"HE IS RISEN."

"No . . he can't be . . he died."

"HE IS RISEN... I HAVE SEEN HIM."

So went forth the cry of exitement, as many scoffed. How can a dead man come alive? There must be a rational explanation. Similarly, today the same scoffing occurs;, not only concerning the resurrection from the dead but also scores of other miraculous instantaneous events. This disbelief in an instantaneous event generates from a basic disbelief in a God who creates and controls as He wills; slowly or instantly.

In the 1800s, this disbelief gave rise to the formation of an explanation of the creation of the earth and of life. At its beginning, the explanation was but a theory. Today, many believe it as fact. This explanation of life is commonly called Evolution. During the late 1800s, men of scientific renown pursued the eternal question of life's origin. Fuelled by the expanding techniques and enthusiasms of the 1800s, they formulated a logical concept of present life originating from former forms of simpler life. The motives of these men varied, even to the extreme of desiring to prove that there is no God. Julian Huxley, an atheist, declared that Darwin's real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.

The concept of evolution is simple, although its mechanism is unknown, In simple terms, the concept suggests that somewhere in the past there was an accumulation of matter that was able to reproduce itself. Given time, and some mechanism, this primitive first life developed sophisticated systems. Thus, a series of forms of life as we observe today developed. This series would include the one-celled protozoans, the arthropods (ex. insects), the fishes, the amphibians, the reptiles, the mammals, and finally man. Such a series of forms is supported by evidence of similar shapes and structures of bodies. The appendages of man and mammals and reptiles and amphibians show similarity of design. Other similarities are evident.

Two problems must be resolved by the evolutionist. Firstly, there must be a mechanism or a method by which change of life form can occur. Secondly, since -the changes needed for one creature to evolve to another form are not evident within a man's life span, a long time must be found through which such changes can occur.

Of the first problem, many mechanisms have been proposed, but none have held continuous support among the scientific circles. The foremost of these proposals has been the mutation of phenomenon. This phenomenon occurs frequently under natural conditions. Due to chemical or physical stimuli, living cells may change their characteristics. The fruit fly, Drosophila, has many mutated forms such as different coloured eyes, and winged and wingless forms. In the end, mutated forms of life inevitably prove to be dead ends, either as sterile forms, high mortality rate, or reversions to original characteristics.

Natural selection of desired characteristics due to environmental influences has proven to be incapable of providing a mechanism for change. Charles Darwin and others in his day proposed this mechanism. No clear evidence for this mechanism has been found. Changes in characteristics are now recognized as due to changes in genetical material within the cell. Plant and animal breeding is based on the manipulation of the genetical material.

It is possible to breed a taller horse and to change the colour of its coat. But as yet, no animal has been bred that reaches across the boundaries of its kind. In a similar way, plants are now appearing that show resistance to chemical sprays. But the weed is still the familiar weed yet to be found.

The second of the problems ... time.

Coincident with the development of the concept of evolution came the concept of uniformitarianism. This provided the evolutionist with the needed long span of time for changes to occur.

In the mid 1800s, amateur geologists probed the quarries and hills of England. Desiring an answer to their formation, they studied the layering of the earth. They looked to the existing pro_ cesses that change the earth: rainfall, erosion, settling, delta building, wind, etc. From their observations of the present, they suggested that past events that formed the earth must also have taken the same slow monotonous time. This is uniformitarianism. Thus they suggested thousands of years for various layers to have formed. This gave birth to what is known as the Geologic Column, a date scale for the various layers of rock formations. Since its inception, the date scale has expanded from thousands of years to millions of years.

To substantiate the age dating of the Geologic Column, the geologists have turned to the biologists and asked: "What are The ages of these fossils that we find in the rock formations?" The biologists gave the geologists the fossil dates from the Geoloaic Column. Thus began and continues a "fictitious senseless circle of dating."

In recent decades, radioactive decay of unstable minerals has lead to supportive evidence for the long ages of the rock. Carbon14 dating has been grossly misused. At its best, it is reasonable to reach back 30,000 years. Even those in the commercial field of geochronology (science of dating objects) will not sign their signature to chronological carbon-14 dates greater than 3,000 years. These ages can be checked by other methods. The process of determining ages by radioactive decay is based on assumptions that have not been proved to be correct. This whole process of dating has come under great scrutiny and suspicion by present day scientists.

The problems of when and how life began are still unanswered by dilemma of evolution and it is well understood by the Christian and secular world of scientists today.

The alternative concept of the orilin of life and the events of the be@inning is expressed in the si@ple words of the Scripture: "in the beginning, God created .... 11 Until the 1800s a "God creation" was held in various versions by the mass of humanity. The "enlightenment" of the 1800s, br?ught the whole foundation of a Delief in God toppling down. Rationalism and naturalism came into vogue. The ability to believe in a supernatural occurence was bred out of man's thinking' All events must be explainable. But the Christian believes in the supernatural, for he is, himself, a supernatural creature.

At the turn of the century, the naturalistic evolutionist had his day. If my observations are correct, the Christian apologetists retrenched. The Christian theologians sought a compromise. Within Christian circles such things as theistic evolution and the gap theory were devised to marrv the supposedly new scientiflc kacts with Christian thinking. Few Christians rose to the defense of a divine instantaneous creation by examining critically these new" scientific facts.

Through the past several decades, Christians in varied science fields have been analyzing this scientific data. There is a strong core of scientist-Christians in North America who believe in a creation concept for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures speak of it and secondly, scientific facts support it. Since 1965, there has existed a scientific body now known as the Creation Science Association. There are national associations in Canada and the U.S.A. with provincial groups in

The mechanism for evolution is scientific evidence. Such is the  British Columbia, Alberta ' Ontario. This association of scientists upholds the concept of in ' stantaneous creation of the universe and its life, within the past several thousands years. One of its aims is to support research in the subject of creationalism.

What are the answers of the creationalist to the two problems mentioned before?

Life forms have not changed outside the limits set by God. The spontaneousness of life in the beginning cannot be explained. It is an act of God. To explain it, is to explain God. Scientific evidence supports equally a creative design of life forms. And what of time? The evidence for a young earth, subsequently a young mankind, is mounting year by year. There are more facts to support this concept than that of antiquity. An excellent book that outlines these supportive facts is: "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by R. L. Wysong.

The inability to believe in an instantaneous act is due to the inability to believe in God.

To believe in a God of the instantaneous, who is able to do as He wills. The mind of modern man has been conditioned to such attitudes through many facets of society. In Ontario, it will be difficult to find a library book that gives even a brief des@ription of a creationist's point oi view, let alone a detailed argument. There are such books, but they are seldom found in public libraries. University teaching has propagated naturalistic evolution through social and pure sciences. Consequently, the areas of teaching and social welfare are filled with people who think this way.

When the spectacular happens. ... when Jesus returns, the world of mankind will find Him difficult to believe. In the book of Revelation, the writer repeats a number of times, "they did not repent'@, that is, they could see no other way.

Today the instantaneousness of new spiritual life is denied. God's forgiveness of sin and His creation of new life in His Son Jesus is denied. Do Christians also miss the point of God's ability and right to act instantly?

 ALLELUIAH ... CHRIST IS RISEN ... HE WHO DIED IS ALIVE. HE LIVES FOREVER WITH HIS SAINTS TO REIGN..