Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Man of Science, Man of God: Robert Boyle
by Christine Dao*

Who: Robert Boyle
What: Father of Modern Chemistry
When: January 25, 1627 - December 30, 1691
Where: Born in Lismore Castle, County Waterford, Ireland

Irish natural philosopher Robert Boyle was a major contributor in the fields of physics and chemistry. One of the first to transform the study of science into an experimental discipline, he also championed the concept that all discoveries should be published, not withheld for personal profit and power--a common practice at the time. A devoted student of the Bible, he also produced multiple books and essays on religion.

The fourteenth child of Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Cork, young Robert learned to speak Latin, Greek, and French and entered Eton College before he was nine. He later journeyed abroad with a French tutor, including a visit to Florence, Italy, in 1641 to study with the elderly Galileo Galilei. In 1645, Boyle was put in charge of several family estates, marking the beginning of his scientific research. He earned a prominent place in the "Invisible College," a group of scientific minds that were instrumental in forming the Royal Society in 1663.

After moving to Oxford, Boyle and his research assistant Robert Hooke expounded on the design and construction of Otto von Guericke's air pump to create the "machina Boyliana." In 1660, he published his New Experiments Physico-Mechanical, Touching the Spring of the Air, and its Effects Made, for the most part, in a New Pneumatical Engine. His response to critics of this work included the first mention of the law that the volume of a gas varies inversely to the pressure of the gas, what many physicists call today "Boyle's Law."1

Though he also made discoveries regarding how air is used in sound transmission and the expansive force of freezing water, Boyle's favorite scientific study by far was chemistry, which he believed should no longer be a subordinate study of alchemy or medicine. In 1661, he criticized traditional alchemists and laid the foundation for the atomic theory of matter in The Sceptical Chymist, the cornerstone work for modern chemistry.

In addition to his scientific research, Boyle diligently studied the Bible. Along with the Greek he acquired in childhood, he learned Hebrew, Cyriac, and Chaldee so that he could read the text firsthand. His faith drove his experimental studies, as evidenced in his published works, and he believed that science and Scripture exist in harmony. Conflicts between science and the Bible, Boyle explained, were either due to a mistake in science or an incorrect interpretation of Scripture.

    Even when some revelations are thought not only to transcend reason, but to clash with it, it is to be considered whether such doctrines are really repugnant to any absolute catholic rule of reason, or only to something which depends upon the measure of acquired information we enjoy.2

His 1681 work A Discourse of Things Above Reason stressed the limitations of reason, which Boyle maintained should not be allowed to judge what God's revelation could or could not do. He believed the attributes of God can be seen by studying nature scientifically and that His wisdom is observed in creation.

    When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature's curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chymical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in wisdom hast Thou made them all!3

During his directorship of the East India Company, Boyle promoted Christianity in the East by financially supporting missionaries and translations of the Bible. Upon his death, he endowed a series of lectures in his will designed to defend Christianity. The "Boyle Lectures" are held annually to this day in London, a legacy of this remarkable man of God.

References

   1. The original hypothesis was that of Henry Power in 1661 (though Boyle mistakenly attributed it to Richard Townley in his writings).
   2. Boyle, Robert. 1690. Reflections on a Theological Distinction.
   3. Boyle, Robert. 1660. Seraphic Love.

[Soldier4Christ]

Intelligence Expelled
by Christine Dao*

"Ideas have consequences." With these words, Premise Media CFO Ralph Manning summarized Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at an early screening event in Fort Worth, Texas. The new film, starring stoic funnyman Ben Stein, has stirred up a lot of controversy in recent months--and that appears to be its goal.

"Ben Stein is an ardent defender of the sanctity of life and has come to see Darwinian evolution as an important issue in the culture war," Manning explained. The film, he said, attempts to bring the underlying issues surrounding the origins debate to the attention of an otherwise apathetic public.

Shot in ten countries on four continents, Expelled chronicles the economist, actor, lawyer, columnist, and former presidential speechwriter's search for answers as he conducts interviews with both proponents and dissenters of the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution. His destinations include universities, museums, and even the Nazi extermination camp of Dachau, located in southern Germany near Munich.

Expelled, set to open in approximately 1,000 theatres nationwide on April 18, challenges conventional thought and exposes the systematic suppression of academic freedom and free speech that the scientific community has conducted under the guise of "science." Stein injects his signature humor into an otherwise grave matter, at first providing comical counterpoints to evolutionary claims, but then gradually revealing the serious consequences of allowing politics and personal agendas to muzzle the free marketplace of ideas.

The film dips into the ideology behind the theories of evolution and intelligent design. Viewers are treated to a model animation and scientific explanation of DNA and cellular systems. With advances in molecular biology and nanotechnology, scientists are discovering the amazing intricacies and complexities of the human cell, most of which were unknown in Darwin's time.

But the main focus is the oppression of scientists and educators who have been fired, denied tenure, or otherwise shunned because they dared to question Darwinism. Journalist and author Larry Witham told Stein that among his years of reporting on the evolution debate, he found that people can't question the "paradigm" if they want to advance in science. After all, grant money and teaching positions are controlled by the evolutionary elitists, barring most dissenting scientists from conducting research that might oppose evolution.

Many scientists' identities had to be shielded in the film for fear of persecution and/or retribution. Guillermo Gonzalez, an eminent astronomer who was denied tenure at Iowa State University, said that scientists will use intelligent design to do their research, but will not publicly talk about or admit it. The film employs imagery of the Berlin Wall to illustrate this suppression. Academic freedom is only allowed on one side of the wall, Stein explains, and any ideas from the "other side" must be eliminated.

His sobering visits to Dachau and the Hadamar "mental hospital"-- where more than 14,000 "patients" met their demise under Nazism's racial purity policies--painted an eerie picture of what happens to humanity when a few elitists take it upon themselves to help along the evolutionary process. According to From Darwin to Hitler author Richard Weikart, Hitler saw World War II as a Darwinian struggle for existence, and he justified the practice of eugenics by saying that mankind had "transgressed the law of natural selection" by allowing inferior beings to survive and propagate (Mein Kampf, 1925).

Darwinism's proponents are given ample time to state their case. Biologist Richard Dawkins and National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott make appearances, though their comments don't so much present evidence for Darwinism as reveal their own biases. Scott proudly displays a push-pin map of the United States showing areas where the NCSE is making efforts to quell opposition to Darwinism. The film concludes with a one-on-one interview between Dawkins and Stein, a discussion that is sure to surprise audiences on either side of the "wall."

A variety of reviews, blogs, and judgments circulated the web even before the movie's release. Some compared Expelled to the works of Michael Moore, and others denied that Stein ever interviewed Dawkins at all. If the film stirred up this much controversy before hitting the big screen, then it has certainly been successful thus far in promoting its primary message: "Ideas have consequences."

[Soldier4Christ]

Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*

Ernst Chain and his colleague Howard Florey are credited with "one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever made."1 Together with Sir Alexander Fleming, they were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. What is less well known, however, is that this preeminent biochemist openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research.

A Brilliant Career

Ernst Boris Chain (1906–1979) was born in Berlin, Germany, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology. Although he became a highly respected scientist, as a Jew he foresaw what was coming and left his home country soon after Hitler came to power.2 He worked in England as a research scientist at Cambridge, also studying for a Ph.D. there, and then at Oxford University until 1948.3

After Oxford, Chain worked in research and as a professor at several universities. The promise of better equipment lured him to Rome, but Britain, conscious of its loss, soon enticed him back by building him a new research laboratory.2 His lifelong work was "all about the mystery of life,"4 and during his 40-year career he accomplished "amazingly diverse achievements"5--even feats once considered impossible, such as the production of lysergic acid by the deep fermentation process.6

A Major Founder of Antibiotics

In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.7 During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees,8 the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.9

Chain was selected as a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize specifically for his research that demonstrated the structure of penicillin and successfully isolated the active substance by freeze-drying the mold broth to make its use practical.10 When Chain was doing his research it required 125 gallons of broth to produce enough penicillin powder for one tablet! Now the same tablet is mass-produced for a few cents.

An internationally respected scientist, Chain is widely regarded as one of the major founders of the whole field of antibiotics. Aside from sanitation, the discovery of antibiotics was arguably the single most important revolution in medicine in terms of saving lives. Chain later wrote a leading text on the subject. 11 In 1940 he also discovered penicillinase, an enzyme that is used by bacteria to inactivate penicillin, negating its effectiveness.12 Chain knew that bacteria had become resistant to the drug and had already started working on the problem at this early date.

Other important scientific work by Chain included the study of snake venom, specifically the finding that its neurotoxic effects are caused by destroying an essential intracellular respiratory coenzyme.

A "Hypothesis Based on No Evidence"

One of Chain's lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, which he concluded was a "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory."13

    This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time.14

A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was "entirely a consequence of chance mutations" was a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."15

    These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.15

Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.13 Chain's eldest son, Benjamin, added: "There was no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."16

Problems with Evolution

Another reason he did not consider evolution a scientific theory was because it is obvious that "living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive."15 Chain recognized that the problem was not the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest, and that mutations do produce some variety:

    There is no doubt that such variants do arise in nature and that their emergence can and does make some limited contribution towards the evolution of species. The open question is the quantitative extent and significance of this contribution.15

He added that evolution "willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species."15

He was especially aware of how the research in his own field pointed to problems with evolution. In particular, Chain noted our modern knowledge of the genetic code and that its function in transmitting genetic information seems quite incompatible with classical Darwinian ideas of evolution.17

Evolution, Morals, and Faith

Another concern about evolution that Chain expressed was evolution's moral implications. In a 1972 speech he presented in London, he stated:

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

    It is easy to draw analogies between the behavior of apes and man, and draw conclusions from the behavior of birds and fishes on human ethical behavior, but ...this fact does not allow the development of ethical guidelines for human behavior. All attempts to do this...suffer from the failure to take into account the all important fact of man's capability to think and to be able to control his passions, and are therefore doomed to failure.18

Chain did not accept some scientists' estimation that "religious belief" did not deserve serious consideration, countering that scientific theories themselves are ephemeral.

    In a lecture which Crick, who, together with Watson and Wilkins, discovered the bihelical structure of DNA, gave a couple of years ago to students at University College...he said...that it was ridiculous to base serious decisions on religious belief. This seems to me a very sweeping and dogmatic conclusion...scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and...may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact....This has happened time and again even in the exactest of sciences, physics and astronomy, and applies even more so to the biological field, where the concepts and theories are much less securely founded than in physics and are much more liable to be overthrown at a moment's notice.15

One might dismiss Chain's view on Darwinism as simply a result of his faith, but Clark stresses that how "directly such views were linked to his religious beliefs is open to endless argument."18 Chain's eldest son wrote that his father's concerns about evolution were not based on religion, but rather on science. Chain, though, made it clear that he was very concerned about the effect of Darwinism on human behavior.

    Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories...must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve....a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach--which, by the way, is neither new nor original--does not really lead us very far.... Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.19

Clark concluded that Chain wrote with such flair against Darwinism that his writings "would do credit to a modern Creationist rather than an accomplished scientist."13 Chain made it very clear what he believed about the Creator and our relationship to Him. He wrote that scientists "looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility" would do well to "turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals."19

Conclusion

Sir Derek Barton wrote that there are "few scientists who, by the application of their science, have made a greater contribution to human welfare than Sir Ernst Chain."20 His work founded the field of antibiotics, which has saved the lives of multimillions of persons. Chain is only one of many modern scientists who have concluded that modern neo-Darwinism is not only scientifically bankrupt, but also harmful to society.

References

   1. Masters, D. 1946. Miracle Drug, the Inner History of Penicillin. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 7.
   2. Asimov, I. 1972. Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Garden City, NY: Double Day and Company, 712.
   3. Schlessinger, B. and J. 1986. The Who's Who of Nobel Prize Winners. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 93.
   4. Lax, E. 2004. The Mold in Dr. Florey's Coat. New York: Henry Holt, 63.
   5. Mansford, K.R.L. 1977. Profile of Sir Ernst Chain, in Hems, D.A. (ed.). Biologically Active Substances--Exploration and Exploitation. Chichester, NY: John Wiley and Sons, xxi.
   6. Barton, D. 1977. Introductory Remarks, in Hems, D.A. (ed.). Biologically Active Substances--Exploration and Exploitation. Chichester, NY: John Wiley and Sons, xviii.
   7. Lax, The Mold in Dr. Florey's Coat, 79.
   8. Ibid, 253.
   9. Curtis, R. 1993. Great Lives: Medicine. New York: Scribner, 77-90.
  10. McMurray, E. 1995. Notable Twentieth-Century Scientists. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 334.
  11. Chain, E., H. Florey and N. Heatley. 1949. Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  12. Barton, Biologically Active Substances, xxiii.
  13. Clark, R. W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press, 147.
  14. Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society. London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 24-25.
  15. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 25.
  16. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain, 147-148.
  17. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 25-26.
  18. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain, 148.
  19. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 26.
  20. Barton, Biologically Active Substances, xxvii.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Providential Wind
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

The world before the Flood evidently enjoyed substantial equilibrium. Scripture doesn't provide all the details, but we get the impression that earth movements, ocean currents, and atmospheric circulation were at a minimum. Evaporation from one area fell that evening in the same general area, indicating a more gentle environment than today's, which is dominated by major weather fronts that are in turn fueled by a greater temperature differential between the oceans and the continents. The tides still operated, but these were due to the earth's rotation and the moon's gravity. Earth basked in God's created blessings, although sin and its resultant curse had caused the original Edenic "paradise" to be lost.

The Flood changed all that. On one eventful day, after Noah, his family, and the animals had entered the Ark, "were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (Genesis 7:11). This launched a period of unimaginable tectonic and meteorologic horror. "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth…and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark" |v. 21, 23|.

"And God remembered Noah…and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged" (Genesis 8:1), commencing a cascade of events that ended the Flood. The ICR research wing has several ongoing research projects that propose to delve more deeply into these processes, so more may soon be known about the Flood and its aftermath. We know about wind and its effect, but this supernaturally-caused wind is beyond our experience.

Such a wind would have several implications. For one thing, it would have played a part in draining the land. The continents today are, in places, several thousand miles in width. To get the water from the continents' interior to the shores and into the ocean would normally have taken some time. The wind would have aided this.

Remember also that the land surface was fully saturated at the Flood's end, and a strong, prolonged wind would have helped dry it out. By sending out the ravens and the dove, Noah was testing to see how far this evaporation had progressed. Eventually, "the face of the ground was dry" (Genesis 8:13), but not yet able to support life. A month later "was the earth dried" |v. 14| and Noah was able to free the animals.

This evaporation was necessary on another front as well. Evaporating water removes significant heat from the system, and abundant heat was everywhere. Heat from the earth's interior was introduced to the surface by the rising "fountains of the great deep," probably boiling the oceans above the subterranean vents. Rapid lateral movements of the continents, as proposed by the best creationist model, would have generated immense heat from the friction involved. So too would the vertical uplift of the mountains, virtually all of which rose at this time as the down-warped sedimentary basins sought to regain isostatic equilibrium. No doubt Noah would have measured the average ocean temperature as quite higher than today's value.

This would in turn have been a major factor in the "Ice Age" that followed in the centuries to come. A hot ocean (more evaporation)--coupled with cold continents (greater temperature differential, sending the moisture inland) and an atmosphere filled with volcanic debris (less snowmelt due to decreased sunlight)--would have triggered staggering storms and immense snow buildup.

It was God's gracious providence to send the "wind" as He did. The great Flood of Noah's day employed recognizable geologic processes throughout, but they operated at rates, scales, and intensities far beyond their modern counterparts. His sovereign grace pervaded it all. "The Lord sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever" (Psalm 29:10).

[Soldier4Christ]

Squid Reflects Creation Evidence
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

Imagine having skin that can mimic your surroundings, or even make you invisible. The Hawaiian bobtail squid (Euprymna scolopes) in the central Pacific has just such an astounding ability. It is designed with special proteins called reflectins that are as beautiful to view as they are amazing in their role.

The study of this function is a new discipline called biophotonics, which examines the use of electromagnetic radiation (light) in the living world. Biophotonic structures of the bobtail squid give it the ability to actually control how it reflects the sunlight that shines on its body. This unique trait reflects the Creator's glory while erecting yet another scientific roadblock to the evolutionary explanation of physical origins--for how could random genetic mutations lead to such intricate molecular structures?

According to a recent article in Nature Materials, the reflectin proteins "function in static and adaptive colouration, extending visual performance and intra-species communication."1 In other words, the biophotonic structures give the squid the ability to not only communicate with other squid, but to also change its coloration to blend with its surroundings and thus hide from predators. Reflectins in the skin mantle of the bobtail squid exhibit a quality known as variable reflectivity, which can make the creature at times virtually invisible. Once again, it is God's incredible creation that may pave the way for man to one day do the unthinkable--in this case, to possibly devise a cloak that can make something (or someone) virtually undetectable.

The near instantaneous color change of the squid is due to designed microscopic organs in the skin called chromatophores. Each chromatophore has a cell containing pigment and is surrounded by about 20 muscle fibers. Motor neurons enter these fibers, and neurons extending from the fibers go to cell bodies located in special lobes of the cephalopod brain. Thus, these are "neurally-controlled photonic structures."1

The reflectins seem to be unique to squid, coded for by at least six genes (specific DNA segments). In addition, researchers have found that the Hawaiian bobtail squid efficiently uses an exclusive bilobed ("two-lobed") light organ to its advantage. A species of bioluminescent bacteria called Vibrio fischera in the light organ receives nourishment from the squid. In return, the bacteria secrete a tracheal cytotoxin designed to control the development of the light organ. This cytotoxin is a small segment of the deleterious bacteria that causes whooping cough in humans. But perhaps the toxin served a more useful function, as we see in the squid,2 prior to the introduction of sin into God's creation, which led to the Fall and the current curse under which creation groans (Romans 8:22).

To conclude, not only is biophotonic design evidence for a clearly seen creation (Romans 1:20), but the Hawaiian bobtail squid in particular provides the creation scientist with a possible original benign function for disease-causing bacteria. Truly, God's creation declares--and reflects--His glory (Psalm 19:1).

References

   1. Kramer, R. et al. 2007. The self-organizing properties of squid reflectin protein. Nature Materials. 6:533-538.
   2. Sherwin, F. November 2005. Creation, Corruption, and Cholera. Acts & Facts. 34(11):5.

[Soldier4Christ]

Christians in Space
by David F. Coppedge*

Many alive today have witnessed the entire history of space flight. Anyone who looked up to see Sputnik cross the sky on October 4, 1957, remembers the panic that set in across the country. The thought of communists beating us to space was intolerable. American prestige sank to a new low when Vanguard, the Navy's attempt to launch a satellite into orbit on December 6, blew up on the launch pad before the watching world. The turning point in the race came with America's first success, Explorer 1, on January 31, 1958--50 years ago. Two key figures in this achievement became bold Christians in the years that followed.

Though technical success in space is a collective achievement, the title "father of the space program" or "world's greatest rocket scientist" could defensibly be given to Wernher von Braun.1 Only von Braun took space exploration from childhood dreams to reality. By his death in 1977, his rockets had taken man to the moon and probes to Mars, Venus, and Mercury, with the Voyagers en route to the outer planets.

In 1962, an engineer led Dr. von Braun to Christ using a Gideon Bible. Upon praying to repent of sin and receive Christ, the eminent rocket scientist confessed that he felt like a great burden had been lifted off him. He became a fervent Christian, and prayed for the success of his launches. As Apollo 11 lifted off the pad, he was found reciting the Lord's Prayer. Never pushy about his faith, he spoke openly about it when asked. In 1972, he wrote to the California school board to argue for inclusion of non-evolutionary views in science classes. Popular magazine articles by von Braun discussed science's dependence on Christian faith.

Another man behind the success of Explorer 1 was Dr. Henry L. Richter, Jr. (Ph.D., Caltech), the Group Supervisor of Explorer Design and Development. After Explorer 1's success, he continued work on the Ranger, Mariner, and Surveyor programs, eventually leaving JPL for private enterprise and consulting. During those same years of the 1960s, Dr. Richter recognized his need for the Lord and later became a committed Christian. Recently, he published a small book that describes the wonders of life and the universe.2 Richter explains how these intricate designs could not have evolved. The book, which defends a young-earth position, ends with a call to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I received a surprise call from Dr. Richter this past December. At the time, I did not know who he was. Dr. Richter said he had read some of my articles in ICR's magazine and wanted to get acquainted, since he was coming to the lab to work on a documentary film. On the day we met, I was astonished to learn he was a key player in the mission that brought America to space. Now 80 years old and still sharp, he fascinated me with tales of those adventurous days.

A month later, on January 30, JPL had a big 50th-year anniversary celebration for all employees. Dr. Richter was an honored guest among dozens of octogenarian retirees who came for the occasion. I heard him give a speech to employees about Explorer 1. He ended with a bold testimony about how he came to have a glorious relationship with the Designer of the universe.

I can testify from experience that there are many Christians in the space program. They may not write the press releases, but they are there. They do excellent work, witnessing as they can in a mostly secularist/evolutionary environment. Like followers of Jesus Christ in all walks of life, they are the salt and light of the planet.

References

   1. Although Dr. von Braun's research was co-opted by Germany during World War II, von Braun himself was never a supporter of Nazism.
   2. Henry L. Richter, Jr., PhD, PE. 2006. The Universe: A Surprising Cosmological Accident. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bountiful Sowing
by Henry Morris IV*

As Director of Donor Relations, a good portion of my time each month is spent writing notes of thanks to donors who support ICR ministries. This task is most dear to my heart, since it is a reminder of how dependent we are on our Creator and how He always provides for our needs (Philippians 4:19). I often include a Bible reference with each note, and one of my personal favorites is 2 Corinthians 9:6-7:

    But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

The Apostle Paul's counsel and encouragement to the Christians in Corinth still rings true today, which is why this verse is an appropriate testament to our supporters. As ICR earnestly seeks to sow our Creator's mighty message in the hearts of mankind, so too our donors "sow bountifully" with their gracious support to ensure that this vital work continues. ICR is deeply thankful for all those who share our vision through their prayer and finances (Philippians 1:3). We are especially pleased when our partners in ministry are able to "reap…bountifully" with their gifts as well. To that end, please consider the following ways you can "sow and reap bountifully" to continue the work within the Kingdom.

Matching Gift Programs

Most large companies today offer their employees and retirees the opportunity to participate in matching gift programs. As a federallyrecognized 501(c)(3) charity, ICR qualifies for programs that match gifts to educational or cultural organizations, made possible through our online master's degree program or our museum, respectively. Matching gift programs typically match dollar-for-dollar up to a certain limit, offering a wonderful opportunity to double the "bounty" of your gift. If you are an employee or retiree for a corporation that offers matching gifts, please prayerfully consider this excellent opportunity to sow bountifully to Kingdom-oriented ministries like ICR.

Charitable Gift Annuities

With rates on Certificates of Deposits (CD) hovering between 3.5 and 5 percent, Charitable Gift Annuities (CGA) currently offer much more attractive rates of return. Like a CD, these special annuities provide guaranteed income from the value of the donated asset for the life of the donor. But because the asset is given as a gift, CGAs provide additional benefits of a present tax deduction and a tax-free portion of the income stream, which CDs do not. Since CGA rates increase by age, ICR can prepare customized proposals to help you decide if a CGA is right for you. Please contact ICR if you are interested in exploring this option to sow bountifully for His service. As always, we thank you for your prayers and support.

[nChrist]

Amen! - I thank you for these great articles.

One quote about Sir Ernst Chain stood out, and I have to repeat it:

A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was "entirely a consequence of chance mutations" was a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."15

    These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.15

Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.13 Chain's eldest son, Benjamin, added: "There was no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."16

GOD THE CREATOR told us what he wants us to know about HIS CREATION in Genesis and other beautiful portions of the Holy Bible. The Laws of Nature belong to GOD because HE designed and CREATED them. The theory of evolution is simply a sad example of the vanity of man. GOD CREATED mankind exactly as HE told us that HE did in Genesis. We are the living proof of GOD'S CREATION because there is NO MISSING LINK!

[nChrist]

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 2 - 1 of 3
by Dr. Jason Lisle - April 3, 2008

The Question of Extraterrestrial Life

The distinctiveness of the earth dovetails with a question that people often ask: “Are there extraterrestrial life-forms out there?” The question of life from other planets is a hot topic in our culture today. Science fiction movies and television shows often depict strange creatures from faraway planets, but these ideas are not limited merely to science fiction programming. Many secular scientists believe that one day we will actually discover life on other planets. There are even programs like SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) that scan the heavens with powerful radio telescopes “listening” for signals from intelligent aliens. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into the idea of extraterrestrial “alien” life without critically assessing such a belief in light of Scripture.

The idea of extraterrestrial life stems largely from a belief in evolutionism. Recall that in the evolution view, the earth is “just another planet” — one where the conditions just happened to be right for life to form and evolve. If there are countless billions of other planets in our galaxy, then surely at least a handful of these worlds have also had the right conditions. Extraterrestrial life is almost inevitable in an evolutionary worldview.

However, the notion of alien life does not square well with Scripture. As previously discussed, the earth is unique. It is the earth that was designed for life (Isaiah 45:18 ), not the heavens. The other planets have an entirely different purpose than does the earth, and thus they are designed differently. In Genesis 1, we read that God created plants on the earth on day 3, birds to fly in the atmosphere and marine life to swim in the ocean on day 5, and animals to inhabit the land on day 6. Human beings are also made on day 6 and are given dominion over the animals, but where does the Bible discuss the creation of life on the “lights in the expanse of the heavens?” There is no such description, because the lights in the expanse were not designed to accommodate life. God gave care of the earth to man, but the heavens are the Lord’s (Psalms 115:16). From a biblical perspective, extraterrestrial life does not seem reasonable.

Problems are multiplied when we consider the possibility of intelligent alien life. Science fiction programming abounds with “races” of people who evolved on other worlds. We see examples of “Vulcans” and “Klingons” — pseudo-humans similar to us in most respects, but different in others.

As a plot device, these races allow the exploration of the human condition from the perspective of an outsider. Although very entertaining, such alien races are theologically problematic. Intelligent alien beings cannot be redeemed! God’s plan of redemption is for human beings: those descended from Adam. Let us examine the conflict between the salvation message, and the notion of alien life.

The Bible teaches that the first man (Adam) rebelled against God (Genesis 3). As a result, sin and death entered the world (Romans 5:12). We are all descended from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20) and have inherited from them a sin nature (Romans 6:6, 20). This is a problem: sin is a barrier that prevents man from being right with God (Isaiah 59:2), but God loves us (despite our sin) and provided a plan of redemption — a way to be reconciled with God.

After Adam and Eve sinned, God made coats of skins to cover Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). He therefore had to kill an animal(s). This literal action is symbolic of our salvation; an innocent Lamb (Christ — the Lamb of God) would be sacrificed to provide a covering for sin (John 1:29). In the Old Testament, people would sacrifice animals to the Lord as a reminder of their sin (Hebrews 10:3) and as a symbol of the One to come (the Lord Jesus) who would actually pay the penalty for sin.

The animal sacrifices did not actually pay the penalty for sin (Hebrews 10:4, 11). Animals are not related to us; their shed blood cannot count for ours, but the blood of Christ can. Christ is a blood relative of ours, since He is descended from Adam as are we; all human beings are of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). Furthermore, since Christ is also God, His life is of infinite value, and thus, His death can pay for all the sins of all people. That is why only the Lord himself could be our savior (Isaiah 45:21). Therefore, Christ died once for all (Hebrews 10:10).
___________________________________________

[nChrist]

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 2 - 2 of 3
by Dr. Jason Lisle - April 3, 2008

The Redemption of ET?
Alien plants

When we consider how the salvation plan might apply to any hypothetical extraterrestrial (but otherwise human-like) beings, we are presented with a problem. If there were “Vulcans” or “Klingons” out there, how would they be saved? They are not blood relatives of Jesus, and so Christ’s shed blood cannot pay for their sins. One might at first suppose that Christ also visited their world, and lived and died there as well, but this is anti-biblical. Christ died once for all (1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:27, 10:10). Jesus is now and forever both God and man; but He is not an “alien.”

One might suppose that alien beings have never sinned, in which case they would not need to be redeemed, but then another problem emerges: they suffer the effects of sin, despite having never sinned. Adam’s sin has affected all of creation — not just mankind. Romans 8:20–22 makes it clear that the entirety of creation suffers under the bondage of corruption. These kinds of issues highlight the problem of attempting to incorporate an antibiblical notion into the Christian worldview.

Extraterrestrial life is an evolutionary concept; it does not comport with the biblical teachings of the uniqueness of the earth and the distinct spiritual position of human beings. Of all the worlds in the universe, it was the earth that God himself visited, taking on the additional nature of a human being, dying on a cross, and rising from the dead in order to redeem all who would trust in Him. The biblical worldview sharply contrasts with the secular worldview when it comes to alien life. So, which worldview does the scientific evidence support? Do modern observations support the secular notion that the universe is teeming with life, or the biblical notion that earth is unique?

Where is everybody?


So far, no one has discovered life on other planets or detected any radio signals from intelligent aliens. This is certainly what a biblical creationist would expect. Secular astronomers continue to search for life on other worlds, but they have found only rocks and inanimate matter. Their radio searches are met with silence. The real world is the biblical world; a universe designed by God with the earth at the spiritual focal point — not an evolutionary universe teeming with life.

When it comes to extraterrestrial life, science is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary mentality. We currently have no evidence of alien life-forms. This problem is not lost on the secular scientists. Allegedly, the atomic scientist Enrico Fermi was once discussing the topic of extraterrestrial life when he asked the profound question: “Where is everybody?” Since there are multiple billions of planets in our galaxy, and since in the secular view these are all accidents, it is almost inevitable that some of these had the right conditions for life to evolve, and if some of these worlds are billions of years older than ours, then at least some of them would have evolved intelligent life eons ago. The universe should therefore have countless numbers of technologically superior civilizations, any one of which could have colonized our galaxy ages ago. Yet we find no evidence of these civilizations: “Where is everybody?” This problem has become known as the “Fermi paradox.”

This paradox for evolution is a feature of creation. We have seen that the earth is designed for life. With its oceans of liquid water, a protective atmosphere containing abundant free oxygen, and a distance from the sun that is just right for life, earth was certainly designed by God to be inhabited. The other planets of the universe were not. From the sulfuric acid clouds of Venus to the frozen wasteland of Pluto, the other worlds of the solar system are beautiful and diverse, but they are not designed for life.
___________________________________________

[nChrist]

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 2 - 3 of 3
by Dr. Jason Lisle - April 3, 2008

Why the hype?

In the 1990s, the television series The X-Files entertained millions of fans with stories of aliens, government conspiracies, and one dedicated FBI agent’s relentless search for truth. The show’s motto, “The truth is out there,” is a well-known phrase for sci-fi fans. Why is there such hype surrounding the notion of extraterrestrial life? Why is science fiction programming so popular? Why does SETI spend millions of dollars searching for life in outer space?

The discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would certainly be seen as a vindication of evolutionism; it is an expectation from a naturalistic worldview. The desire to meet aliens (especially intelligent, technologically advanced ones) seems much more deeply felt than merely to vindicate evolutionary predictions. What is the real issue? I’ve heard a number of different answers from secular astronomers.

In some cases, a belief in ETs may stem from a feeling of cosmic loneliness: “If there are aliens, then we would not be alone in the universe.” In many cases it comes from an academic desire to learn the mysteries of the universe; a highly developed alien race might have advanced knowledge to pass on to us. Perhaps such knowledge is not merely academic; the hypothetical aliens may know the answers to fundamental questions of existence: “Why am I here? What is the meaning of life?” And so on. An advanced alien race might have medical knowledge far exceeding our own: knowledge which could be used to cure our diseases. Perhaps their medical technology would be so far advanced that they even hold the secret of life and death; with such incredible medical knowledge, perhaps human beings would no longer have to die — ever.

In a way, a belief in extraterrestrial life has become a secular replacement for God. God is the one who can heal every disease. God is the one in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited (Colossians 2:3). God is the one who can answer the fundamental questions of our existence. God alone possesses the gift of eternal life (John 17:3). It is not surprising that the unbelieving scientist would feel a sense of cosmic loneliness, having rejected his Creator, but we are not alone in the universe; there is God. God created us for fellowship with Him, thus we have an in-built need for God and for purpose. Although human beings have rejected God (in Adam, and by our own sins as well), our need for fellowship with Him remains.

When I think of the majority of intelligent scientists who have studied God’s magnificent creation, but have nonetheless rejected that God and have instead chosen to believe in aliens and millions of years of evolution, I am reminded of the words of Scripture. Romans 1:18–25 reveals that a rejection of God in favor of naturalism is not a new practice. God’s invisible qualities (His eternal power and divine nature) are clearly revealed in the natural world so that there is no excuse for rejecting God (Romans 1:20) or suppressing the truth about God (Romans 1:18 ). The thinking of man apart from God is nothing more than futile speculations (Romans 1:21). Exchanging the truth of God (such as creation) for a lie (such as evolution), and turning to a mere creature (such as hypothetical aliens) for answers is strikingly similar to what is recorded in Romans 1:25.

When we start from the Bible, the evidence makes sense. The universe is consistent with the biblical teaching that the earth is a special creation. The magnificent beauty and size of a universe which is apparently devoid of life — except for one little world where life abounds — is exactly what we would expect from a biblical worldview. The truth is not “out there,” the truth is in there — in the Bible! The Lord Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). So when we base our thinking on what God has said in His Word, we find that the universe makes sense.

Creation In-depth
What about UFOs?

Sometimes after I speak on the topic of extraterrestrial life, someone will ask me about UFOs. A “UFO” (unidentified flying object) is just that — an object seen in the sky that is unidentified to the person seeing it. People often want me to explain a sighting of some unknown flying object which they (or often a friend) have claimed to see. (Sometimes the implication is that if I can’t explain it, it somehow proves that it must be an alien spacecraft; but such reasoning is completely vacuous.39) These kinds of questions are unreasonable. It is one thing to be asked to interpret evidence that we have, but it is unrealistic to ask someone to interpret undocumented second- or third-hand stories with no actual evidence available for inspection.

There is no doubt that some people sincerely have seen things in the sky that they do not understand. This is hardly surprising since there are lots of things “up there” which can be misunderstood to people not familiar with them. These include: Venus, satellites, the international space station, the space shuttle, rockets, Iridium flares, man-made aircraft, internal reflections, meteors, balloons, fireflies, aurorae, birds, ball lightning, lenticular clouds, parhelia, etc. However, a person unfamiliar with these would see a “UFO,” since the object is “unidentified” to him or her. It is how people interpret what they see that can be questionable.

Remember that we always interpret evidence in light of our worldview. It is therefore crucial to have a correct, biblical worldview. The fallacious worldview of atheism/naturalism may lead someone to draw erroneous conclusions about what they see. From a biblical worldview, we expect to occasionally see things that are not easily explained, since our minds are finite, but UFOs are not alien spacecraft, and of course there is no tangible evidence to support such a notion.

[nChrist]

Feedback: Is the Present the Key to the Past?
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S. - April 4, 2008

    Re: Evolution: The Anti-science by Jason Lisle

    First: Uniformity and Uniformitarianism are the same thing. Invariance (backwards and forwards) over time (Uniformity) of natural laws gives both: the future reflects the past and the present is the key to the past. If natural laws are invariant, then processes, which are the implementation of natural laws must also be invariant: a chemical reaction at STP done at T1 will be the same reaction at STP done at T2 regardless of T1 and T2.

    Second: why do you insist the evolutionist justify Uniformitarianism? It is an axiom! A scientist (evolutionist or creationist) deals with the way the universe operates; he is not concerned with why it is the way it is. This does not make him inconsistent.

    Third: Are you saying that Genesis 8:22 is the only rationale for Uniformity. One can infer Uniformity based on the nature of God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent without invoking Gen 1–11.

    —L.W., U.S.

    First: Uniformity and Uniformitarianism are the same thing. Invariance (backwards and forwards) over time (Uniformity) of natural laws gives both: the future reflects the past and the present is the key to the past.

Uniformity is distinct from uniformitarianism. The former asserts a consistency in the way the universe operates (if conditions are the same, one can expect the same outcome). In other words, the laws of nature are constant, but conditions and specific processes may be quite different in time or space. Conversely, uniformitarianism asserts that there is a consistency of conditions and processes. Uniformitarianism, as it pertains to geology, asserts that the geological past must be understood in light of present conditions and processes.

As an example, consider canyon formation. Today, in most cases, canyons are gradually deepening as water slowly erodes the surrounding rock layers. A person holding to uniformitarianism would assume that this has always been the case; he would believe that a canyon has formed by water slowly eroding the surrounding rock layers since “the present is the key to the past.”

However, this need not be so. A number of geologists believe that many canyons (such as the Grand Canyon) were not formed (entirely) by the slow and gradual erosion from the river they now contain. Rather, some canyons were formed quickly under catastrophic conditions. So, the present is not the key to the past in these cases. Yet, the laws of nature presumably have been the same. Therefore, this is an example of uniformity, but not uniformitarianism.

    If natural laws are invariant, then processes, which are the implementation of natural laws must also be invariant:

No, this doesn’t follow logically. Many processes (such as erosion) are not only dependent on the laws of nature, but also on conditions. For example, during flood conditions, erosion happens much more quickly than at other times, even though natural laws remain constant.

    a chemical reaction at STP done at T1 will be the same reaction at STP done at T2 regardless of T1 and T2.

Your analogy above is an example of uniformity—not uniformitarianism. If the conditions are the same, then the same result happens. However, there is no guarantee that conditions have always been constant. Chemical reactions in nature, for example, may have happened at different temperatures and pressures than today, leading to different results. So, we have uniformity, but not uniformitarianism. Hopefully the difference is now clear.
___________________________________

[nChrist]

Feedback: Is the Present the Key to the Past?
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S. - April 4, 2008

    Second: why do you insist the evolutionist justify Uniformitarianism?

A belief must be justified if it is to be considered rational. Otherwise, it is merely an arbitrary “blind” assumption. Children believe things without good reasons; they are convinced that there is a monster in the closet. And they feel no need to justify their belief; it is enough that they act on it (by pulling the sheets over their head). But, obviously, more should be expected from adults. The rational person has a reason (or reasons) for the things he or she believes.

    It is an axiom!

Even if we accept it as an axiom, a belief still requires some sort of justification if it is to be considered rational and not arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, then why not assume the exact opposite? Uniformity makes sense in my worldview: uniformity is what I would expect based on the Bible. I have a reason to believe in uniformity, and thus, I have justification for science. The evolutionist does not. He or she must either accept uniformity without reasons (on “blind faith”) or justify it by the Bible, which is contrary to evolution. The evolutionist cannot escape the irrationality of his or her position. Incidentally, I reject uniformitarianism because the Bible indicates that past conditions (such as during the Flood year) were quite different than today’s conditions.

    A scientist (evolutionist or creationist) deals with the way the universe operates; he is not concerned with why it is the way it is. This does not make him inconsistent.

In order to study how the universe operates, we need to know something about why it is the way it is. The two are different, but not totally unrelated. If the universe is merely a mindless accident, why would we expect it to be orderly, or obey mathematical laws? Why should I expect my senses to reliably inform my mind, if both are simply the results of mutations that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past? There would be no reason to think that science is even possible in such a universe. On the other hand, the biblical worldview makes sense of science. So, the way in which we do science (and even the possibility of doing science at all) requires us to know something about how the universe came to be.

    Third: Are you saying that Genesis 8:22 is the only rationale for Uniformity. One can infer Uniformity based on the nature of God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent without invoking Gen 1–11.

Uniformity cannot be justified without the Bible. The divine qualities you listed are necessary but not sufficient to warrant uniformity. The reason is that although such a God has the power to uphold the universe in a uniform fashion, He might not choose to do so. A God who has revealed Himself to mankind is required. Without the Bible we would have no guarantee that God has indeed chosen to uphold things uniformly in the future. Nor could we know that God is indeed all powerful, beyond time, faithful, and so on unless He has told us so.

Although there are verses beyond Genesis 8:22 by which one might infer uniformity, a biblical worldview is required nonetheless. And since all the other books of the Bible depend on a literal Genesis in order to be meaningful, Genesis is required to justify uniformity.

Thank you for your message. I hope my response has been helpful to you.

Dr. Jason Lisle

[Soldier4Christ]

FOSSIL SEX IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA described in an article in Adelaide Now, 24 March 2008. Researchers from the Museum of South
Australia and University of California, Riverside claim they have found the world’s earliest evidence of sexual reproduction. They
have been studying the fossils of a tubular animal named “Funisia Dorothea” found in Ediacaran rocks from the Flinders Ranges dated
as 570 million years old. They found the animals in clusters of five to fifteen individuals all of similar age – a pattern called
“spats” that occurs when large numbers of bottom dwelling animals are spawned at once and they all find their foothold in the sea
floor at the same time. This pattern would not occur if the animals reproduced by randomly breaking off shoots. Mary Drosser, one of
the researchers explained: “In general, individuals of an organism grow close to each other, in part, to ensure reproductive
success. Among living organisms, spat production results almost always from sexual reproduction and only very rarely from asexual
reproduction.” She went on the say that the findings indicate “that ecosystems were complex very early in the history of animals on
Earth”. This contradicts theories that claim the earliest forms of life were simple creatures that reproduced asexually.


ED. COM. Whilst we don’t agree with the time frame, we agree with the comments that the first living creatures were complex, and
lived in complex ecosystems right from the start and from before any sediments had been laid down rapidly to fossilise them. Genesis
one and two, tells us that after God had created the physical environment of land and sea and provided plants for food and habitat,
He then filled the various ecological zones with all the different kinds of creatures that would live in each one and reproduce
after their kinds. It comes as a shock to most evolutionists to be reminded that finding extinct creatures does not actually provide
any evidence such creatures evolved, but it is one consequence you would expect from reading the Biblical history of a good world
going downhill.