A Modern Golden Calf
In Exodus 32, we read of a very tragic and insulting sin which the people of. Israel committed against the Lord. Only a year or so before, God had wonderfully delivered the children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. He divided the Red Sea, enabling over a million people to cross on dry land between the "walls of water." In a short space of a few months, these people "looked back" and wanted to return to Egypt.
As Moses was up in Mount Sinai receiving the Law from God, the people became impatient. They requested Aaron to "make us gods which shall go before us" (Ex. 32:1). The "golden calf" was the result. Imagine the insult to the God of Heaven and earth when the people said, concerning their golden calf, "These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." They ascribed to an IMPERSONAL IDOL of their own making what only a SUPERNATURAL and- all-powerful God could do.
This is the very same thing that has happened to the blind followers of the devilish "theory of evolution," which is taught to our young people in high schools and colleges. Only the day of judgment will reveal how many millions of people have lost their right to eternal life by bowing before this "modern golden calf" which tries to "replace God" by a fantastic theory of how life began and developed to its present state. These idolaters (evolutionists) - ascribe to an impersonal force what only a Supernatural, living God could do, namely, give life.
We want to notice the absurdity of a theory, which demands, if true, living things came from non-living materials- and "somehow" something originally came from nothing!
Atheists are most unreasonable when they try to explain the origin of matter and life. Some scientists try to avoid facing the issue by proclaiming that the universe is millions of years old. But do they tell us how the universe began? NO! And for a good reason. They can't unless they acknowledge a creative force or else that matter or "something" has always existed.
When they tell us that our earth is a fragment of another planet, which "cooled off", making life possible, we ask two questions: (1) Where did the other planet come from? and (2) How did life originate?
It is enough to say that, if they believe that something has always been, they believe in something eternal. Then they have no reason to ridicule believers for believing in an eternal being.
If there ever was a state of complete "nothingness" in which nothing existed, then the moment the first thing appeared, you have the amazing event of something coming from nothing. This is mathematically impossible and utterly unreasonable. Therefore, something must have always been. There must be something eternal because from nothing comes nothing!
Let us suppose, for example, that gases have always been and by some process hardened into a solid piece of matter. Those who believe this readily agree that at one time there was no life on the earth. Will they tell us that life all of a sudden burst forth from non-living material? No scientist who cares anything at all for his reputation will attempt to prove that life came from non-life.
There are many truths about which there can be no mistake. Three which are true in the field of science are: (1) Life can only come from previous, not non-life; (2) every effect must have an adequate cause; (3) like begets like.
The general idea of organic evolution is that life had its beginning with a one-celled Organism. This one tell divided into two cells, then the two cells divided into four, and so on and so on. But there are some weaknesses to this theory.
First of all, where did the one-celled organism come from? Scientists are far from agreed. They only assume where it came from. But the biggest objection to this cell division idea is that cells always divide, they do not multiply from a one-celled to a two-celled organism, but into two one-celled organisms. The theory demands that all life began from a one-celled organism and then from that one cell came the more complex forms of life. If the theory were true, from the one cell would have come a two-celled organism, then a four and so on. But what the scientists do not like to be reminded of is that there are no two-celled organisms or four-celled living beings. So the tiny cell just doesn't cooperate to make evolution possible.
Evolution, if it were true, is at best, a process, not a power. Thus, like a car out of gas, it cannot start of its own accord. Where did the first thing come from which started this process? Scientists are still wondering. How refreshing and much more reasonable it is to let the Lord tell us how the universe and life began as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 of the Bible.
Evolutionists look to several realms in search for proof of their theory. While we cannot go into all the details, there are some factors that should be noted.
One of the "favorite fields" appealed to by evolutionists seeking to prove this false theory is the study of geology (a study of rock layers which make up the earth's outer surface). Notice is taken of fossils (rock imprints of various creatures found in the various layers of rock) and the layers in which they appear. The wish being father to the thought, the evolutionists tell us that since evolution is true, the age of the particular layer of rock can be determined by the type of fossils found imprinted on it. But this assumes the thing to be proved, namely, that evolution is true.
This may give some idea of the theory they devise regarding fossils and rock layers. They reason ( ? ) thusly: the rock layers which have only fossils of the simplest forms of life are the oldest because life began with the simplest forms and evolved into more complex forms as time (much time!) passed.
Let us try to think of it in this way in order to see what they have devised. Naturally if evolution was true, one would not find any fossils in the oldest layers which we call "layer A." In the next layer (layer B) which is not quite as far down, we would find only the simplest of fossils (worms, insects, etc.). In "layer C" would be found fossils of fish and the previous simpler forms. In "layer D" more complex fossils of various animals along with other simpler fossils and finally in the most recently formed layers would be found fossils of man. Don't the evolutionists wish that the layers of rock always contained fossils in this order!
But what do geologists find as they study fossils in the rock layers? First of all, they find fossils hopelessly mixed up in different layers of rock. Some fossils of the most complex forms of life are found in layers that contain mostly the simplest of fossils. Many times layers of rock having complex fossil forms are found below layers containing the simplest fossils. This is found to be true in places where there is no evidence of upheavals or earthquakes. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, there is no place on earth where they can find a complete series of fossil layers in just the right order to conform with the evolutionary charts. In other words, "the very rocks cry out in protest" to the ungodly and false theory of evolution.
We have put the theory of evolution "to the test" in the realm of geology and the matter of "cell division." Now we wish to subject this false theory to two "blood tests" and see how it fares.
Evolutionists decided to prove evolution by a close study of the chemical composition of the blood found in various species. They felt this test would settle the issue once and for all, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the blood relationship of the various types of life.
Floyd E. Hamilton in his book The Basis of Christian Faith, pp. 62-63, explains as follows what this type of Blood test showed:
For example the blood of a man is injected into the veins of an animal such as a rabbit, with the result that an "antiserum" is formed in the rabbit's blood. This anti-serum is then added to various kinds of blood with the result that a separation is formed in varying degrees depending supposedly on the degree of relationship to man of the animal whose blood is tested. This has been said to be direct proof of evolutionary relationship between man and the lower animals. As Prof. Morton has pointed out in his book Bankruptcy of Evolution, pages 187... this so called proof proves too much, for according to the results obtained, the femur, belonging to the ape family, is not as closely related to man as the mouse or the porcupine! The quantitative and qualitative tests did not agree in their results, and when examined closely the results obtained by these experiments certainly are far from proof that actual relationship exists between animals whose blood was thus tested, and man. The fact of the matter is, as Morton has pointed out, that these tests only prove what no one questions, that the chemical properties of various kinds of blood are similar. But the fact that the same elements are in the blood of monkeys and men and mice in no way proves that these animals are actually related in descent.
Then Foy E. Wallace, Jr., a gospel preacher tells of this experience:
While visiting the laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington I saw a scientist at work on a man's coat, making tests to determine whether certain stains on it were human blood. The garment belonged to a man who was wearing it when arrested on a charge of murder. All the evidence available was circumstantial, and it all pointed to this man as the only one who could have committed the crime. The prisoner protested, claiming the bloodstains were those of an animal he had slaughtered a few days before. His fate hung on the finding of that scientist. As our party was leaving the building, one remarked, "Would he be able to know the truth if the animal killed were an ape?" Our escort replied, "That is a fine point; I'll go back and inquire." He returned with the answers "Yes, that could be determined for certain for all human blood is distinguishable from animal blood, and the blood of all apes is animal blood."
Bear in mind that the lives of people are at stake and dependent on findings in the F. B. I. laboratories. There the technicians readily admit that there is an unquestionable difference between animal and human blood and all apes have blood classified as animal blood.
A further interesting fact is that though the blood of a human being is distinctly different from an ape's blood, yet it is impossible for a laboratory technician to tell the blood of a Negro from the blood of a white man. This should dispel any idea that certain races are more like the "ape family" than others. The blood test says, "NO," and so does the Bible! Hear God's word in Acts 17:26, which reads as follows: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." Keep in mind that Paul said this hundreds of years before the microscope was invented. How did Paul know this? There can only be one answer. The God who made man revealed it to Paul.
Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp.20-23