Truth of the Creation: Testimony

Nathan Jones 90x115by Nathan Jones & Dr. Jobe Martin

Can an Evolutionist become a Creationist?

Lamb & Lion Ministries conducts a number of Bible conferences in the Dallas, Texas area each year. Our June 2010 conference theme was Defending the Faith.

interview_jobemartinOne of our guest speakers was Dr. Jobe Martin, former dentist, professor and Evolutionist turned Creationist. Having clearly seen God’s eternal power and divine nature from what has been made (Rom. 1:20), Dr. Martin came to faith in Jesus Christ and a trust in the biblical account of the six days of Creation. He and his wife Jenna Dee have since formed Biblical Discipleship Ministries based in Rockwall, Texas to teach on campuses, classrooms and churches that we can trust the Bible’s account of the Creation and Jesus as Savior.

Dr. Martin’s topic at our conference was “The Truth of the Creation” (watch). He did a remarkable job showing how the Creation account is the only origins account that stands the empirical tests of time.

How an Evolutionist Became a Creationist

I thought I would share a little bit of my personal testimony first and then we will start looking at a few things here about the Creation and about God’s Word, which is true. If we are going to believe the Bible then we are going to believe in the Creation, because that is what the Bible teaches — “In the beginning God created…” It doesn’t say “in the beginning God evolved.”

I was raised in a church, but was not a Christian. I went to Bucknell University and majored in music and biology, and while there took a course in Evolution. I became instantly a convinced Old Earth Evolutionist. Next, I went on to Dental school.

When I got out of Dental School I was an Agnostic. That means I just didn’t know if there was a God or not. I wasn’t an Atheist, I was Agnostic. I was looking into Zen Buddhism, which in the 60’s at the height of the Vietnam War days that was popular then and still is in some circles. So, I was an Evolutionist, Agnostic, Zen Buddhist, Evolutionist raised in the Church. It was a very good church. It was an Independent Baptist Church which are very conservative.

Anyway, I served as a dentist in the United States Air Force, and during that time I came to know the Lord Jesus as my Savior as a result of my wife Jenna Dee. I met her one day for I had prayed,

“Lord, show me the girl I am going to marry, or you are going to see the wildest Air Force officer you have ever seen.” I was thinking, “I don’t know if anybody heard that.”

But, that was the day I met my wife, so I decided maybe God really does exist. Therefore, I came to know the Lord Jesus as my Savior.

I then instantly went from being an Agnostic, Zen Buddhist, Evolutionist, to being a Theistic Evolutionist. Now, I still had my Big Bang and billions of years, but now I also had God. So, I was a Christian Evolutionist, which is what most people in the church are today.

I then went into a private dental practice at the Manned Spacecraft Center down there in Houston and ultimately got offered a job on the faculty at Baylor Dental College. I gave my first lecture in 1971 on the evolution of the tooth. I talked about how fish scales moved into the mouth and became teeth. I can’t believe that I believed that, but I did. They are still teaching our kids that in the universities. They don’t have evidence for their long-term millions of years, so they have to make it up. That is why I wrote the book The Evolution of a Creationist, it is the evidences that convinced me.

Anyway, two students challenged me after that lecture if I would be willing to investigate Creation Science. So, I was reading my Bible and they asked me to study the assumptions behind Evolution, which I was never taught. Your kids and grandkids are still not taught the assumptions, the guesses, behind Evolution.

I was looking at animals as a Biology major, and the first one I looked at was a little animal called the bombardier beetle. It shoots fiery hot gases out of twin tail tubes. We have that on our first Incredible Creatures videos. I began to realize, these animals need all of their parts. You can’t have a partially evolving anything. It either works or it doesn’t work, but I had never been taught that.

bombardier_beetleI resigned my professorship in 1982 and went to Dallas Seminary and majored in Systematic Theology. I wrote my thesis on the New Age Movement, which by the way much of that is also on my website at biblicaldiscipleship.org. Everything is downloadable free of charge. You are welcome to look at that.

Since 1986, my family and I have been on the road preaching. I was commissioned as a missionary to the United States, so that is what we do. We talk about how you can have a relationship with the God of the Bible through His crucified and resurrected only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the next segment on the “Truth of the Creation,” Dr. Jobe Martin looks at the false assumptions of Evolution.

by Nathan Jones & Dr. Jobe Martin

About these ads

6 thoughts on “Truth of the Creation: Testimony”

  1. Well, against by better judgement (because I have seen so many videos just like it), I watched the youtube video of Dr. Jobe Martin listed above.

    I hope those of you that also watched it, took the 2 minutes necessary to actually look up the arguments he has made. Each and every one of them has been refuted over and over again.

    He is spouting the same old creationist rhetoric. Every point he makes is either outright wrong, misunderstood, twisted in some manner from its original form or simply a lie (whether that lie is intentional or the result of ignorance of the subject matter I’ll leave to you to determine)

    Acts 17:11 says “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

    The basic premise is sound, do not take my word for these things, nor Dr. Martin’s, take some time to actually learn about what science has to say before you come to an opinion, study it, do your own research, look at both the statements AND the rebuttals from the other side. Be an honest seeker of truth, you should be able to state and explain the opposition’s side as accurately and completely as your own.

    But most of all, go wherever the truth and the data takes you, don’t be driven by your ideology, be willing to change your mind if the data leads you in a different direction.

    Here is an excellent video (ok, he talks a little too fast…so maybe watch more than once) on the existence of transitional forms to get you started.

    http://mainereason.blogspot.com/2010/10/plethora-of-transitional-fossils.html

    I’ll be happy to discuss any of his points if someone cares to.

    Thanks

  2. Genesis is to be taken literally, as is the rest of God’s Written word. Unfortunately, the news media mostly prints the submissions of those not qualified to speak about what Genesis represents. If a person is going to “bible bash”, the media welcomes such. But when a person gives a submission that is to going to correctly convey the truth of scripture, the media mostly throws their articles away.

    The reason Genesis is not generally accepted is because most all that try to teach about it do not understand it, and therefore cause others to think of Genesis as having myths and such. Genesis is not a joke book, nor does it
    contain metaphors or is allegorical. People that say that are speaking from ignorance, trying to defend the scriptures…, and doing a very poor job of it.

    The description of Creation Week is not found in Genesis, neither does Genesis support any foolishness such as “young Earth” doctrines (Creation Science). Both Creationism and Theology have not been correctly taught themselves about the truth of Genesis, so how can they teach others? When
    the person who has the truth offers to convey the true meaning of the scriptures, they refuse to listen.

    If you want to know the truth of Genesis, then send for the (only) Genesis expert who gives the presentation called “the Observations of Moses”.

    Herman Cummings
    Ephraim7@aol.com

  3. Hey Karlton,

    Man! that guy talks fast. I notice in the missing links part he keeps saying “we found a “Potential” candidate for filling in the missing links. It either is the missing link or it isn’t.

    I am sure there are many videos trying to refute creationism, The main point is Dr. Martin can make videos, Evolutionists can make videos, you and I can make videos and all of us could give facts and state our opinions to be right based on the facts.

    The bottom line is, In the Bible, God says He created the earth and everything in it in six days.

    His word is all I need.

    Thanks for stopping by

    Rocco T

  4. Hey Herman,

    Welcome to the conversation.

    Preach on brother, preach on… The only word we need is that of God.

    Thanks for stopping by

    Rocco T

  5. Herman,

    Sorry to be the one to correct you but…as a simple example

    (Personification) Genesis 1:2 …And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    (Metaphor) Genesis 2:7 …man became a living soul
    (Metaphor) Genesis 2:24 …and they shall be one flesh.

    I hope you aren’t going to tell me that you believe that the water actually had a face or that a

    man and woman actually meld together into a single pile of flesh or that man converts into a

    living soul are you?

    Of course not, in the first instance the writer used personification to make the idea of God

    moving on the surface of the waters more poetic, more memorable. In the second example, the

    writer was using a metaphor to describe the closeness that would ensue between man and woman and

    in the last example of a metaphor it is quite obvious that the writer was trying to communicate

    the idea that man had been given or contained a living soul not that he had been transformed

    into one.

    Cheers.

  6. Rocco,

    Two points, the reason the word “potential” is wedged in there, is simply because evolutionary theory doesn’t posit the existence of there being only a single intermediary form. What the video was trying to get across was that even by the creationist’s definition of what constitutes “transitional” we have many to offer which fit the bill, but they reject them all out of hand simply because it does fit in with their ideology. So the creationists won’t even play by their own rules so to speak.

    Yes, we can all make a video, but you are wrong to throw the word “opinion” in there to imply that one group of facts is just as valid as another. The “facts” which creationists use are not “facts” at all, that’s my point. Everyone one of their points has been absolutely, unequivocally shown to be non-factual, in other words wrong. It is not a matter of opinion at all.

    I guess my point is simply this, if a person chooses to believe in the Bible (or any other form of the supernatural), they are certainly entitled. What they are not entitled to do is to say it represents valid scientific thought or to put it out to the general public as scientific truth. It is neither and to do so is misleading and uninformed at best and intentionally dishonest and deceitful at worst.

    By the way, thank you for taking the time to watch the video, most people do not bother. I appreciate that you put in the time and effort.

    Karl

Comments are closed.