Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

LEARNING TO FOLLOW YOUR NOSE described in an article in ScienceNOW 18 Dec 2006 and New Scientist, 23 Dec 2006, p9. University of California Berkeley scientists have found that humans can follow a scent trail like a dog and can get better if they practice. The researchers tested 32 people to see if they could follow a trail of chocolate essence drawn along a patch of grass by crawling on the ground and sniffing. Two thirds of them were able to follow the trail. Four volunteers then practiced scent trailing three times a day for three days, and were then able to follow the trail more accurately at a greater speed. Further experiments showed that the ability to follow scents involves comparing the intensity of the odour between air entering each nostril and from one sniff to the next. The scientists do not believe humans could ever replace dogs in detecting smells. We have difficulty moving quickly close to the ground and have far fewer smell receptors in the nose. The experiments are part of an ongoing study into how the sense of smell actually works.

ED. COM. For many years the human sense of smell was written off as an almost useless vestige left over from evolutionary ancestors, but recent research, including the experiments described above, has shown that the human sense of smell works in a sophisticated way, and we have sufficient sense of smell for our needs. (Would you like the world to be any smellier than it is?) The real test has come when chemical engineers have tried to design systems that can work as well as the human nose for analysing things that humans regularly smell. So far they haven't succeeded, and perfume manufacturers and food technologists still have to employ people to test products for smell. When they can replace people with artificial noses they will have proven that real human noses are the result of creative design, not naturalistic or chance random evolution.

[Soldier4Christ]

POLYMER PLATELETS FOR LEAKY PIPES described in New Scientist, 23 Dec 2006, p29. A technology company in the UK is developing polymer blobs that can form a temporary plug on leaking pipes in a similar way that platelets help stop blood leaking from damaged blood vessels. The blobs can be introduced into the pipes upstream from the leak and will flow along the pipe until they come to the
damaged area where they clump together in the hole in the pipe. So far the blobs have been tested in oil pipelines and the company hopes to test them in water pipes. Different sizes and polymer compositions will be needed for different liquids as they need to be neutrally buoyant.

ED. COM. It has already taken creative design to develop these blobs and will require more intelligent engineering to perfect them for different types of liquids and pipes. When engineers perfect them they still won't have anything that is as sophisticated as real platelets. As long as blood vessels are intact they are not needed and they float around as individual items in the blood not doing anything. As soon as a blood vessel wall is damaged, nearby platelets change their surface properties so that they adhere to
the vessel wall and to each other. They also send out signals to attract other platelets, blood clotting proteins and cells that clean up damaged tissue and repair the defect. When a vessel is damaged it is too late to make new platelets. Any living thing trying to evolve platelets would bleed to death first. Platelets are a good example of plan and purpose, not evolution by chance random processes.

[Soldier4Christ]

THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN shows as ID advocates interviewed in the movie Expelled went to great pains to state they were not a Christian movement, Jesus Christ had no part in the Science Classroom and they did not know who the designer was. Many Christians confuse the Intelligent Design debate with the Creation versus Evolution debate, but even though they overlap, they are
not the same. The Bible does tell us we must recognise God as Creator, and the apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 1:20 that the evidence from the Creation so clearly reveals both God's power as Creator or Designer BUT also His divine nature so there is no excuse for unbelief. (Romans 1:20)  The Apostle James rather bluntly points out, even the demons believe in God and shudder. (James 2:19). Biblical Creation involves recognising the character and works of the Creator and responding to Him, not just studying the design in Creation. As the items in this newsletter point out, the evidence that living creatures are made by a supremely intelligent designer is overwhelming. However as we study the living world we find many things that don't work well, e.g. violence, disease, parasites, competition for scarce resources. If we only looked at design features for survival we would have to accept that predators and disease microbes were designed to harm and kill, but deep down people know that disease, violence and death are inherently wrong. Studying the creation alone will not resolve this dilemma. If you really want to know the original function and subsequent history of a created object the best way to find out is to obtain a record from the Creator who has recorded for us that the world and all that is in it was created as a perfectly functioning system of fully formed created kinds of living creatures living together without violence, disease or death. Human beings were made as unique creations in the image of God, but the first human beings rebelled against their Creator and the world has gone from being "very good" to being cursed by God. Since then the world has continued to degenerate and every generation of human beings knows that something is wrong, but only the Creator has the power and authority to make it right. Therefore, when we recognise the amazing design seen in living things we should respond by
putting our trust in the awesome Creator, who not only made all things but has also come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for man's rebellion and will one day create a new earth for all those who trust him to live in a very good world. We wonder what marvellous creations there will be there for us to study, enjoy and give praise to the Creator for making.

[nChrist]

FASCINATING! - THANKS PASTOR ROGER!

[Soldier4Christ]

The Evidence of Nothing
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D.*

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. |emphasis added|

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.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

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). See also Duane Gish's book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, available at www.icr.org/store.
   9. 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV).

* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.*

In this day of iPods, cell phones, the Internet, and other fruits of modern science and technology, most people have at least a passing awareness of the concept of the scientific method. But just what is this process that undergirds such spectacular technological advance and development? If it can give us satellites showing the world's weather in real time, is it possible for this method, under certain circumstances, to fail?

The Method Defined

Frank Wolfs, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, provides his undergraduate physics students with a good working definition of the scientific method: "the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."1

Professor Wolfs, as a research scientist himself, points out some of its limitations: "Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, 'Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.' In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory."1

Four Essentials of the Scientific Method

Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists, including Wolfs, boil them down to the four following essentials:1

   1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
   2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
   3. Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
   4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."1

Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."1 It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.

When Does the Scientific Method Fail?

Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena." If the hypothesis-testing process fails to eliminate most of the personal and cultural biases of the community of investigators, false hypotheses can survive the testing process and then be accepted as correct descriptions of the way the world works. This has happened in the past, and it happens today.

Some of the most glaring examples of this failure of the scientific method today have to do with the issue of origins. There are two fairly obvious reasons for this: 1) many of the crucial processes occurred in the past and are difficult to test in the present; and 2) personal biases are especially strong on topics related to origins because of the wider implications.

Skipping the Test

Perhaps the most prominent example in this category is the hypothesis that mutation and natural selection produce continuous genetic improvement in a population of higher plants or animals. For the past 90 years, scientists in the field of population genetics have developed sophisticated mathematical models to describe and investigate these processes and how they affect the genetic makeup of populations of various categories of organisms. The work of R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright between 1918 and 1932 laid the foundation for the field of population genetics. This work in turn, over a period of about a decade (1936-1947), led to the formulation of what is referred to as the neo-Darwinian synthesis or the modern evolutionary synthesis. This so-called modern synthesis integrated the concept of natural selection with Mendelian genetics to produce the unified theory of evolution that has been accepted by most professional biologists.

But does this theory of evolution, formulated essentially in its present form more than 60 years ago, truly deliver on its claims, especially in light of what we now know of how living systems work at the molecular level? The answer is an unequivocal no! In brief, the proteins that make up living systems require such a precise level of specification to be functional that a search based on random mutation can never succeed.2 It is complete scientific foolishness to claim otherwise. That is why there are no papers in the professional genetics literature that explicitly demonstrate this to be a reasonable possibility.

Perhaps even more surprising, natural selection does not deliver the sort of upward genetic improvement that is generally believed and claimed.3 The reason is that natural selection is "blind" to the vast majority of mutations--it cannot act upon a favorable mutation to accentuate it or a deleterious mutation to eliminate it unless the mutation has a sufficiently large effect on the fitness of the organism in its environment. Because the vast majority of mutations are below the threshold for natural selection to detect, most bad mutations accumulate unhindered by the selection process, resulting in a downward decline in fitness from one generation to the next.4,5 Because bad mutations outnumber favorable ones by such a large factor, their cumulative effect utterly overwhelms that of the few favorable mutations that may arise along the way.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

For more than 30 years, professional population geneticists have been aware of the profound difficulties these realities present to the theory of evolution.6,7 These problems were treated as "trade secrets" to be researched within their own ranks but not to be publicized outside in the broader biology community. Thus, the crucial step of hypothesis testing has been "postponed."

Most professional biologists have therefore been misled into believing that the theoretical foundation of the neo-Darwinian synthesis is secure when, in reality, the foundation is a sham. The neo-Darwinian mechanism can readily be shown to produce exactly the opposite consequences to those that are believed and claimed.3,4,5 The reason for this state of affairs is that the scientists involved have allowed their personal biases to interfere with and to shortcircuit the usual hypothesis-testing step of the scientific method.

Geology and Cosmology

A similar state of affairs persists in the geological community, which interprets the primary sedimentary units of most of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record as having been produced by gradualistic rather than catastrophic processes, when the evidence is abundantly in favor of the latter.8

Likewise, in cosmology, to avoid the inference that the earth is near the center of the cosmos, as implied by isotropy of redshift and of cosmic microwave background energy, a highly speculative and difficult-to-test hypothesis has been invoked--namely, the Copernican Principle,9 which posits that the entire cosmos is just like what we observe from the earth, at least at large scales. A result is that gravity perfectly cancels at large scales and keeps the cosmos from being inside a black hole during the early phases of a Big Bang. All Big Bang models depend critically on this hypothesis. The fact that the Copernican Principle up to now has been untestable means, strictly speaking, that Big Bang cosmology cannot be viewed as authentic science since it relies in a critical way on an untestable hypothesis.

Conclusion

In summary, science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own biases and personal preferences to shortcircuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process.

References

   1. Wolfs, F. 1996. Introduction to the scientific method. Physics Laboratory Experiments, Appendix E, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
   2. Baumgardner, J. 2008 (in press). Language, Complexity, and Design. In Seckback, J. and R. Gordon (eds.), God, Science and Intelligent Design. Singapore: World Scientific.
   3. Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publications.
   4. Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2007. Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi, Y. et al. (eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4488. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 386-392.
   5. Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2008 (in press). Numerical simulation falsifies evolutionary genetic theory. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. San Diego, CA: ICR.
   6. Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 76: 3440-3444.
   7. Kondrashov, A. S. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 175: 583-594.
   8. Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: ICR.
   9. Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134.

* Dr. Baumgardner is Associate Professor of Geophysics at the ICR Graduate School.
Next Article

[Soldier4Christ]

Scientists Report Doubts over Key Theory of Evolutionary Extinction
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

Researchers have recently “ruled out a hypothesis” that has been taught as dogma in schools, colleges and universities worldwide: the cause of the Permian extinction, allegedly “the mother of all mass extinctions.”

Geologists and paleontologists state in a recent article in Nature Geoscience that at the end of the Permian era—which they calculate occurred some 250 million years ago—“95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were wiped out.” Called the “Great Dying” by some researchers, it is difficult not to think of a cataclysmic event, such as a global flood (Genesis 6 – 9), when reading of such massive destruction.

Regardless, evolutionary scientists have taught for decades that this Permian extinction event was precipitated by gradual oxygen starvation of the world’s oceans. This supposedly led to a massive die-out of marine life due to “clouds of hydrogen sulphide” rising from the seas.

Now many scientists are stymied as to what caused this devastating event, but Flood geologists have an idea: massive flooding, possible asteroid activity, and large-scale volcanism. History records such a catastrophic event in Genesis 7:11.

Indeed, many scientists are coming closer to the truth when they rule out clouds of hydrogen sulphide and look approvingly at “an impact, or series of impacts, by an asteroid.” Granted, this is not the Flood, but such bombardments probably did occur at this time. In fact, many geologists now agree with creation scientists that earth did experience a worldwide cataclysmic event. Take note of this shift from a position that does not fit the facts to a more reasonable scientific understanding—sudden cataclysm(s) such as asteroids or even a “fierce period of volcanism,” which happens to fit historical accounts found in the biblical record.

Of course, researchers in creation science continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and little by little, Darwinian scientists committed to evolutionary dogma are beginning to confirm what we’ve been stating all along.

[Soldier4Christ]

Evolution's Evangelists

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."1  -- Richard Dawkins

Darwinian evolution (specifically, neo-Darwinism or the synthetic theory) has enjoyed elite status when it comes to the discussion of origins. As more is discovered about the basic components of life and how they interact, however, it has become increasingly clear that random genetic mistakes and natural selection could not possibly be biological mechanisms that over time would turn bacteria into people--i.e., simpler life forms into more complex life forms.

Neo-Darwinists often engage in a frustrating tautology, using the course of evolution to "prove" natural selection--and vice versa. If evolution were merely a scientific theory that was open to evaluation based on the evidence, then its evidentiary failings would be freely acknowledged and additional theories could be considered as they are warranted.

But far from being a free marketplace of ideas where scientists consider themselves at liberty to pursue the evidence where it leads, the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.

And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane." This article will take a brief look at three prominent purveyors of the evolutionary creed.

Richard Dawkins

Field of Expertise: Zoology

Education: 1962, Graduated from Balliol College, Oxford, England; 1966, M.A. and D.Phil., University of Oxford; 1989, D.Sc., University of Oxford

Current Position: Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford

Dr. Dawkins has been one of the most well-known contemporary proponents of the evolutionary worldview, as well as one of the most vocal critics against opposing viewpoints. Never one to mince words, Dawkins has been called "Darwin's rottweiler"2 for his ruthless tenacity and blunt characterizations of those who dispute evolution.

Among his frank assessments is the role atheism plays in evolutionary tenets.

    |A|lthough atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.3

    The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.4

Dawkins' antipathy toward religion is summed up in the title of his 2006 book, The God Delusion. When commenting on a Gallup poll showing that nearly half of Americans believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, he said:

    They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book--Genesis.…Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin's bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal.5

An "educational scandal," evidently, that necessitates a call to arms, a campaign to save science from the "organized ignorance" of religion and restore it to the realm of reason:

    The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give.6

What Dawkins proposes is not a faithless system. Instead of God, however, he enshrines science and reason. If something cannot currently be explained through natural means, it is only a matter of time before "miracles" will be satisfactorily transformed by science into "natural phenomena."

    An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles--except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.7

Although opposed to the view that there can or should be a Supreme Being, there is one individual to whom Dawkins has shown allegiance.

    Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventually to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.8

In the world of Richard Dawkins, religion is a force of "organized ignorance" that must be actively opposed, but "blind physical forces" that "mimic…conscious design" and through random chance somehow mysteriously lead to "organized and adaptive complexity"--those are what we should trust and believe in; they are the bedrock of our world and our lives.

It is no wonder that Dawkins has elsewhere concluded that "life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."9 If this is what evolution offers, can there be any other result but despair?

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Eugenie Scott

Field of Expertise: Anthropology

Education: 1967, B.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; 1968, M.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; 1974, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of Missouri

Current Position: Executive Director, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)

Dr. Scott is a woman with a mission. The tagline of the NCSE website is "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools." Against what is she defending it? The answer is easily summed up by the titles of her recent publications Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004) and Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006).

Like Dawkins, Scott accepts the primacy of evolution in scientific endeavors--and indeed, in society as a whole.

    You can't really be scientifically literate if you don't understand evolution.…And you can't be an educated member of society if you don't understand science.10

But scientific literacy is not her primary concern, as evidenced by the "Project Steve" statement on the NCSE website:

    Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.11

By stating that there is no "serious" scientific doubt, Scott neatly eliminates the possibility that non-evolutionary scientists can provide a valid case for their hypotheses or conclusions. This stance is presented even more strongly in her book Evolution vs. Creationism.

    In principle, all scientific ideas may change, though in reality there are some scientific claims that are held with confidence, even if details may be modified. The physicist James Trefil (1978) suggested that scientific claims can be conceived as arranged in a series of three concentric circles….In the center circle are the core ideas of science: the theories and facts that we have great confidence in because they work so well to explain nature. Heliocentricism, gravitation, atomic theory, and evolution would be examples.12

When she ranks evolution as one of the "core ideas of science," Scott grants it the same legitimacy as the studies conducted on gravity and atomic theory-- although these involve testable phenomena, whereas there has been no observable scientific evidence for macroevolution.13 Yet Scott sees no contradiction:

    Science is quintessentially an open-ended procedure in which ideas are constantly tested, and rejected or modified. Dogma--an idea held by belief or faith--is anathema to science.14

Evolutionists may need a refresher course on the basic definitions of "science" and "dogma." Or better yet, an accurate mirror in which to view themselves.15

Paul Zachary "P. Z." Myers

Field of Expertise: Biology

Education: 1979, B.S. Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 1985, Ph.D. Biology, Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR

Current Position: Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota, Morris

Although many other evolutionists are active "evangelists" in the world today, P. Z. Myers deserves a mention because of his prolific presence in cyberspace, mainly through blogs on his website Pharyngula.16 Many of his postings are surprisingly puerile, often registering on the observational level of a newly-hormonal teenager. One such posting will suffice to give the general tone.

    I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would p*** you off. Unless it's true, that is, that you don't mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy.

    Maybe you should try squawking a little louder. You could start by writing to David Bracklin and letting him know that stupidity isn't supposed to be a Christian sacrament.

    Unless it is, of course. I wouldn't know. Atheist, remember? All I know is what I see, the stuff the loudest of you bray out in public, and boy, you Christians sure seem to hate good science.17

ICR also comes in for a special mention.

    The Institute for Creation Research is a treasure trove of sloppy pseudoscience.18

The Internet has opened new avenues for research and for offering data of all kinds…as well as misinformation of all kinds. As was indicated in the October 2007 Acts & Facts, web surfers must be wary of "half-truths and hidden assumptions"19 on the sites that they visit.

Although using cruder language, Myers basically offers nothing new to the debate. He may state his case more brusquely than other evolutionists, but the argument essentially remains the same--evolution is fact, evolution vs. creationism is a case of science vs. religion, science and religion are anathema to each other, therefore scientific creationism should be banished to the lunatic fringe.

No matter where the evidence leads.

References

   1. Dawkins, R. April 9, 1989. Book Review of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey's Blueprint. The New York Times. Section 7, 34.
   2. An epithet attributed to Oxford theologian Alister McGrath in Hall, S. September 2005. Darwin's Rottweiler. Discover.
   3. Dawkins, R. 1996. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 6.
   4. Dawkins, R. December 1994. On Debating Religion. The Nullifidian.
   5. Dawkins, R. Mission Statement for Both Charities. www.richarddawkinsfoundation.org (accessed April 4, 2008).
   6. Ibid.
   7. Dawkins, R. 2006. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 35.
   8. Dawkins, R. 1982. The Necessity of Darwinism. New Scientist. 94 (1301):130.
   9. Scheff, Liam, 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo. 2:94.
  10. Scott, E. February 7, 2003. Quoted in Lam, M. Profile, Eugenie Scott: Berkeley Scientist Leads Fight to Stop Teaching of Creationism. San Francisco Chronicle.
  11. NCSE solicits the signatures of scientists named Steve who agree with an online statement supporting evolution. See the Project Steve page at www.ncseweb.org (accessed April 14, 2008).
  12. Scott, E. 2004. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 8.
  13. See Morris, H. 2000 and 2001. The Scientific Case against Evolution, Parts 1 & 2. Acts & Facts. 28 (12) and 29 (1).
  14. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism, 8.
  15. See James 1:23-24.
  16. Currently located at scienceblogs.com/pharyngula. Pharyngula refers to a stage in embryonic development in which all vertebrates appear to have similar features.
  17. Comment posted by PZ Myers to Pharyngula blog on April 3, 2008, 8:33 a.m.
  18. Comment posted by PZ Myers to Pharyngula blog on April 2, 2008, 9:14 a.m.
  19. Pferdner, R. The Internet Battleground. Acts & Facts. 36 (10).

[Soldier4Christ]

Evolution's Biggest Hurdles
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

The theory of evolution has numerous problems, some of which are absolutely enormous and for which no adequate solution has even been proposed. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Neo-Darwinian scientists admit this, recognizing that proposed evolutionary scenarios do not model reasonable conditions on earth, and could not have produced anything like the complex life we see all around us--even single-celled life.

The second-biggest problem involves the development of complex invertebrates, animals without a backbone, from single-celled life. How did this transition occur? A robust fossil record of one-celled life has now been found, and of course a truly abundant record of marine invertebrates can be discovered everywhere, from clams to sponges to jellyfish to starfish, etc. The "explosion" of life in the Cambrian system of strata continues to baffle evolutionists, for there is no record showing a transition from tiny single-celled life to complex invertebrates. There are innumerable fossils of invertebrate ocean bottom life, even those with no hard outer shell, but no ancestors of these invertebrates have been identified.

A third huge problem lies in the next step required by evolution. Fish, thought to be the first vertebrates, must have evolved from invertebrates, but again there is no record of this transition. "How this earliest chordate stock |i.e., early vertebrates| evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures, we do not know."1 Over the years nearly every invertebrate has been proposed as the ancestor, but each suggestion has only been in vogue for a time. As Dr. Duane Gish--former Senior Vice President at ICR and a well-known creation scientist--likes to say, if evolution can't derive either invertebrates from single-celled life, or vertebrate fish from invertebrates, it is "dead in the water."

One proposition receiving attention these days is that echinoderms were the creature that evolved into fish. Now, echinoderms usually don't look anything like fish. Their ranks include sea squirts, tunicates, and starfish. These do have a pseudo-spine with a central supportive notochord and a tubular nerve chord, features that are somewhat present in vertebrates, especially in the embryonic stage. It seems that Ernst Haeckel's theory of embryonic recapitulation is more extensive than once thought.2

It has been discovered that during embryonic development, certain features in the gut of the starfish bear similarity to a feature in vertebrate embryos. Further maturity yields a form and function far different from the vertebrate condition, yet this early formative pathway seemingly provides the hoped-for clue evolutionists need. Is this proof that a starfish evolved into a fish that evolved into a human?

It seems to me that they are grasping at straws. Without the assumption of evolution, without the neo-Darwinian scientist's "certain knowledge" that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates, this flimsy link would not merit such attention. How much more scientific it is to recognize the God-designed diversity in creation, and not attribute all living things to a hypothetical common ancestor. Scripture teaches, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds" (1 Corinthians 15:39).

References

   1. Ommanney, F. D. 1964. The Fishes. New York: Time, Inc., 64.
   2. Also referred to as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," Haeckel's now-discredited theory proposed that an embyro's development reflects the various stages of its evolutionary history.

* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

[Soldier4Christ]

When Is a Day Not a Day?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Those Christians who hold to an extremely old Earth acknowledge that both Scripture and history teach Abraham lived just a few thousand years ago. Furthermore, chronologies in Scripture identify the time between Abraham and Noah, and the time between Noah and Adam as a total only of a few thousand years. Even using the maximum time spans given in various manuscripts yields a total of only a few thousand years between Adam and the present. But maybe the creation took billions of years, they say.

It seems obvious. The Bible specifies that God's work of creation took "six days," at the end of which He created Adam. He provides a record of His activities on Day One, Day Two, etc. He even brackets each day by the terms "evening and morning." Adding six days to the time since Adam still equals only a few thousand years, or so it seems. Those who advocate an Earth of billions of years in age do so by asserting that the days of creation were really of vast duration. Is there any Biblical and linguistic evidence that a "day" can be of great length?

As a matter of fact, the Hebrew word yom, here translated "day," can have a variety of meanings, just like in English.

In both languages, the term most often refers to a solar day, defined by one revolution of the earth on its axis. If I say "today" you know what I mean. Or when I say "the day of your birth" it's clear. Perhaps I could modify the word by a numerical adjective, like "first day" or "three days," and you would know what I meant. But I could say "in the day of George Washington" and you would know I was referring to a period of time around the Revolutionary War. It all depends on context. How the word is used specifies its meaning in any particular usage.

In Genesis chapter one, God apparently went out of His way to make sure we didn't misunderstand, for He defined yom the first time He used it. On Day One, after creating the heavens and the earth, God created light (v.3), and "God divided the light from the darkness" (v.4). This light/dark cycle was further identified when "God called the light Day [yom], and the darkness He called Night" (v.5). Throughout the rest of the passage He uses the term for the First Day through the Seventh Day.

The door to misinterpretation is closed in Exodus 20:11, where God wrote in stone some things He really didn't want us to misinterpret. The fourth of the Ten Commandments concerns our work week, where we are commanded to work six days and rest on the seventh, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Same word, yom, same context, same modifiers, same tablet of stone, same Author, same finger which wrote it. If words have meaning, then God created in six days just like our days. His work of creation becomes the pattern for our work week.

"Day" can mean a period of time when the context demands, but in the creation account "day" means a real "day." Christians need to allow the unchangeable Scripture to define its own terms and not rely on the temporal musings of men.

[Soldier4Christ]

Spiral Wonder of the Spider Web
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Spider WebHere's an easy recipe: take food, metabolically convert it into sticky glue. Then, allow air to contact it while rapidly stretching it into an impossibly narrow, nimble thread as strong as steel. There you have it—spider silk. We tend to take for granted the incredible detail and beauty of a typical spider web. The Creator designed most species of spider to secrete a special thread (web) that scientists have long appreciated and have attempted to emulate. They have found that web strands are comparable in strength to fused quartz fibers. Zoologists discovered that spiders have anywhere from one to four pairs of spinnerets located in the opisthosoma (abdomen) of the spider (the normal number are three pairs). In addition, there are along with the spinnerets seven silk glands, each making a strand for a unique purpose. Many dozens of tiny tubes lead to these specially designed abdominal glands. In a process not completely understood, a special scleroprotein-based substance is released as a liquid which then seems to harden as it is pulled from the spinneret.

One silk gland produces thread for cocoons and another for encapsulation of prey. The two seem to be the same, but they require different especially designed silk. Other glands make the walking thread so the spider doesn't encumber herself, while another makes the sticky material that captures prey. We are unable to see some of the finer threads unless the light is reflected just right. In fact, during World War II, only spider silk was fine enough to be used for cross hairs in some bomb sights. However, spider silk is also robust with a tensile strength fives times that of steel and elasticity, able to stop a lumbering bumblebee at full speed. Some scientists describe the web patterns much like those mirrored by many flowers in sunlight (UV light). Insects that are searching for nectar see the "flower" patterned web in the UV spectrum and fly unwittingly into the sticky trap.

Some spiders even use a long trailing thread for a process called "ballooning." The creature secretes a line and allows the wind to carry it—and the spider—aloft for places unknown. Spiders have landed on ships far out at sea.

Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation. Two secular authors state,

    Each spider engineers a style of web characteristic of its species and builds it perfectly on the first try. This complex behavior is apparently inherited.1

Earliest evidence of a spider's silk-spinning activity is a fossil discovered from "380 million-year-old" sedimentary rocks near Gilboa, New York.2 It is clear that spiders—along with their silk-producing parts—have always been spiders according to the fossil record and the creation model.

   1. Campbell & Reece, Biology, Benjamin Cummings, 2005, p. 658.
   2. See http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/education/teacher/ancient_life_text.html .

[Soldier4Christ]

Communicating the Wonders of God's Creation
by Lawrence Ford*

God is the great communicator. The very first chapter of Genesis records no fewer than ten times that "God said…," revealing the Creator's heart to the world and its inhabitants. In Genesis 1:22-30, we read of God's love and care for what He made:

    * God pronounced abundant blessings upon His creation.
    * God decreed satisfying purposes for His creation.
    * God established faithful provisions for His creation.

Throughout the Bible we see myriad instances where God communicates to individuals, to animals, and even to the inanimate objects of the world He made. The Bible itself is a written account of God's communication to man, revealing His plan for man's life, redemption, and eternal destiny. Often in the Scriptures, God uses the wonders of creation to demonstrate His power or protection or provision, and to reveal His awesome character. Think of the Flood. The parting of the Red Sea. The manna from heaven. The innumerable stars in the night sky. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1).

Exemplifying Passionate Communication

During the past 50 years, many have stated that ICR's founder, Dr. Henry Morris, was a superb communicator and a gifted teacher. His knowledgeable and articulate manner of expressing truth touched millions around the world with the message of creation. And though now departed, he still speaks.

What made Henry Morris so effective in communication? His intellect? Certainly this contributed to his ability to understand and convey the facts of science and the Bible. His gift of teaching? There is no doubt that he possessed a God-given gift of instruction.

But there was something else that made Dr. Morris a gifted teacher: his unashamed passion for extolling the Creator, for communicating the wonders of God's creation. Henry Morris loved God, and when he first became convinced of the veracity of Scripture, even in the matters of science, he could no longer remain silent.

From his earliest teaching on creation and the flood of Noah, culminating in the seminal work The Genesis Flood in 1961, his commitment to lift high the Creator consumed his soul, his life, and his work.

Rather than shrinking in the face of criticism and ridicule from his fellow scientists, who would have preferred he hold his tongue regarding "creation" science, Henry Morris moved forward with compelling evidence and persuasive teaching through books and lectures. When others hid in the shadows, not willing to jeopardize their names and reputations in academia, Henry Morris went public all the more.

And when he founded the Institute for Creation Research in 1970, he intended the research, education, and communication missions of the organization to remain biblically-founded. That legacy and commitment remain true today.

What does it mean to communicate the wonders of God's creation? Read what Dr. Henry Morris and others at ICR have said about the privilege of sharing the message of the Creator with the world.

Dr. Henry M. Morris, Founder and President Emeritus

    We have been urging people to get back to Genesis as the foundation of their Christian faith and life ever since we started... ICR way back in 1970.

    In fact, long before that! My first book, written almost fifty years ago, stressed the wonderful truth of creation and the harmful fallacy of evolution in much the same way that ICR speakers and writers are doing today. This is a timeless message, needed increasingly as time goes on.

    ...Many writers have attributed the beginnings of the modern revival of scientific Biblical creationism to the catalytic effects of our book, The Genesis Flood, published in 1961. If this is true, I believe the reason for the book's effectiveness was our frank acceptance of the Genesis record…as absolutely and literally true, showing that Genesis also provided a better basis for understanding the scientific data concerning primeval history than any evolutionary model could ever do.1

Dr. Duane Gish, Sr. Vice President Emeritus

    In Romans 1:20 we read, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Thus as I lectured throughout the United States and many other countries, often debating leading evolutionists, I knew that I was communicating the magnificent wonders of God's creation to those who had ears to hear. The rest--those who refused to believe--are simply left "without excuse."

Dr. Henry M. Morris III, Chief Executive Officer

    The everlasting gospel itself is focused to "worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7). Therefore, it is not possible to separate the doctrine of creation from the doctrine of salvation. Only the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator could accomplish the work of redemption on Calvary, executed in created time and space, implementing an eternal reconciliation of all things to the immutable will and purpose of the Creator-Redeemer.

    The written Word reveals that the creation provides evidence for the nature of the Creator (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-20). Therefore, it necessarily follows that the inextricably-bound attributes of the Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be in conflict with the message of the created things. Nor can the message of the Gospel be conflicted with or by the message in the creation.

    We then who have been given the high privilege of being "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20) must surely be careful that our teachings about the Creation, the Dominion Mandate, the Fall of Man, and the Plan of Redemption be as accurate as our human minds can portray, guided by and submitted to the revealed words of our Creator.

Dr. John D. Morris, President

    As a trained scientist, I love to study and teach about the world around us. It contains so many extraordinary things, it is a joy to teach and instill in others the same sense of awe and wonder. But as a Christian and creationist, there is so much more to be realized. Only through the lens of Scripture can we fully appreciate what we see. Recognizing that God has displayed His creative handiwork in creation, especially in living things, we can better grasp biological truth and interact with His majesty. Likewise, when we come to grips with the fact that God has judged the world for its rebellion, we can finally understand geology, and see the impact of the great Flood of Noah's day.

    As a Christian trained in science, it gives me the greatest joy to demonstrate how the truth of God's Word is evident in His creation. I love to champion His Word and lead others to the certain knowledge that His message to us is fully trustworthy. A different but equal joy is seeing God overcome obstacles to salvation in the heart of an honest seeker through the teaching of creation, and seeing their doubts melt away.

This month, as you consider the wonders of God's creation, take time to ask yourself: How can God use me to communicate this message to those around me? Communication takes many forms, but all start with a passionate commitment to extol God our Creator. Make that your prayer and your service.

In upcoming issues of Acts & Facts, look for specific information on how you can become a Creation Advocate, a doer of the Word and not just a hearer. Becoming an advocate for the Creator is a personal ministry of service and worship on behalf of God. Perhaps you can teach a class at church on Genesis 1 or a group of homeschoolers about the awesome evidence of God's power as seen in the flood of Noah. Why not check out your child's biology textbook? Does it teach that evolution is an indisputable fact? Can you supply your child's teacher with appropriate creation science literature?

In this issue of Acts & Facts, we are providing our Spring Resource Guide. Feel free to pull that out and use it to aid you in your own quest to study, teach, and communicate the wonders of God's creation.

Reference

1. Morris, H. 1994. Beginning at Genesis. Acts & Facts. 23 (2).

* Mr. Ford is Executive Editor.