Skip to content


March 23, 2009

This is a guest post by a Pastor friend of mine. It is full of sound truth for the discerning mind. May God bless you as you read it.


In the May 13, 2005 edition of the “Perspective” Kurt Cooper requested that he be reminded to not visit Kansas. Mr. Cooper let me take this opportunity to remind you to not visit any state that does not teach the fact that God created everything, because only where God is will you be truly safe.


During the early part of this countries history, and up until World War II, many foreign heads of state visited this country in order to try to determine what made America a great country. The almost unanimous opinion was that it was America’s God that made this country great, and if this country were to ever turn from its God it would fail to be a great country.


Dear God,


Why did you allow what happened at Columbine High School?


Sally, senior class


Dear Sally,


I am not allowed in your school.




If we were to reduce all of the questions in the world down to one question, it would be: “Is mankind a special creation of Almighty God, or is God merely a figment of mankind’s imagination?” Another way to ask this question might be: “Creationism or Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is true?”


In February 1977, almost 200 members of this nation’s academic community sent letters to school boards all across the United States, recommending that no alternative to the theory of evolution on the origins of life be permitted in the classrooms. When religious people take such a position, they are called bigots. But students everywhere are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and the purpose of life, yet those who oppose creationism are fearful of facing competition at the school level. Why?


In order to find an answer, we need to go back to the source; we need to go to Darwin’s famous book, “The Origin of Species.” Here is what Charles Darwin said.


“Analogy would lead me to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. All organisms start from a common origin, and from some low and intermediate forms both animals and plants may have been developed. All organic things which have ever lived on the earth may be descended by some one primordial form.”

For many years the idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation.

According to Webster, spontaneous generation is “the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.” In other words, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, and place decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness.  Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. But reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue.  Today no reputable scientist even tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is “now abandoned.” It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube.  Therefore, no present process has been observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation.


If spontaneous generation actually did take place at some time in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws, which govern life, had to be completely different from what they are now. But this will not work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the Earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.


You see if life sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory.  Yet, without believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work. In other words, they would have to acknowledge God. 


Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states how an evolutionist gets around this dilemma:


“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.” Scientific American, August 1954.


Please notice that this evolutionary scientist says it was impossible, it could not have happened.  Yet Dr. Wald believes it did happen. So Mr. Cooper when our children get to point 6 and answer it is a miracle, is that not far better then having our children concede to something that is impossible? At least a creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. Their faith is not a blind faith in something that is impossible.


In order for someone to sustain a humanistic explanation of the origin of life, they must accept the unscientific theory of spontaneous generation, and reject the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible. A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it, or blind, unintelligent nature produced this impossible act.


Dr. Wald’s exhaustive search for a scientific explanation to the origins of life ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific impossibility.  Oh, how much simpler and sweeter is the faith which accepts the inspired Word of God: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the

earth (Genesis 1:1).”


Scientists assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate; in fact, they say that the structure of a single cell is more complex than the entire complexity of the largest metropolitan city in the world. Therefore, the chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. 


“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.” American Scientist magazine, January of 1955:


It is stated this way in the book entitled “The evidence of God in an Expanding Universe,” page 23:


“The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe.  For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years.” 


The naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background, and harmonizing the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionists in trying to suppress opposing points of view seems to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. And they have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. Now, I do not object to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is simply being dishonest.


There is another basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law, and that is that one of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is mutation.  This refers to abnormal changes in the organism, which are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular number of chromosomes which contain the genes. Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, or shape of the individual.  The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation, or as Mr. Cooper puts it: “cut the tails off enough rats, breed them and eventually you will wind up with a tailless rat.”  


In other words, through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a human being. This means that the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists, and that families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. If this is the case then all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.


Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite.  Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied.  Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. 


Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist.  They still search for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that they have not been 100 percent wrong.


Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this in “Evolution in action,” page 38:


“Mutation provides the raw material of evolution…Mutation is the ultimate sources of all…heritable variation.”


Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement in “Animal Species and Evolution,” page 170:


“Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on.”


Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. But the scientific fact is that mutation could never accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons.  As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand, is a mutant.


But when mutations do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley said in “Evolution In Action”:


“The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism.”


Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day!  Professor Simpson wrote the following in “The Major Features of Evolution,” page 96:


“Obviously…such a process has played no part whatever in evolution.”    


So some of the notable spokesmen for evolution say that mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes. Therefore, mutations do effect minor changes within a basic species, but those changes are limited, and never produce a new family. So evolutionists can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals, but they can never explain the creation of basic kinds.


As discussed previously, the fossil record gives no support to the idea of species gradually changing into other species, but is the fossil evidence in harmony with the

Bible? Ten times in the Book of Genesis we read God’s decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures. God said that everything would reproduce “after its kind.”  The Hebrew word translated as “kind” is “miyn,” and it refers to species, or families. In other words, God said that each created species or family was to produce only its own kind, and this forever precludes the drifting or changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another.


Please understand that God did not say there could be no changes within the family. In the very beginning God did not create all the varieties of rats, dogs, cats, horses, etc.  There was only a male and female of each species, and many changes have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family. But rats have always been rats, cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and human beings are still human beings. Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another new kind.  Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements to both plants and animals, but all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at Creation: “after its kind.” So yes Mr. Cooper, it is possible to breed a tailless rat, but it is still a rat and no matter what you believe it will always be a rat.


There is also the “missing link, theory, which states that mankind and monkeys are stemmed from the same animal ancestry.  I will agree that chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number.  A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes do not jibe. But apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.


When we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of “after its kind.” The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.


Evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species changes, and their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into wings.  While other reptiles supposedly changed into fur-bearing quadrupeds.  But not one of those millions and millions of multi-changing creatures has ever been found in the fossil record. No matter what particular strata they have sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God created it to be. 


If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions transition forms, and even right now we would have living among us observable links that are in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin wrote in “Life and Letters,” Volume 3, page 25:


“There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record.”


Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to me to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. But as a creationist I am not surprised at all.  The Bible has told me that it would be that way, and I am not forced to explain contradictory evidence.


Let me add one more layer to the frustration the evolutionist faces with the fossil record. As they dig deep into the Earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed.  And geologists have given names to the succession of strata that pile one on top of another. If you were to descend into the Grand Canyon for example, you would move downward past the Mississippi strata, Devonian strata, until you get to the Cambrian strata. And here is the problem for the evolutionists:  The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. But the Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is:  Where are their ancestors?  Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward. Darwin wrote in his book “Origin of the Species,” page 309:


“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer…the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”


Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it. And many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California in the July 4, 1958 issue of “Science”calls it:


“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution.” 


Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote the following in “The New Evolution: Zoogenesis” concerning the Cambrian fossils:


“Strange as it may seem …mollusks were mollusks just as un-mistakably as they are now.”


Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem and wrote these words in “Stratigraphy and Life History,” page 102:


“Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling.”


George Gaylord Simpson, who is known as the “Crown Prince of Evolution,” summarized it this way in “The Evolution of Life,” page 144:


“The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy.”


No wonder people like Mr. Cooper fight to keep students from hearing the biblical record. The absence of Precambrian fossils points to only one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists, a sudden creative act of God which brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage a lack of true evidence; to camouflage the fact that the preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.


But the subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question of how these layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the billions of years. Well, the dating of those layers has been done on the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today.  In other words, the creation of those strata can only be explained on the basis of what we see happening in the world now. Scientists must calculate how long it takes for sedimentation to build a foot-deep stratum. Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply it is located within the Earth.


But have all the natural forces of the past been just what we can demonstrate and understand today? We can assume by our limited observation and experience what we please, but it proves absolutely nothing except our own gullibility. The Bible explains very graphically about a Flood that ravaged the face of this Earth, covering the highest mountains and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the Ark. The destructive action of the Deluge is expressed by these words in the Bible:


Genesis 7:11-12, “The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.  And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”


The existence of those strata can be scientifically accounted for in perfect harmony with the biblical record. The universal Flood of Genesis provides a much more reasonable explanation of the strata than evolution’s speculations. As the waters receded from the Earth, powerful tides and currents carved out the great canyons in a short time. Layers of debris, according to the specific weight, were laid down, compressing plant and animal life into a compact seam or stratum.  Only thus can we explain the vast oil reserves and coal beds around the world. These are the result of vegetation and animal bodies being buried under extreme heat and pressure.  No such process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work. Therefore, uniformitarianism fails here.


The fact is there had to be a gigantic cataclysmic overturn of nature, killing and burying billions of tons of plant and animal life. And the position of some fossils standing upright through one or more strata indicates that the process was not slow or age long. The material had to be deposited quickly around the body of the animal, or it could not have remained in its erect position. Millions of fish were buried by the flood, many of them contorted as though suddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force. Marine fossils have been recovered from the highest mountain ranges, and a checklist on other scientific evidences points to a universal deluge over the entire planet.


“Natural selection” is a phrase coined by the evolutionist to describe the survival of the fittest.  Simply stated, it is the natural process that enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones, to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation, the species will gradually improve, even advancing into other more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale. Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the development of his theory. Sir Julian Huxley made this statement in “Evolution in Action,” page 36:


“So far as we know…natural selection…is the only effective agency of evolution.”


But Huxley is disputed on this by another evolutionist, Dr. Ernst Mayr, who wrote the following in “Animal Species,” page 7:


“Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept.”


These opposite views are rejected by G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory of evolution today. He said in “The Geography of Evolution,” page 17:


“Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause.”


So many of the top teachers of evolution are hopelessly at odds with each other, and each one is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as to how the changes took place and then abandoning them as they appear more and more ridiculous.


But what is the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the transition from amoeba to man?  Is there scientific proof that it can even make one small change? When it comes to answering those questions, the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions.  Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the scarcity of evidence in these words written in “Major Features,” pages 118, 119:


“It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation.”


But here is what Huxley has to say about this in “Evolution in Action,” page 48:


“On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations:  and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection.”


Huxley’s proof for natural selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural selection, but were the changes produced by natural selection, or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? Because I am confused about what Huxley was actually trying to say, let me simply point out one thing: changes from species to species have never been verified. There is not one shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into another. So Huxley’s proof for natural selection is changes that never happened, and the changes that never happened are offered as proof for natural selection. 


Huxley summed up the reliability of this natural selection process in “Evolution in

Action,” pages 54, 55 this way:


“To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose.  It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way.” 


If I understand this correctly, then Huxley said that the evolutionary changes wrought by natural selection are “astronomically improbable,” but because he sees no other way for it to be done, he believes in the astronomically improbable.  Let me see if I can help you Mr. Cooper and everyone else who believes in the “astronomically improbable,” God created the wonders of cells and genes and all the millions of processes that leave Sir Huxley baffled. You see because Sir Julian does not believe in a divine creation, he has to invent a miracle working process to explain the existence of these complex creatures, which obviously got here somehow.


To illustrate the omnipotence of his “natural selection god, Huxley computed the odds against such a process. The computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable evolutionary factor being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that this is all a chance development through the operation of nature, time, mutation, and natural selection.  In his book “Evolution in Action,” Huxley gave the odds this way on page 46:


“The figure 1 with three million naughts after it:  and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! No one would bet on anything so improbable happening, and yet it has happened.” p. 46.


Since this figure of compound probability is effectively zero, how can a scientific mind, in the absence of any demonstrable evidence, be so dogmatic in defending his theory?  Why did Huxley employ a mathematical formula to illustrate the impossibility of his theory working? Perhaps he used the figures to accent his personal testimony.  Just as born-again Christians seek occasions to bear their personal testimony of faith in Christ, Huxley demolishes the scientific possibilities of his theory in order to magnify the personal faith aspect of his personal testimony for the god evolution.


Marshall and Sandra Hall on pages 39 and 40 of their book “The Truth—God or Evolution?” share their reaction to Huxley’s absurd faith in the chance production of a horse.


“And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse!  How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? And then you would have just one horse and one human being and, unless the mathematician wishes to add in the probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are necessary to support a horse and a man, you would have a sterile world where neither could have survived any stage of its supposed evolution! What have we now—the figure 1 followed by a thousand volumes of zeros? Then add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties for life built into it. And add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and the moon, and the stars. Add other thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part of the pulse beat of an inscrutable cosmos!


“Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about rational thought, much less scientific evidence.  Yet, Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it had to be! They have retreated from all the points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to the evolutionary theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations based on population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys that have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero!  They clutter our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere an animated waxen image of a theory that has been dead for over a decade.


“Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science. It is time all this nonsense ceased.  It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries.”


These examples of evolutionary folly are only the tip of an iceberg, but they reassure me that I have no cause to be embarrassed for my creationist faith.  Millions of Christians have been intimidated by the high-sounding technical language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their attacks on special creation.  What we do need is more information on exposing the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledygook of scientific jargon.


To follow our ancestry back through the sons of the first man Adam is so much more satisfying than to search through dismal swamps for a flagellated protozoan. The human race has dropped, even in my lifetime, several degrees deeper into moral perversion and violent disorder.  Humanists cite our animal ancestry as an excuse for much of this bizarre behavior. They say we should not blame people for actions dictated by their bestial genes and chromosomes.  But this rationalization, like a temporary insanity plea, provides license for further irresponsible conduct. The true cause for evil and the true remedy for it is found only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced the image of God in mankind, and only a personal encounter with the perfect Saviour will bring a reversal of the problem of evil.


Mr. Cooper said that Clarence Darrow said it best, but I believe humanist Aldous Huxley expressed it far better in his book “Ends and Means”:


“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality, because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We objected to the political and economic system, because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claim that in some way they embodied the meaning, a Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confusing these people and at the same time justify ourselves in our political and erotic revolt. We could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”


We did not want government and we did not want morality, Huxley said, so we chose evolution to shut the mouths of those who believe in special creation. But the God of creation declares that we are not just an accident or an incident. He says we are made in His own image. He says we are precious to Him, so precious that He sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to suffer, bleed, and die for us. Jesus was then buried. He rose again the third day, and He invites you to come to Him.


“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature,” we are told in 2 Corinthians 5:17.


We have a divine purpose for being on this planet. And through Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, we have eternal life. Jesus said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3).”


We are all precious to God. We have dignity. We have a Heavenly Father who loves us and cares for us. And one day, you and I, and Charles Darwin, and every soul God has ever created, will stand before His Son and be judged.


A scientist once said that men and women of science should be the most devout of all Christians. Why? Because God said in the Book of Romans chapter 1, verses 20-22:


“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”


Mr. Cooper if Kansas does not prevail, let me assure you that in time the United States of America will be in far worse shape then the Soviet Union ever was.


Always in Christ,


Pastor Mitchell Michaels

First Southern Baptist Church, Miami, Arizona

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: