All right, for those on the Internet
and the CDs, the subject again is, one more time, evolution,
the world's greatest fraud. In Genesis chapter 1, we start
with verse 11, verse 12, and then I'll point them out. And my subject this morning concerning
evolution is, After His kind. We're going to be looking at
that. After His kind. So look at verse 11, then verse
12, then verse 21, verse 24, and verse 25 of Genesis chapter
1. Genesis 1 verse 11. God said,
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit yielding fruit after his kind, watch this, whose seed
is in itself upon the earth, and it was so. Then look at verse
12, and the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was
in itself after his kind, and God saw that it was good. Now verse 21, and God created
great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the
waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged
fowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good. Then verse
24, God said that the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth
after his kind, and it was so. In verse 25, God made the beast
of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,
and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind,
and God saw that It was good. Now, one more please. In Genesis
chapter 5 and verse 1. And this is the book of the generation
of Adam. In the day that God created man
in the likeness of man created he him. And verse 3. And Adam lived a hundred and
thirty years and begat in his own likeness after his image
and called his name Seth. All right, evolution and after
his kind. Many times we have confirmed
our belief in the testimony of the scripture that God is the
creator of all things that have ever had and existent. We have taken the stand on the
side of the Scripture and therefore on the side of creation, declaring
that God, created by the Word of His power, that the Scripture
said that our Almighty God spoke into existence all things, the
heaven and the earth, and all things therein, simply by a determinate
will of God, let it be so, and the Word of our God. And therefore,
we come now to consider this business of evolution that has
become so prevalent and popular, gaining such a toehold in our
day. Once the nose of the camel was
in the tent, Now the whole camel is inside of the tent. And evolution claiming now that
all things evolved over a course of millions and millions of years,
and that all living creatures are the result of an evolutionary
process that has been going on for millions of years. And not only that, but that all
things began with a small blob or a small mass which was set
in motion, so say some evolutionists, by an electrical shock. Now, we must understand in the
beginning that the whole notion and the whole teaching of evolution
is a premise and a bias and has a presupposition that is strongly
anti-God. That evolution is, I don't care
what they say, strongly anti-God. It is determined not only to
deny that there is the existence of a God, but they are determined
to prove or to convince all that all things have come into being
by a process of evolution. Furthermore, it is impossible,
I believe, in the very beginning I'll say, impossible for one
to be a strict evolutionist and also call themselves a Christian
at one and the same time. I'll even go further. One is not a Christian who espouses
what is commonly known as theistic evolution. There are some, in
order they say, to make science and the Bible come together,
have invented what they call theistic evolution. That simply
means, they say, that God created, but he may have created by or
using the process of evolution, and that he might have done his
creative work by a process of evolution. Every Christian, upon
believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and coming to faith in Him, believes
immediately in the biblical testimony of the creation of all things. Now, I think it is sad and tragic,
really, that evolution that was once called a theory is now passed
off as, if it were, a fact. It is now taught as fact in many
places, in many systems of education. And to do this is like elevating
a harlot to be a saint. But evolution has been accorded
sainthood in our day and time, now firmly rooted and established
in the educational system of the country and of the world,
in the liberal media, and even in public television. It has,
with the aid of humanistic liberalism, passed from the stage of unproven
theory to become now regarded as a scientific fact. and especially in the school,
and I won't get into it, but we owe that to a man by the name
of John Dewey back in the 40s. Now the way it got in the schools
and the colleges and creation was expelled out of those places
once creation had a place in the education system. But it
was probably in the notion that what we are seeing now is that
creation is religion and evolution is science or scientific. This is the biggest lie that
was ever told because evolution is both a religion humanism and
also is a philosophy. It is what Philip Mara called
in his book against evolution speculative philosophy, quote
unquote, but it is not based upon scientific facts. It lives on speculation, on theory,
on assumption, but it has not a shred of scientific evidence
as proof to support the assumptive theories that have been put out
by the evolutionists. Here is the theory of evolution. All things organic and inorganic,
that is living and non-living, came about or into being by a
process very, very slow changes that took millions and millions
and more millions of years to accomplish and that man finally
and at last came up out of the lower creatures finally making
belief from ape unto man. But now get this, evolution assumes
the existence of prior matter to the commencement of the evolutionary
process. They suppose, they theorize,
they assume and they guess that some form of matter existed before
the evolutionary process began that actually fed the evolutionary
process till it came to be what we see today. Oh, what is it? Some form of gas or some form
of mist or vapor or something of that nature out yonder in
space. Assuming matter to exist, They
assume the existence then of some force or some power or of
some energy that caused the motion then of that matter, which caused
the Big Bang, which some of them hold to, the explosion that formed
the cosmic system that we now see and explore, and energized
this blob or protoplasm so that it began the evolutionary process. Thus, evolution assumes both
the existence of matter and also some moving force, but does not
seek to account for the account for either of them. They seem
to be content and to be silent about the origin of those things
and also about what caused these powers or forces and how they
then were set in some kind of motion. Now will they admit that
such matter had an origin? That's a question for them? Or
how can something evolve out of nothing on its own? The truth is, some preexistent
matter or substance, therefore, is necessary to the evolutionary
scheme of things. Yet they deny God and deny that
God is the creator of all things while speaking of matter and
energy already in existence in some form. Thus, we can say that
evolution falters right out of the gate, for it begins with
a supposition that matter existed, which set the process then in
motion, and since they reject the idea of spontaneous life
appearing or being created all at once, they insist then on
some form of energy which set the process in motion. But it seems that They make little
attempt to explain the origin of the matter. They just simply
take that for granted and go their way. But please try to
imagine, if you can, nothing. Imagine nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then imagine matter coming into
being or coming into existence. How could it create itself? Can
nothing turn into something of its own? Can dead empty space
suddenly become matter or gases or a blob. Philip Morris said
in that little book, I kind of like it, just where an explanation
of the origin of a new and extraordinary thing is needed for evolution,
that great theory of origin breaks down, unquote. Yes, it breaks
down. It heralds the origin of species,
but it cannot explain the origin of the original matter, nor does
it seem interesting in trying. But God instituted, we read,
an inviolable law, a law that cannot be invalidated or violated. And we read it about five times. After His kind. after its kind,
we read there in Genesis 1. This he did in every level of
creation, if I may call it that. First of all, the grass, the
herbs, the trees, That's in verse 11 and verse 12. Secondly, the
fish and the fowl, that's down in verse 21. Thirdly, the land
creatures, that's in verse 24 and 25. And fourthly, nowhere
is this law more immutable than in the human family Genesis 5
and 3, that Adam produced offspring after his kind. You will remember
from earlier studies mentioning the fact that each type of organism,
each of the various species of life that exist has its own DNA
makeup or in a structure, and that this is unique. When we study DNA, I think it
is the death of evolution, staying within its own species. Now we
admit there are horizontal variations in many species and in some breeds,
for example, of dogs and horses and cows, that there are different
breeds of them. Even in the human family we see
this. There are different races that
can yet intermarry and produce, such as Caucasians and Blacks
and Orientals and Eskimos and Asians and etc. Because they
all are of the human species and DNA. There's no mixing of
dogs or horses or monkeys or humans and many other combinations
that we could name. For this kind of evolution from
species to species has never been documented to have taken
place. There is not a single case of
it on record, either now or in the fossil record that dates
back many, many years. And for evolution to succeed
and be so, this needs to be the case, that there are transmission
from one species to another, and that there is evidence of
these transitional species in the fossil record which there
is not. Now consider evolution and the
species and the types of life. If, as Philip Morris said, evolution
were true, distinct Species would be impossible. I want to say that again. If
evolution were true, and evolution were continuing and going on,
then distinct species would be an impossibility. If all life
began with a blob of protoplasm which was set in an evolutionary
process by some electric shock, then there could never be such
a thing as a distinct absolutely distinct species of life. No sharply discernible types
would be available. No lines of distinction clearly
divided into specific series, species, if evolution were a
process even yet in force. Instead, every living thing would
be a species then upon its own. For everything possessing life
would be in the process of evolving into something else or into a
higher form of existence and there would be no distinct species
if evolution were the manner of it. For, as one has said,
classification then would be an impossibility if evolution
were an ongoing process, if the whole realm of life were in the
process of evolving. Every individual life ought to
be or should be at a different stage or level. No discernible
species available. It would be bizarre and unidentifiable
if evolution were true. Each one different so as to not
be classified as a distinct and a special species. In this case, nay, everywhere
we look there are species, there are discernible species everywhere
we look. There are clear distinctions
between one and the other. Not one single case of any evolution
from one species onto another, either to observation, actual
observation, or in the fossil record. And if this be so, it
was always so. The lives of the species, the
lands rather, of the species are never crossed over into completely
new never before existing species crossing over or enabling or
evolving. into another new species altogether. But as one Christian author put
it, quote, there is found in every living creature the most
stubborn and unconquerable determination not to evolve, unquote. And I think we need to consider
that as being true. And the reasons for that, it
would seem, can be summed up under two heads, or the reasons
are two. Number one, God created the first
parents of each species so that they were propagated or procreated
from the original pair and not evolved up from something lower. Did we get that? God created
the first parents of each species so that they are propagated or
procreated from the original pair, not evolution. God's fixed
and immutable law comes into play after His kind. This is that which settles the
preeminence of species. Each species is obeying the law
of God that has been laid down by God in their creation to remain
what He made them. and to procreate themselves after
their own kind. Pardon me for going through it
again. Genesis 1, 11. Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb yielding seed, of the fruit trees yielding fruit after
his kind. Verse 12. The earth brought forth
and the tree whose seed was in itself and after its kind. Genesis 121, great whales, every
living creature, every winged fowl after his kind. Then in verse 24 and 25, living
creatures after his kind, naming some cattle, creeping thing,
beast of the earth, after His kind. And the three things are
repeated after His kind in verse 25. So the conclusion is this
was by God's design and sovereignty and creation a rigidly fixed
law as the rotation of the earth. the day and the night, the coming
and the going of the seasons, of both the same as God had made
them in His creation. Each species, therefore, remained
the same and produced by procreation, not by evolution, that is, after
its kind. This is so often declared there
in the creation account and is again evident in all species
today. All species are immutably fixed
as we have seen them and observed them, all remaining what they
were from their original creation. The trees have only produced
more trees. Birds keep on hatching out birds
and the exact same kind. Fish keep laying fish eggs and
hatching out fish of their exact same likeness and kind. Did you ever wonder why the different
varieties of birds and fish do not interbreed and crossbreed? Why does not a mockingbird crossbreed
with a cardinal or a blue jay with a robin or a dove with a
quail, for example? Why not a rattlesnake and a copperhead
snake? Maybe not even a nearsighted
snake would make that great mistake. Furthermore, horses keep to mating
with horses and producing horses after their kind, the same for
dogs and cats. Elephants and lions and tigers
and all of that. Not only so, but each of their
offspring and each of the offspring of the offspring of their offspring
continue to remain what their original parents were in the
beginning. After His time. even unto a hundred
generations. Now the same is true of the human
race. Never has a human propagated, for example, a mermaid, or a
monkey, or a horseman, or a fishman, or any of those things. In every
case, it is another human being with the special traits and genes
and DNA coming down from the parent. Now, does it not follow? that if there is in each species
a firm tendency in order that they might cling to their ancestral
types or their species, they refuse to cross over by or from
their original line. Does it not follow that one species
could not be developed from another? For like produces like. Thus we can conclude that each
and every type or species must have had a special origin in
that kind and in that likeness, since none of themselves cross
over on their own into or unto another. Now, evolution has a
serious problem to solve. That is, when did evolution cease? We'll take the human family.
And natural propagation began. For it is clear now that the
continuation of each species is not an evolutionary process,
but by the same law that we find in Genesis chapter 1. procreation,
replenish the earth, the mating of male and female after its
kind. Is there a creature anywhere
alive or in fossil form that has both skin and feathers, Wings,
gills, legs, and fins mixed up in that species. Now, I know
there are some that claim proof for evolution in such things
as the artificial scientific modification of a variety of
plant or vine or something of that nature. But don't forget
some things. Number one, such modification
must be maintained by artificial means, or such modifications
do not become fixed characteristics of a new variety, so as to be
carried forward to all successive offspring. Secondly, remember,
when left to themselves, when left alone, when not artificially
maintained, they revert back to their former past condition. I think it is proving of evolution. Thus, if scientists develop what
they might call, quote, a new and improved strand, unquote,
of a certain plant or flower, tree, or whatever it might be,
yet leave it to itself it would revert back to the original variety
that they transposed it from. This again is against evolution. By the scheme of evolution, it
should not only remain true to its new type, but even above
and proceed into something of a better variety. Such is not
the case. No, it is not the case. For it
follows that unbreakable law of God after its kind. Thus, we reemphasize that there
is not a single case where one species of anything evolved or
crossed over into another brand new species all on its own. Not only so, but consider the
case of hybrids now. Let's talk a little bit about
hybrids. When crosses are attempted, by
species that seem similar and seem compatible, the result is
sterility and the production of a hybrid. Thus there is a
check or a barrier to one species becoming another species. For example, as is well known,
cross a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. And the mule
is a hybrid, that is, the mule is sterile. The cross between
the horse and the donkey producing the mule who is a hybrid and
who is sterile. Mules are the offspring of breeding
donkeys and horses, but the mule cannot, I don't believe, reproduce. So when crossing between species
is done, the result is always a sterile offspring. Scott Hughes, H-U-S-E, with a
Christian anti-evolution society, I believe in California, has
written a book that I have in my library called The Collapse
of Evolution. He gives two other examples,
like the donkey and the horse, and they are, number one, a cross
between a zebra and a horse will result also in a sterile offspring,
and I guess kind of amusingly he called it a sterile zebronchi. But then secondly, a cross between
a lion and a tiger would again produce what he called a sterile
liger, unquote, page 40 of his book. A man named Huxley, an
avowed evolutionist, made this admission, and I'm quoting him,
quote, If you cross two such species, then altogether you
may get offspring in the case of the first cross, such as the
mule. Yet if you mate a male and a
female hybrid, the result is that 99 cases out of 100, you
will get no offspring at all. unquote. That's from Philip Huxley,
an evolutionist. In other words, a male and a
female mule are incapable of producing offspring as are male
and female hybrids. Even Charles Darwin, the most
famous evolutionist of all, wrote on page 210 of My Life and My
Letters, and I'm quoting, Not one change of species into another
is on record. We cannot prove that a single
species has been changed." The words of Darwin himself. God has caused this to be indelibly
written in the fossil record by his provident when there is,
number one, clearly defined species in the fossil record. Number
two, not one case of evolution from one species to another in
the fossil record. Dwayne Gish, who wrote Evolution
and the Challenge of the Fossil Record said, and again I'm quoting,
not a single indisputable multicellular fossil has ever been found in
Precambrian rocks, unquote. Rather, the fossil record speaks
for the life of species that they appeared in their fully
developed form and there they are in the fossil record with
no sign of evolution and no sign of half this. or have that. Now do we understand the impact
of this? Evolution cannot produce a single
case of evolution, either in the fossil record or present
observation. No species crossing. Now what foolishness therefore
to be an evolutionist when there's no such thing as evolution. None has ever been seen and none
has ever been found. What's more, each species continues
not by evolution but by the process of procreation. The amphibians
are not supplied by evolving from fish, nor do amphibians
turn into reptiles, nor do reptiles turn into mammals, nor do apes
or monkeys evolve over into men or people, men and women. But
then the evolutionist counters with what he calls mutations
and says this is a proof of evolution. A mutation is a sudden change
in the DNA structure caused by, so scientists say, radiation
or a chemical or something else that disorganizes the cell of
a particular thing, it results in a sudden change, and evolutionists
grab this and say that this mutation can account for new species as
well as good mutation. But before we swallow the poison,
let's remember something. Number one, mutations are very
rare. They are the exception and not
the rule. so that about one in every ten
million duplication. Secondly, they are almost in
every case inferior to and weaker than the stock that produced
them. They are harmful and they produce
defective offspring in most every case, and yet mutations are called
by evolution, evolution in action, quote unquote. How could this
be the vehicle of evolution when mutations are almost 99% of the time harmful and produce
an inferior quality. Now if this be true of forced
or orchestrated mutation, how much more of natural mutation? One time we were on vacation,
we saw a two-headed calf in a museum way out in New Mexico, but it
came to pass that the calf did not live. They occur at random. Not only so, but there is no
clear pattern followed in mutation, nor do they increase either the
quality or increase the viability of such offsprings as are mutated. It would therefore be known as
the survival of the unfittest, is what we ought to call it,
if it were a vehicle of evolution. So, let's close our study today
by considering the reproduction of all creatures after their
kind, as God said in the Scripture. It is dictated by the fantastic
DNA molecule. This is true of all life from
bacteria, life even, unto human. This DNA, quote, programs, unquote,
all characteristics, all features, all heredity and such like. But not only so, specific enzymes
are necessary for replication. Each is necessary. Now, could
both of these have arisen simultaneously by the process of evolution? I agree with him who said, quote,
without question, DNA remains one of the greatest testimonies
of special creation there is. For the very thing necessary
to propagate life could not have come together by chance or by
evolution. Again we shout, the power and
the ability to reproduce their kind must have been, number one,
created in each species in the beginning, or number two, must
have been there at the first of their Now, if I may quote
Mara again, he said, it could not have arisen by a gradual
process of evolution. Now, it stands as a testimony
to special creation. after its kind, and remember
what I said, DNA and enzymes that are necessary for the production
of the species. So we conclude by saying evolution
must, if you're going to be one, be Accepted on faith it is purely
a leap in the dark for all evidence is missing. The gaps are too
wide to cross. Evolution is far the blind and
the willing, ignorant of those who are ignorant of God and of
His great work and sovereignty. The reproducing of each species
is, after its kind, a special witness for creation, as we have
it in the Bible, in the Scripture. He is kind. We're being attacked
with evolution. It has almost now been inculcated
in the law and will probably soon be as a fact and is in the
educational system strongly in these days against the biblical
doctrine or truth of creation. We must stand for creation for
it is the teaching of the Word of our God.