EVIDENCE OF CREATION

11. (a) In building faith, what is even more important than seeing the weaknesses in the case of evolution? (b) What question that baffles evolutionists is answered by the Bible, and with what observable facts is the answer in agreement?

¹¹ Even more important than analyzing the weaknesses in the case for evolution, however, is our examining what the Bible itself says and its consistency with observable evidence. With marvelous simplicity the opening verse of Genesis says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1) Thus it comes to grips with a question that baffles evolutionists. Instead of leaving us in the dark as to that fundamental point concerning the origin of all things, it tells us the answer, simply and understandably. It confirms our own observation of the fact that nothing comes into existence by itself. Grass huts, wooden homes and brick apartment buildings all were designed and built by someone. Even though we personally were not on hand when a particular structure was erected, we know that it had a builder. In harmony with that, the Bible reasons: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”​—Heb. 3:4.

12. What indicates that the making of the earth did indeed require “power,” as the Bible says?

¹² Further enlarging on this, Jeremiah 10:10-12 records: “Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living God . . . He is the Maker of the earth by his power, the One firmly establishing the productive land by his wisdom, and the One who by his understanding stretched out the heavens.” Does this description coincide with what we can observe? Did the making of the earth require great power? You have no doubt seen pictures showing what happens when man splits the atoms in even a very small portion of the material making up the earth. By this means tremendous power is released for either constructive or destructive use. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by the explosion of nuclear devices. If all the atoms in a pound of matter were changed into energy, it is said that they would release power equivalent to that from the explosion of ten million tons of TNT. How great, then, must be the power that was employed in making up this matter​—not just a pound of it, but the 6.6 sextillion tons that comprise the earth!

13. In harmony with what the Bible says, how does the “productive land” give evidence of “wisdom”?

¹³ What of the “productive land”? Was divine wisdom manifest in establishing it? Yes, indeed! Research has shown that the earth is made up of the same chemical elements that are needed to sustain human life. But vegetation must first convert these elements into forms that can be assimilated by the body. Some of these elements may amount to no more than one hundredth of one percent of the human body, but they are necessary for life. Cooperating in making them available are thousands of millions of living organisms in the soil, of countless different designs, each working to convert dead leaves, grass and other waste matter back to usable form or to loosen up the soil so that air and water can get in. Who can honestly deny that great wisdom is evident in this arrangement to sustain life?​—Ps. 24:1; 89:11.

14. How is “understanding” reflected in the way the atmospheric heavens are designed?

¹⁴ And the “heavens”​—do they reflect the understanding that indicates intelligent design? It is noteworthy that, while the moon has virtually no atmosphere, the earth, where man lives, has an atmosphere with just the right content of gases for us to breathe. No “space suits” are needed in order to live here. Fittingly, too, the atmosphere has such properties that when meteors are drawn in by the earth’s gravity, most of them burn up before ever reaching the ground, thus safeguarding us from bombardment by the 200 million rocks that plunge into the atmosphere daily. And this same atmosphere makes possible the formation of rain to refresh the earth, protects against excessive heat from the sun during the day, and retains a reasonable amount of heat during the night. How evident it is that the atmospheric “heavens” were carefully designed, the work of One with understanding far surpassing ours!

15. What accounts for the precision of movement of the heavenly bodies?

¹⁵ The “heavens,” of course, extend far beyond earth’s atmosphere. This is but a tiny part of them. “Raise your eyes high up and see,” Jehovah invites. “Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isa. 40:26) All together, they operate with a precision so marvelous that man has long looked to them as the basis for timekeeping and a means by which to navigate. Who assigned these heavenly bodies to their places and fixed the laws by which they move? (Job 38:33; Amos 5:8) Evolution provides no answer. But the Bible does: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps. 19:1) This is the work of “Jehovah . . . the living God.”​—Jer. 10:10.

ORIGIN OF LIFE

16. As to the origin of life, which is in harmony with observable facts​—evolution or the Bible? Explain.

¹⁶ As to living things, what has been your observation? Do not plants spring from seeds in which there is life? Do not insects, fish, land animals and humans come from living parents? Nothing living comes from a rock, unless seeds have lodged in its crevices or eggs have been laid there. So, then, the producing of something that has life requires a source that is alive. Biologists agree, but those who advocate evolution ask you to believe that, although they can point to no example of it today and there is no parallel for it, life sprang repeatedly from nonliving matter many millions of years ago. Since they cannot find proof of it here on the earth, they have had manned expeditions look for evidence of it on the moon, and they hope to check out their theory on Mars. The Bible, however, agrees with the observable fact that life derives only from a living source. Psalm 36:9 addresses to Jehovah, the “living God,” the words: “With you is the source of life.”

17. Why does the Bible not allow for the idea that God used evolution to produce the various kinds of plants and animals existing today?

¹⁷ The Bible also explains how the various kinds of living things came into existence. In its opening chapter it tells us that God made the vegetation, the sea creatures, the birds and the land animals. (Gen. 1:10, 11, 21, 24) The Bible does not say that single-celled life forms evolved into grass, trees, fish, birds and land animals. Nor does it allow for the idea that God created such primitive life forms and then used evolution as the means for producing the various kinds of plants and animals that exist today. It says that he produced each “according to its kind,” not from some other kind. When the time came for man to be produced, he was not developed from some apelike pre-Adamite, but, as the Bible says: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” Then, when that first man, Adam, became father to a son, in harmony with the rule that each produces “according to its kind,” his son was “in his likeness, in his image.”​—Gen. 2:7; 5:3.

18. (a) To what evidence in agreement with the Bible rule that living things reproduce “according to their kinds” can you point? (b) In contrast to evolution, why does the Bible’s account of creation appeal to a reasoning mind?

¹⁸ Thus, what the Bible says is in full harmony with what you personally have seen. When you plant seeds, they produce “according to their kinds.” You plan your garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are cats. When humans become parents, their children are human. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limitations of the family kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? No; and neither has anyone else. There are over three billion persons on earth today, as well as countless billions of plants and animals, all of which are living proof of the truthfulness of what the Bible says.

WHY YOU BELIEVE

19. What is your reason for believing in creation?

¹⁹ It is interesting to note that Science Education for October 1967 says: “The basic reason why the theory of evolution is rejected by so many, many who are familiar with modern biology, is because it conflicts with the account of creation in the Bible.” If a person honestly believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then, obviously, this should be the first and foremost reason why he believes in creation. He does not choose to believe in creation simply because he has become aware of flaws in the argument for evolution. Rather, he believes in creation because he believes in God and in His Word. Is that true of you?

20. Why should news reports favoring evolution not disturb us?

²⁰ If so, you will not be unduly concerned when you read news reports about “discoveries” by evolutionists that are heralded as “proof” of evolution. Nor will admissions made by evolutionists concerning the weaknesses of their case come as a surprise to you. With good reason you are convinced that God knows far more about the origin of the universe and of living things than does any man who has only recently arrived on the scene.​—Rom. 11:33, 34.

21. Why is belief in creation, which requires faith in an unseen Creator, more reasonable than belief in evolution?

²¹ No one who believes in what the Bible says about creation has any need to feel the least bit apologetic about his position. It is true that some may chide him, claiming that they believe only in what they see and that this is why they do not believe in God. However, if they profess to believe in evolution, then, as we have learned, there is actually much that they accept that neither they nor any other man has ever seen. Does it reflect sound thinking when a person believes in unseen events that run counter to all available evidence and that conflict with all human experience, as is the case with evolution? Or is it more reasonable, in view of the fact that all the universe and all living things bespeak intelligent design and a source of dynamic energy infinitely greater than man, to believe that there is an almighty Creator?​—Heb. 11:6; Rom. 1:20.

22. In the Bible, what has God provided besides details about the past, and so what is it wise for us to do?

²² The answer is plain: Belief in creation fits the facts. The Bible is in full harmony with those facts. But it does not stop with details about the past. In its pages Jehovah God has provided us the guidance we need to cope successfully with the problems of the present. And it shows us what we must do in order to benefit from his loving provisions for the future. It is the course of wisdom, then, to get well acquainted with all that it contains.

Evolution Undermines Faith

1. Why does it surprise some persons to learn that many of the clergy of Christendom endorse evolution?

THE teaching of evolution is not designed to build faith in God. It does not encourage one to view the Bible with deep respect. So it comes as a surprise to some persons when they realize that large numbers of the clergy of Christendom freely endorse evolution and that it is advocated in the textbooks used in their church-supported schools.

2. (a) What have Catholic spokesmen said about belief in evolution? (b) How does their view conflict with the Bible?

² As to the development of this trend in the Roman Catholic Church, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “In 1950 the encyclical Humani generis [issued by Pope Pius XII] marked the starting point of a new development . . . evolution was expressly recognized as a valid hypothesis.” In line with this, A. Hulsbosch, a seminary teacher in Holland and a member of the Order of St. Augustine, has said: “We can no longer deny that, on the biological side, man originates in the animal kingdom.”a And Peter Schoonenberg, S. J., a visiting professor at Duquesne University, a Catholic school, wrote: “When we now consider the genesis of the human species we meet with the lowest grade of parenthood, for the first men had no human but animal ‘parents.”’b However, this is in direct conflict with the Bible, which plainly states that Adam was the “son of God” and that he was made ‘in the image’ of God.​—Luke 3:38; Gen. 1:26.

3. To what extent do some Catholic schools push the teaching of evolution, and with what effect on their students?

³ These Catholic teachers of evolution are not passive about it, but want to make sure that their students have it thoroughly impressed on their minds. This is indicated by the fact that the preface of one edition of the biology textbook used at Iona (Catholic) College says: “The most general principle of all in biology is evolution. Most treatments of the subject make such a statement, but fail in conviction that it is really true. . . . In this book we have tried to make evolution as pervasive as it really is in the world of life. Every topic has its evolutionary background and aspects.” Can there be any doubt as to how such instruction affects the students? Not long ago U.S. News & World Report, when featuring “Growing Unrest in the Catholic Church,” said: “A St. Louis priest estimated that 25 per cent of his Catholic students definitely doubted the existence of God and another 25 per cent were agnostics. Notre Dame University officials were taken aback recently when a graduate complained that ‘as I was exposed to the best that Notre Dame had to offer, I grew farther and farther away from Christianity.’”

4. What do Protestant spokesmen and publications say about this faith-destroying teaching?

⁴ It is not only the Roman Catholic Church that, by its support of evolution, is undermining faith in God and his Word. The Protestant churches are doing the same. In a letter dated “18 October, 1949,” the archbishop of Canterbury freely said: “The Christian Church as a whole has accepted the theory of evolution as scientifically established.” In the noted Protestant publication The Christian Century, Dr. Paul Holmer, professor of theology at Yale University divinity school, writes: “I confess to deep appreciation of the talents and labors that have made evolution a prevailing scientific conclusion in our time.” It should be kept in mind that, when these writers refer to evolution, they do not mean simply the fact that there is variety in life forms or that land areas undergo change as a result of the forces that work on them; they are talking about the origin of man and other living things. The Protestant Interpreter’s Bible bluntly stated their view in this way: “The reptile was content to stay in the swamp; man wanted to climb out of it. He had and still has primitive instincts against which he must struggle, for he began on the plane of the animal; but he has not been content to dwell there.”

5. On what basis do clergymen who endorse evolution contend that they are not repudiating the Bible by doing so?

⁵ Despite such statements, some clergymen contend that they are not repudiating the Bible. But on what basis? A. Hulsbosch, of Holland, claims: “The earthly man taken as a whole is a two-sided being; on the biological side he is related to the animal, and on the personal he is the image of God.” In this way the body is viewed as a product of evolution, but there is said to be another part of man that did not evolve. On this point, Rudolph Bandas, a member of the Roman Pontifical Academy of Theology, has written: “The soul is outside the process of evolution. The soul is rational, simple, spiritual and immortal​—it cannot evolve out of mere animal life.” Similarly, Raymond Nogar, a Catholic priest, in his book The Wisdom of Evolution, says: “Biologically, man like the lynx, is a special kind of animal. He belongs in the animal kingdom with all the rest of the animals. . . . The soul of man (and woman) was created immediately by God and is spiritual and immortal.” Those who make such statements are either grossly ignorant of the Scriptures or they are deliberately deceptive.

6. From the Bible, show that these clergymen are completely wrong when they argue (a) that man is biologically related to animals, and (b) that possession of a “soul” makes man differ from the animals.

⁶ The Bible makes no allowance for biological relation of man to animals. As to fleshly organisms, the apostle Paul was inspired by the Creator to write: “Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” (1 Cor. 15:39) Nor is it possession of a “soul” that makes man differ from the animals. The Bible shows that animals are souls even as men are souls. (Gen. 1:21, 24; Lev. 24:18; Num. 31:28) Furthermore, the Scriptures do not say that when God formed Adam and gave him life, God gave man a soul, but, rather, that man “came to be a living soul,” that “Adam became a living soul.” (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:45) Thus man himself is a soul. So, if, as the clergy say, the soul did not evolve, then man did not evolve.

7. (a) How do some evolutionist clergymen view that Bible account about Adam? (b) What facts show that the Bible does not allow for that view? (c) By trying to fit the Bible to evolution, what are these clergymen actually doing with the Bible and with “science”?

⁷ In their endeavors to fit the Bible in with the theory of evolution, it is common for clergymen to argue that the Bible account about Adam is simply an allegory, a parable, but not historical fact. Says Dutch Jesuit Trooster: “Let us first of all become completely aware that the story of paradise is not history in our modern sense of the word.”c He reasons that Adam here was not “the first man” but that he represents every man, and that every man, though he has the opportunity for communion with God, commits his own act that alienates him from God. But the Bible does not allow for this view either. Adam is said to be “the first man,” not every man. (1 Cor. 15:45) The Bible writer Luke lists Adam along with seventy-four other men in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:23-38) If one was simply allegorical, what about the rest? Also, Jude, a half brother of Jesus, wrote that Enoch was “the seventh one in line from Adam,” but Enoch certainly was not the seventh in line from every man. (Jude 14) And Genesis 5:3 says that Adam fathered a son by the name Seth at the age of a hundred and thirty years. Is that true of every man? Of course not! By accepting evolution as fact, and seeking to interpret the Bible to fit evolution, they are downgrading God’s Word and exalting materialistic “science.”

8. In advocating evolution, with whom do the clergy ally themselves, and what published statements show this?

⁸ Whether they are aware of it or not, religious advocates of evolution thus join hands with atheistic communists whose avowed aim is to root out faith in God. Karl Marx was so pleased with Darwin’s work on evolution that he wrote him a letter asking permission to dedicate the English edition of Das Kapital (called “the bible of the Communist movement”) to him. Openly a ninth-year school textbook published in the Soviet Union declares: “The study of the laws of evolution of the organic world assists in the working out of the materialistic conception . . . In addition, this teaching arms us for the antireligious struggle, by giving us the materialistic interpretation of the appearance of purpose in the organic world, and at the same time proving the origin of man from lower animals.” Additionally, an essay by evolutionist Julian S. Huxley on “Darwin and the Idea of Evolution” states: “To begin with, if evolution is accepted as a fact, much of the theological framework of the world’s major religions is destroyed, or is conveniently . . . represented as significant myth.” Yet, the clergy are out front in proclaiming that evolution is a fact and that the Bible accounts are merely myth. Why do they do it?

9, 10. (a) What shows that clergy support of evolution is not motivated by overwhelming proof in support of the theory? (b) Why do they advocate evolution even though this requires downgrading the Bible?

⁹ It is not that evolution is solidly founded on fact. At the conclusion of a recent UNESCO conference in Paris, France, a published news report announced: “The only certainty about the origins of modern man (homo sapiens) is that they are ‘uncertain.”’ And the book Creation and Evolution, by Ulrich A. Hauber, a Catholic monsignor whose publication bears the imprimatur of the bishop of Davenport, acknowledges the uncertainty of it, saying: “The theory of evolution does not explain all the facts, it seems to run counter to some of them.” Despite this, he goes on to say: “But it is an eminently reasonable theory.” Plainly these religious spokesmen have fallen into the trap against which the Bible warns: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8) Their choosing evolution in preference to the Word of God is because they want to be acceptable to the world, really a part of the world. Even the scientific community realizes this. As reported in Le Monde et la Vie, March 1964, a French biologist and professor of zoology at Strasbourg University, said: “I am well aware that the most stubborn supporters of evolution are nowadays recruited among priests, monks and every kind of clerical dignitaries; they thus believe that they put themselves in the know.” But in so doing they also make it plain that they are not disciples of Jesus Christ, who said that his followers would be “no part of the world.”​—John 17:16.

¹⁰ They give their support to evolution, not because it is fact, but because their desire to be acceptable to the world far outweighs their love of the truth. (2 Thess. 2:9-12) This is also true of many scientists. Their education gives them status in the world, and if they want to be well thought of in the world they go along with what is popular. Just as the Bible’s moral standards are not popular in worldly circles, so, too, belief that man was created by God and so is obligated to conform to those standards is not popular. Thus personal pride coupled with fear of man becomes a snare to them, and it is the Devil who lays that snare.​—Rev. 12:9; 2 Cor. 4:4.

11. On this issue, in whom has the governing body of the Presbyterian Church chosen to put faith? Explain.

¹¹ In April of 1969 it was reported in the New York Post that the governing body of the Presbyterian Church in the United States had also gone on record as endorsing evolution. They took the position that “it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of creation.” Opponents of the report that was presented for adoption strenuously argued for the literal truthfulness of the book of Genesis and denied that it was compatible with the theory of evolution. One of them declared: “We make serious accusations against the integrity of the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself if we accept the theory of evolution.” Nevertheless, another speaker rose and declared: “I am a geologist and I would like to bring to the Assembly the established fact that evolution exists and that no action by this General Assembly can rescind this fact.” In whom did that religious body express its faith​—the Creator, who made all things, or men who have studied some of God’s handiwork but who say that they know more about it than God? To their shame they overwhelmingly voted in favor of imperfect men and their theory of evolution.​—Ps. 40:4, 5.

12. What position have the Jesuits taken on the teaching of evolution, and are they really following through on this?

¹² About four years earlier, Le Figaro, a Paris daily, in its religious news of June 15, 1965, took note of an event of similar significance. It reported that the general of the Jesuit order, Pedro Arrupe, in his talk following his induction and in which he defined the new policy of this religious body, said they would put emphasis on the knowledge of the books of Jesuit evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin. “The importance of this declaration,” notes Le Figaro, “is stressed by the fact that there is no doubt in the clerical circles of Rome that ‘Father’ Arrupe’s point of view completely harmonizes with the sovereign Pontiff’s.” That this news report was no misinterpretation of matters is evident from the facts, already examined, showing that Catholic spokesmen definitely are among the foremost advocates of this faith-destroying dogma.

13. What rebuke from God’s Word well applies to the clergy of Christendom, and why?

¹³ To those who professed to worship the true God but whose devotion was merely a matter of tradition, Jehovah issued a strong rebuke through his prophet Isaiah: “Woe to those who are going very deep in concealing counsel from Jehovah . . . The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: ‘He did not make me’? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: ‘He showed no understanding’?” That rebuke applies with equal force today to the clergy of Christendom for their “perversity” in concealing the truth of God’s Word and denying the works of God.​—Isa. 29:15, 16.

RESULTS OF BELIEF IN EVOLUTION

14. If a person accepts evolution, what position is he taking toward the first portion of Genesis?

¹⁴ The whole process that undermines one’s faith starts with what seems to many people to be such a small thing: simply taking the position that a portion of the first book of the Bible is not strictly historical. But if the account of creation, and consequently what is said there about Adam and Eve, is not historical, what is it? “Myth,” replies the United Church of Canada. As the Jesuit writer S. Trooster put it: “We must even bear in mind that Adam as ancestor has been as artificially invented as other legendary tribal ancestors.” Now, if a person is willing to accept that viewpoint, is that all there is to it? Can one go right on believing the rest of the Bible?

15. When anyone accepts that viewpoint of the clergy as to Genesis, to what conclusion does it lead as to Jesus Christ and his apostles and the things that they wrote? Why?

¹⁵ By his accepting the philosophies of men in preference to the Word of God on even this one point he will find that the stage has been set for the complete ruin of his faith. Why so? Because Jesus Christ quoted the Genesis account concerning Adam and Eve as historical fact, referring to it at the same time that he talked about Moses, who was also a genuine historical person. (Matt. 19:3-9) Jesus’ apostle Paul, who wrote fourteen books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, likewise showed in his writings that he believed in the literal truthfulness of those early chapters of Genesis. (1 Tim. 2:13, 14) The same is true of the Christian Bible writers Luke and Jude. (Luke 3:38; Jude 14) A willingness to go along with the idea that part of Genesis is “myth” or “artificially invented” legend thus leads one to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was deluded and that his apostles too were in error. It thus becomes obvious that one who is willing to accept the currently popular viewpoint of many of the clergy concerning Genesis is having his faith seriously undermined.

16. Those who go along with evolution must take what view of the sin of Adam and its effect on mankind?

¹⁶ Of course, if a person allows evolution to guide his thinking and classifies the Scripture record of creation as “unhistorical,” it means that he does not believe that Adam broke God’s law, as reported in Genesis chapter 3. Nor does he believe that mankind is born in sin because of the transgression of Adam. It is not only outright atheists who say they do not believe in these Bible teachings. Says Newsweek of August 22, 1966: “Canadian Jesuit Biblicist Father David Stanley points out, . . . ‘If you accept evolution, Adam . . . was only a primate. The myth of a fall doesn’t fit at all.”’ Also, the book Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin, published in 1968 with the imprimatur of the archbishop of Newark, takes the same view. It first states the fundamental Bible belief that “every human being begins his life in a sinful state because of the sin of Adam,” but then adds: “Those who take the scientific doctrine of evolution seriously can no longer accept this traditional presentation.” And the book shows that its author definitely does take that “doctrine of evolution” seriously. So seriously does he take it that he is willing to mold his viewpoint of the entire Bible to conform to it.

17. (a) How does this influence one’s attitude toward the ransom? (b) So, how does the teaching of evolution affect one’s faith?

¹⁷ Now, how does this affect one’s attitude toward the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Belief in the sin of the first man Adam is directly related to belief in the ransom, as the apostle Paul explains at considerable length in his inspired letter to the Roman Christians. (Rom. 5:12-19) And to the Corinthian congregation he wrote: “Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:21, 22) Obviously, when clergymen classify as “myth” what the Bible says about the reason for the ransom, they sow seeds of doubt about validity of the ransom itself. The 1970 edition of World Book Encyclopedia, in its article on evolution, realistically observes: “The reality of sin, and of redemption from sin, is held to be essential to the Christian faith. But if man is in the process of evolving from a lower state, sin tends to become mere imperfection, and the Gospel of redemption from the guilt of sin tends to lose all meaning.” When that has happened, where is one’s faith? It is gone.

18. (a) What are church members encouraged to do in order to find out what their minister believes? (b) What action must such persons take if they are to gain Jehovah’s approval?

¹⁸ If you are a member of one of the churches of Christendom, some of the things that you have read here may have come as a shock to you. You may feel that your minister is different, that he does not believe and teach such things. But would it not be wise to find out? Ask him whether he believes that the Bible account of Adam and Eve is historical fact. If he says that he does not, then you know that he disagrees with Jesus Christ and the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Ask whether he accepts the teaching of evolution. If he does, it makes little difference whether he professes to believe in Jesus Christ as mankind’s ransomer, because such belief has no meaning if man is evolving, moving upward; it only has meaning to one who recognizes that the first man, by disobedience, fell into sin. What will you do if you find that the minister of your church endorses evolution? Will you stay with him, as a follower of man? He cannot give you eternal life. But God can, and he will if you exercise faith in his provision for eternal life through his Son Jesus Christ and if you carry on worship now in association with those who worship him “with spirit and truth.”​—John 4:24.

[Footnotes]