DARWINISM VERSUS SCIENCE

Is Materialism Falsified?

Dr. Thomas Nagel’s newest book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False¹ is causing Darwinists nightmares. The cat is out of the bag. He states in his new book “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.”  Translation: Life is no accident. It cannot be explained by matter and energy alone.

This statement would not be surprising if it came from an intelligent design advocate. However, it is coming from an atheist. Not just any old atheist but a professor. Not just a professor but a 75-year-old respected philosophy professor at New York State University. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming it is even convincing people whose lives show a persevering dedication to denying it.

Nagel's most challenging statements is,  "What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a non-negligible probability of being true." The probability that life is self-generated from chemistry is zero. Ask a scientist to produce life from his laboratory with the most sophisticated equipment and he will respond that it is not yet possible. So on what grounds is the Darwinian claim made that life can arise spontaneously? It appears that such claims are based on hope more than reality.

So why is Nagel edging away from evolution? “In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture from a very different direction … by the defenders of intelligent design." He is referring to people like Dr. Behe and Dr Stephan Meyers. Though their scientific institute is a small one it has incurred the wrath of many Darwinists. Nagel admits, "Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair." Why would scientists 'who only seek the truth' unfairly discount seriously researched theories? Well, that is the question!

Responses by Darwinists to Nagel is interesting. Science philosopher Elliott Sober wrote, "If Nagel is right, our descendants will look back on him as a prophet—a prophet whom naysayers such as me were unable to recognize.2" Is this not an admission that Sober fears being judged as a stoner of scientific prophets? And so he should. But, if intelligent design can be dismissed as religion, can Sober's views not also be dismissed as anti-religion?

John Dupré, from the University of Exeter states, "The title of the book, however, all too readily interpreted as announcing the falsity of Darwinism, will certainly lend comfort (and sell a lot of copies) to the religious enemies of Darwinism.3" But why should true scientists care if any of their discoveries comfort religion as a by-product. Indeed, this statement clearly implies that Darwinism is primarily a defense against religion and secondarily it is concerned about truth.

Simon Blackburn fears Nagel is giving aid to the enemy creationists: “There is charm to reading a philosopher who confesses to finding things bewildering. But I regret the appearance of this book. It will only bring comfort to creationists and fans of ‘intelligent design’, who will not be too bothered about the difference between their divine architect and Nagel’s natural providence.4" Again there is a contrast between the divine architecture and natural providence - natural or supernatural - a conflict which is in nature theological not scientific.  

Science prides itself in its open-mindedness and pure motivation - we go where the evidence takes us and we change our minds when the evidence demands it. Then scientists should not be afraid to examine the obvious - life formation and operation are beyond any plausible accidental origin (statistics). Life is organized. It is organized by the coded information on the DNA (observation). It is not organized by the chemistry. Coded information comes from intelligence (all known codes are intelligently derived). Thus life had an intelligent designer. The lack of explanation for coded information in Darwinian thought is devastating to its whole position.

In Darwinian thinking nothing God does may be explained by the supernatural. It must ultimately be explained by something non-supernatural. Thus the purpose of science is to explain everything without God rather than seek the truth - the truth is now secondary to discomforting religion.

References

1. Nagel, T., Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Most Certainly False, Oxford University Press, 2012.
2. Sober. E., Remarkable Facts. Ending Science As We Know It, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.6/elliott_sober_thomas_nagel_mind_cosmos.php, November 2012. 
3. Dupré, J., Thomas Nagel, http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/, 29 November 2012. 
4. Blackburn, S., Thomas Nagel: a philosopher who confesses to finding things bewildering, http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/11/thomas-nagel-philosopher-who-confesses-finding-things-bewildering, 8 November 2012.

THEISTIC DARWINISM AND HUGH ROSS

Theistic Darwinism and Apologetics

Dr Hugh Ross is a Christian scientist, evangelist and apologist. He runs a ministry called 'Reason to Believe'. He talks to many scientists who accept standard opinions in science and thus accepts the Big Bang. In fact, he uses the Big Bang as an entry into their thinking as the Big Bang proves there was a beginning. Ordinarily I let other people run their ministries their way. If he can lead them to Christ then Christ can deal with these scientists and their evolution theories. In Ross's case I will make an exception.

Ross actively sides with unbelieving scientists and chides creationists for their scientific theories as well as biblical belief in a six-day creation. God did not give him this responsibility. Some scientists see us as fundamentalists and they have a deep prejudice there. Ross and his colleagues should not pick up this prejudice to advance their ministry but they do. In his book, The Fingerprint of God, Ross makes the point that the universe though billions of years old had a beginning and thus there is a God. Then Ross tries to deal with creationist arguments that the world is young [H. Ross, Fingerprint of God, p.155] .

Continental Erosion

Measurements of continental erosion show a loss of .05 millimeters per year. This is enough to put all the rock above sea level into the oceans in only 16 million years. The Grand Canyon, we can see that there is pre-Cambrian rocks older than 500 million years old sitting on the bottom underneath the sedimentary formation. Cambrian rocks, 500 million years old sit on top of these rocks. Kaibob limestone sits near the top, dated to 250 million years old. So how is it that these formations last more than 16 million years? How is it after 25 cycles of continental erosion they are still standing undisturbed without any sign of erosion?

Well Ross claims we fail to grasp the other land building activities like coral reefs and volcanoes that are building up continents at the same time they are eroding. Dr John Morris, a geology creationist, in his book The Young Earth [John D. Morris, The Young Earth, p. 88] states, "The uniformitarian may take solace in the proposal that the continents are still rising and volcanoes are continually erupting, thereby replacing the the volume being displaced and keeping pace with erosion. But that does not address the problem that the surface at the time of the uplift is still the surface, and erosion has hardly touched it. Nor does it account for the present-day existence of so much ancient sedimentary rock." It seems Morris grasps Ross' view quite well.

So imagine that 500 million years ago some Cambrian rock was laid down. Later strata from later eras are laid down on top. Which of these layers get eroded every 16 million years? Suppose we call a continent's weight a glob. Only if the glob each and every 16 million years is made up entirely of additional volcanic rock alone - no fossiliferous rock - can the fossiliferous rock remain untouched until the present time. This, of course is not how erosion works and this is Morris's point. The pattern of rock deposition and continuance does not fit into the measured erosion rate. Ross's dismissal is superficial.

Earth's Magnetic Field

If you run a current through a solenoid a magnetic field will be formed running through the centre, out the top and then arching back around the outside to complete the cycle. Remove the current and the magnetic field decays. It gives back the energy it took to create it. Creationists believe that the Earth's magnetic field is an original feature. The field is decaying into electrical energy as in the lab. In the lab the curve produced by a decaying magnetic field is a negative exponential (which has a half-life). The earth's magnetic field data also shows a negative exponential curve with a 1400-year half life. This cannot be sustained for billions of years into the past.

The problem says Ross is that the curve is sinusoidal - it goes up and down like a sine wave. There is a dynamo that provides the energy to sustain this. However, the magnetic field data never shows the curve has gone up. Ross thinks it will increase some time in the future. But is the magnetic field caused by a dynamo? There is no proof of this. Thus Ross is saying without supporting data that the dynamo theory is true and contradicts the magnetic field decay. Yes, and if the magnetic decay theory is true the dynamo theory must be wrong. So what? Well, since the Earth IS old and the magnetic field theory predicts a young Earth it must be wrong and therefore the Earth is OLD. Yes, but this argument begs the question - it was already ASSUMED the Earth was old to begin with. What does that prove?

Conclusion

I said I make an exception for Ross as an apologist. He puts the discussion of creationist thinking under the heading, "Bogus evidences for a young universe." Well, the only thing that is bogus here is the pretense that  Ross has a knowledgeable understanding of the science involved. He thinks that his contemptuous attitude is a valid substitute for good science. Creationists are used to this attitude from unbelievers but Ross stands on his Christian faith as he presents this materail. Does this fall into "Love thy neighbour as thyself?" You be the judge.

DARWINISM FAILS AGAIN!

You might wonder, if biological chemistry that forms the basis for life is so complex and yet so marvellously effective at achieving its ends, why does not everybody see that it is the product of intelligent design? How can a host of academic minds be convinced of the absurd point of view that it all happened through a random non-purposeful process lacking in any form of intelligence? Dr Richard Lumsden was one of those academics He attained not only professorship at Tulane University, but also Dean of the Graduate School.

One year in the last lecture of a spring semester he deviated from his curriculum to do a lecture on the origin of life. As a Professor of Microbiology he had some authority in the field. In this lecture he mentioned Genesis as an alternate explanation to evolution. He did this with all "the mockery, sarcasm and cynicism" he could muster. You see he "had been mad at God for a long time..." So when he got an opportunity, he let God have it.

What do you think God did to him? Did he drop a rock from Heaven. I'll bet there were Christian students who were humiliated by his lecture. They may well have felt God was justified in dropping such a rock on his pointed little head. Not a chance. It was far more fun to pluck him from the devil's hands with the information held inside his own brain!

At the end of the lecture a student with a microbiology major, an anatomy major and a statistics minor said she had some questions. The Professor gladly invited her over to his office. She brought a legal pad full of questions and a stack of reference books. She asked about the diseases she had seen in anatomy class caused by mutations and asked how, when so many diseases and syndromes were caused by mutations, they could be a mechanism for a positive built-up of millions of mutations needed to transform one species into another species. He answered as best he could.

After that the student asked about the chemistry of the origin of life. In the microbiology course she had taken, the equations showed how water plus proteins yielded amino acids but in his evolutionary lecture he had stated that amino acids and water became proteins. Now which of these two is true? Well he really could not sidestep that one. On and on these questions went for over 3 hours. At the end the student arose and thanked the professor for all his clarifications. She was edified. The problem was the professor had listen to his own voice give all these answers to her questions and really could not accept his own answers as reasonable never mind true. His faith in the theory of evolution started to unravel. How could he believe in a theory whose defence he could not believe himself.

But wait God was not finished yet. His daughter went to university and received Christ there. She started going to church, to prayer meeting and to Bible study. Finally, his wife said that he had to speak to her. Well, that conversation turned into an invitation to come to hear the special speaker that Sunday morning. He went expecting the usual stereotypical religious stuff that he called mythology. Yet despite his resistance he too accepted Christ. I don't know whether there was more rejoicing or laughter in Heaven that day.

Today Dr Richard Lumsden explains to audiences how he and his arrogance were converted and how his evolutionary convictions were the product of persuasion in school long before he had the critical faculties to challenge it. You can listen to him on Youtube -http://youtu.be/s91-ABJ49ho

So just how good is Darwinism as a science, once you take away the advantage of educating children before they can reply intelligently? Apparently, it has little to commend it if a Darwinist professor's own poor answers are good enough to unpersuade him.

Alan Montgomery

WHAT WAS THE CRIME OF ADAM AND EVE?

On CFRA radio recently, John Counsel received a question on Ask the Pastor that was honest and interesting. Why could God not get over the sin of Adam and Eve's eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden? Why was it so unforgivable? Was God's reaction not over the top? I like questions like this!

John Counsel's response was disappointing. He went into how the sin of Adam and Eve was one of freewill and not subject to interference from God. Thus without human beings endowed with freewill God cannot receive freewill love. Since the only love that leads to genuine authentic relationship is freewill love, God is willing to surrender His control and power to stop sin in order that true repentance and freely-given love will be possible.

Fine thought, but it does not answer the question that was asked. The sin in this chapter of Genesis looks quite trivial to modern and post-modern thinking society. Would you react to your children the way God did if they violated curfew? It is not so easy to tackle this part of the question.

To understand what Adam and Eve's action and why God reacts in such stern terms you have to see what God sees. First, there are two realms on the Earth. There is the heavenly realm of God, which was brought to Earth in the form of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were given authority over it by God. The second realm was that of Satan, who had no authority to rule over the Earth. He was only a visitor.

God's realm is full of love, kindness, truth, mercy, abundance and justice. Satan's realm is full of hatred, lies, murder, fault-finding, shunning, bullying, fear, lack and injustice. So what should the choice of Adam and Eve be in regards to genuine love. Who proclaims it? Who actually demonstrates it? The answer is easy - God.

So God declares that one can eat of the fruit of the tree of life in the centre of the garden and may not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because in that day they will die! So a loving God tells them to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because bad things will happen. Thus when they meet the serpent in the Garden, he first asks, "Has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the Garden?'" Eve knows the answer. She can eat of any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil nor is she to touch it lest she die.

Oh, oh. This is a half truth. God never said they would die for touching it! So what does Satan do? "See when you touch it you do not die. God is lying to you. Thus you cannot trust Him. If you eat it you will become wise like God knowing good from evil." Well he had her cornered. A demonstration of the touching the fruit proved God was lying. He was holding out on her! So she ate and having become wise like God she persuaded Adam to eat also.

But wait, what happens next? As Adam and Eve hear God walking in the Garden the next morning, they hide. Why? They have never hidden from God before. Yes, but before this they were friends with God and now they had disobeyed God. What would God do now that they had disobeyed him? They hid in fear of punishment. Punishment? Where did that idea come from? It came from having the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge told them that if they violated the law they must die. So they hid from God expecting that if God found them they would have to die.

So did God take their life? Actually, the root word for die comes from the word for separation. Their hiding proved that in their hearts they had separated from God and thus were dead to God. So what was so bad about what Adam and Eve did? They judged that God was not telling them the truth based on  Satan's claim. But Satan was a liar. If they had believed God they would have reasoned that either (1) they misunderstood the command not to touch the fruit or (2) Satan was lying or (3) both 1 and 2.. But they did not. They traded a truth from God who had the character to prove his trustworthiness  for a lie from somebody whose character denied him any credibility. This is not a simple mistake. This is a violation of trust.

Furthermore, since they obeyed Satan, they became subjects to his nature. God had to provide a process to reverse that subjugation. This would mean the crucifixion of His Son. What would you do if somebody screwed up and it cost you your son's life? Would you have some severe words and consequences for this person. Would that be fair? What would your reaction be to somebody that said, "Chill out, it is only a mistake. Forgive and move on." Perhaps you might respond that you do not understand the betrayal of trust that this person has commited and to mind your own business!

So, was God's reaction "over the top"?

Alan Montgomery

DO YOU WANT TO BE GREEN?

My friend was checking out at the grocery store the other day and the young cashier suggested that he should bring his own grocery bags next time. She charged 5 cents for a plastic bag because her generation is working hard on saving the environment. "I'm sorry", he apologized, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my day." The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

Our generation didn't have the 'green thing' in its day. 60 years ago, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But our generation didn't do the "green thing" back then.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags. We reused them for numerous things besides household garbage bags. We used of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that the books provided for our use by the school was not scribbled on. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But our generation didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We walked to the grocery store. We didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.  We washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But our generation didn't do the "green thing".

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. thing". We didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But our generation didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But our generation didn't do the "green thing".

Back then we sang a song, "Before you accuse, criticize or abuse, walk a mile in my shoes." You see when we were the younger generation we also contemptuously judged our parents about their unprogressive ways. It was wrong back then too. It took us a couple of decades before we realized that life was not in things, ideals or progressive social programs. We began to realize that people made all the difference. 

When I began to mature my wife actually enjoyed me more day after day and then week after week. Then I started to focus on my children. They were harder to convince that I was a nice guy. They were mean at times. But, I was determined  to make a difference in their lives. I also started to realize that some of my emotional baggage was getting in my way. A decade later I could do some loving things I could not do before and it felt good.

One thing I stopped was correcting people all the time. I was good at that but people rarely appreciated my efforts. At this point I began to realize how hard it had been to change my bad habits and how unsuccessful I was at changing.  I called on God for mercy and it began to flow. And it felt good. A little more kindness and a little less of me. I am a little wiser now.

Many people who knew me 50 years ago probably would be shocked at how different I am now. That's Okay. I deserved most of what they dished out to me. It did not help me because what they gave me was criticism without mercy.  Many good deed "fads" and products have come and gone. Now it is the green thing. Yesterday it was saving the world from communism. Little did we realize that communism was its own cure. People hated it. That poor clerk thinks she is doing good in this world. Without Christ's love and mercy you can do nothing.

Now I am not so quick to condemn. Now I have grace. Now I have something that is not a fad but leads to everything eternal. Now I have Jesus.

WHY DEATH?

I have not written a blog in a long time. I have had two deaths in the family sandwiched around a major outreach in our church followed by a month-long visit from my son who is teaching English in China. There just has not been time to contemplate. As I attended the funeral of my in-laws I noticed they all accepted death as part of life. There was no questioning that death ought not to be. Why if life evolved should there be death? There is no survival advantage to dying.

My in-laws are Christian. They look on death as a separation from their loved ones but they also know that death is union with God. Though they are saddened at the separation from loved ones they know that it is temporary. Death is thus a doorway into the eternal where there is no further death - no separation is ever permanent.

God promises that in eternity there will be  joy with no more tears, no more sorrow. That is what everybody wants. Well you would think that is what everybody wants. When you see how simple God makes it to enter the kingdom of God it is a wonder that everyone does not find their way into paradise. Jesus said that whosoever believes in me, even though his body dies, shall have eternal life. Now believe in this context is not mere intellectual consent. It means committing yourself to His ways rather than your ways or the ways of the world systems. It means following His lead every day of your life. Simple but not so easy. It does not take great effort, wealth, social prowess or intellectual acumen. It only requires that you be a "whosoever" that believes.

So how can we humans foul this simple command so badly? There are many people who imagine themselves to be above the "whosoevers" of life. I know I used to be one of them. Then one day my God said to me, why do you look down of those "whosoevers" for whom I died. Ooops! When God dies for you, you become important - you cannot be more important than God dying for you! God treats all the "whosoevers" as though we were royalty, sons of the King. We get respect because we reflect the image of God who created us. Looking down on anyone is not allowed.

There is nothing greater in life for humans than reflecting God's image. That is our glory! In the beginning there was no death. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had no fear of death because there was no death. So where did it come from? It came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - the one tree in the Garden of Eden that God commanded that we not eat of. When we know good and evil we pass laws to make people behave right. In doing so we divide humans into the law-abiding and the evil-doing. This requires that we, the law-abiding become the judges of the evil-doers. The relationships in this world become centered on performance of duty and avoidance of crime. But does that really work?

Islamic societies have one of the most rigorous law codes. It is used to control the behaviour of millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Yet some of the most heinous unloving acts of cruelty are carried out by the very law-abiding clerics who supposedly love justice and God. The whole system fails. Love is expressed within relationships. It is not just a set of behaviours. Just because you conform to the dictates of the law does not make you one who loves.

Turning love from a relationship into a set of restrictions on behaviour is the beginning of the death of love and whose end is the love of death. This is the meaning behind the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Note the portrayal of this tree as a apple tree is an artistic rendition not in the text.)  It changes the whole human experience from one of a loving relationship with God and each other that is central to our life and living in a system of law and punishment - death.

And what do we call this legalistic system. God calls it death. He said that the day that you, Adam and Eve, eat of it, you will surely die. It is beyond what God planned and intended. Fair warning, yet Adam and Eve were fooled into eating it with the promise that they would become like God. But the serpent know they were already like God. What they got was a breach in their relationship with God and shame and guilt for betraying their friend. With that came a new nature. This nature is one that loves to disbelieve God. To overcome this evil nature requires faith. Faith undoes the work in humans that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did.

Life then becomes a journey of daily making faith choices to follow the voice of God. This is only possible when God changes your unbelieving nature back to a believing nature in what Jesus described as being "born again". How do you become "born again"? Any step of faith from the darkness towards the truth that Jesus is the Christ is a "born again" moment that will change your nature. You may still have unbelieving paradigms resident in your head that cause you to sin but your nature is changed forever. As one with a believing nature your destiny is Heaven - always was and always will be. Overcome unbelief and you overcome death.

WHY ARE THERE THORNS?

I sometimes meet people who are sure that the Bible contradicts itself. "Look around at all the evil in the world.", they say.  "Is that a sign of a 'good God'?" Or, "How can there are two contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis? It would be nice if the Christian reference books in my library held the answers but sometimes they cause the problems!

My Christian reference books endorse the idea that Genesis contains two versions of creation. The first version starts with "In the beginning".. and ends in Gen 2:4 and the second ends in Gen. 3:24. The reason for this is the opening statement in Gen 2:4b, "In the day that God made the earth and the heavens..."  This has been interpreted to mean that the story of creation is being retold. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Up until this point in the text the phrase in Genesis that represents creation has been the 'heavens and the earth'. Now the order is reversed. Why? Because the creation of the universe had been completed and a new emphasis was being introduced that was restricted to an earthly perspective. It would not have been appropriate to use the same phrase 'heavens and earth' when the creation of the universe was being described.

The second story is not about the creation but about the addition of something new to creation. It has been assumed that the end of God's creative work ended in the sixth day and on the seventh day He rested. And this is true. But it is not true that God ended His supernatural intervention into the natural order.

Gen 2:5 continues, "before any plant of the field had grown and before any herb of the field had grown." This is interpreted as the creation of the plants and herbs in Gen 1:29.  However, there is here one strange omission. In Gen 1:29 God created the seed-bearing trees. There is no mention of trees in Gen 2:5. If this is a creation account that would be a major omission. The second omission is the purpose of these plants. In Gen 1:29 the seed-bearing fruit is to be used for food. In Gen 2:5 no purpose is stated for the plants.

There is also a new assertion.  In Gen 2:5 it states it was the time before the plants and herbs had grown. This does not say before the time they were created. The second new  assertion is the reason they had not yet grown. God had not yet made it rain and man had not yet tilled the soil. What has this to do with the origin of these plants and herbs?

The word for plants here is 'siah' and the word for herb is 'esebh'. These two words also appear at the end of the story in Gen 3:17b-19, "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat  of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles (siah) it will bring forth for you and you shall eat the herb (esebh) of the field. In the sweat of your face ye shall eat bread...".

It now becomes clear what the author is explaining. Verse 2:5 ought to read, "Before any thorns and thistles were in the earth and before the bread-making grains had grown up...". Or to make it even plainer; before Adam had sinned and the creation had been cursed by his sin so that thorns grew to thwart man's pleasure and before man was forced to wait for the rain and till the soil... The siah are different from the fruit-bearing trees and herbs in Genesis 1. They are not manifest before the creation of man. They are not yet grown until after God made it rain and man tilled the soil. This is not an In-the-beginning moment but a before-the-fall time.

The purpose of these chapters in Genesis is to explain an enigma to upcoming generations. Why did God declare that everything He made was good when He made it and yet there are thorns and thistles found in the earth.  This would appear to be a contradiction. As the story unfolds though it becomes clear that the sin problem has arisen. Adam must humbly admit that the flaws in creation are not God's doing but the supernatural outcome of the curse that falls on disobedience. This world's imperfections are the fault of man and not God.

We must all come into agreement with this truth. Many tragedies that happen in this age are avoidable if we believe and receive a lifting of the curse on the ground and the presence of the thorns through Jesus Christ. Jesus bore the thorns on His head on the cross so His people would not have to live out the curse. He sweated blood on Gethsemane so that His people would be set free from the sweating for bread. He is the bread you need.  God has provided it out of His grace and mercy.

Alan Montgomery