Concepts have Consequences

By Bruce Malone:

Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which allows only evidence which fits neatly into a naturalistic explanation of life; we will increasingly become a society which looks only to ourselves for answers to life’s questions.

If we have evolved from apes; if we are just another animal ...then who sets the rules? Whose standard should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful? Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these opposites disappear. The result is a spiraling descent toward meaninglessness and a degeneration in the value of human life. Acknowledgment of creation provides answers to foundational questions about life that are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If we evolved from pond slime; on what factual basis could anyone say their belief is right, while someone else’s belief is wrong?

A common consequence of the belief in evolution can be found in most high school biology books that contain a section on comparative embryology. This is the concept that humans and animals have a common ancestor because their embryos have a similar physical appearance. This concept was popularized in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel as he traveled throughout Europe showing the similarity of different animal embryos. Yet, as early as 1874 he was reprimanded by his own university for using fraudulent drawings. Amazingly, his teachings remain in textbooks to this day. Since the 1950’s, it has been proven that a woman’s fertilized egg is a complete human being. Only time and nutrition are required for it to grow larger. From the moment of conception, a pregnant woman’s body is two bodies, not one. The second body from the moment of conception can never be anything but a human.

Examples of developing baby parts which have been said to be evidence of evolution are the “gill slits” and the “yolk sac”. In a growing baby, the “gill slits” and “yolk sac” serve completely different functions from those of animals from which they are supposed to be descended. Gill slits form gills in fish. In humans, they are merely folds forming various glands and facial features. The yolk sac contains food for a reptile or a bird; while for a human, it has a radically different function. In a growing baby, the heart and circulatory system develop before the bones (which will ultimately be the baby’s blood source). A baby’s heart actually starts to beat 18 days from conception. Yet, the developing baby may have a different blood type than its mother, so it cannot use her blood. With no bone marrow to make its own blood, how can the baby continue to develop? The simplest engineering answer would be to provide a temporary alternative supply. The yolk sac does exactly that, then it disappears!

Comparative embryology does nothing to support the concept of evolution. The primary reason that it still remains in textbooks is that it is used to justify abortion. A woman does not have an abortion because she believes in evolution: although, it makes it much easier to justify killing a baby if you believe it is just a blob going through some stage of comparative embryology. How easy to justify moral disobedience; if we are just animals accountable to no one but ourselves.

It is a historical fact that mankind is sinful and rebellious. The taking of human life by abortion is just one more example of this sinful nature. Fortunately, God has provided a bridge to span the moral abyss between sinful mankind and Himself. This bridge is called Jesus and it is open to anyone willing to repent (change direction) and believe that Jesus is their Maker and Lord who paid the price for their sins.