Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Toward the end of the exhibition, there is a display of hominids (i.e., man’s alleged ape-like ancestors), including a very life-like reproduction of the Australopithecine “Lucy.” The pro-evolution, well-trafficked website PhysOrg.com, in describing this Field display, declared that Lucy’s “discovery in 1974 proved that humans walked upright before their brains developed.”4 It proved no such thing, and it does not require a creationist to say that, for even many evolutionists question whether “Lucy” is in the family tree of humans (see Lucy: walking tall—or wandering in circles?).

The saddest aspect about Saturday’s visit was seeing so many children walking through the exhibit with their parents and grandparents. We would estimate that about two-thirds were under 13. As Carl Kerby, AiG’s Vice President for Ministry Relations, remarked as he finished the tour: “These parents just don’t know what they’re doing. I overheard one mother answering her daughter’s question about why one ape-like creature was so hairy, and she answered: ‘Because she was evolving from the apes,’ and evolution hadn’t removed all of the hair yet. I’m reminded of the many verses that tell parents—actually, most instances in the Bible say ‘fathers’—to train their children. ‘Train your children in the ways of the Lord.’” Carl added that this is why AiG’s future museum near Cincinnati will be so important in equipping families with biblical truths.

We know, by the way, that the president of the Field Museum is aware of the Creation Museum being built just a five-hour drive away from his temple of evolution. See his comment in the sidebar about how science museums are now more motivated to defend evolution vigorously.

This massive exhibition at the Field Museum joins the ranks of other science museums in an increasingly intensive effort to indoctrinate hundreds of thousands of visitors each year in a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. New York City’s American Museum of Natural History has a similarly large exhibition (called Darwin) that runs through May, and then goes on the road to other cities (including Chicago) to reach even more Americans with the evolution message (see A review of the new Darwin exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History).

The cost to design and build AiG’s new planetarium, several high-tech displays and a large special effects theater will not come near the $17 million spent on Evolving Planet,5with exhibits that will take up even more space than the 27,000 square feet at Evolving Planet. (And it won’t cost $27 to visit, which is what museum parking and admission are at the Field Museum.)6

What’s more important, though, than comparing the Creation Museum to a new exhibit at the Field Museum is that visitors to the Creation Museum will be challenged with the life-changing message that God’s Word is true—most importantly, that its gospel message is true. Museums like the Field have a life-undermining message: that people are just the result of random processes over billions of years. Where is a sense of purpose and meaning in a story like that? Thankfully, there will be a museum opening near Cincinnati, Ohio, next spring that will have a positive story to share: the Bible is the true history of the Creator’s designed universe, and He has not created human beings without meaning or purpose.

(Note: A more detailed critique of Evolving Planet will eventually be posted to this website, so please check back. Because this new exhibition at the Field Museum is so full of evolutionary displays and text, it would take a book-length reply to refute all of it. In a future article, we will highlight the main areas of evolutionary propaganda found in the museum that need refuting, for they are presented so convincingly to the unwary visitor—and because they are also themes often found in other museums.)

The polls and science museums

Gallup polls going back to 1982 have never showed a figure lower than 44% of Americans agreeing to the statement that “God created humans pretty much in their present form either exactly as the Bible describes it or within the last 10,000 years.” Thus about half of Americans believe that humans evolved (some say, though, that God may have helped in the process, which AiG totally rejects).

A Zogby poll released a few weeks ago, with a different, but related question, showed that 69% of Americans support the presentation of intelligent design as a part of a high school’s curriculum, with 21 percent believing only Darwin’s theory of evolution should taught, as reported by UPI.

Over the decades, evolutionary activists have been alarmed that these numbers in support of creation/ID have not been declining (even with more intensive evolutionary indoctrination through the schools and media). The grassroots approach of creationist organizations to distribute materials throughout the country (especially via teaching conferences) is appearing to be an effective counter to what evolutionists are doing.

Therefore, expect more science museums to follow the pattern of the Field, whose president recently declared that museums need to be the leaders in defense of evolution because “we don’t have the same kind of intimidation that schools have.” (John McCarter, quoted by the Chicago Sun-Times, March 8, 2006).

The growing belief among evolutionists that birds evolved from dinosaurs (in fact, that birds are dinosaurs) is treated as fact at the Field Museum's new exhibit.

The Field Museum is a temple to evolutionary belief. In its new $17 million Evolving Planet exhibit, the museum’s last display is something of a doxology to Mother Nature and Charles Darwin.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bible literalism 'pagan superstition'?
Vatican astronomer denounces 6-day creationism


Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno says believing God created the universe in six days is a form of "pagan superstition."

Consolmagno told the Scotsman the idea that religion and science are competing principles is a "destructive myth."

Consolmagno works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy.

He is keenly aware of the renewed interest in creationism taking hold in America – particularly among evangelical Christians who take the Bible – including the Genesis account of creation -- literally.

Consolmagno described creationism as a "kind of paganism" because it is similar to the idea of "nature gods" who pagans believed to be responsible for natural events.

"Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance," he said. "That's why science and religion need to talk to each other."

Consolmagno stated that the Christian God is a supernatural god. In the past, the belief in God being supernatural led the clergy to become involved in science to find natural explanations for things like thunder and lightning. Pagans often attribute thunder and lightning to vengeful gods.

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism -- it's turning God into a nature god," he said. "And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

______________________

It is clear that this person is being deceived.


Jud 1:4  For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5  I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

[nChrist]

Consolmagno described creationism as a "kind of paganism" because it is similar to the idea of "nature gods" who pagans believed to be responsible for natural events.

Pastor Roger,

I assume this man is a priest because of several mentions of the Vatican. This is a near perfect example of blasphemy when the works of ALMIGHTY GOD are attributed to pagan beliefs and unfounded.

It's very sad when men claiming to serve GOD call GOD a liar by questioning HIS account of creation in the Holy Bible. We are also living in a time where the theory of evolution is falling apart as little more than a junk hoax. It was junk from the start as a so-called scientific way to DENY GOD. Hosts who have denied GOD will one day be humbled completely before HIM before they are thrown into the eternal lake of fire. It's never smart to question GOD, and it's certainly dumb to blaspheme HIS NAME.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB  For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

[Soldier4Christ]

I would think that he is a priest also. He at least is a member of the Vatican in some form. Yes there are many coming forth in the various churches of all faiths that are denying God and His word. It was a warning that Jesus gave us a very long time age. He told us that there would be those false teachings brought into our midst.

They all will have to answer to Him in the end and will do so on their knees before Him.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Darwin's evolutionary theory is a tottering nonsense, built on too many suppositions'

A charismatic Australian has materialised at the centre of national argument in Britain about the teaching of creationism, Annabel Crabb writes.

JOHN Mackay, 59, is a Queensland geologist who believes Earth to be about 6000 years old. In Australia, he's not exactly a household name. But in Britain and the United States, he's the Steve Irwin of the creationist movement - a sun-weathered fossil fan and larrikin whose way with words is proving a big hit with resurgent faith communities.

Britain's schools are now the subject of a renewed debate between science and religion; teachers have been campaigning in recent weeks for a ban on the teaching of the creation story, in response to the establishment of a new chain of faith colleges across Britain whose students are taught to question Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

The Royal Society - the world's most distinguished scientific club - has issued a stern statement decrying the creationists and defending the work of Darwin, who is among its most revered former members. "Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs," the society observed.

Into this storm has flown Mackay for a speaking tour scheduled to last more than a month. Thanks to the controversy, his every step is now dogged by the British media, even though he has been travelling the world as a speaker for almost two decades.

"A lot of the interest now has been generated by the humanist groups, who don't like me being here and stir up stories in the press," he says, when The Sun-Herald found him at the barbed wire-encrusted Kings Church in Birkenhead, Liverpool's notoriously rough neighbour.

Several hundred of the converted and the curious turned up to hear him speak, in an hour-long presentation peppered with PowerPoint fossil slides and drawled Aussie colloquialisms, and followed by tuna sandwiches.

Put simply, Mackay's belief - and it's one that is firmly entrenched in the US, where President George Bush advocates its ventilation in schools - is that Darwin's evolutionary theory is a tottering nonsense, built on too many suppositions and not enough evidence.

If so many species evolved from the shapeless creatures of the primordial slime, if people came from monkeys via frogs and fish, then why does the fossil record not contain a "fronkey"?

Mackay, who was originally educated as a geologist and devout Darwinist at the University of Queensland, experienced a conversion while working as a teacher and now tears down his former beliefs with the seamless enthusiasm of a zealot.

"Charles Darwin actually graduated in theology, which is a little-known, well-kept secret," he tells his audience. "He knew exactly what he was trying to disprove."

Mackay's version of events is this: God created the world in the course of six days, about 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs were part of the picture as well as humans ("You know your stories about St George slaying the dragon? Well, there is a possibility that some myths are based on truths!" he tells his Birkenhead crowd), but all were caught by the Great Flood inflicted by God about 2000 years later.

Noah, Mackay says, did take dinosaurs on the Ark ("probably baby ones"), but the dinosaurs did not survive long afterwards or at least never recovered their giant dimensions. "After the flood, there was a long winter," he says. "In that competition, the sad thing is that we won and they lost."

Mackay's central point is that the gaps in evolution theory are routinely treated as understandable absences, rather than as opportunities for an alternative. While evolutionary theory is dominant in British schools now, a Market and Opinion Research International poll of Britons taken in January this year on behalf of the BBC yielded almost near-American levels of support for the alternative; 44 per cent of respondents felt that the biblical version of events should be a part of the school curriculum.

And Prime Minister Tony Blair's new "city academies" scheme, where private benefactors are encouraged to sponsor new private schools and, in return, may influence the schools' structure and curriculum, has spawned a controversial new string of creationist colleges backed by Sir Peter Vardy, a wealthy evangelist and car salesman.

One of the most intriguing contributions to the debate was made last month by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who advised against the teaching of creationism, saying it reduced the Bible to the status of just another scientific theory.

Mackay is uncharacteristically biting in his criticism of this approach: "Most church leaders are political leaders. They know where their bread's buttered. As for the current archbishop - well, if he subscribes to creationism I guess he has a bit of a problem with his homosexual clergy, doesn't he?"

The archbishop's opposition, however, has been gentle compared with the roasting Mackay and his colleagues have had from teachers' groups and the National Secular Society (NSS).

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the NSS, has described the teaching of creationism as verging on "intellectual child abuse".

"Adults can make up their own minds whether they want to embrace science or anti-science, but where children are concerned we must be absolutely clear that creationism will not be presented to them as an alternative to real science," he says.

Nick Cowan, 54, is the head of chemistry at Liverpool's leading public school, Bluecoat. He is a creationist, and while his syllabus generally doesn't tangle with the big issues of where it all began, he says he slips in thought-provoking material whenever he can.

"If we're having a conversation about the old chicken-and-egg conundrum, for example, I'll say, 'Well, I believe God created the chicken, and the chicken laid the egg. What's your answer?"'

Cowan says the school knows where he stands, and he is yet to be challenged on his teaching style.

But he believes the increasing temperature of the debate will inevitably result in an intervention.

Once a parent complains, that will be it, he predicts.

Mackay tends to avoid excessive moralising in his lectures, sticking to a careful exposure of the gaps in evolutionary theory.

But he allows himself a quick burst at the end.

He says that when you teach people where they come from, they achieve a sense of who they are.

"If God didn't create Adam and Eve, then it's OK for Adam and Bruce to live together," he says. "I've been bold enough to tell people that God did create the world, and he will judge."

[Soldier4Christ]

The tale of a comet

by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–USA

May 6, 2006

A camera on the Hubble Space Telescope has recently captured remarkable images of a comet breaking apart. While this comet phenomenon is normal and has been known for many decades, it is making news because Hubble (a space-based telescope) is producing several excellent images that NASA and the European Space Agency are allowing the public to view.

This comet (and its disintegration) has something important to say about the age of the solar system, and hence our coverage of the comet (called Schwassmann-Wachmann 31)—and its break up—is warranted.

Single-image shots taken by Hubble have been pieced together (into something like a time-lapse movie), and, in some detail, they show the comet breaking apart. According to AiG–USA astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, “The Hubble telescope has provided extraordinary views of this cometary breakup that are far more detailed than would be possible with ground-based telescopes.” You can go to the CNN website and watch a 65-second “clip” of the comet as it shatters (see Hubble captures the shattering of a comet).

Dr. Lisle, a creationist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder and who is developing AiG’s planetarium (being built inside the Creation Museum), describes comets as “balls of ice and dirt.” Most astronomers claim that they are the remains of the solar system’s formation some 4.5 billion years ago. Both creationists and evolutionists are in agreement that as comets circle the sun (in elliptical orbits), they heat up the closer they get to the sun. The heat (along with other processes) leads to a comet disintegrating over time. The question in contention is how much time?

Dr. Lisle noted that Hubble has shown other comets (such as Shoemaker-Levy 9) breaking up. He said that because this S-W3 comet in the news goes around the sun every 5.4 years, “it could not have lasted billions of years. It would have shed so much material at each pass around the sun that it could not last for millions—not to mention billions—of years. Also, the chances of us actually seeing comets breaking up in the evolutionist’s timeframe of billions of years would be very, very small—much like seeing the disintegration of one of the ‘Twelve Apostles’ rock formations in Australia last July” (see ‘Twelve Apostles’ shock!).

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system (about 4.5 billion years). Dr. Lisle concludes, however, that “there is no way S-W3 could survive much longer than about 100,000 years. In fact, some ‘sun-grazing’ comets are completely destroyed in just one observed pass around the sun. This is certainly consistent with their relatively recent creation—as opposed to the billions-of-years view. The bottom line: the disintegration of comets indicates the universe is very young.”

Dr. Lisle added: “In fact, most secular astronomers agree that comets don’t last billions of years, and have thus proposed what’s called an ‘Oort cloud’ [see More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’] to solve this problem. This alleged icy cloud far away from the sun supposedly produces comets. The hypothesis is that an icy mass is occasionally disturbed from its position in the Oort cloud, and is sent hurtling into the inner solar system to become a ‘new’ comet.”

“However, no one has seen this cloud,” observed Dr. Lisle. “Yet most evolutionists believe it must be there because they insist the solar system is billions of years old.”

Dr. Lisle concluded: “From a creationist perspective, comets remind us of the youth of the solar system. They fit in nicely with a universe just a few thousand years old, just as we’d expect from biblical chronology.”
Note

   1. The comet was discovered by German astronomers Arnold Schwassmann and Arno Arthur Wachmann in 1930. Return to text.

[Soldier4Christ]

The end of an era, but …

by Ken Ham, president, Answers in Genesis

First published in
Answers Update–USA


I had the privilege in March to attend a highly memorable celebration service in San Diego for a hero of the Christian faith. This man, I believe, belongs in the list of Christian giants like Luther, Wesley, Whitefield, Spurgeon and others.

At age 87, Dr. Henry Morris—who is recognized as the “father” of the modern creationist movement—went to his well-deserved rest with the Creator that he wrote and spoke so much about.

I first heard of this Ph.D. hydrologist in 1974, when a friend at our church in Australia (who knew I was searching for answers to questions about evolution and millions of years) told me about a book that had been published in America. It was called The Genesis Flood (co-authored by Dr. Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb), and it would later be recognized by the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard as “the founding document of the creationist movement.”1

In my search for this book, I went to the only Christian bookstore I knew of in the city of Brisbane and asked the manager if he had heard of The Genesis Flood … and if he carried it. He did! (I found out later that the bookstore’s owner—who is now with the Lord—had a real burden to ensure this book was in his store).

The answers in this book thrilled my soul. In fact, the Lord burdened me intensely to obtain whatever creation/Flood books I could from around the world—and then to tell as many people as I could about these answers.

To cut a long story short, reading The Genesis Flood was the beginning of a creation ministry that started in our home and then spread around the world.

I had the awesome privilege of working for Dr. Morris for seven years at the Institute for Creation Research in California, before three of us (Mark Looy, Mike Zovath and I) founded the Answers in Genesis ministry (with Dr. Morris’ blessing—he actually gave one of the very first donations to help us).

I recall Dr. Morris once sharing with me that trying to reclaim a culture for biblical truths through writing and distributing books such as The Genesis Flood would be a long-term challenge. It would not take place overnight. After all, it had taken 150 years of intense evolutionary indoctrination to get where we are today: a thoroughly secularized culture, saturated with moral relativism.

In the late 1950s, the Lord burdened him (and Dr. Whitcomb) to write this monumental achievement, one that will go down in history as the book that launched a movement that has spread around the world.

Dr. Morris understood that for a culture to truly embrace the accuracy of the Bible, the teaching needed to be at a grassroots level. Thankfully, he lived to see the modern creation movement that he started as it grew worldwide, with organizations in numerous countries (with hundreds of resources available in scores of languages)!

As we stand on the shoulders of this soft-spoken giant of the Christian faith, we see that the grassroots effort is working. The secularists now have to meet regularly to devise ways to combat biblical creationists, and secular science museums are spending millions of dollars to re-emphasize belief in evolution and stop the spread of the life-changing creation/gospel message.

In the middle part of the 20th century, there was very little material available to answer the secular scientists and their evolutionary attacks on God’s Word. That changed with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood.

Today we live in an era where, as a result of this great hero of faith, there is now a plethora of resources (books, tracts, DVDs, curricula, etc.) that are being disseminated all across America and around the world.2

Dr. Morris was a pioneer. And like those who came after the frontier pioneers, we now live in a time where we can build on the groundbreaking work of the previous generation, and move the biblical creationist campaign forward—which at its core is the proclamation of the gospel message, which begins in Genesis!—to a whole new level of effectiveness.

Yes—it’s the end of one era, but the beginning of another, as the Lord has entrusted to this generation the faithful preaching of His Word, and the pulling down of strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4).
References and notes

   1. www.evolutionary.tripod.com/gould_am_250_3_10-17.html. Return to text.
   2. For example, last year the US warehouse of AiG shipped out over 750,000 pieces of apologetics and evangelistic materials! Return to text.

[Soldier4Christ]

DARWIN'S FINCHES REVERSE EVOLUTION according to the Royal Society's
website Science in the News - Thursday 4 May "Biologists have found that one
of Darwin's Galapagos finches has begun to revert to an earlier form because
of interference caused by a growing human population. The 'evolution in
reverse' study is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B."
http://www.royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=4638 (See also Independent, Online
Edition, 4 May 2006).

They report " Humans are causing evolution to slip into reverse for one of
the finch species that lives on the islands. Scientists have found that the
finch is losing the distinguishing trait that was causing it to split into
two different species."  In the wild, medium ground finches have two
distinct forms - large beaked and small beaked - and scientists believe the
species was evolving into two different species. However, a team of
scientists lead by Andrew Hendry of McGill University have studied finches
around human settlements and found many ground finches have intermediate
sized beaks. Hendry describes the finding as "evolution in reverse" and goes
on to say, "It is an evolutionary split within a species that is being
reversed as we think human activity is responsible."  What he means is that
human activity such as importing plants with intermediate sized seeds, or
feeding the birds with rice grains, is giving the intermediate forms a
selective advantage. In the wild where there are small and large seeds the
small and large beaked birds have a selective advantage over the
intermediate beaked birds.

ED. COM. There is nothing new in observing Galapagos Finches with
intermediate beak sizes. Grange reported in New Scientist 03 July 1999, that
fertile hybrids between Darwin's Finch species were common and had "beaks -
intermediate in shape." So any change in relative numbers of different
ground finch forms due to human pressure may be selection (natural or
artificial), but it is not evolution in any direction. The claim that birds
with intermediate sized beaks are an "earlier form" is a belief, not an
observed fact. From Charles Darwin to the present, Galapagos finches have
been observed to have had small, intermediate and large beaks. The variation
in numbers of each beak size within the population is not evolution, simply
because the finches have not changed. Even if the large and small beaked
birds did split into two populations that did not breed with one another, it
still would not be evolution - it would simply be the splitting of a larger,
more varied population into two smaller, less varied populations. The birds
themselves would still be finches. In fact, 150 years of observations of
Galapagos Island finches show they are an excellent example of the built in
variation within a created kind, enabling living creatures to cope with
changes in their environment. If the change in the environment exceeds their
ability to copy - they don't evolve - they become extinct!

[Soldier4Christ]

CREATIONIST SCHOOL GETS OUTSTANDING REPORT, according to the BBC News
Online, 26 April 2006. Emmanuel College in Gateshead, a school which allows
students to discuss evidence for creation, is one of only 12 secondary
schools in the UK to have received three consecutive top ratings from
Oftsted - a British education authority. The school not only produced good
academic results but was praised for the "excellent behaviour and very high
levels of attendance" and that "students feel safe and secure and, while
expected to conform to the college's rules and expectations, are encouraged
to express freely their own views and articulate personal feelings." The
college's head teacher, Jonathan Winch, commented: "Visitors to the college
often ask what our secret is and inspectors pretty much put their finger on
it when they wrote: 'The specific Christian ethos of the college ensures
that the students' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development lies at
the heart of all that it does'."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4946222.stm

ED. COM. Many secular schools are despairing over behaviour problems and
lack of motivation to learn, especially in the sciences, yet they refuse to
take notice of what schools like Emmanuel College are doing to make such a
success. The difference is not just being able to discuss creation, but the
benefit of teaching students man was created in God's image as part of the
Christian ethos. Teaching  them that they are unique creations and the world
is an orderly place filled with amazing design, gives students a  reason for
using their minds, exploring the world and relating to other people in a
respectful way. In the ordinary secular school students learn they have
evolved and therefore they are just one more animal. The world around them
is merely the result of chance random processes. No wonder they lose
interest in learning in a disciplined way and just want to please themselves
in a "survival of the fittest" world. (Ref. teaching, philosophy, sociology)

[Soldier4Christ]

NEW DISEASE CAUSING GERM FOUND, according to a report in news@nature, 14
April 2006. Scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) have identified a previously unknown bacterium in the lymph
nodes of people suffering from a rare immune disorder called chronic
granulomatous disease (CGD). So far the bug has only been shown to make
people sick if they have CGD, but antibodies to the bacterium have been
found in healthy people. This indicates that the bug has invaded their body
but their immune system has fought it off. The new bacterium has been named
"Granulobactor bethesdensis" and is similar to a family of bacteria known as
Acetobacteracae. These are found in plants and soil and are  harmless to
human beings. Some are used in the manufacture of vinegar. Microbiologists
admit that we really only know a fraction of the microbes that inhabit the
environment, because most of them cannot be grown in laboratories where they
can be studied. David Greenberg, a researcher at NIAID is hoping to discover
where the bacterium originally came from. He commented, "I'd love to scoop
up water and dirt and find it."

ED. COM. The findings described above fit perfectly into the Biblical
history of a created perfect world, followed by man's deliberate rebellion
and consequent degeneration of all things. Bacteria were created to live in
the soil or in symbiotic relationships with living organisms. Our bodies
have millions of harmless bacteria living on our body surfaces in mutually
beneficial ways and the immune system usually eliminates any that get out of
their rightful place. As the world has degenerated, some people's immune
systems have become unable to keep some bacteria out. Once bacteria get into
the deep tissues, such as the lymph nodes, they are very difficult to get
out. CREATION RESEARCH HAS MANY TIMES PREDICTED that more new diseases will
be found as degeneration of human immune systems and of the world in general
continues. This study has only confirmed our predictions and we believe this
will not be the only fulfilment.

[Soldier4Christ]

CHIMPS AND HUMANS TASTE DIFFERENT, according to a report in Nature, vol
440, p930, 13 April 2006. Every student of biology has probably participated
in an experiment to see who can taste a chemical called PTC. The ability to
taste this is genetically determined, with the tasting gene being dominant
and the non-tasting being recessive. In 1939 three scientists Fisher, Ford
and Huxley, tested apes for the ability to taste PTC and found the same
variation in the ability to taste it. This was claimed to be evidence that
chimps and humans evolved from the same ancestor. Since then the actual
genes that control PTC tasting in humans have been found - they are two
alleles (variations) of a gene called TAS2R38. A group of scientists led by
Stephen Wooding of the University of Utah, has studied the genes that
control the variation in tasting ability in apes and found they were also
alleles of this gene, but neither of the chimp alleles occurred in humans.
Therefore, they concluded that "although Fisher et al's 1939 observations
were accurate, their explanation was wrong. Humans and chimpanzees share
variable taste sensitivity to bitter compounds mediated by PTC receptor
variants, but (they concluded) the molecular basis of this variation has
arisen twice, independently, in the two species."

ED. COM. For years evolutionists have claimed that chimps and humans are 98%
related. However, when detailed gene studies like these are done, such
relationships turn out to be 100% unrelated. The recognition that "Fisher et
al's observations were accurate, but their explanation was wrong", reveals a
common issue in the creation evolution debate. Many evolutionists'
observations of biological phenomena are accurate, but their explanation as
evidence for evolution is not. Natural selection, mutations and adaptation
are real processes that explain what happens to living organisms. However,
such processes cannot explain how non living molecules turned into live
scientists who study chimp and human genes. Creation Research predicts that
as more detailed studies are made of how genes are controlled, and how they
interact with one another, more such differences will be revealed.

[Soldier4Christ]

GRANTING APES HUMAN RIGHTS see http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html which
reports: "The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress
of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the
category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection
that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification
is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with
gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.

ED.COM. WARNING! Note that while this is only in Spain now, they are looking
to taking it to the UN. (Ref. politics, animal rights, United Nations)

[Soldier4Christ]

BACTERIA MAKE STRONGEST SUPERGLUE, according to reports in news@nature 10
April 2006. A banana shaped bacterium named "Caulobacter crescentus" has
been found to make the strongest adhesive ever found in the natural or
man-made world. The bacterium is extremely common - it rapidly colonises any
wet surface, from boat hulls to medical catheters. Once attached it is
extremely difficult to shift, even by high pressure water jets. A team of
physicists studied the strength of the glue used to attach itself, by
working out how much force was required to detach the bacterium from its
mooring - about 70 newtons per square millimetre of force. Most commercial
superglues can be disrupted by 25 newtons per square millimetre. Because the
bacterial glue works well on wet surfaces, scientists are hoping to develop
it into a surgical adhesive. They are not sure whether this is best done by
culturing the bacteria or studying the biochemistry of the glue.

ED. COM. Manufacturing and using this glue will take intelligent scientists
and chemical engineers, who understand chemistry. Leaving it to chance
random processes will not produce anything useful. This is good evidence the
bacterium has better and stronger glue only because it was designed and made
by an intelligent Creator, who knows more about chemistry than any
earthbound human chemist. In fact, He made the glue without having to copy
it.  (Ref. biomimmicry, bio-engineering, microbiology)

[Soldier4Christ]

BAT WINGS HAVEN'T CHANGED, according to a report in ScienceNOW 17 April
2006. A team of biologists led by Karen Sears and Lee Niswander of the
University of Colorado are researching the origin of bat flight. Bats' wings
are made of a membrane supported by three long forelimb digits, like very
elongated fingers. The researchers studied the wings of four fossil bats
including "the earliest known fossil bat, a 50 million-year-old specimen",
along with 10 living species, and concluded that "the length of the three
digits relative to body size, has not changed in the course of evolution.
This suggests that the bat wing evolved suddenly and very quickly." They
then compared the development of bat embryos with mice embryos to see how
their fingers grew. They found the digits on mice and bats were initially
similar, but bat fingers rapidly elongated due to stimulation from a bone
growth promoting protein named Bmp2. They found more Bmp2 in bats than in
mice and concluded that "an upregulation of Bmp2 might have powered
elongation of the three digits in an ancestor to the bat 50 million or more
years ago, helping to make winged flight possible."

ED. COM. Note the difference between the actual observations and the
explanations of the observations. The facts are that all known fossil bats
and living bats have the same wing structure, and this editor has seen the
oldest known fossil bat and agrees with Sears observations totally. The
fossil and living bats are good evidence that bats have reproduced after
their kind, just as Genesis says they were created to do. This is regardless
of how long ago you think bats first got fossilised. There are no known
exceptions to this, thus such a conclusion is related to the actual evidence
that exists. The claim that bats evolved rapidly from an unknown ancestor
that has left no evidence in the fossil record, is an evolutionist belief
held in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

The embryological study simply confirms that it takes more Bmp2 bone growth
protein to make long fingers than short ones, and bat embryos are programmed
to produce more. It does not explain where the programming came from, or
even where the Bmp2 gene came from. It makes more sense to believe that mice
and bats have the right amount of Bmp2 protein for their needs because a
creative designer programmed the gene controls appropriately for each
animal.  (Ref. embryology, development, mammals)

[Soldier4Christ]

Hi Iris,

Welcome back to CU. It is good to see you here. Yes there are many scientists like the one you mentioned that are realising that Creation is not a myth and that science does in fact support it. I have seen the links that you provided before. While I do not agree with most of the false teachings of the JW's I must agree that they do have it somewhat right on Creation being a fact and evolution being a myth.