Clough Genesis Lesson 4

The issue of design

In our continuing series on the book of Genesis and origins, we have repeated again and again that creation is the foundation of everything else. We say this because how you answer the question of origins determines completely everything else you do, everything else you can be, everything else you say. You may not think so, but this is the outworking and can be objectively demonstrated by simply referring to the process of thinking that has gone on, at least in the west, in the last 500-600 years. Every time the gospel penetrated a new heathen area, the apostle Paul insisted upon making creation the issue. He did what evangelicals, many of them at least, do not do in our own generation, and that is he refused to tell premature Jesus stories, the reason being that if you work with the truth of the New Testament and you discuss the origin problem you have a clear cut picture of who the Lord Jesus Christ is.

If you fail to do this, then Jesus is a meaningless word; telling children, for example, stories about Jesus before they know the attributes of God, before they really have some basic idea of who and what God is, is wrong; it’s not just stupid, it’s wrong. This is why we have such a thing as Frances Schaeffer reciting the tragic situation that he found in Switzerland in his mission to students, where students would come to him having (quote) “accepted Christ” (end quote) and are really not yet sure whether God exists. Well now obviously if we’re precipitating that kind of a situation there’s something wrong with our evangelism. And what’s wrong with our evangelism is that we haven’t made God, God; and then after we’ve reached that point we can go on to other things. Paul, remember, when he went to a group of Gentiles said we preach unto you, not Jesus stories, but we preach unto you that you should turn from the vanities, speaking of idolatry, unto the living God who made heaven and earth, and the sea and all things that are in them; whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare unto you, God who made the world and all things in it, seeing He is the Lord of heaven and earth. Now in the plain words of the English language that can’t mean anything other than that creation is the starting point for the gospel.

So we have stressed that there are only who options available in history. One is with the universe transforming itself through time by means of chance, in which case the universe is eternal and has picked up the attributes of God and in effect becomes idolatry. On the other hand, the other choice is that God has created ex nihilo, out from nothing, the universe. Now regardless of who you are and what your background is, those are the only two questions you can possibly come up with; either the universe had a beginning or it didn’t, there’s no middle ground. So we categorize all men’s thinking, Christian, non-Christian or anything else, into these two categories: either the eternality of the universe, of the universe was created.

We have studied Genesis 1:1-2 in our beginning exegesis to show the all encompassing nature of Genesis 1:1. Last week we dealt with a very critical problem, one that now, this week, we’ll begin to build on, and that which we covered last week which is so critical is this truth: The Bible provides data in the realm of history and science. Yes, the Bible is not a complete textbook of science, it doesn’t present theoretical explanations of cause/effect, but it does give us data which must be brought into all scientific and historic investigations. So yes, the Bible is a textbook of science contrary to 99% of the thinking in our own generation that politely excuses the stories of Genesis as sweet religious stories, nice for women and children but not nice for big grown up men. So we disagree with that and we say completely the opposite, that the Bible, in fact, does provide authoritative data.

Today we’re going to deal with one more large scale problem with Genesis, before we submit to going through laboriously verse by verse. We’re doing this because we have to cut away so much fatty tissue that has accumulated through sloppy, through evolutionary thinking and make sure we’re razor sharp on the major issues in this book. And this major issue we’re going to discuss this morning is the issue of design, the design that man observes in his environment. The word “design” is used both by creationists and evolutionists. In past years and centuries “design” was used as a proof for the evidence of the existence of God. We’re not doing that today. The reason we’re not doing that today is because of Paul’s position in Romans 1, that you can look with both eyeballs in perfect focus at any part of the universe and see design there, but if your heart is in the wrong place spiritually, you will spew forth the wrong presupposition which denies the true explanations of that design, the true explanation being God made the design, God is the designer. The false explanation is that the universe somehow designed itself.

Let’s look at this matter of design, then we’ll pass to the most complicated parts of creation and look at the design in that special area. Then we’re going to look at a film dealing with that particular very complicated part of the universe, and then we’re going to comment on what the film tells us. Let’s look at the design issue. I was walking in California with Fred Wilson who is one of the men who gets paid, he’s a science teacher in the L.A. school system, and we just happened to be discussing matters, creation, evolution, one day and Fred just kind of popped forth with this idea and I thought it was fantastic, and I began to think more and more about it and I think has really got some possibilities. And almost innocently Fred was telling me, he said, you know it’s amazing to me, but you can take some object made by the hands of man, say a razor blade, and then you look at that man-made product, under the microscope, and that, what looked like a very sharp edge on that razor turns out to be a very sloppy thing under the microscope.

In other words, when you observe the work of man’s hands from either the micro scale or the macro scale, they turn out to be crude. In a narrow spectrum, man’s designs look good, within a narrow spectrum, but if you down the spectrum, at the microscopic levels you find his designs don’t look too cool because man, because he’s a certain scale himself, can’t get down at the fine scale to work properly. So his handiwork fades off into chaos on the micro side of the scale. Let’s take the macro scale. What it is that men have always tried to build, since the days Plato wrote his book, The Republic? The perfect state, the macro organization. Let’s look at what man builds; he builds Buchenwald, he builds Siberia’s, he builds Fort Knox where the gold is no longer; he builds printing presses for money so that he can rip people off, that’s the product of man’s macro organization, giant bureaucracies, that specialize in thwarting creativity. So on the macro scale man also fails. So it seems, then, that design is effective within certain limitations. Man is a good designer and we ought not to hang our heads in shame; man is a good designer within limits, but take man’s works, the handiwork out to extremes on either the micro side or the macro side and you will see that his work crumbles, and manifests the chaos we spoke of in Genesis 1:2. He can’t get together at all levels of scaling.

So therefore when we look out at nature and we take the same text and we look at God’s design let’s see what we see. Let’s suppose we look at macro objects, objects within our own spectrum and God designs it pretty good, the human body, animals and so forth. But then let’s go down and look at the micro scale; let’s look at the atom. Do we find it like the razor blade when subjected to microscopic examination, kind of crude, kind of just hanging in there? Not at all. One of the great advances of nuclear physics in the 20^th century has been the discovery of subatomic particles and then the discovery of sub subatomic particles. And then the discovery of all sorts of orbital and energy levels, inside the atom. These are intricacies of design way down in the micro, micro, micro, micro, micro end of the spectrum of being. And then let’s take the macro spectrum; let’s go to our Mars probe, our Venus probe, the universe. Is there evidence that like man’s state, his macro organization that kind of crumbles and it becomes inefficient? Not at all. The solar system proceeds quite efficiently. It’s energy transformation systems operate quite well; no evidence it’s sloppy. So therefore God’s design extends out beyond, both on the micro side and on the macro side and does not show the crudity with which our works are revealed under microscopic and macroscopic examinations.

Let’s say, then, this is the design that impresses itself men’s minds. Turn to Romans 1:18-19 just to point out this scriptural text. This is the design that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:20, “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly,” notice the word, “clearly seen,” it’s in the present tense in the Greek, “are clearly and constantly being seen, being understood by means of the things that are made,” or that God designed. That is, “the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly and constantly being seen, being understood through the design and nature.” God’s glory, Paul says, is there, and you can’t suppress it and pretend it’s not there, but you can distort it. And distort it man does; Romans 1:21, “Because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations…. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man.” So yes, the design is there; no, it doesn’t prove God’s existence to the man who wants to suppress the data.

So therefore, conclusion to this matter of design, the design is there and has to be ascribed to one of two sources, either God or nature. When men ascribe design to nature they haven’t said anything other than design designed itself; but it sounds so much better to separate the noun nature and place it ahead of the verb design, because it really sounds profound to say “nature designed” it. You see, but you haven’t said anything. After you’ve said that what have you said? Absolutely nothing. Who’s nature? Male, female or neuter; personal or impersonal? What is it? I don’t know. So man sees the design but he must describe it to either the true God or an idolatrous figment of his imagination.

Let’s turn to Genesis; we want to look at one particular design. What is the most complicated piece of God’s design? And the answer is man; not angels, man. Man is the most complicated piece of design that God has ever made. Why do we say this? Because in Genesis 1:26-27, in a chapter that is comprehensibly describing all of the universe, what is said in verse 26-27? “Let us make man in our image….” Verse 27, “God created man in His image….” Now in His image is a modifying phrase that is not used for any other feature of the sixth days, and don’t think of “in His image” as just the immaterial part of man. “In His image” refers to both the material and the immaterial side; you can’t separate the two in the Bible. They go together. And don’t go so far as certain Mormon theologians do and say that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have bodies, at least God the Father has a body. We don’t go that far but we do say that the human body of man as well as the human spirit is somehow a picture of God; it’s an image of God, a finite replica of God.

Another supporting evidence is the fact, and this is often forgotten by slapstick commentators on ancient religions and that is that God in the Bible never appears as an animal, but He does outside of Israel; only inside Israel God never shows up as an animal. He shows up as a man or nothing but NEVER as a falcon, the god Horus in Egypt, or as a winged lion as in Assyria. He shows up in Israel only as man; He’s anthropocentric to the core, the reason man is the only suitable piece, not a fluorescent light, not a rug, not a chair, only people… only people are finite replicas of God and therefore only they are the vehicles for direct revelation. So when God chose to become incarnate in His universe He didn’t choose to incarnate Himself in the body of an animal nor did He choose to show up as an angel; He chose man.

Now in Genesis 1:26-27 some Christians read that and they see the creation of man and they had enough reading and thought to realize that we’re placed in severe friction with evolutionary thought, so they say aha, we can interpret verses 26-27 to mean that God evolved man; I can have the best of both worlds, I can say on the one hand, I can enjoy the freedom from all this pressure of a strong dogmatic creationism and at the same time I can enjoy the pleasure of having fellowship with God. So I can have the best of both worlds. And, our direct creationists in our own camp will say ah, you can’t do that, after all, the Word bara means create from nothing, to which the theistic evolutionist will say come with me into Isaiah 43, I want to show you a passage? Does bara refer to creation from nothing?

Isaiah 43:1, “But now, thus saith the LORD that bara-ed” or “created thee, O Jacob, He who formed thee, O Israel, Fear not; for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.” Verse 7, “Every one that is bara-ed by My name; for I have created him for My glory’ I have formed him; yea, I have made him.” Verse 15, “I am the LORD, your Holy One, the bara-er” or “the Creator of Israel, your King.” Now Israel was not created ex nihilo. Israel was created through normal providential processes in history. So our theistic evolutionary Christian friend says see, I told you, you don’t have to interpret Genesis with instantaneous creation and cause all this big hassle you guys are doing if you just let bara take its meaning that it forms in other places of the Bible.

Moreover, say our theistic evolutionary Christian friends, we can go to Ephesians 4 and see a similar situation, because in Ephesians 4 we’re discussing the human spirit and here we can get help in our interpretation of the text. In Ephesians 4:24 it says if you “put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” surely, they say, here is evidences that the body hasn’t been changed by the new birth, only the human spirit has been changed. See, they say, see, couldn’t evolution have brought about the human body and then couldn’t at one point in time God have miraculously dropped the human spirit in that body and therefore produced a living man. So they say I don’t see what your problem is, why are you Christians always fighting the system; why can’t you relax and just sit back and take it easy, there’s no tension here, good normal Bible interpretation shows you there’s no good tension. Not quite!

Let’s turn back to Genesis 2:7. In Genesis 2:7 we have the second account of the creation of man. Now some liberals, most liberals and even some Christians in our wonderful evangelical climate of loving everyone, now who Christians who buy this line will say that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are contradictory accounts, Moses just sort of gathered opinions, like you’d walk into a cafeteria and gather a few different dishes, Moses gathered a few different opinions of how the universe came into existence and wrapped them up altogether in the book of Genesis and gave us a spiritual meal. Well, some dishes go together and some don’t, and that particular dish doesn’t go with Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 and 2 both go together and I will show that on a later Sunday. But for this Sunday I am presupposing Genesis 1 and 2 are compatible, and in Genesis 2:7 we have amplification, therefore, of the act of Genesis 1:26-27, and when we look at Genesis 2:7 it says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the gerund, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Yes, yes, yes, says the evolutionist, but still can’t that mean God formed the body, see, there is, it’s evolving, and then God at a point in time just phfft, put human spirit in there and we’ve got man; what’s wrong with that? Context is what’s wrong with that.

It says in Genesis 2:7 that man did not become a living soul, or nephesh, until after he received body, plus spirit; stated in other words, he never existed because in Genesis 1:20-21 when animals are created, back in the original text, animals are also said to have spirit, and it says, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales [sea monsters], and every living creature that moves,” now there do you suppose the evolutionary antecedents of man are said to have nephesh, so if you argue that man involved only in his body but not with his nephesh, you’re out of line with the context because the Bible attributes nephesh to the very beings from which man “evolved,” and if you’re going to do that then you have problems with Genesis 2:7 because Genesis 2:7, the way you’re interpreting it, you would ay to your atheistic evolutionary friend, the way you’re interpreting it there wasn’t any nephesh, there was just a body, for millions of years there was just a body with no nephesh. Wrong! Animals, cave men or whatever you want to hypothesize as a forerunner of man, chimpanzees or something, whatever the predecessor of man was, he has to have nephesh. So Genesis 2:7, then, in its vocabulary, precludes an evolutionary interpretation. Man had to have both body and soul together.

There’s another control too; Genesis 3:19, this tells us how to interpret Genesis 2:7. In Genesis 3:19, after the curse is given to man, after the curse is given and the sentence of death, to what does man return? It says, “For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return,” exactly the word used in Genesis 2:7, from the dust of the earth God made man. Now no matter how loose one can be one cannot seriously argue that when you die you evolve back into an ape by a slow process of millions of years. So if you’re going to interpret the dust to be the ape’s body in Genesis 2:7, you’d better be prepared to take the consequences in Genesis 3:19. Well, obviously the author Genesis 2 and 3 has nothing of that sort on his mind. He is thinking in terms of literal dust from which man was literally and instantaneously created.

Ah… but there’s another reference beside Genesis 2:7. So far we’ve just worked with Genesis 2:7 to show you that there must be an instantaneous origin to the design of man. Genesis 2:18-25, the origin of woman; try harmonizing this one with a million year evolution. Slowly, for millions of years Adam slept and oozing out from his side molecule by molecule, came woman. How are you going to harmonize the account of the rise of woman with evolution? There’s now way, the text interpreted in its normal straightforward way, prohibits that kind of nonsense. That’s nonsense, and I do not understand how people who profess to accept Christ and therefore profess to accept His Word can seriously, with a straight face, with a normal functioning mind, apparently literate, say that about the text of Scripture.

Now you can way well, that’s just your interpretation, after all…. But I’m not through, turn to 1 Corinthians 11; if we’re in doubt how the text ought to be interpreted, let’s ask Paul. I submit to you that Paul was a better Hebrew student than most of us, far more intimately acquainted with the thrust of the Scriptures than any of you or myself. In 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, in discussing the issue of woman’s role, he says, “the man is not out of the woman, but the woman out of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” Now certain members of the female sex may have reasons to want to excise 1 Corinthians 11 from the text, but whether you do or not, still, verses 8-9 carries forth that proves to you the way Paul at least interpreted Genesis 2:7. We could, if we had time, and we don’t, go on to 1 Timothy 2:13 as a similar instance of apostolic interpretation of these passages.

Now incidentally, male and female also show something else about design and I forgot to when I introduced this design thing to you, when I was going on about the scales, one point I forgot to drop in there was this, that it’s a little trick and a gimmick I’ve noticed in the arguments for evolution, that will take a molecule, say the first molecule that came up into an organized semi-protein, and will say see that molecule, that molecule could have assembled by chance very well, I can mathematically calculate the probabilities without being a PhD in math, formulas are available. I can compute that probability; there’s only one problem, one molecule doesn’t do me any good, I have to have a complete functioning system. The creation of the male and female is a beautiful example, what are you going to do with all males? How do you reproduce the next generation? You’ve got to have two to tango, and so the point remains that a functioning system has to exist, not parts of a system.

So if you want to ascribe things to chance be prepared to say the whole system simultaneously evolved. And remember, a 99% effective system is a failure. We’ll show this later on in the creation of plants, we’re getting a slide series for us so we’ll be able to see one case where a plant and an animal kingdom must together operate or neither one can work, tremendous evidence of creation and why evolution is wrong.

Let’s turn to Romans 5:12; in Romans 5:12 we have the other very important New Testament text; it shows literal Adam. We covered this in the basic series. “By one man sin entered into the world,” and in verse 14 it talks about Adam in the same way as Moses, and the reason that is such a serious text, if you start tampering there, with Romans 5:12 and 14, you have just destroyed the entire plan of salvation in the New Testament. If you want to do that, that’s fine, that’s your privilege. But don’t come up with this patronizing nonsense that you can get around creation in Genesis 1 by just messing around with the interpretation a little bit with no serious consequences. Don’t be dishonest, be honest with the text. If you’re going to throw it out, throw all of it, then you’ll be an honest person, at least you can live with your conscience.

Now to show you the force of the creation of man and why this produces a snag on the minds of those who try to get around it, here are the words of Dr. David A. Young, the associate professor of geology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, the son of the famous Old Testament and very sound Old Testament scholar, E. J. Young. His son, this professor of geology, has written a book recently called Creation and the Flood, which is an attack on Morris and Whitcomb’s position, The Genesis Flood. This man is proposing a sort of middle of the road position between evolution and strict creationism and his object is to loosen up the text and get rid of as many catastrophic, miraculous, instantaneous things that he can so he can explain it by processes. But even Dr. Young, when he comes to Genesis 2:7 has this to say, he has to stop here and say whoa baby, even I can’t get around this one and so I’ve got to say that evolution is wrong on the basis of this text.

“The evolutionary atoms,” says Dr. Young, “would die even if he hadn’t sinned, and at this point there is an irreconcilable contradiction with Romans chapter 5. Death, according to that passage, entered the human race through the sin of one man, not through his biology. There simply is no way biblically to find support for the evolution of man from animals in the passage from Romans 5. The biblical idea of the origin of man and the evolutionary origin of man are mutually exclusive. At this particular point there must be a conflict between Christianity and modern science, as long as science maintains its current attitude with regard to the origin of man.” And that’s a very honest man looking at the text. Dr. Young at least does hold to the historicity which we explained last time of the Genesis text.

Now we are faced, at least looking at design in nature, we said that this design is part of general revelation, all men see the design, it’s simply a question of whether you’re going to try to kiss it off and explain it as nature making nature and then being very abstruse, as abstruse as you can by what you mean when you use the word “nature,” or you can turn around and accept the Biblical point of view that design is due to the fact that somebody designed it.

We’ve looked at man as the most intricate portion of the design. We want to look at one more passage, Psalm 139, because we’re going to look at a film which is going to feed you good and evil; we believe in making our training here at Lubbock Bible Church realistic, we’re not playing games, this is life and death truth and we have to train ourselves so we’re tough and we know where it’s coming from. So to prepare for the film I want you to see this section.

Psalm 138:13-18, this is the standard New Testament reference on pregnancy. Every woman who really believes the Bible ought to know at least this passage of Scripture. This is a story of your womb and what goes on there. Verse 13, David is expressing his relationship with God, and he says that he has this relationship with God because of something, and what is the something? Because in his mother’s womb there was a replication of the work of Genesis 2:7. Yes, you can argue here it’s by normal providential processes, whereas in Genesis 2:7 it was instantaneous fiat creation; different process, but the result of the process is the same. Just as Adam came from the hands and fingertips of God, David says, so I came out of my mother’s womb; just as that first man’s body was made of the earth, after the man’s body was made from the earth God breathed into the man life and he lived, so also he says I came out of my mother’s womb, the womb of the woman in Scripture is the counterpart to the earth in the Garden of Eden from which man was created. And you’ll see this metaphor again and again in Scripture.

“For thou hast possessed my kidneys,” literally the kidneys here standing for parts of the whole, “You have possessed” or you have “gained my kidneys,” gained ownership of them, “for You have woven me together in my mother’s womb. [14] I will praise Thee; for I am,” literally “distinct” or “unique with my awe-inspiring members, and that my soul knows right well. [15] My substance was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and embroidered in the lowest parts of the earth.” Now you’ll notice the work in the woman’s womb is described by two verbs which are used for a woman’s activity in normal every day life. The first word in verse 13, “You have woven me together in my mother’s womb.” Verse 15, You “embroidered” me. Now the woman in the Bible is always looked upon as a decorator. The men conquer and they subdue and they get the structure, but then it’s the woman who comes along with the finery, and makes things pretty and ascetic, and so in the Scriptures, then, what goes on in the woman is a mirror of her normal everyday activity; she is a beautifier, the one who brings finery into existence. And the work of God in the woman is a work similarly that brings finery. And what is the embroidery and what is the weaving in verse 13 and 15? The parts of our body, the design of the circulatory system, the respiratory system, all of those systems that are being pulled together in the womb.

And then in a more astounding verse, Psalm 139:16, “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect” or “unformed; and in thy book all the preordained days were written, it’s a very hard to interpret, “in Thy book all the preordained days were written,” or “were being written.” What that’s saying is all the natural talents that you need to live before God, all the things of the equipment is being put into place in the womb. Now for every married man here this is why biblically it’s important for you to protect your wife during the nine months of pregnancy in a special way, seeing that she gets the right foods to eat, seeing that she isn’t physically hurt in any way, because in her womb verse 16 is saying a powerful work is being done. To tamper with the work in the womb is to mar a life ahead into the next generation, it’s an extremely responsible passage, it really lays it on to married couples in this area. So this is a praise for pregnancy. Verses 17-18, the result, David can praise because the process of replicating the instantaneous process back in Eden is now taking place in the womb of the woman.

Now we said that every time the unbeliever sees this sort of thing, he’s acquainted with the embroidery, he’s acquainted with the weaving, he’s got to do something with it. One of the things to show you the force that the unbeliever has to have to get rid of this information is the simple thing of systems. One of the remarkable things about the human body is that it’s made up of systems. If you have any engineering background it’s very fascinating to watch these systems function. Remember, I said a 99% functioning system is a failure. It’s got to function 100%.

Now maybe you never thought of this but how about a baby inside the mother during those nine months having to prepare itself for life and the baby, while he’s in the womb is surrounded by fluid, obviously the baby can’t breathe in the mother’s womb. Well that must mean, then, that some modification has to take place in the circulatory system because as you know, the heart pumps in two loops; one loop goes to the pulmonary system where the blood is put into the lungs for oxidation, and then brought back to the heart and then pumped systemically throughout the circulatory system, and then it’s brought back. So there’s two cycles, two loops to this circulatory pump system. But at the point when the baby is in the womb the pulmonary loop can’t work because the lungs aren’t functioning. All right, you say that’s simple, the right side of the heart that pumps… the pump would go up here, the blood comes to the lungs, comes back in here, comes back out, goes through the body and comes back in here. Two loops. Well, it’s very simple; all you have to do is just shut down the lungs. It’s not so simple because the entire right side of the heart is needed to make that work. Now let’s just suppose during the nine months of pregnancy only the left side of the heart is exercised. What would happen at birth when the umbilical cord was severed, the fanny slapped and the first breath was taken? The pulmonary system, including the right side of the heart wouldn’t be ready to process O2 up to the lungs, it’d be weak, it’d take days for that heart muscle to get strong, maybe weeks and the baby could suffocate, literally, because the oxygen wasn’t being absorbed because the blood wasn’t getting to the lungs.

So how do you suppose God worked it out so the baby inside the mother could exercise the right side of the heart without breathing? There are two bypass valves in the system, so as the baby’s heart beats the right side beats full force so this muscle is being exercised; the blood comes up here and meets resistance in the lungs; some of it goes into the lungs to build the lungs but the rest of if backs up and creates a back pressure. Well, that pressure has to be relieved, and so a little bypass valve has been made and the blood goes the body, comes back again, and here, also to relieve pressure, this could be shown mathematically why these valves have to be at just this location, the blood comes back here and goes over here to the system, comes back through and around. So two bypass valves are put into the baby’s heart and that allows the baby’s heart to pump full force, get all the exercise it needs, so that when it’s born it’s ready to take the first breath.

Now what happens when the baby takes it first breath? These valves have to shut down because if they’re open the blood won’t still go with enough force into the lungs, so when God made these bypass valves he lined them with a special kind of tissue that is oxygen sensitive, and when the baby takes his first breath the high oxidized blood, great oxidation comes through there and shuts the valves down and within a few days the tissue atrophies and closes over. And this is how God has made it. Now just stop and think, if one part of that system doesn’t function correctly, the baby doesn’t live. All the valves have to function as one integrated system. But what does the unbeliever do when he’s faced with this? Well, ho-hum, nature designed it. We’re going to see 30 minutes of propaganda from the National Geographic Society, The Incredible Machine; some of you saw it on TV, this is a short form of it and unfortunately doesn’t have the part I most wanted, which was on the human reproduction system. But this will at least show you, and listen carefully because the photography is fantastic. Watch the design and as a Christian you can appreciate the design, but always with your ears listen to what they do with the design at point after point after point. This is a realistic example of people who are starring God in the face, according to Romans 1, and they turn Him away and cast Him in a totally different idolatrous mode. [Film shown]

Turn in conclusion to Romans 1; we want to look again at the passage that we started with, Romans 1:19-23. Think now of what you just saw, think on it. The camera gave to you the details that were set up instantaneously in Genesis 2:7 as God made man of the earth; that was His design. Perhaps if you can think of it this way think of God’s thinking, and thinking of how it must have been like for God to sit down say let’s see, shall we make it this way or this way, and He decided, for He could not do until He had thought, so what you saw, therefore, was an expression of a deliberate design.

So again we read in Romans 1:19, “That which may be known of God is manifest among them,” including the makes of the film, “for God has shown it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood through the means, the details of the human design,” we could say in this context, “so that they are without excuse. [21] Because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but they became vain in their imaginations,” nature designed it, “and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” relation to the chimpanzee. [23] “And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”

As we said when we started, Paul’s words to the Gentiles, “We preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities, unto the living God, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all things that are in them. Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare unto you, who made the world and all things in it,” including man.