Stubborn as a Mule by Jim Robson
Reprinted from the August, 1999 on-line edition of The Watchman
Magazine
http://www.watchmanmag.com/
Those who preach the theory of evolution have a tendency to pride themselves on being very scientific in their approach. They assert that they do not rely on myths and fables to discern the origin of the universe, but on hard, physical evidence. They assert that all the known facts point to the truthfulness of evolution. They also affirm that anyone who does not believe in evolution is backward, ignorant, naïve, superstitious, or prejudiced. However, when the facts are examined, they do not favor the evolutionist.
As an example, let us consider the origin of species. If the general theory of evolution is true, then all life as we know it had to evolve from one primitive life form: some sort of single-celled organism. In order for this to have occurred, organisms must have changed their form, or mutated, from one kind of organism to another. At some point, some fish (or fish-like organism) must have mutated into another kind of fish. Some fish or other had to mutate into a reptile. At another point, a reptile must have mutated into a mammal. Of course, the list goes on and on and on: in order to produce the vast multitude of species that exist, such mutations must have occurred countless times. However, when this scenario is compared to known facts, it becomes very difficult to believe.
Let us look at animal species. When animals of the same species are bred, fertile offspring are produced. When dogs are bred with dogs, the result is more dogs, and these dogs are generally capable of reproducing. The same thing happens when cats are bred with cats, cattle with cattle, etc. However, when attempts are made to breed animals between species, the result is generally no offspring, dead offspring, or sterile offspring. One very interesting illustration of this fact is the mule.
When a horse is bred with a donkey, the offspring is a mule.
Mules are very useful animals, but they are not capable of reproducing
themselves. Male mules are always sterile. Female mules are nearly
always sterile. In those very rare instances wherein a female
mule is fertile, her reproductive organs are identical to those
of a horse. In other words, so far as reproduction is concerned,
she is essentially a horse. Thus, if one of these rare fertile
mules is bred with a male horse, the result is a horse - with
no trace whatever of a mule in its makeup. Likewise, if the mule
is crossed with a donkey, the result is a mule - precisely as
if the donkey had mated with a horse. There is no difference.
The mule, then, is not a species, because it is incapable of reproducing
itself. It is a hybrid. And, as noted above, the mule is being
discussed here as an example of a general principle: when living
offspring are produced by crossing parents of two distinct species,
the result is a hybrid, and not a new species. The hybrids are
not capable of reproducing themselves. This raises a vital question:
seeing that the species are so clearly separate from one another,
how could they all have developed from the same form of life?
Clearly, if two animals as closely related as the horse and the
donkey had truly descended from the same life form, they must
have separated from each other quite recently in "evolutionary
time". Since it was only a short time ago (speaking in evolutionary
terms) that donkeys and horses were the same species, then it
stands to reason that they would still be able to interbreed and
produce fertile offspring. These fertile offspring would then
be a new variation in the evolutionary continuum that produced
the horse and the donkey. But, as has been observed, that is not
the case. This is just one of countless stubborn facts that will
not yield to the evolutionists' model.
On the other hand, whereas the facts regarding the existence of
species stubbornly refuse to submit to the theory of evolution,
they are very agreeable to the book of Genesis:
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature
according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of
the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And
God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, and everything
that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that
it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25).
The Bible says that God created each creature according to
its kind. Thus, He created horses, and horses are still reproducing
according to their kind, just as He designed them to do. Certainly,
there are many different breeds of horse: this shows that God
built in a great potential for variation within each kind of creature.
However, all of the breeds of horse are still horses. The horse
does not change into a different kind of animal from one generation
to the next, nor did some other kind of animal change into a horse
in the deep dark evolutionary past.
At some point, we stubborn humans are going to have to submit
to the even more stubborn facts, and confess that the great evolutionary
processes that our children are forced to learn in school do not
exist - outside of the imagination of man. There is a God in heaven,
and we ought to stop trying to explain Him away.
THE STRANGER - Author Unknown (contributed by C. Nicks)
A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was
new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated
with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with
our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to
welcome me into the world a few months later.
As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. In my
young mind each member had a special niche. My brother, Bill,
five years my senior was my example. Fran, my younger sister,
gave me an opportunity to play "big brother" and to
develop the art of teasing. My parents were complementary instructors.
Mom taught me to love the word of God and Dad taught me to obey
it.
But the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most
fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries, and comedies were daily
conversations. He would hold our whole family spellbound for hours
each evening.
If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew
it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly
could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so lifelike
that I would often laugh or cry as I watched.
He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and
me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging
us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce
us to several movie stars. My brother and I were deeply impressed
by John Wayne in particular.
The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn't seem to mind
but sometime Mom would quietly get up-while the rest of us were
enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places--go to her
room, read her Bible, and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed
that the stranger would leave.
You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions,
but this stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity,
for example, was not allowed in our house--not from us, from our
friends, or from adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional
four-letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To
my knowledge the stranger was never confronted. My dad was a teetotaler
who didn't permit alcohol in his home--not even for cooking. But
the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to
other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages
often.
He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished.
He talked freely. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes
suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early
concepts of the man-woman relationship were influenced by the
stranger.
More than thirty years have passed since the stranger moved in
with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so
intriguing to my dad as he was in those early years. But if I
were to walk into my parent's den today, you would still see him
sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him
talk and watch him draw his pictures.
His name? We always just called him "TV."
Short Exhort - Written and/or Compiled by David J.
Riggs
(http://www.public.usit.net/driggs/)
For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles; when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you." 1 Pet. 4:3-4
"When men speak ill of you, so live that nobody will believe them." (Plato)