OPEN: A young skeptic returned from his 1st semester at college and visited elderly Bible teacher who’d invited him over for a meal. He hadn’t been at college long, but he’d been there long enough for the professors to destroy his faith. So as she fixed a meal, he felt he needed to inform her of that, and so he said "I once believed in God, but since studying science, I'm convinced that God is but an empty word."
She paused a moment and then said, "Well, I have not studied science, but since YOU have, maybe you can tell me from where this egg came from." She held up a raw egg she was about to use.
"Why from a hen, of course" he replied.
"And where did the hen come from? she asked.
"Why, it hatched from an egg."
"And perhaps," said the lady, "you can tell me which existed first."
"The hen, of course," he said.
"So, you mean that a hen existed without having come from an egg?"
"Oh, no," said the young man, "I guess I should have said that the egg was first."
"Then you mean that an egg existed without having come from a hen?"
The young man looked puzzled and then said "You’re getting me confused."
She smiled and then replied: "Young man, since you cannot explain the existence of even an egg without God, can you really expect me to believe that you can explain the existence of the whole world without Him."
(Allen Webster, “The Day The Atheist Sat Next To The Preacher”)
Paul wrote the Christians at Rome: “(God’s) invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So (unrighteous men) are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
In other words: even unrighteous people should know there is a God because God is revealed in the things He has made. Psalm 19:1 says it this way “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” The Bible is unapologetic in declaring that our world has been designed, and that there is an “Intelligent Designer” (God) who made it all.
(PAUSE) This sermon series is called “Contending for the Faith” and as we’ve said in each sermon before this one: We don’t have to APOLOGIZE for our faith. We don’t need to rally to God’s defense. Our God is bigger than we are – and He doesn’t really need our help. But in spite of that, God calls us to contend for the faith…” (Jude 3)
In Romans Paul tells us one of the reasons WHY we don’t rally to God’s defense: it’s pretty obvious that there is a God who is up there… and He’s fairly intimidating. He has eternal power and a divine nature, and even unrighteous men who, (though they may not want to admit to you) suspect in their heart of hearts that there is a God and that will come a time of judgment.
Now, there are certain scientists who have begun to rally around this idea. They call their view of how the world has been formed “Intelligent Design (or ID), for they believe that it is obvious that there is an intelligent designer of this world.
Now the difference between these scientists and myself - is where we start from:
• I’m a preacher. I believe that there’s an intelligent designer of the world because I believe in God’s Word (the Bible) – and that’s where I start. I believe God created the world in six days because that's what the Bible says and I really don't need the confirmation of science to accept that.
• But now, these scientists (while they may believe in the Bible) don’t start there. They start with science – with what they can observe in nature. And these folks are convinced that science points to an Intelligent Designer as the creator of the world.
In his book on Albert Einstein, author Walter Isaacson told of a dinner party in Berlin that Einstein had attended. Everybody there apparently assumed Einstein was an atheist, but when someone made mention of that… he said, “No, I have a deep feeling of faith, a deep religiosity that comes from my appreciation of the way the Lord made the universe”, and everybody was stunned. He said he was like a child walking into a library, and you see the books and you know somebody must have written them, and you see them ordered and you know somebody must have ordered them, and there’s a sense of awe that’s manifest in that where you kind of understand that there’s an order underlying everything and the more you appreciate it, the more humble you become in the fact of it.
The author of this book continued: “In some ways, (Einstein’s) belief in God, that God had created an orderly universe, informed his science. He believed that underlying everything, there are laws.”
Einstein (one of the greatest scientists who ever lived) believed in an Intelligent Design - a universe where there were laws laid down by the person put everything in order. And that belief shaped Einstein’s approach to science.
ILLUS: Back in 2005, CBS News/NYT conducted a Poll of 885 people in the US. They found that
• 55 percent of the general public were creationists (God created the world in 6 days)
• 32 percent were theistic evolutionists (God created the world thru evolution)
• And that only 13 percent were orthodox Darwinists
In other words, 87% of this sample believed God created the world.
Now why would so many people in America believe that? Because “(God’s) invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So (unrighteous men) are without excuse.”
This points to a conflict between Scripture and those in the scientific community who are evolutionists. Now, before we go too far we need to acknowledge that there are two different things that are referred to as evolution here: “MICRO-evolution” and MACRO-evolution.
MICRO-evolution is something everybody agrees on (it's even referred to in Scripture). Micro-evolution is the proven science that there are many different kinds of birds, and dogs and cats and other kinds of animals. Folks who work with cattle and sheep and other kinds of domestic animals have been doing this kind of things for centuries - it's called "breeding". And we observe this in nature as well - there are various kinds of dogs and birds and cats, but they’re all dogs and birds and cats. That’s what they’ve always been and that’s what they always will be. This is called "micro-evolution".
However, there’s another kind of evolution called “MACRO-evolution”. Macro-evolution teaches that life began millions and millions of years ago. It started with inert matter (like dirt, or mud or stone) that somehow was acted upon by an outside force such an electrical and/or chemical phenomena. And this outside force helped create the first forms of life on the planet.
Someone once called this event the “primordial soup” where chemicals and matter interacted to create life. Over time (according to this theory) these simple life forms got together to form a committee and started creating more and more complex life forms (we showed a simple evolutionary tree at this point) that eventually became plant and animal life. And as these life forms became more and more complex this process ultimately led to advanced animals and birds... and eventually to humans like you and me.
One person described the theory this way: “From Goo To You By Way Of The Zoo.”
ILLUS: To better understand how evolutionists visualize this process, imagine the humble Lego block. How many of you have ever played with Legos? This is a marvelous little toy that allows children to build all kinds of things. Personally when I have "played" with these blocks I’ve been satisfied to just build a wall of Legos. But I’ve seen pictures that has shown people having built intricate spacecraft and battleships and huge replicas of famous buildings. All these beautiful things were created using a “simple” block of plastic. But those simple blocks of plastic were turned into marvelous works of art. That’s roughly how evolutionists view the beginnings of life and the establishment of more and more complexity of life forms over millions and millions of years. Simple life forms (the Legos of life) interacted and built upon one another until they became a biological work of art.
Now despite the fact that many scientists believe evolution is a FACT, it’s still just a theory. But why is it still just a theory? Well, in order for a theory to become a scientific fact it must pass one of 2 tests: 1st – the theory must be able to be provably observed in nature, Or second – it must be something that can be reproduced in the laboratory.
The theory of Evolution fails both of those tests. If you say, "I can’t observe the evolution of birds or dogs into another life form", the evolutionist will say “Of course you can’t… that takes millions of years.” In that answer they admit their conclusions are not observable in the wild. So then you might ask: "Have you been able to do this in the laboratory, or have you at least been able to make life from non-life in the lab?” And the answer to that will again be “No.”
ILLUS: This is such a hard and fast rule in Science (that a scientific "fact" must be able to be reproduced in the laboratory) that two scientists in the 1980s were roundly ridiculed for saying they had developed a source of clean and efficient energy known as “cold fusion”. Cold fusion has been something of a holy grail for scientists for decades, but had always proved an elusive dream. But these 2 scientists said they had done it. They had created cold fusion in the laboratory. Then came the problems: no other scientist was ever able to reproduce the marvelous results those first scientists had claimed. It was concluded that the 2 original scientists had fudged a little on their research information and were roundly condemned by the scientific community. Why? Because (like evolution) their conclusions were not reproducible in the laboratory.
(https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html)
Those who believe in Evolution will tell you they KNOW how things have evolved, and yet they haven’t really proved anything except to establish that they have very active imaginations.
ILLUS: A heckler once mocked a Christian speaker by shouting out: “I could make a better universe than your God!" The speaker smiled and said "I won’t ask you to make a universe. But could you just make a rabbit—just to establish confidence?"
(PAUSE)
Evolutionists pretty much despise Scientists who hold to the concept of “Intelligent Design (ID).” But these ID scientists who believe in design challenge evolutionists on at least 2 fronts:
First they note that no one has EVER found any true transitional fossils. For over 100 years, archeological digs have produced numerous fossils but despite the evolutionary claim that one species of plant or animal has transitioned into another form of plant or animal remains unproven.
2nd – they’ve challenged evolutionists on the concept of “Irreducible Complexity”. Now, you might ask: “Jeff, what is irreducible complexity? (Glad you asked)
Evolution is based on the concept that simple forms of life got together to form more complex life and these simple life forms did this by mutations and adaptation to environment. The more complex the life form, the more mutations and adaptations needed to take place. Essentially, one simple thing added to itself to another until (voila) you have a complex life form. Evolutionists believe this is how things “evolved, even though they’ve never actually seen it happen. nor reproduced it in the laboratory.
But “ID” scientists point out that most living things of this world are just way too complex to have developed step by step. There would be no way the transitions would succeed because the complexity of the organism would never survive without the variations that make it live.
Some people have used the humble mousetrap to explain this problem (We put an illustration of a mousetrap on the overhead that showed the parts that make it function). This mousetrap has 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of those pieces is absolutely essential for the mousetrap to function. If you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and you will never catch mice. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth. And so on. This is what is called an “irreducibly complex system”. It cannot be put together in gradual manner. You can’t simply start with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catch a few more mice then add the holding bar etc. Everything has to be in place or it doesn’t function AT ALL. A step-by-step approach to constructing a mousetrap would give a useless system. All the parts have to be present and functional… or it just won’t work.
In nature, the most obvious irreducibly complex system is your eye. In fact, Darwin (when he developed his theory of evolution) acknowledged that the eye was the most daunting question mark challenging his theory.
Psalm 94:9 says “Does (God) who formed the eye not see?” In other words – the eye is the direct result of the creative majesty of God. The eye is an incredibly complex and mysterious creation. Your eye covers an area of less than 1 square inch, and yet contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells. And your eye works by the interaction of rods, cones, nerve endings, the optic nerve, the retina etc. None of this can work by itself. Every part is necessary to be present and functional, or you simply would be unable to see. It is "irreducibly complex".
ILLUS: This is so hard to believe - a young woman was in a science class where they were discussing the evolution of man. As they considered how each part of the human body might have evolved, they eventually discussed the eye. This took a up a great deal of the class time because the eye was so complicated that it was difficult to explain its evolving in a simplistic fashion.
One of the students (who was not a Christian) said that it seemed to her that perhaps Evolution might not be the best way of explaining this phenomenon. The teacher became irritated and responded: "Young lady, we're not here to talk about God!"
It annoys Evolutionists to have to accept the idea that there is an Intelligent Designer. And Romans tells us why:
“(God’s) invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Romans 1:20-23
One of the driving forces behind evolution is the rejection of God. Not all evolutionists are driven by that aversion to God, but many are. Why? Because evolution is the ONLY alternative to God being the creator of the universe.
And once you reject God as the creator… then all kinds of strange uncomfortable things can take place.
Romans 1:26-32 “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Lesbianism/ Homosexuality/ Transgenderism),
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they NOT ONLY DO THEM but GIVE APPROVAL TO THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM.”
(PAUSE)
ILLUS: Now, I’m going to address an issue that I’d ordinarily have avoided. But the reason I’m addressing it is because a preacher friend of mine challenged me to do so. If a preacher doesn’t address sin in his own backyard he has no business addressing sin at all… so here goes:
A couple weeks ago, a local high school made the news because its student body had elected a girl to be their homecoming KING. This young lady “identifies” as a male (although she’s run cross-country as a girl). Reflecting on the decision to endorse this travesty, the school Principal issued this banal comment: “Our student body is so accepting of others... Our diversity is our strength… and we support each other regardless of gender identity or gender expression.” That's insane!
By contrast, one of the best teachers at Logansport went on record as saying the selection of a transgender girl to be Home Coming King was improper and the social media (Facebook/Twitter) calling for him to resign.
Now, I don’t blame the students. High Schoolers are always trying to show their independence and defiance of their parents' norms. Some of these teens even probably voted for this girl because she was their friend. I don’t blame the kids… I blame the adults who should have known better.
ILLUS: The High School students are the heirs to the evil brought on culture through another man who just died last week at the age of 91. His name: Hugh Hefner. The News media was filled with articles glorifying, eulogizing, and praising his life. He was almost universally portrayed as a great humanitarian and a pioneer in women’s rights.
(PAUSE) This guy was a pornographer. He built an entire empire on parading women as objects of meat. He created an atmosphere of immorality that reached into the realms of politicians, actors and movie stars. In fact, I’m convinced that it was that evil atmosphere of sexual immorality that created an atmosphere where men like Bill Cosby learned to be predators.
As Romans 1:32 says: “they not only do (these things) but give approval to those who practice them.”
CLOSE: This is why we need to contend for faith that was once delivered to the saints. Someone has to stand up and say… these things are wrong, because there are people out there who not only do sinful things but they give approval and encourage those who do them.
But a word of CAUTION here: We’re not called by God to speak against evil because we’re righteous and the other guys aren’t. We’re to do this because - if someone doesn’t step up and say “this is wrong” - folks are going to go to hell. We’re to do this because we care what happens to people who slip into the warped and deformed practices of sin.
Think about it this way: do you know what “anorexia” is? It’s when a person starves themselves because they think they are too fat. Would it help for this person to have their friends say “Of course you’re too fat! If you think you’re too fat, you are. You are right to starve yourself because maybe that will make things better.” Would that help this person? Of course not. All that kind of talk would do nothing but reinforce the delusion that person was living with.
In the same way, these teens have only reinforced a harmful behavior by encouraging their friend to pursue their delusion and deny their gender. Years down the road, this young lady may end up being a wife and mother and looking by on this bizarre decision with a sense of shame and regret.
ILLUS: God hates sin because He hates what it does to people. A. W. Tozer said: “God is holy and holiness (is) the moral condition necessary to the health of his universe… Whatever is holy is healthy… the holiness of God, the wrath of God, and the health of creation are inseparably united. God’s wrath is His utter intolerance of whatever degrades and destroys. He hates iniquity as a mother hated the polio that would take the life of the child.”
When we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, we are to contend against sin so that people will be warned of the dangers of their delusions.
ILLUS: An old-time preacher often spoke on the subject of sin – he minced no words. A leader in his congregation came to him on one occasion and urged him to cease using the ugly word. Said he: "We wish you would not speak so plainly about sin. Our young people, hearing you, will be more likely to indulge in sin. Call it something else, as 'inhibition,' or 'error' or a 'mistake,' or even 'a twist in our nature.'"
"Oh," replied the preacher, "I think I know what you mean. Come with me." And taking the church member to the kitchen, reached under the sink and drew out a bottle of cleaning liquid which had a skull and cross bones on it. On the label it said: “POISON.”
The preacher then said: "What you would have me do is put another label on this bottle. Not to call it poison, but something more pleasant... like lemonade. No sir, when God calls something sin, evil, depraved or an abomination, I will call it by no other name."
INVITATION
