Published by
Mt. Baker church of Christ
Bellingham, WA (1860 Mt. Baker HWY)
(360) 752-2692

Editor/Evangelist  Joe R. Price
Volume VIII,  Number 48
June 19, 2005

"All material is written by Joe R. Price, unless otherwise noted."

Times of services:

Bible Classes............9:30 AM
Worship......10:30 & 6:00 PM

Bible Classes............7:00 PM

Web sites:

"...Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers..." (1 Peter 5:2)
Morris Bass, Rick Holt , Joe Price

"...let them serve as deacons, being found blameless..." (1 Tim. 3:10)
Aaron Bass, Rich Brooks, Mike Finn
John Hague, Dan Head

"And take...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17)

In this issue:

“In the Beginning God” or “In the Beginning Dirt”
(by Dr. David M. Bonner)

There are only two choices for the origin of the universe.  Either, 1) Somebody made the world, or 2) The world made itself.  Humanists (not to be confused with humanitarians) believe, “…the universe as self-existing and not created.”[1]  The Bible teaches, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”2  Most evolutionists do not offer an explanation for “first cause.”  They do not typically try to explain how the first matter came into being, you have to give them that.  Evolutionary thinking is a belief system on origins for those who choose not to believe in God and His creation.  Therefore, when considering origins we essentially have tow options:  “In the beginning God” or “In the beginning Dirt” and you have to give them the dirt.    Many among the media, politicians, educators, and religious leaders preach evolutionary doc­trine and refer to creation as a fairy tale.  They are the “spin doctors” who have joined forces to promote an evolutionary, humanistic, naturalistic World View. They do not tell you the concept of evolution is self-destructing. They do not tell you it has never been well supported by the evidence and there are many scientists coming forward to point out the weaknesses of this theory.  Instead they prey upon the faith of our young people indicating that “all edu­cated people believe in evolution.”

When engaging in debate it is best to start by de­fining the terms of the proposition. This is especially true when discussing evolution because it helps un­cover the trickery used by evolutionists.

When we use the term “evolution” in this series of articles we are discussing the theories that say all liv­ing things have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic evolutionary process from a single source, which it­self arose by a similar process from a dead, inanimate world. This theory may also be called the “Molecule to Man theory of evolution.” Other terms for this theory include the “Atom to Adam” or “Goo to You” theory of evolution.

The concept of evolution actually involves sev­eral theories, which include:

   1) Cosmic Evolution — the origin of time, space, and matter. This is also known as the “Big Bang.”
   2) Chemical Evolution — the origin of all of the chemical elements on the periodic table from hydro­gen, the simplest of all the elements.
   3) Stellar and planetary evolution — the origin of the stars, planets, and the other celestial objects.
   4) Organic Evolution — the origin of life itself from dead inanimate elements and molecules (“the primor­dial soup”) into living cells.
   5) Macro-Evolution — the origin of every kind of life from the original single cell beginni
   6) Micro-Evolution horizontal variation or ad­aptation within a genetically compatible kind. This sixth theory is also called “the special theory” of evolution.

Theories #1 through #5 listed above comprise the “General Theory of Organic Evolution.” When I use the word “evolution” in this series, unless stated oth­erwise, we will be referring to and refuting the “Gen­eral Theory of Organic Evolution,” which is this “Atom to Adam,” theory of evolution. (Theories #4 and #5 together can also be referred to as the “Goo to You” theory of evolution.)

The first five theories are not scientific at all.  Not every idea that any scientist has is necessarily a “sci­entific theory.” For a theory to be scientific, it must be subjected to the scientific method which involves ob­servation, experimentation, and verification. These theories have not been observed and have not been supported by evidence or processes which have been observed. They have not been verified through experi­mentation. Therefore, they are not “scientific theories,” even though a large number of scientists believe in them.

Of the six theories listed above, only that of Micro-Evolution has been observed. Typically when evolu­tionists try to say evolution is amenable to the scien­tific method they have shifted into a discussion of theory #6. Do not be fooled. Evolutionists typically are quick to lump theory #6 in with the rest and use it as “proof” for the other five theories. Biology text books are full of this kind of methodology.

The first five theories should not be confused with nor commingled with the sixth concept which is often called Micro-Evolution. This concept is not really a theory, but is a fact. It identifies the fact that there is genetic capacity for horizontal variation and adapt­ability within genetically compatible kinds. This is why we have demographic differences within human populations. It also explains why there are so many variations within animal kinds, such as among dogs, cats, toads, cattle, etc.  No one disagrees with this.  Everyone knows you can cross a Cocker Spaniel with a Poodle and get a Cock-a-Poo or a Pekinese with a Poodle and get a Peek-a-Poo. When you are through with this process you have bred dogs and ended up with just dogs. The same principle is true in the plant kingdom where plants such as corn can be developed to be more disease and pest resistant. When you are through you still have corn and have not turned corn plants into oak trees. It has been said there are some 1300 variations of roses, but “a rose by any other name is still a rose.” “Micro-Evolution” or “Selective Breed­ing” does not prove you can begin with a single cell such as an amoeba, and end up with a human being.  However, it is with this information many evolution­ists play a con game upon unsuspecting students.

It is the old con game known as “Bait & Switch.”  You may have had a telemarketer try to pull this con game on you. For example, a credit card company calls your home during the dinner hour assuring you that you have been “pre-qualified” for 2.9% percent inter­est on their card. When you get the card it actually carries 13.9% interest. That is “Bait & Switch!” They al­lure you with one thing and give you something else. It is an illegal business tactic, so why should it be al­lowed in the classrooms of public schools?

Evolutionists pull this con by discussing an example of adaptation within a genetically compatible kind (micro-evolution) and assert this is a case of evolution (macro-evolution) in progress. The classic example of this con game is the Peppered Moth story. If you have studied biology, you have probably heard the story, since it is in almost every text book The Peppered Moth (Biston betularia) has a light colored variation and a dark colored variation. To the human eye, it appears cam­ouflaged when the light moth is with a light back­ground and when the dark moth is with a dark back­ground. It is said the light moth was the predominant variation in England before the industrial revolution where the trees were light colored. After the indus­trial revolution, the trees were predominantly dark­ened by pollution and it is said the predominant varia­tion became the dark moth. After laws were enacted to clean up the environment and the trees began to show their natural lighter colors, it is said the demo­graphics of light moths versus dark moths began to reverse again.

This story is told over and over again as proof of evolution in action. First, without even criticizing the elements of the evolutionists’ story, ask yourself if this proves or gives any credence to the “Amoeba to Man” theory of evolution. If the story started out with abso­lutely no dark moths at the beginning and ended up with some dark and light colored moths it would only demonstrate Micro-Evolution or the genetic capacity within a kind. It would be similar to a blonde-headed woman marrying a black-headed man and having four black-headed children and one red-headed child. Ev­eryone knows this is possible and everyone should know this does not demonstrate that the moth is un­dergoing Macro-Evolution and will eventually evolve into a bird or some other genetically incompatible or­ganism.

It is fascinating, however, to see that this story may not even be demonstrating Micro-Evolution. If both colors were present at the beginning, it only represents a demographic change in the population of moths. Think about it. The story is of a community of pre­dominantly white moths becoming a community of predominantly dark moths, which later became a com­munity of predominantly light moths again. We see this happen all the time with communities of people. Yet no one thinks it proves that man is evolving into another kind of being. This has to be the most success­ful “bait and switch con game” ever pulled off. The evolutionists describe a demographic change in the population, claim that it illustrates Micro-Evolution, and then jump over the huge crater of missing evi­dence to claim that it proves Macro-Evolution!

If there was any actual scientific evidence for the General Theory of Organic Evolution the evolution­ists would present it. The fact that evolutionists are always using examples of Micro-Evolution or Horizon­tal Variation as “evidence” for the first five theories is pretty strong evidence, in and of itself, there has never been any observation of evidence for the General Theory of Organic Evolution.

There are only two choices for the origin of the universe. Evolutionists do not have scientific evidence for their theories. They would have you accept their belief system, simply based on their word that we came from the “Big Bang.” They would seem to rewrite the Bible to say, “In the beginning Dirt.”

On the other hand the Bible asserts, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathereth the wa­ters of the sea together as an heap: He layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.”3

The Bible claims the origin of the universe to be from the “Big Word,” if you will. Jesus Christ was the Word and provided the “Big Word” of creation.  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the be­ginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we be­held his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.4

As this series progresses we will put various facets of the evolutionary theories under the microscope. As we do, we will continue to see the overwhelming evidence against evolution and the scientific and biblical evidence for creation. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”


1 First Article of Human Manifesto I
2, 5 Genesis 1:1
3 Psalms 33:6-9
4 John 1:1-3, 14

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?”  (Psalms 8:3-4)


Created by Chuck Sibbing - 06/21/2005

The Spirit's Sword is a free, weekly publication of the Mt. Baker church of Christ, Bellingham, WA
Send all questions, comments and subscriptions to the editor at: