some dark Hindu traditions, which tend to confirm the early Mosaic accounts.

God, however, has given us a concise, simple account of immense moral import, infinitely elevated above the whole range of the heathen fables which pervert its elements, placing the supreme God — man —  good — evil —  responsibility — grace —  law — promise —  the creatures — marriage, all in their place. The Mosaic account brings out the innocence at creation, the knowledge of good and evil, conscience, judgment, the closing of the way to the tree of life, and the promise in the woman’s seed.

In so many fables there is the conflict between good and evil, with good prevailing. However in scripture, the drama was a reality; all involving one man and his failing companion. Yet from her who failed recovery was to spring; grace was to be brought out and magnified.

Another thing is evident, that Mesopotamia, and the country north of it, is the area from which the world was peopled.   Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, all are grouped round it. Indeed the Phoenicians even went to Ireland. [Skeptics might argue nowadays that early man came from Africa, but this is not the subject here].

No creature can subsist per se, that is, independently of God.

Infallibility of Scripture

God alone is infallible; for “infallible” means one who cannot fail. Truth is not the same as infallibility; truth is the opposite to error, not to fallibility.

lay-preachingObjection:  You cannot say that anything is infallible.

Answer:  God alone is infallible; for “infallible” means one who cannot fail. Truth is not the same as infallibility; truth is the opposite to error, not to fallibility.

Scripture comes from God; it presents the truth; it is infallible. But there is no need to defend it to the infidel who rejects it. However, There is a difference between infallibility and perfect truth. If I question the infallibility of scripture, I am making a statement about the book. However when I reject perfect truth, I avoid facing what affects my conscience.

In strict logic, only one who is incapable of erring, is infallible in what he says,

The Irrationalism of Infidelity – Why Do Men Die?

Death brings fear, and extends its power and gloom over man in spite of his folly and indifference in denying the Saviour. Despite his conscience, man can hide death from his heart, till he meets God.

If God created man in His own image, why does he die?

Everyone knows that man is mortal.  The unbeliever would argue that it is constituted to be so for humans and for animals, and must always have been.  But could not God have sustained it?   All things subsist by Him.

One thing is certain:  some dire and ruinous confusion has come in; the world is full of misery and violence.  This must be due to either a hard-hearted, unintelligible deity, or to a desolated, ruined and sinful world.

Death brings fear, and extends its power and gloom over man in spite of his folly and indifference in denying the Saviour.   Despite his conscience, man can hide death from his heart, till he meets God.

Man was created in the image of God.  Scripture tells us that by sin … death passed upon all men (Rom 5:12).  Man has become like the animals that perish (See Psalm 49:12).   Death could not have come upon animals; dead animals are in ancient fossil remains.  But man was special.

Based on J N Darby  – The Irrationalism of Infidelity – THE ENTRANCE OF DEATH.  For original click here.

The Irrationalism of Infidelity – The Unrealistic Lifespans of the Patriarchs

Men can live 969 years like Methuselah,

MethuselahObjection:  the longevity of the patriarchs is unrealistic.

Answer: It is a question of the sovereign power of God, it is absurd to argue otherwise.  Men can live 969 years like Methuselah, or 500, or 200 or 70.   But the reduction coincides with idolatry and the worship of man.

The Irrationalism of Infidelity – The Flood

Scripture uses language that is unique to this event – “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened”. (

noahsarkObjection: Where did the waters of the flood come from?

Answer:  It is argued that the water in the deluge came from the clouds, and perhaps from the sea.  These are, of course, the same – one cycle.  Scripture uses language that is unique to this event – “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened”.  (Gen 7:11)   The passage speaks neither of clouds nor sea.   It speaks of the fountains of the great deep being broken up, and the windows of heaven opened.   It is never said the water drained back into the sea, but that “the waters returned from off the earth continually.”  (Gen 8:3) .  It also ways that the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.   Call that a “miracle” or what you will; certainly some very overwhelming outbreak of waters came from an extraordinary source. According to the narrative of creation in Genesis 1, what had already been created was one vast mass of waters, called “the deep.”  It says, “And darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)   The unknown mass of waters which engulfed the earth is not stated, or the what the waters were that were above the firmament or expanse.  The waters of the deluge must have come from either above or below the earth, not from on it.   The ark was big enough.  A vessel of more than 42,000 tons, being 450 feet long, 75 broad, and 45 high (135x23x14m) could easily have received the animals that did not live in water.   Note by Sosthenes   At JND’s time there were many things he could not have known.

  • It is now known that many comets and their tails are made of ice.  If the earth had gone through the tail of a gigantic comet then there would have been an enormous amount of water around for a limited period of time.
  • It is also known that many planets and exoplanets, including the earth have an enormous amount of water in tier crusts.  These were ‘broken up’, so the water could have been released on to the earth.  However how the water disappeared would remain a mystery.  But nothing is impossible to God.
  • It has also been calculated that there were 35000 species on the earth at that time.  The ark has been estimated to be just sufficiently large to accommodate 70,000 animals and provisions for them.
  • At that time when the largest boats were sailing men-of-war, the idea of a boat that size was not conceived.  Now in the days of supertankers the ark is a modest construction.

 

The Irrationalism of Infidelity – Deborah praises Jael’s Atrocities

The prophetess Deborah, in an inspired psalm, pronounces Jael to be blessed above women, and glorifies her act by an elaborate description of its atrocities.

The Song of Deborah

(Click on link above for original)Jael and Sisera - Deborah's Song

Objection:  The prophetess Deborah, in an inspired psalm, pronounces Jael to be blessed above women, and glorifies her act by an elaborate description of its atrocities.

Answer:  Scripture is inspired by God.  God gives His mind on any particular subject to anyone spiritually capable of understanding it.

However, just because scripture provides a record of peoples’ words, that does not mean that what they said was inspired.   We have Satan’s words, wicked men’s words, and human accounts of various facts, recorded by inspiration, but not themselves inspired.    Scripture gives us a picture of what man, and particularly Israel, is.  It does it, not just by dogmatic statements, but by giving us a historical development of what man has does and felt in various circumstances.  If the Bible had merely given us God’s judgment, we never should have had the testimony to our consciences that we have.  Scripture affords us man’s actual history under the various dispensations of God.   We get an inspired testimony of what God’s mind is, adapted in grace to our consciences.  A gracious father speaks to his child according to what suits the child, yet always in a way worthy of himself.  That is how God has dealt with Israel and all men. How else could He have done so?

In the Old Testament we have a perfect, divinely-given picture of man, in various relationships with a gracious God.  His whole condition is brought out, so that by a divinely given history, we might know ourselves, and at the same time appreciate the whole course of God’s dealings with man.  Ultimately, in perfection God Himself is manifested in Christ in supreme grace.  Man and God get into a relationship according to the security of His nature, and the perfectness of His love.  When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. (Rom. 5:6).

We should not have the knowledge either of man or God, and His wondrous, perfect and patient ways, if we had not seen men presented at exactly as they were.  A statement of morality by God would, no doubt, have shown what man ought to be.  We have that in the law.  But that would not have shown us what man is.

People who were used to communicate things, such as Deborah, were pious and animated in their hearts by God’s Spirit.  In their dispensations, they were just not as instructed, as we have been in ours.  

Deborah’s song is not a communication of God’s thoughts, but of Deborah’s feelings.  Doubtless, her heart was moved by the Spirit in thankfulness for the deliverance of God’s beloved people, but there is no sign of its being a communication from God to His people.  It was consistent with the light she possessed, and coloured by the general condition of the people.  Like Hannah, she appreciates God Himself known in mercy to His people.  The song does not rise above the measure of Israel’s blessing.  Things were to be extended under David, Solomon and the prophets. 

The Old Testament is a spiritual instruction for us, so that we can know God, and His perfect ways, more fully.   I may know some scientific facts, and rely on these but I have the perfection of Christ to judge by.  To use the Word rightly depends on my spiritual progress and moral state.  This is exactly as it ought to be.

We are tempted to judge things from the standpoint of a clearer revelation.  I may pass a moral judgment on many things in the Old Testament, because God has given me the true light, and the darkness is now passed.  He who is light, has given me the light to judge these things.   Christ has given the perfect key by which to judge of it all.

The Irrationalism of Infidelity – Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is not presented as a rule of morality nor of conduct in any way, but as a special case in which Abraham’s faith was put to the test. There is no kind of analogy with “those who sacrificed their children to Moloch.”* Jer. 32:35. In their horrid barbarity, they sought to assuage their consciences to placate their vengeful god.

The Sacrifice of IsaacObjection:  Abraham’s preparedness to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22, makes him no different from idolaters of the worst kind – practicing human sacrifice.

Answer:  Abraham’s sacrificial act was a rule of morality nor of conduct in any way, but as a special case in which  God put Abraham’s faith to the test.   There is no kind of analogy with “those who sacrificed their children to Moloch.”* Jer. 32:35.   In their horrid barbarity, they sought to assuage their consciences to placate their vengeful god.

In Abraham’s case it was different.   God had placed the promises in Isaac.   In Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac,  he was now tested, to show that he had such confidence in God, that he would give up all the promises he possessed and obey God implicitly, whatever the cost.  When this was proved, God would not suffer Isaac to be touched.

According to Hebrews 11:8-12 Abraham believed that God would somehow raise up Isaac again, in order to accomplish His promises.