Return to Index Page
Is Man an Animal?
By Richard Gunther
childhood I was taught that humans were descended from a branch of primates, and
that primates were themselves descendants of other forms of life. The process of
evolution, I was told, was caused by various factors - a slowly changing
environment, mutations, and the struggle to survive which led to advantageous
giraffe was often used as an illustration of evolution by adaptation.
This creature, it was said, attained its long neck because, over millions of
years, successive generations of giraffe reached for ever-higher branches. The
longer the neck, the more viable the creature was to survive. It was not until I
read up on genetics that I saw through the fallacy of this idea.
truth is, genes, DNA and alleles carry only a limited number of possible
variations. A giraffe may have only one maximum length for its neck, and never
any more than that. No amount of ‘natural selection’ will ever alter the
genetic blueprint, so acquired characteristics are absolutely unable to produce
a new type of giraffe, let alone a new creature. The amount of time here is
irrelevant. Billions of years would never make the slightest difference to the
example of this unchangeable rule is : the pigeon. Over the years many
hundreds of different types of pigeon have been artificially bred, and a huge
variety of shapes has been produced, but no new type or species of bird has ever
appeared. The gene pool allows for great variety but never any more than that.
dogs it is exactly the same. There are hundreds of breeds, with a wide
variety of sizes, colours, coats and temperaments, but no new species of dog has
ever been produced. All dogs are inter-fertile. The same can be said for horses,
and cats, budgies, cows, and other animals which man selectively breeds.
of the same species utilizes the available gene pool, but it never adds
anything to the genes - that would be the only way a new species could ever
piece of evolutionary interpretation I received from my school Science teacher
was the idea that the finches on the Galapagos Islands, (called Darwin’s
finches) demonstrated evolution. There are several types of finch, all with
specialized beaks and behaviour. I was told that these birds represented several
new lines of finch, each of which would eventually become a separate species. In
other words, given enough time, none of these finches would eventually be
inter-fertile. This assumes that chromosomes and genes can be altered radically
without any direct intervention by Man.
when Darwin wrote his book, he knew virtually nothing about genetics. Those
finches were simply expressing different alleles, just as pigeons, dogs and cats
used to be theorized, before genetics became a science, that changes could occur
through mutilation. This has since been proved utterly without
foundation. For example, if a dog’s tail is clipped, it does not have puppies
with short tails. Neither does foot-binding produce babies with small feet.
Circumcision has been practiced by Jews for centuries, but no change has
occurred to male Jews. Mutilation affects only the living organism, never the
DNA. Obviously mutilation of the parent makes no difference to the offspring.
proposed way for animals to evolve is by mutation, but mutations have
been found to be either disadvantageous to the organism, or deadly. For
example, fruit flies have been bombarded with radiation over successive
generations, in the hope that some ‘lucky mutation’ may occur, producing a
fruit fly with some advantageous mutation. No such event has ocurred. All the
fruit flies, (which represents hundreds of generations) have come out deformed
and less viable than their parent to survive in the wild.
let us suppose, just for the sake of the discussion, that Man is in fact nothing
more or less than an animal. This would put the human species on absolutely the
same footing, biologically as all other animals. This would level Mankind as low
as the virus, the bacteria, and all other microorganisms. There would be no
intrinsic difference between Man and flies, or Man and elephants. All of Man’s
value-systems, his politics, his art, music, science, philosophy, and even his
so-called spirituality, would be no more ‘valuable’ - as indicators of
difference, that the bellowing of a bull or the hissing of a snake. Man would
lose all value, to himself and to the universe, because if Man was an animal the
universe would, logically, have to be absolutely empty of purpose.
point of view, which springs logically out of the theory of Evolution, can be
rather devastating. It destroys the foundation for optimism, hope, and meaning
in life. It reduces positivism to a totally subjective decision on the part of
those who choose it. It drains meaning from words such as "love" and
there are few humans who let the theory of evolution sink right down to their
bellies. The nearer it comes to full acceptance, the more uncomfortable people
feel, so, I suspect, most people keep the theory near the top of their head - as
a theory without a conclusion. The theory itself is much like a car which one
buys from a ‘sharp’ car sales man. You sit in the plush seat and steer as
the man pushes the car out the gate. He assures you that the car is the best
model, and as you roll down the hill you feel excitement at the suspension, the
paint job, the quietness of the engine. At the bottom of the hill the car rolls
to a dead stop, so you lift the bonnet to check the engine and find that it has
none. Evolution is much the same.
is an animal?
definition of "animal" is quite complicated.
are multicellular organisms. They obtain their energy from organic substances
produced by other organisms. Their genetic material is contained within
thin-walled cells with a distinct nucleus. Most animals are capable of moving
around. As far as the definition goes, Man is therefore an animal, but the
definition is limited, because it is based solely on biology. There is a
lot more to Man than a simple biological definition.
example, we could define "car" this way : "small,
driver-guided, passenger-carrying motor-vehicle" (Hutchinson’s
Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition). To some people this definition would be totally
inadequate. To them a "car" could also mean emotive things, such as -
The hideaway they played in as kids
The gleaming, restored gift their parents gave to them in their teens
The flower-decked wedding vehicle
The holiday transport which took them to numerous beaches and parks
short, the car would be a reminder of many happy and/or unhappy memories.
Objectively and technically the car would still fit the simple definition, but
that would be the barest minimum one could say about it. And what would
"car" mean to a scientist, an oil-refinery manager, a handicapped
person, a road accident victim, or a chemist?
is the same with Man. One may reduce Man (or anything at all) to a short,
precise definition, but if that was what we did all the time, we would simply be
seeing everything in terms of labels and definitions, and denying them their
richness or variety. We could reduce a Beethoven symphony to a brief musical
note on a sheet of paper. We could stop a Beethoven symphony and label all the
instruments, then admire the labels rather than the music.
Man an animal?
By one simple biology-based definition, he is, but by another definition he is
something far more. Before we look at this other view of man, we ought to
clarify the situation.
are, as far as I know, only two possible ways of examining Man :
From the point of view of evolution.
From the point of view of the Bible.
is therefore a battle between Darwin and God. Darwin maintains that Man ascended
gradually upwards from apes, God maintains that Man was created directly and
instantly and from that point descended. There is no middle position which
blends the two. If one examines the first two chapters of Genesis, there is no
correlation between the days of Creation and the theory of evolution. Each
Genesis day is qualified by "the evening and the morning" indicating
that it was a literal, 24 hour day. This is carried through to other parts of
the Bible, for example when God ordered the Sabbath, he pinned it to the fact
that it took "six days" to create the world, followed by "one
day" of rest. The following summary may help to show this :
One : Formless beginning, light appears, empty, rotating earth.
: Universe explodes
Two : Atmosphere and seas
: Billions of years, universe expands, cools, forms galaxies etc.
Three : Dry land appears defining seas, All kinds of plants start growing on
: Primordial warm water, first living cells form by accident
Four : Sun, moon and stars created
: Sea creatures crawl on to land
Five : Water and sea creatures, and birds created
: Amphibians and land creatures grow wings
Six : All land animals and first humans created - glorious and perfect No death
or decay. All animals eating only plants.
: Millions of years of killing, dying, mutations and natural selection, finally
apes evolve, then primitive humans.
two views are as different as black is from white. In the Creation account, God
begins His universe fully powered up and complete. Man is created as a glorious
and intellectually and physically and spiritually perfect creature. There is no
death or decay of animal life, no ‘wildness’ or violence between Man and
the evolution account billions of years are required, the ‘Big Bang’ is
given as the origin of matter and energy, and random processes are assumed for
the origin of all complexity. Millions of years of dying, savagery and brutality
are required, plus mutations and the battle for survival. Man is dragged up from
the ape family tree and 'ennobled' with gradually developing skills.
the two accounts are so different, it is impossible to mix them together without
doing violence to Scripture. Many theologians have tried to combine the two
views, but never with any great success. Usually, in such attempts, the Bible
has to be reinterpreted and altered to fit the theory rather than the other way
there is some reliable Science which supports the Genesis account very firmly -
is a very strong argument against evolution based on the 2nd Law of
This law describes basic principles familiar to us in everyday life. Put simply,
the law states that any complex system, left to itself, will eventually break
down into less complex systems. For example, fresh fruit goes rotten, animals
age and die, cars rust, perish and fall apart. On a larger scale, the sun is
burning up its fuel, comets disintegrate, and earth’s magnetic field is
time, the whole universe’s order and the amount of useable energy is
decreasing. Ultimately all the useable energy in the universe will be gone - our
universe is running down. Yet evolutionists require the very opposite to
happen for their theory to work. Evolutionists require a continuing trend
towards increasing complexity, and order, so that, over time, things
become more ordered and more complex. Despite all the present
evidence to the contrary, and the well established scientific law of
thermodynamics, evolutionists maintain that in the past everything went
the opposite way. As there is no way of disproving this, it is all a matter of
faith on their part.
same principle applies to complexity. Evolutionists would have us believe
that such things as galaxies, planetary systems, photosynthesis, the migration
of monarch butterflies, metamorphosis and the DNA code (to name but a few) are
all the result of random processes which are the result of increasing
complexity. Out of these few examples, we will look briefly at DNA :
DNA code in each of our cells is enormously complex. No chemical interaction of
molecules has ever come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so
essential to all known life. Only DNA can produce DNA.
is an absolutely incredible thing. It is something like a huge computer program
stored on tiny strands less than one trillionth of an inch thick. What are the
chances of something this complex appearing through chance? Nil.
obviously, if there was no original DNA, fully functional and complete,
then there could never be a copy made of it. Logically, this means that
unless DNA was ‘on the scene’ fully functional and complete at the very
first instance, no life could exist today. So we are forced into one of two
camps : either DNA, (that is living organisms with cells containing the complete
DNA sequence), appeared fully complete by accident, or they were created. There
is no other known way by which something so complex could have come together.
(The chance of DNA appearing by accident has been likened to an explosion in a
machinery factory producing a jumbo jet, or an explosion in a printing works
producing the complete works of Shakespeare.)
evolutionists cling to the idea that, given enough time, and given enough
opportunities, DNA will accidentally assemble itself. The main way this
event can occur, they say, is by a thing called natural selection
(formerly ‘survival of the fittest’). From the very first living cells, they
say, right through to today’s highly complex creatures, natural selection is
still helping to weed out the stronger from the weaker. There is no disputing
the fact that this happens. Out of a litter of six, two die because they are
small and weak. Out of a a hundred eggs, ten are eaten because their shells were
thinner than the others. It is an efficient way of ensuring that only the best
survive, and disadvantageous characteristics are not passed on.
does natural selection drive evolution? Absolutely not. It is not capable of
creating anything. It cannot produce new information or add anything to the
genetic make-up of the organism. All it does is conserve a species and help to
of the main ‘planks’ on which those who claim that Man is an animal stand,
is the fossil record. There, they say, is the evidence that life began simple
and gradually evolved upward into more and more complex levels. There, they say
is the proof that Man is an animal. The fossils tell the story of evolution.
what does the fossil record really show?
: Out of all the millions of fossils now discovered, not a single
transitional form has ever been found. Surely, with all the fossils now
available, we would expect to find just one series, showing how fish grew legs,
or how mammals grew wings. Surely, out of all the tons of bones available we
would find something to show how tyrannosaurus rex and other huge creatures
evolved from tiny animals?
no such series exists. In the fossil record all the basic kinds of animals and
plants appear abruptly without ancestors. The fossil record represents mass
extinction of life on a vast scale, and none of that is in a transitional
the fossil record shows is millions of animals and plants buried suddenly in and
by sedimentary deposits. Fossils represent a vast cemetery, which
stretches around the world. 80% of the world’s land comprises sedimentary
rock, in which fossils are found. This indicates that at some time in the past
the world was covered by fast moving water, which drowned and buried animals,
plants and fish on a global scale. It is under sedimentary rock that we find
coal - the remains of buried forests, and oil - the remains of organic material.
fossil record actually confirms the Bible story of Noah’s Ark, and disproves
does evolution have to be brought into this?
is impossible to address the question which this essay is about without
examining the theory of evolution, because the evolutionist is forced, by his
theory, to say that Man is an animal. Outside of evolution there is no other
explanation, other than Creation, and to most evolutionists the idea that life
came from a Creator is untenable. Man, says the evolutionist, is
"just" an animal. That is all Man is - nothing more or less.
IF Man is just an animal - no more nor less, then :
Man cannot have a ‘spiritual’ aspect, because ‘spiritual’ implies
more than the organic. Man may, he says, believe in ‘spiritual’ things, and
even experience ‘spiritual’ feelings, but these are nothing but illusions.
Man is a machine. Man is nothing but a chemical skeleton, clothed in
flesh which is itself a collection of chemicals. Man and all life are
constructed out of atoms and molecules, which have no self-awareness in
themselves. All of life is therefore a mechanical process, ultimately
predictable and absolutely meaningless.
Man has no grounds for believing in Creation, a Creator, a purpose for life, or
life after death. Man is not accountable to any Supreme being, because Man and
the whole universe are the result of random unguided processes.
strange things is, while evolutionists must ultimately hold these logical views
- since they all flow logically and inevitably from the first premise, that life
originated without the help of ‘God’ - very few evolutionists live
consistently with their conclusions. They deny Creation but by their love of
people, music and nature, they contradict what they profess, and betray their
‘createdness’ and actually bear witness to the Biblical point of view.
is where we must examine the Bible point of view :
writings of Darwin gave many unbelievers and enemies of Christianity what seemed
to be ‘scientific’ arguments against God and the Bible. Darwin himself
confessed (obliquely) that he had become a "murderer", because he saw
where his theories were leading - the ‘death of God’. In a universe where
only random processes, mutations, infinite time and natural selection operated,
there was no place for God. Life could appear spontaneously without any help,
Man could arise from apes, and the universe could be an endless stretch of
emptiness, with no God watching or maintaining it.
since Darwin, all the supports which ‘science’ built to prop up his theories
have been questioned, refuted, and pulled down. There is now nothing but
faith holding evolution up. Evolution has therefore become an alternative religion
to millions, which they cling to tenaciously, despite the fact that there is
nothing substantial to base it on. Many evolutionists defend the Theory with the
religious fanaticism of Islamic militants!
on the other hand, there is the Christian answer.
the Christian must say, is not an animal.
But this answer leads to the question : What about the similarities
between Man and animals? Surely the many similarities between humans and animals
‘proves’ common origins? This argument works just as well for the
Creationist as for the evolutionist. The Creationist says that the fact that
there are similarities between humans and the entire animal kingdom is logical
because all living things have a Common Designer.
reason why these similarities exist could be because God intended Man to relate
well to the animals, to be sensitive to them, and to care for them. God
also intended humans to enjoy His creation.
Suppose someone were to suggest that the motorbike and the airplane were almost
identical in every way? You would agree with them to the extent that both
machines have seats, wheels, motors, lights, and a large number of other
features, but you would disagree violently over the fact that one machine is
designed to roll along the ground, and the other is built to fly! Both machines
use similar materials, and both are made essentially from the same materials,
but they each serve very different purposes.
Man and animals share many similarities. Both have blood, skin, organs, bones,
some sort of skin-covering, senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch), both
are mobile, both are made of cells, both breath, both move about, both have
brains and a nervous system. Like motorbikes and airplanes, humans and animals
seem to be made from the same things, but there is a huge difference once these
similarities have been covered. Humans use written and spoken words to
communicate, humans pray, humans are creative, and so on. While there are people
who claim that animals do some of these things in comparatively limited ways, no
animal has ever come close to the levels at which humans do some things. This
should indicate that humans are, in some ways at least, not animals, or at the
very least extremely advanced animals.
way of dealing with the question is to ask : Where did Man come from? The
evolutionist would say "From random processes, over billions of
years." The Creationist would say "From the Creator". The first
answer is supported by conjectural science and no direct evidence. The second
answer is supported by the Bible and all its statements can be tested - in the
sense that what the Bible says is consistent with what we see.
Biblical view of Man
begins with Genesis 1:26, 27.
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon
the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them."
this statement we have many things to consider. First we see that God is
declaring His intention to create a living organism, which will be, in some way,
like Himself. ( The word "God" = Elohim = the plural form of El. Here,
in this plural form, we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together).
God says this new creature will be "in our image, after our likeness"
- or similar to Him.
them have dominion" means that God intended "man", i.e. male and
female humans, to rule over, or supervise the animal kingdom.
in just this one verse, we see that humans were created as superior to the whole
animal kingdom. No other creatures were made in God’s image, or likeness. No
animal was given dominion over Man. No animal was made to rule over the rest of
Adam and Eve sinned, this original plan of God worked perfectly. In order to
emphasize Man’s role as lord of Creation, God brought the animals to Adam for
him to name : "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of
the air, and to every beast of the field;" Genesis 2:20.
verse also indicates that Adam had a massive intellect. Adam was also creative,
cognitive, and he had broad imaginative abilities, a huge memory, and the
ability to communicate using precise language).
Man worked in harmony with God, and Nature was at peace. Before sin entered the
world, no animals were carnivorous, and the climate of the earth was mild. No
rain (hail, snow or sleet) fell, and the weather was not erratic or violent.
Genesis 1:29, 30,31, 2:5.
of the abilities which Man shared with God :.
Man could communicate clearly using verbal language,
Man could think for himself,
Man had a moral consciousness,
Man had a sense of Time,
Man was creative, inventive, imaginative.
Man was self-aware,
Man had responsibilities,
Man had free will morally.
soon gave Adam and Eve an opportunity to exercise their freewill. He pointed out
a fruit tree in the garden (or orchard) of Eden and told them not to eat it, on
pain of death. But Adam and Eve were enticed by Satan (an exiled rebellious
angel) to question God’s Word, and subsequently brought upon themselves the
judgment they deserved.
the implications were far wider than that. Because Adam and Eve were rulers over
Creation, they and all their dominion came under the judgment. The whole
Creation was degraded, or "cursed" or brought down from its
perfection. The scientific expression is summed up in the 2nd law of
Thermodynamics - the earth and the universe are presently ‘winding down’,
wearing out, perishing, falling apart - "moving towards an increased state
of the perfection which God began the world with, imperfections began to appear.
The weather changed, animals became carnivorous, harmless plants degenerated to
produce thorns and poisonous fruits and berries, fruit trees degenerated,
producing small and unpalatable fruit, aging set in to all life, sickness and
death worked in all living things.
picks up this theme repeatedly, showing that death came after sin, and not
before. (Evolutionists believe that death was a normal part of this world
for millions of years. The choice is clear - either death came into the world before
or after Adam).
since by man came death . . ."1 Corinthians 15:21
as in Adam all die . . ." 1 Corinthians 15:22
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12
if by one man's offense death reigned . . ." Romans 5:17;
the wages of sin is death . . ." Romans 6:23
sting of death is sin . . ." 1 Corinthians 15:56
of the great hopes which the Bible holds out to humans is that one day the
present state of affairs will pass. Aging, violence, sickness, droughts,
famines, tornadoes, earthquakes, blizzards, tidal waves, ultraviolet radiation,
pollution, mutations, genetic deformities, and all the horrors of this present
world, (those things which are not caused directly by Man) will one day pass.
The world we are living in today is temporary. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has
been operating for only a few thousand years. One day it will no longer operate.
Death, aging and sickness will be no more, as demonstrated by the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. As C.S.Lewis put it, in regard to the resurrection "Death
worked backwards". The 2nd law of Thermodynamics will be replaced by
another Law, which will maintain all life at its optimum.
I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Christians)
the earnest expectation (a sort of yearning) of the creature ( All Creation)
waits for the manifestation (showing forth or revealing) of the sons of God.
(When Christians finally perfected by God, Creation will also share in this
the creature (All Creation) was made subject (cursed, or degraded) to vanity
(futility), not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in
the creature (All Creation) itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
of corruption (The 2nd Law of thermodynamics) into the glorious liberty of
the children of God.
we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until
not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to
wit, the redemption of our body." Romans 8:18-23
the above points about fallen Creation are relevant to this discussion because
it is consistent with the evidence that Mankind is not perfect, and all the
marks of a fallen or degraded Creation are present with us today.
present evidence in today’s world matches perfectly with the testimony of the
Bible. All Mankind is sinful, and inherently rebellious against God. All Mankind
has inherited the rebellious nature of Adam and Eve, Mankind’s original
parents. The history of Man is a history of rebellion and sin - or what we
usually call immorality. Children have to be taught how to be "good" -
never how to be "bad" because all humans have inherited Adam’s
rebellious nature. Humans have also always had a sense of right and wrong, and
through all of history and in every culture, all morals have been similar to the
Ten Commandments. Moral consciousness is another evidence of God’s creative
the Bible, Man is often viewed with wonder. For example, Job asks God :
"What is man, that you should magnify (or make so much of) him? And that
you should set your heart upon him?" (Job 7:17) and King David asks :
"What is man that you are mindful of him? And the son of man, that you
visit him?" (Psalm 8:4) and "Lord, what is man, that you take
knowledge of him! Or the son of man, that you take account of him!" (Psalm
problem of Jesus.
Hebrews 2:6-9, the writer suddenly brings Jesus Christ into the picture :
"You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory
and honour, and did set him over the works of your hands:
have put all things in subjection under his feet . . . But now we see not yet
all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by
the grace of God should taste death for every man".
the above scripture, we understand that while all Creation remains under the
degrading principle, one Man, Jesus, has overcome this process of decay and
disintegration and gone to heaven, where he waits for the moment when he can
return and transform all the rest or Creation.
strongest argument against evolution is the Man Jesus.
If Man is an animal, there is no explaining Jesus. If Man is the product of
evolution, where on earth does Jesus fit in? There is no place for him in the
theory, because in every thing Jesus did and said, he contradicted every main
teaching of evolution.
Schaff in ‘The person of Christ’ (Page 73) wrote : "Such was Jesus of
Nazareth, a true man in body, soul and spirit, yet differing from all men; a
character unique and original from tender childhood to ripe manhood, moving in
unbroken union with God, overflowing with love to man, free from every sin and
error, innocent and holy, devoted to the nobles ends, teaching and practicing
all virtues in perfect harmony, sealing the purest life with the most sublime
death, and ever acknowledged such as the one and only perfect model of goodness
to eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament, Jesus worked miracles
everywhere he went. He also fulfilled over 600 prophecies and predicted his own
death and resurrection. Three days after he was crucified he came back to life,
and again was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses. Fifty days after his
resurrection he rose into the sky, with the promise that he would return.
gospel is the story of God’s love to fallen Man. Because all Mankind is guilty
before God, God has done everything He can (except override Man’s free will)
to rescue Man from the punishment which was pronounced on Adam and Eve, i.e.
Death for sin. Jesus came and gave his own sinless life for all sinners. Through
faith in Jesus, all people may now be saved, and not only that, but God also
promises to end the deterioration of the universe, and restore it to the
perfection of health and harmony it once enjoyed.
is most logical therefore that Satan, the enemy of God, would want to destroy
Man’s opportunity to be saved from sin. One of the ways in which Satan has
succeeded in blinding people to God’s love is by concocting the theory of
evolution, and through that theory he has spent much time inferring that humans
are but the descendants of animals.
Man an animal?
according to the Bible, he is not. Yes, according to Darwin, he is, in fact
Darwin’s Theory leads us to believe that Man and all animals are nothing more
than collections of molecules and atoms clustered together by chance in a
purposeless universe. Either the Bible is correct when it says that God created
Man in His own image, or Darwin’s theory is correct which pictures Man as an
seems to be only one more thing to add. If God’s Word is correct, then all
evolutionists are in for a terrible experience, when they have to explain why
they rejected the Bible and the words of Jesus, and why they denied the evidence
all around them.
1:18-20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth (i.e. hold the truth
down, or suppress it) in unrighteousness;
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed
it unto them.
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
these words mean is that Creation displays the handiwork of God. The Animal,
Vegetable and Mineral Kingdoms, by their order, structure, design and so on,
show clearly the Designer’s work, and therefore testify that life and the
whole universe are not the product of blind chance. God has provided ample
evidence that He exists, and that the universe is not empty.
Paul said : "For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God" So then every one of
us shall give account of himself to God". (Romans 14:11-12)
Back to Index Page