Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[nChrist]

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 1
by Dr. Jason Lisle

There is also a problem with magnetic fields. The intrinsic (weak) magnetic field of the collapsing nebula would become intensified as the cloud collapsed; the process “concentrates” the magnetic field. The magnetic field would then resist being compressed further — much like trying to push two magnets together when their like poles are facing each other. Gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields all work against the possibility of a condensing star. Clearly, the secular view that stars can form naturalistically has some serious problems. From a creationist point of view, stars need not form at all. God made the stars (Genesis 1:14–16) during the creation week; they were supernaturally created.

Secular astronomers hope that future evidence will resolve these serious scientific problems, but not having enough evidence is not the real issue; it’s the interpretation of existing evidence that is the problem. With these severe scientific problems (only a few of which have been discussed), should we not at least consider the possibility that the naturalistic worldview is wrong? This incorrect worldview has led to incorrect interpretations of the evidence, which then require further conjectures to allow the evidence to fit within the defective worldview. When we start from a biblical worldview, we find that none of the above issues are problems. On the contrary, they are assets. The seamless blend of uniformity and diversity that we observe in the created universe is a mark of the God of the Bible.

The Unique Earth

We now move on to some other topics where the majority of astronomers are in opposition to a biblical worldview. A very significant point of conflict between the secular view of the universe and the biblical view has to do with the uniqueness of the earth. In the secular view, the earth is (in a sense) “just another planet,” albeit one where the conditions were lucky enough for life to form and evolve. The naturalist believes that the earth, along with the rest of the universe, is just a happy accident. It is one planet among innumerable billions in our galaxy — with other galaxies having billions of planets of their own. Most secular astronomers believe that many other “earths” exist in the universe. If we assume that our planet is an accident of nature, and that billions times billions of other planets have also formed as accidents of nature, then surely some of these are bound to come out the same way earth did.

The Bible teaches the contrary: the earth is special. Earth is unique among all the worlds that the Lord created. The description of creation as recorded in Genesis 1 makes this abundantly clear. Five of the six days of creation are spent creating and forming the earth and the life on it. Only one day is spent creating the other objects in the universe. Undoubtedly, the earth is different.

In fact, the earth is three days older than any of the other planets and stars in the universe.8 The earth was made on the first day of creation; God made it in the beginning (Genesis 1:1). The lights in the sky were made on the fourth day of creation. These lights are the sun, moon, and stars (both the “true” stars and the “wandering stars” — planets). Perhaps the Lord created the earth first to show its special significance in His divine plan.

Clearly, other planets do exist. There are several other planets in our own solar system besides earth, and astronomers have detected quite a number of planets orbiting other stars, and yet, our ability to detect extra-solar planets is still quite limited. It therefore seems very likely that there are countless billions of planets which have yet to be detected, but these planets are not merely accidents of nature. God created all these worlds for His pleasure (Revelation 4:11) and to declare His creative wisdom and glory to us. Since the other planets serve a different purpose than the earth, we expect that the planets will be different in nature than the earth. Science has certainly confirmed this biblical expectation.

Science Confirms a Unique Earth

The other planets in our solar system, as well as all extra-solar planets, are creatively designed. They share some similarities with the earth, but are unlike the earth in overall properties, since their purpose is different. Consider Mars, which may be the most “earthlike” planet next to the earth itself. Mars has a solid, rocky surface with mountains, volcanoes, canyons, dried riverbeds, polar ice caps, a rotation period of just over 24 hours, a bright daytime sky, seasons, an atmosphere, and even weather. However, unlike earth, Mars has a pink sky, a much thinner atmosphere of carbon dioxide, large concentrations of frozen carbon dioxide (“dry ice”), two (very small) moons, only about one-third of the earth’s surface gravity, no liquid water on its surface, and perhaps most significantly — no known life.

Of all the known planets, Venus most closely matches the earth in size. It is a solid planet with a surface gravity comparable to that of the earth, but before you plan a vacation there, you may want to consider the many differences. Venus has a thick, crushing atmosphere of carbon dioxide with clouds of sulfuric acid that enshroud the planet. The surface temperature is about 900 degrees Fahrenheit (480ºC), and there are no seasons, since Venus is not significantly tilted relative to its orbital plane. Venus rotates “backward” (the sun would rise in the west) and takes 243 (earth) days to rotate once. It is clearly not designed for life, but it does declare God’s glory. Those same clouds of acid (which would be lethal on an inhabited world) are highly reflective. They make Venus one of the brightest and most beautiful objects in our night sky. Venus can often be seen as the brilliant “evening star” standing in the west just after sunset or as the “morning star” in the east just before sunrise.
__________________________________________

[nChrist]

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 1
by Dr. Jason Lisle

The planet Mercury is more like the moon than the earth. Mercury is about one-third the size of the earth and has no appreciable atmosphere. It is essentially a large rock in space. A cratered, barren world, Mercury stands in stark contrast to the richness and beauty of the earth. At the other end of the line lies distant Pluto. This tiny world has an average temperature of about 50 K (-369ºF, or -223ºC) since it is nearly 40 times farther away from the sun than the earth is. The sun would appear over 1,000 times fainter as seen from Pluto than it does from the earth. [Web editor’s note: since this chapter was published, Pluto has been “demoted” and is no longer considered to be a planet.]

Then there are the giant gas planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These worlds are amazing and beautiful, but are very different from the earth. Gas giants do not have a solid surface upon which a person could stand. They are comprised primarily of hydrogen and helium gas (like stars), and they have other compounds such as methane and ammonia. Uranus and Neptune are each about four times larger than the earth in diameter, whereas Saturn is nine times (and Jupiter about 11 times) the earth’s diameter. I have thoroughly enjoyed viewing these planets through telescopes. They are dynamic — particularly Jupiter and Saturn. The outer planets demonstrate God’s inventiveness, but clearly they are very different from the earth. The extra-solar planets we have discovered so far appear to be much like these gas giants — large balls of hydrogen gas. They are beautifully made, but not like the earth.

The earth is unique among known worlds for a number of reasons. For example, the earth is the only planet known to have plate tectonics. The earth’s crust appears to be divided into plates which can move relative to each other. This is very significant because the mechanism of plate tectonics is thought to be largely involved in the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8. God used this flood to judge the sin of mankind (Gen. 6:11–13). Since the other planets did not need to be flooded, it stands to reason that they would not need plate tectonics.

Liquid water exists in abundance on earth; this is an extremely unusual condition. Although water molecules are fairly common in the universe, they are generally found in the form of vapor or ice — not liquid. The fact that 70 percent of the earth’s surface is covered with water is extremely exceptional. The earth has an abundance of free oxygen — no other known planet has an atmosphere like this.

Additionally, the earth is at just the right distance from the sun for life to be possible. Indeed, many of earth’s characteristics are specially designed for life. This is exactly what we would expect from the Bible. God formed the earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18 ). That is the earth’s primary purpose. The purpose of the rest of the stars and planets in the universe is different. The rest of the universe was made to divide the day from the night, to be for signs, seasons, days, and years (Genesis 1:14), to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1:15), and to declare God’s glory (Psalms 19:1) for His pleasure (Revelation 4:11). The Bible teaches, and science confirms, that the earth is unique.

Creation In-depth
Where’s the Antimatter?

One of the many scientific problems with the big-bang notion is called the “baryon number problem.” In the big-bang scenario, the universe starts out infinitely small, and infinitely hot, in a point called a “singularity.” All the energy in the universe, and even “space itself,” is contained in this point. The point rapidly expands like a balloon and the energy cools as it is dispersed. The energy forms matter — hydrogen and helium gas. It is this gas which allegedly condenses to form stars and galaxies. Virtually every step in this conjectured process is riddled with problems that are indicative of the big bang’s dismal inadequacy as a scientific model.9 Let’s highlight one of these problems involving the conversion of energy to matter.

Energy can indeed be transformed into matter. This can be done in a laboratory. However, such reactions always produce an equal amount of a substance called “antimatter.” Each class of particle of matter has a corresponding anti-particle. Antimatter is identical to ordinary matter in virtually all respects except one: the charge of the particle is reversed. So, whereas a proton has a positive electrical charge, its antimatter counterpart, the “anti-proton,” has a negative charge. Likewise, electrons are negatively charged, but an anti-election (also called a “positron”) has a positive charge. As far as we know, it is impossible to create matter from energy without creating an exactly equal amount of antimatter. This is what laboratory science has shown us.

Sub-atomic particle tracks

If the big bang had actually happened, it too would have produced an equal amount of antimatter. Therefore, the universe today should have an equal amount of matter and antimatter. But it doesn’t. The universe is made almost entirely of matter. This is no slight imbalance; it is a huge problem. It is estimated that the universe contains 1080 atoms (that’s a one followed by 80 zeros). Each of these has a nucleus made of protons (and sometimes neutrons). Protons and neutrons are “baryons.” There are ubiquitous baryons in the universe, and yet there are virtually no anti-baryons to be found!

Big-bang supporters have come up with an idea to try and save the big bang from this baryon number problem. They have proposed that on extremely rare occasions energy can produce matter only — with no antimatter produced as a by-product. Indeed, there are a number of variant speculations in physics that rely on this notion to solve the problem of the missing antimatter, but, of course, this idea does not rely on the results of observational science. Observations have shown that matter and antimatter are always produced in pairs; we have never seen one produced without the other. As usual, the naturalist must rely on conjectures that are inconsistent with observations. The baryon number problem remains a serious defect in the big-bang model.
__________________________________________________

[nChrist]

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 1
by Dr. Jason Lisle

This problem for the big bang is actually a design feature for biblical creation. When particles and anti-particles touch, they destroy each other and release enormous amounts of energy. If God had made the universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as physics requires for a natural origin), then the matter in the universe would have been destroyed by any contact with antimatter, releasing devastating amounts of dangerous radiation. The universe contains virtually matter only because it was supernaturally designed and created by God.

Extra-solar Planets
Solar system formation

In the secular model of solar system formation, a cloud of hydrogen and helium gas begins to shrink and heat up. Much of the nebula collapses down to become the proto-sun which is surrounded by a disk of gas and dust. The dust grains collect to form gravitational seeds of planets which grow larger as they absorb more gas and dust. Upon reaching critical density, the sun begins fusing hydrogen gas and the radiation drives away the hydrogen gas envelope surrounding the terrestrial planets. Since the radiation is weaker at greater distances from the sun, it is insufficient to drive away the hydrogen atmospheres of the outer planets. The model thus explains why the inner planets are small and rocky, and the outer planets are enormous giant gas worlds. Since other solar systems are thought to have formed in the same way, it was expected that they too would have small terrestrial planets orbiting close to the star, and large gas giants orbiting farther away.

We now know that this is not the case. Through various methods, astronomers have now discovered a number of planets orbiting other stars. In most instances, the planet has been detected by indirect means. Astronomers are able to measure the “wobble” that planets induce on the star they orbit; the orbit of the planet can then be deduced, even though the planet itself is not visible. The minimum mass of the planet can be estimated by the severity of the wobble. In a few known cases, the planet’s orbit is aligned such that the planet passes directly in front of the star — blocking a small fraction of the star’s light. These transiting cases allow us to know the size of the planet as well as its actual mass. More recently, extra-solar planets have actually been observed directly.

Virtually all of the extra-solar planets discovered so far go against the secular prediction. They are large gas giants which orbit very close to their star. They are often referred to as “hot Jupiters.” To be fair, most of the techniques used to discover these planets could only detect hot Jupiters. Nonetheless, the fact that such systems exist in abundance is powerful evidence against the secular model.

As we might expect, secular astronomers have attempted to adjust their ideas of solar system formation to allow for the existence of hot Jupiters. One currently popular idea suggests that these solar systems formed so as to be much as our solar system is today — with gas giants far away from the star. Then the gas giants supposedly “migrated” from their original position to their current location close to their star. Unfortunately (for the naturalists), this scenario has many difficulties of its own. There are issues of how to stop the planet from crashing into the star once the migration begins. There is also the difficulty of explaining why this apparently did not happen in our own solar system. Rather than tacking on additional speculations to explain why the evidence does not fit the naturalistic expectations, might we consider the possibility that biblical creation is the correct explanation? These extra-solar planets are in line with the biblical worldview. God has created a diverse universe with many types of solar systems for His pleasure, and to declare His glory as they are discovered (Psalms 19:1).

Footnotes

   1. This is because there is no “outside” or “beyond” the universe in the naturalist’s view. Back
   2. In this context, “heavens” probably refers to the dimensions of the universe — the “fabric” of spacetime. The heavens would have been empty (at least of stars) for the first three days, since the stars were made on day 4.
   3. Biblically, planets are classified as “stars” — they are “wandering stars” and are referred to as such in Jude 1:13. The word “planet” means wanderer.
   4. This follows from the ideal gas law. In physics notation, the law is written as P = nkT where P is pressure, n is the number density of particles, k is the Boltzmann constant, and T is temperature in Kelvins.
   5. This follows logically from the conservation of angular momentum.
   6. T Tauri class stars, for example.
   7. The sun spins even more slowly at its poles (taking over 30 days to rotate once); thus, it is constantly “twisting” itself. This differential rotation would not be possible for a solid object, but since the sun is gaseous, it does not need to rotate at the same rate at all latitudes.
   8. This difference in age is as measured by clocks on earth. Einstein’s theory of relativity has shown that time is not constant; time can flow at different rates in different regions of the universe. Time in the Bible must be from earth’s perspective, since it is defined using day and night — a rotation of the earth.
   9. See also Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered, by Alex Williams and John Hartnett (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005).

[Soldier4Christ]

Some excellent material for serious students.

[curious]

I am VERY excited about Creationism vs Evolution. Since I
used believe in it too. I like to get as MUCH info on it that
I can get.  Evolution is a Religion,a Fairy Tale for Grownups.
There has been sooooooooo much evidence disproving
Evolution(not just by Creationists,but also by secular scientists)
who can't believe it anymore,because there are too many
holes in it.


                                  Yours in Yeshua,
         Curious

[nChrist]

I am VERY excited about Creationism vs Evolution. Since I
used believe in it too. I like to get as MUCH info on it that
I can get.  Evolution is a Religion,a Fairy Tale for Grownups.
There has been sooooooooo much evidence disproving
Evolution(not just by Creationists,but also by secular scientists)
who can't believe it anymore,because there are too many
holes in it.


                                  Yours in Yeshua,
         Curious

Hello Curious,

I actually think we are watching the theory of evolution unravel and begin to fall apart. The evolution cupboard is getting pretty bare, and the mountains of evidence that disprove the theory of evolution are getting higher by the minute. I'd love to be here listening at that time when scientists stand up and clearly state that the Theory of Evolution is completely FALSE!  However, I think that we will be HOME with CHRIST before this happens.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 

[nChrist]

Expelled Review - Page 1 of 3
The Dissent of Men and the Rise of Their Oppressors
by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.

Several weeks ago, the Answers in Genesis (AiG) staff was treated to a viewing of the director’s cut of the already-controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.1 Expected to release April 18, Expelled is a hard-hitting, yet often humorous, documentary that chronicles how Darwin-dissenters have been ruthlessly expelled, or otherwise persecuted, in their professions. It is hosted by the very entertaining civil rights activist/economist/presidential speechwriter/cultural icon (actor and quiz-show host), Ben Stein, whom filmmakers follow as he goes on a personal quest to examine the origins question.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has become controversial not only because it exposes those academicians who persecute people who have a belief in the appearance of “design” in nature, but also because the film is already generating a negative reaction (including from some of the film’s subjects who come off in a highly unflattering way, including famed atheist-scientist Richard Dawkins).

As a demonstration of how the evolution police can mete out injustice, the film’s first “persecutee” is an evolutionist himself: Richard Sternberg. He does not doubt evolution, yet Sternberg’s very act of allowing a peer-reviewed research paper that presented evidence for intelligent design to be published in a science journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) led to his forced resignation and a career “ruined.” Sternberg, with two PhDs, was the target of the anti-creationist group National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution (where Sternberg was a researcher), as these groups orchestrated an effort to have him expelled from his position.

In another segment, Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, described Intelligent Design (ID) as mostly nonsense and would not come to the defense of fellow-evolutionist Sternberg. Shermer bizarrely contends that Sternberg must have done something wrong to have been forced out (even though Shermer admits on camera that he did not know what that might have been).

An hour and thirty minutes later, we watch atheist Dawkins sniff that evolution is a “fact” and “securely” so, and thus dissenters are either not sane or are stupid—or (somewhat more charitably) ignorant. In keeping with the film’s ongoing Cold War metaphors of freedom under attack, Dawkins, earlier in the film, describes the origins debate as a “skirmish” and a “war.”

The arch anti-creationist William Provine is seen as incorrectly stating that it was illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee’s schools during the time of the 1925 Scopes trial. Actually, the state allowed an instructor to teach evolution, unless an instructor said that humans evolved from an ape-like creature. Then there is the stubborn and impatient Michael Ruse, who insists on presenting a non-answer to the question of how the first living cell could have originated; he repeatedly states that it occurred on the “backs of crystals.”

At film’s end, Dawkins makes a remarkable concession—probably jaw-dropping for those who have read his books or watched his media interviews. When pressed by Stein, Dawkins allows for the possibility that life’s apparent design could have been produced by intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe—who themselves had evolved and then brought life here!

Between Sternberg and Dawkins, the film is punctuated by examples of shameful mistreatment (e.g., the highly qualified Guillermo Gonzalez, denied tenure at Iowa State University), expulsion (e.g., Caroline Crocker from George Mason University), and silliness (e.g., protestors outside AiG’s Creation Museum on opening day last May).

Other ID-sympathetic academics give accounts of their persecution in silhouette to maintain their anonymity; these segments bring back memories of the dissenting authors of Soviet Russia who wrote under pen names to avoid being expelled (usually to a frozen Siberia).

In the second half of the film, Expelled settles into a very serious tone, especially in those scenes when Stein visits World War II death camps and explores the connection between the Nazi worldview and Darwinian thinking. Stein is brilliant in these scenes as he goes with the flow of the story as it unfolds in front of him and as he carefully listens to the answers he receives—and then follows up with penetrating questions. He is obviously not working from a tight script.

Yet there are some bright lights and moments of sanity in this penetrating documentary. John Lennox of Oxford correctly points out that all scientists have biases and worldviews that they bring to their research—and then to the conclusions they draw from evidence. Also, David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher, sits down with Stein and eloquently brings up the problems with evolution (comparing it to a “room full of smoke”).
_______________________________________________

[nChrist]

Expelled Review - Page 2 of 3
The Dissent of Men and the Rise of Their Oppressors
by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, despite its subtitle, is not an intelligent design movement promo, per se.2 Also, some IDers, such as Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute, admit on film that ID is not a Christian movement and that people of various faiths are involved. Another IDer, Paul Nelson, though a friend of biblical, young-earth creationists, regrettably offers a wrong definition of creationism. He declares that it is a movement of taking the Bible and fitting it into science. To the contrary, creationists do not “fit” the Scriptures into science. If they did, creationists would be engaged in taking man’s fallible interpretations of science and somehow trying to conform them to the Bible. God’s Word is a book of real history. Using this as our starting point, we can build a correct way of thinking and truly understand the universe. The Bible explains all that is in the universe.3

Although not an ID film, Expelled does present a scientific defense of the idea of intelligent design (one that AiG would largely accept). The incredible complexity seen in a molecule like DNA is shown on the screen (though viewers uninterested in science may have their eyes glaze over during this animated section). Expelled asks the question often posed by creation scientists: where does the new genetic information come from as a mechanism to drive molecules-to-man evolution? Natural selection cannot explain the rise of new genetic information.

Overall, the film is more about exposing the fear of evolutionists in allowing free speech in scientific inquiry (and their accompanying tyrannical behavior) than it is an anti-evolution piece. Stein discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has exchanged science’s supposed quest for open-minded inquiry for harsh dogmatism. Freedom, “the essence of America” says Stein (a former civil rights lawyer), is easily taken away at universities, with qualified scientists expelled for not embracing evolution.

In one of the many ironic and hypocritical moments seen in the film, a Baptist university, Baylor University in Texas, is documented as persecuting one of its professors because he questioned evolution. The façade of a Baylor building then comes on the screen, and we see an inscription of a verse from Colossians 1. It declares that “in God, all things were created by Him.”

So, how will hard-core evolutionists attack this documentary? It is likely they will attack it on at least two major fronts by:4

   1. objecting to how the film equates the behavior of the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia to the actions of Darwin-defenders who squash freedom
   2. attacking the film’s claim that there is a link between evolution and racism

Regarding the latter, we wish to point out that from his own words, Charles Darwin can be shown to be a racist (even though he advocated abolition). On the last page of his The Descent of Man, Darwin said he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a “savage.” Furthermore, he called those with dark skin “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.” Also, the subtitle of Darwin’s main work On the Origin of the Species happens to be: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” [emphasis added]. This is not at all surprising, for, as AiG president Ken Ham points out in the new book Darwin’s Plantation, Darwinian evolution claims that humans descended from ape-like ancestors, and this logically implies that certain “races” are closer to the apes than others.5

Conclusion

In summarizing Expelled’s ultimate goal, Stein declares that he wants to see a world where “scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.”6
________________________________________________

[nChrist]

Expelled Review - Page 3 of 3
The Dissent of Men and the Rise of Their Oppressors
by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.

AiG has not been sanguine about elements of the intelligent design movement and some of its well-intentioned activists. But having watched the movie twice now, we note that the film is not about trying to push ID on society, much less argue that ID should be mandated in schools (which AiG would not support).7 Also, the film makes it clear that the ID movement is not a Christian one (although many evangelicals are part of it). More than anything, the documentary seeks to expose the ruthlessness of radical atheists and evolutionists and their attempt to erode freedom in order to protect their own worldview. In its goal, Expelled has marvelously succeeded.

Footnotes

   1. This article originally appeared earlier this month on our Answers magazine website.

   2. The distinction between the two terms? Most ID advocates are not biblical creationists, for they believe in a billions-of-years-old universe and a big bang, reject a global Flood, etc. And some, like Michael Behe, accept molecules-to-man evolution (though they would say that some intelligence must be behind the process). IDers generally chafe at being labeled creationists. Many evolutionists make the mistake of stating that both camps are essentially interchangeable, and dismiss both as creationism. A part of this is due to the fact that biblical creationists, of course, do believe with the IDers that the universe is intelligently designed.

   3. See a related article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4277news4-14-2000.asp.

   4. Another complaint already lodged by evolutionist critics of the movie is that the interviewees did not know that the movie was going to be pro-ID. Stein counters by stating that no evolutionist he talked to even asked him what the film would be about; and one of the producers, Walt Ruloff, according to Tom Bethell (Spectator, February 19, 2008) said that interviewees were paid and even told ahead of time what the questions posed to them would be.

   5. In a bizarre contention, the Associated Press quoted a Louisiana professor as stating that Ken Ham's argument about the racism-Darwin link is “a ploy to get evolution out of the curriculum” (http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080209/NEWS0103/802090335). The professor is apparently unaware that AiG has never been involved in efforts to force evolution out of public schools or introduce creation or intelligent design into them (see footnote 7 for more on this view).

   6. http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf.

   7. AiG has consistently stated that it would be counter-productive for public schools to force science instructors to teach creation or ID. Since most science teachers are evolutionists, they would teach creation or ID poorly—and the effort to introduce counters to evolution would generally backfire.

(My Note: I want to see this one. I've read many accounts where those who don't cooperate with the academic mainstream are persecuted and ruined. I also firmly believe that much evidence that disproves evolution has bee withheld from the public for this very reason. It just might embarrass the academic BIG WIGS.)

[nChrist]

The Ultimate Standard
God’s Word Versus Man’s Arbitrary Opinion
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S.
April 2, 2008

Sometimes critics of Creation refer to the creation/evolution debate as “science vs. the Bible” or “reasoning vs. faith.” By framing the debate in this way, perhaps they mean to imply that evolutionists use their minds and creationists do not. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, evolution is the anti-scientific view and is contrary to reason as shown here: Evolution: The Anti-science. If not science vs. faith, what is the real heart of the controversy?

An Ultimate Standard

Both creationists and evolutionists are able to reason and do science. This is because we are all made in the image of God and live in God’s universe. The difference is what we accept as our ultimate standard. When we give reasons for things we accept as true, we often appeal to a more authoritative standard for support. We believe P because of Q, and we accept Q because of R and so on. But ultimately, any chain of reasoning must end; it cannot go on forever because we can’t know an infinite number of things. So, any chain of reasoning must terminate in an ultimate standard.

An ultimate standard is something that we hold to be unquestionable but cannot prove from anything more foundational (otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimate). Since we have different ultimate commitments, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence differently.1

Which Standard?

Biblical creationists accept the Bible as the ultimate standard. Evolutionists do not.2 Some evolutionists hold to the philosophy of naturalism as their ultimate standard. Others hold to rationalism; still others hold to empiricism. But what do all evolutionary philosophies have in common? They all reject the Bible as a standard. All evolutionary standards are man-made. They all assume that human beings are able to reason and gain knowledge without God—autonomous reasoning. So, the creation/evolution debate really comes down to God’s Word versus man’s autonomous reasoning.

But if man appeals to his own reasoning as his ultimate standard, how can he ever know if that standard is correct? At best he can say that it seems to account for all the things he knows; but what about the infinite number of things he does not know? In other words, there might be true things that are contrary to his standard that are as yet undiscovered. Although man can arbitrarily assume a standard of his own choosing, he could never have any reasonable confidence that his chosen standard is universally accurate. Clearly, only an omniscient being could possibly provide a standard of reasoning that is certain to be correct in all cases. Since any manmade standard lacks universal justification, it amounts to nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. So, the origins debate can really be summed up as: “God’s Word versus man’s arbitrary opinion.”

Faith: The Precondition for Reason

In reality, both creationists and evolutionists use logical reasoning. We both employ logical deduction more or less correctly. But the real issue is this: what do we accept as our standard for interpreting evidence? Ultimately, one either starts with God’s Word or an arbitrary opinion. So, in reality, the evolutionists are the ones being unreasonable. They have simply dismissed the history recorded in the Bible and have decided to base their thinking on their own guesses rather than on God’s knowledge. This is necessarily arbitrary—which is one form of irrationality.3

On the other hand, if we place our faith in the Bible, it makes sense that we should be able to think and reason, and gain knowledge. God has made our minds and has revealed some knowledge to us. Since God is sovereign over all truth (Colossians 2:3), there are universal standards of reasoning (laws of logic) that we can use to correct and improve our understanding of the universe. Without faith that God created us as He has said in His Word, there would be no reason to think that rationality is possible (see Atheism: An Irrational Worldview). So, upon careful reflection we will find that faith in the biblical God is actually necessary in order to have a rational worldview.

Reasoning from the Scriptures

Reasoning is one of God’s gifts to humankind, and God expects us to use the mind He has given us in a way that is faithful to the Word He has given us. That is, we are to reason using God’s Word as our ultimate starting point (Proverbs 1:7) and to reject mere speculations that contradict God’s knowledge (2 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Timothy 6:20).

Unfortunately, many people use their minds in a rebellious way: treating God’s Word as a mere hypothesis to be evaluated according to their own arbitrary philosophy. Philosophies that use human guesses rather than God’s Word as an ultimate starting point are prone to misinterpret evidence since the starting point is necessarily arbitrary.

We are pro-reasoning;4 and we start with the Bible as our standard because any other standard would be irrational. Only God can provide us with a necessarily correct universal standard for knowledge because only God has universal knowledge. Christians have faith that the Bible is what it claims to be: the authoritative Word of God. And because we have such faith, we have a reason for reasoning.

Footnotes

   1. Although evidence is important, it is our ultimate standard that tells us what to make of the evidence. For example, suppose that a naturalist witnessed something that was apparently a miraculous, supernatural act of God. Would he allow for the possibility that a genuine miracle had occurred? No, his ultimate standard will not allow him to consider that as even a possibility. He will simply assume that it was a natural phenomenon and that all the causal factors are not yet known.

   2. This is true for all evolutionists—even those who profess the Christian faith. Those who dismiss parts of the Bible such as the Genesis account (or read it in an allegorical way) clearly do not accept the Bible as their ultimate standard. An ultimate standard would not be rejected or modified by a contingent standard.

   3. A rational belief is one that has justification. We must have a reason for what we believe; otherwise, why not believe the opposite?

   4. Isaiah 1:18; Acts 17:2, 18:19

[nChrist]

In Search of God
Quest for “God particle” to replace God?
Answers In Genesis - April 1, 2008

A Newsweek article on one of the most important physics projects of the new millennium asks, “Will it change our views of the universe and our place in it?” Apparently the writer (and her sources) consider physics tantamount to religion!

Switzerland’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), years in the making, is finally ready to begin its mission this summer: smashing matter together in the quest to find an “elusive” particle known as Higgs boson (a boson is one type of particle smaller than an atom). The Higgs boson is irreverently known as the “God particle” because physicists are hoping it will help us unlock a “grand theory of the universe.”

Newsweek’s Ana Elena Azpurua spoke to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas–Austin about the scientific and alleged religious import of the work that will be done (and discoveries that many hope scientists will make) at the new collider.

Though it’s the next to last question in the published interview, Weinberg admits that he’s an atheist, even while gibing at others by pointing out that he doesn’t “make a religion” or “organize his life” out of his atheism. That unsurprisingly colors his answers to several questions, such as:

    As we come closer to developing an ultimate theory of the universe, how will this impact religion?

    As science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations. Originally, in the history of human beings, everything was mysterious. Fire, rain, birth, death, all seemed to require the action of some kind of divine being. As time has passed, we have explained more and more in a purely naturalistic way. This doesn't contradict religion, but it does takes away one of the original motivations for religion.

When asked if the work at the LHC may upset religious believers, Weinberg suggests there will be “a little less for religion to explain” if the LHC research explains the origin of the big bang (when everything came from apparently nothing!). Weinberg also, in apparent congratulations, says that established Western religions have “learned to stop trying to explain nature religiously and leave that to science.” Sadly, Weinberg is accurate: many Christians have given up connecting any aspects of Christianity —  including the basis of our faith that we have in the Word —  to any part of “real life.” The mistake they make is that the definition of what is nature seems to grow and grow, and thus science squeezes religion out. Yes, if we only use religion to explain what science “can’t,” eventually there will be no room for religion. Christians who first let naturalistic science explain the origin of fossils by saying there was no creation now hear the same naturalistic science explain that there is no soul, no afterlife, no God, etc., by the same logic.

In actuality, there is no dichotomy between so-called religion and so-called science; rather, there are different worldviews, each that religiously hold an axiom by faith at their core, and build understandings of the world —  scientific or otherwise —  off of that axiom. In Weinberg’s godless worldview, the origin of the big bang is taken by faith, just as Christians accept God’s eternal existence by faith. “In the beginning the big bang created the heavens and the earth” might be the naturalist’s starting dogma. Even Weinberg, without realizing it, points out the faith required by both theists and atheists (in answer to, “You once said that even if we find that final theory, it will still be possible to ask why this one and not another.”):

    Yes, it is true. What will be completely satisfying will be to show that there was only one kind of nature that was logically possible and derive the laws of nature in the same way that we derived the principles of arithmetic. I don’t think that will be possible, because we can already imagine logically consistent laws of nature that don't quite describe the world we see. We will always be somewhat disappointed. But people who believe in God have the same problem. They will never be able to understand why the God that they believe in is that way and not some other way. All human beings, whether religious or not, are caught in a tragic situation of never fully being able to understand the world we are in. [emphasis added]
_______________________________________

[nChrist]

In Search of God
Quest for “God particle” to replace God?
Answers In Genesis - April 1, 2008

Weinberg has made our case for us, in a way! Meanwhile, his nascent morality similarly belies his implicit agreement with the biblical worldview. In answering the question, “Are [religious people] also going to be disappointed about our position in nature, our purpose?” Weinberg says:

    We don’t see any purpose dictated to human beings in nature. Human life does have a purpose, but it is a purpose that we invent for ourselves. It takes a certain act of courage to look at nature, not see any plan for human beings in there and yet go on and live good lives, love each other, create beautiful things, explore the universe. All these take more courage without having some divine plan that we discover, but one that we rather create for ourselves.

So what if the purpose I invent for myself is to not live a “good” life, to not love anyone, to destroy, etc.? Can an atheist show that such behavior is in any way “wrong” —  for what does the term “wrong” even mean other than perhaps indicating a minority view of subjective morality? According to Weinberg, wasn’t serial killing cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer living just as “courageously” as Mother Teresa? But where did Dahmer get his “morals”?

    If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then —  then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing . . . .

– Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Even prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins agrees with us:

    Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”

    Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”

“Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,” Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

Even recent school shootings, such as the eight killed in Finland late last year, remind us of the sort of “purpose” belief in evolution allows us to —  as Weinberg says —  invent for ourselves.

Finally, we come to the question of whether Weinberg is open to belief in God. “Could something found in the Large Hadron Collider or in future experiments make you change your mind [about God]?” Azpurua asks. Weinberg replies:

    It is logically possible that something could be discovered that will make me change my mind, and it will be interesting to see if that happens. But I don’t expect it. It is always possible that we will discover something in nature that cannot be explained in the naturalistic way that we’ve gotten used to in science and that will really require divine intervention. That hasn’t happened.

We would argue that no bit of evidence —  no scientific discovery —  is going to make Weinberg change his mind; after all, there are plenty of unanswered questions in secular science that require divine intervention (e.g., origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of genetic information, origin of language and morality), but atheists hold on to their faith that science will provide them with a way around the God conclusion. If Weinberg doesn’t see enough to believe in God now, then he never will (from a logical standpoint).

After all, many misportray the debate as “which —  science or religion —  has more evidence to support it?” As we’ve said, that’s an incorrect view; both rest on faith, and both interpret their evidence through their worldview. There’s all the evidence and all the explanations anyone needs to adopt and be intellectually satisfied with the biblical worldview. Rejecting the biblical worldview, then, is never because of insufficient evidence, but because of a heart and mind turned against the one true God.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Evidence of Nothing

Evaluating evidence is a key component in the search for truth, not only in science but in other areas of life. The ability to identify supporting facts and data is vital for proving or disproving a hypothesis, whether it relates to a scientific theory, a legal claim, or some other matter. There are times, however, when the absence of corroborative data counts just as strongly as evidence in its own right.

Rules of Evidence

Over the past centuries, the search for truth in science has been formalized into the process known
as the scientific method, whereby theories are developed and tested according to a generally accepted
standard. In a similar fashion, the legal profession operates by what is known as the Rules of Evidence.1

Developed over hundreds of years and brought to America via English Common Law, these rules are
relied upon to decide disputes over financial transactions, inheritance, land, parental custody of minor
children, and criminal matters such as whether a convicted killer should be executed. Circumstantial evidence, analyzed by principles of forensic science, may involve a broken knife at the scene of a burglary, or pistol discharge evidence on the clothes of a suspect.2

For generations now, we Americans have trusted these Evidence Rules with our lives, our liberties,
and our properties. Accordingly, in legal controversies, the Rules of Evidence serve as a vital vehicle
for seriously searching out and reliably reaching (it is hoped) the truth. Real truth stands up to being tested.

And even the absence of evidence can operate as a silent witness, testifying to a circumstance where there is nothing, when there should be something. But what would happen if we applied the same
principles of the Evidence Rules to analyzing other types of disputes, such as the scientific controversies about origins? Before answering that question, let us
consider how the evidence of “nothing, when there should be something” was used to sentence a medical doctor to jail time for asserting false claims.

Circumstantial Evidence of “Nothing”

This Medicare fraud case involved years of federal court proceedings, with one of the appeals being
decided last year.3 Part of the convicting evidence was nothing—literally nothing, when there should have been something. In the related cases of Okoro and Akpan (see note 3 below), Victor Okoro, M.D., in concert with others, was accused of fraudulent Medicare billing practices, which conflicted with his “medical missionary” trips and a bogus charity called the Sisters of
Grace. The appellate court commented on Dr. Okoro’s

Medicare fraud:

Although some of the patients [in Texas] received physical therapy treatments and some
were examined by Okoro, each patient signed blank sign-in sheets and blank patient forms. In
addition, Okoro signed most of the forms himself, yet many of the patients testified that he
had never examined them....Okoro signed patient documents that stated that he had treated
those patients on specific dates and at specific times on which Okoro could not possibly have
rendered services. For example, many of the dates on which Okoro alleged that he provided
services were dates when he was in Nigeria.4

Of course, the federal prosecutor had no difficulty proving that Okoro was absent from Texas,
due to his using airports to exit the United States. Likewise, federal records provided the dates when
Dr. Okoro re-entered America, so the official federal government records were relevant (and admissible) for showing the dates of Okoro’s travels in and out of
the country. Yet just as important, from a circumstantial evidence standpoint, was the government’s proof of “nothing” on other legally important dates. The federal government’s trial proof included official government records with absences of entries on the dates in question, showing that Dr. Okoro was not recorded as having re-entered the United States in time for him to have performed the medical services for which he billed Medicare.

This illustrates the power of an argument from silence—the forensic force of such a silent witness can buttress a sentence of felony jail time. So, technically speaking, how can “nothing” become admissible circumstantial evidence at trial? Federal Evidence Rule 803(10) provides one such forensic possibility:

Absence of Public Record or Entry. To prove the absence of a record, report, statement, or
data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record,
report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with rule 902, if necessary, or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement, or
data compilation, or entry.

Evidence Rule 803(7) is similar, but it applies to admitting as trial evidence the fact that regularly
recorded “business records” have a relevant “absence” of an entry, as well as where and when a documentary “nothing” is forensically important.5

Origins and the Evidence of Nothing

So how does the evidence of nothing demonstrated by this particular Medicare fraud scheme
relate to the question of origins? The comparison can be illustrated by applying the Evidence Rules that govern “nothing, when there should be something” to the problem of “missing links.” This evidentiary insight may be unusual, but it is certainly not new.6

When examining the quixotic quest for missing links, it is like déjà vu—literally nothing, when there should have been something. To use the logic of Rule 803(10), a diligent search for these so-called transitional form fossils over a period of 150 years has failed to disclose them. What kind of empirical
evidence is that, regarding the origin of earth’s life forms? The years of diligent search indicate a glaring
absence of molecules-to-man evolutionary phylogeny in the fossil record. In other words, the empirical
data of earth’s fossils, if analyzed forensically, show that evolutionary phylogeny notions are just empty imaginings, refuted by the evidence of nothing.

Dr. John Morris has recently summarized what the global fossil record contains, and (more importantly) what it does not contain. Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the “missing link,” the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more. If you still don’t know what a missing link is, don’t worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We’ve never seen one.7

This argument from silence is an absence in the evidentiary record—a “nothing, where there should
be something” if evolutionary theory were true. But evolutionary theory is not true, so the real world’s fossil record has been providing irrefutable evidence, by the absence of missing links, for a long, long time now (see the articles noted below8 for several thorough
analyses of the fossil record’s evidence).

Conclusion

Some may say that the above analysis is “much ado about nothing.” However, there is so much “science falsely so called” involved9 that it is imperative that we use the greatest care and the highest standards in our quest to uncover the true history of our world. And sometimes, “nothing” is itself evidence for the truth.

References

1. The Federal Rules of Evidence have been cloned, with only
small modifications, by the 50 states. According to Rule 102,
the Federal Rules of Evidence are supposed to be applied “to
the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings
justly determined.” This article focuses mainly on Evidence
Rules 803(7) and 803(10), which respectively govern the
admissibility as evidence of an absence of information that
could have been (but was not) entered into a regular business
record or an official government record.

2. See page 41 of The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels
Examined by the Rules of Evidence by Simon Greenleaf, originally
published in 1874, reprinted in 1995 (Grand Rapids,
MI: Kregel).

3. Trial in federal district court began in September 2002. One
appellate ruling was published as United States v. Akpan, 407
F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2005), and a later appellate ruling appears
at United States v. Okoro, 213 Fed. Appx. 348, 2007 WL 98804
(5th Cir. 2007) (non-precedent).

4. Quoting from United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d at 364-365.

5. The same forensic principle can be applied to critiquing historical
data. See, e.g., page 146 in Bill Cooper’s After the Flood
(Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 1995).

6. Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, 41.

7. Morris, J. 2006. What’s a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).

8. Gish, D. 1983. Creating the Missing Link: A Tale about a
Whale. Acts & Facts. 12

(9); Morris, H. 2001. Evolution Is
Religion—Not Science. Acts & Facts. 30 (2); Sherwin, F. 2007.
Follow the Evidence! Acts & Facts. 36 (4); Gish, D. 1984. Evolution:
The Changing Scene. Acts & Facts. 13

(10); Parker, G.
1980. Creation, Selection, and Variation. Acts & Facts. 9 (10);
Morris, H. 1979. Revolutionary
Evolutionism. Acts & Facts. 8

(11); Parker, G. 1981. Origin
of Mankind. Acts & Facts. 10
(11); Gish, D. 1981. Summary
of Scientific Evidence
for Creation, Part I & II. Acts
& Facts. 10 (5).
9. 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV).

[Soldier4Christ]

True Science Is Creation Science
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

Modern secular scientists have gained a reputation as aggressively standing against God and Christianity. In many cases this reputation is justified, as has been documented frequently on these pages. However, while many scientists may be anti-God, science itself is not. All true science is creation science. Articles in this and previous issues of Acts & Facts show that the majority of science's founding fathers were Christians and creationists. One would be hard-pressed to find a single scientific breakthrough that required evolution.

Many good scientists believe in evolution, and many important discoveries have been made by evolutionists. To do so they utilized the principles of good science, but they didn't use evolution. They may have given an evolutionary interpretation and application of their observations, but careful observation of the way things are in the present and well-grounded deduction of the way they operated in the past can be done by any good scientist. Religious speculations about the unseen past, such as evolution, don't enter into it.

The gathering together of good research scientists has been a priority at ICR, and some of their discoveries--like those made during the RATE research project--have been stunning. How do they do it? With such a small contingent of colleagues and a small budget, it would seem impossible by the world's standards. What is their secret?

The profile of the ICR scientist flows down a common path. Each scientist distinguished himself or herself as a productive professional with impeccable credentials before entering ICR's employ. They brought many useful skills and experiences when they came, each with a different story. Some came through the secular university route, while others came from research backgrounds.

But the main thing they brought was an individual commitment to the scriptural worldview and a vibrant walk with God. Each one studies Scripture in his or her personal life, and times together with them will just as often be punctuated with a biblical discussion as a scientific topic. Their secular peers may think this an impediment, but it is truly not so. A scriptural mindset allows them to think creatively--outside the box, as it were. Furthermore, it affords them access to the omniscient Spirit of the Creator, who intimately knows how things originated. This is not to claim they are infallible, but at least they're in the right ballpark. They don't deny truth before they start, as do evolution proponents. Yet scientific honesty restrains them from going too far afield. These are biblically-minded scientists, approaching their scientific fields as knowledgeable biblicists.

Is this not how it should be? They stand on the shoulders of the great creation scientists of the past, thus looking farther and seeing more clearly than they. It is a blessing and a privilege to work with these Scripture-motivated scientists, and to count them as friends. They are an inspiration to me and the many others whom they touch.

Thank you for your prayers and support for this ministry. Even more exploration of His world in submission to His Word awaits us, and we look forward to sharing our results with you.

[Soldier4Christ]

Cosmic Magnetic Fields
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.*

What is the origin of the magnetic fields we observe in the universe? Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, research physicist at ICR, has developed an explanation for the magnetic fields of earth, other planets in the solar system, stars, galaxies, and even the cosmos itself. On the basis of Scriptures that imply that the original created material of earth was water, Dr. Humphreys proposed a number of years ago that when God created the water, the spins of its hydrogen nuclei were at first aligned in one direction. That would produce an initially strong magnetic field for each object in the cosmos. With time, the energy and intensity of these fields decreased due to random motions and cosmic events.

The major source of magnetic fields in most materials is atomic electrons, whose rapid spins produce strong fields. However, the 10 electrons in a water molecule group themselves into pairs, with opposite spins in each pair. That cancels out any large-scale effect of their magnetic fields. But protons and neutrons generate tiny magnetic fields of their own, about a thousand times smaller than the magnetic fields of electrons. Just as in the case of the electrons, the 8 protons in an oxygen nucleus group themselves into pairs with opposite spins in each pair. The 8 neutrons do likewise. So an oxygen nucleus makes no contribution to large-scale magnetic fields. But the single protons of the hydrogen atoms in a molecule of water are far away from each other, so they interact only weakly.

Normally, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei throughout the water point in random directions and cancel out their overall magnetic field. But what if God created the hydrogen nuclei with all their spins pointing in the same direction? In that case, the tiny magnetic fields of the hydrogen nuclei would come into existence instantaneously along with the water as God created it, adding up to a large overall magnetic field for each concentration of mass. Normal electromagnetic events would then conserve the magnetic field by an electric current in the planet's core as God transformed the water to other materials. After 6,000 years of decay, these magnetic fields would decrease in intensity. For example, the strength of earth's magnetic field would have declined to what we observe today, considering energy losses from magnetic reversals during the Genesis Flood.

Dr. Humphreys extended his theory to the other planets of the solar system, the sun, and the moon a few years ago. The theory explains the observed magnetic field strengths of those bodies as well. It also correctly predicted the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft, as well as magnetizations of surface rocks on Mars. Finally, the Messenger spacecraft mission to Mercury will be testing his fourth prediction from this year through 2011.1

In an upcoming paper submitted to the August 2008 International Conference on Creationism entitled "The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields," Dr. Humphreys improves his theory once again and applies it to updated solar system data, meteorites, and the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Then in a brief survey, he applies it beyond our solar system to ordinary stars, magnetic stars, white dwarf stars, pulsars, "magnetars," galaxies, and the cosmos itself. The theory appears capable of explaining the magnetic fields of all heavenly bodies for which we have magnetic data. In contrast, the origin of cosmic magnetic fields is still a great mystery to uniformitarian theorists.

Reference

1. Please see Dr. Humphreys' article "Magnetic Message from Mercury," published February 5, 2008, on the Creation Ministries International website, www.creationontheweb.com.