Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

HOBBIT RESEARCHERS GO HEAD TO HEAD according to articles in Eureka Alert and
World-science.net 18 May 2006. The debate continues over the nature of “Homo
floresiensis, the bones found on the Indonesian island of Flores that some
scientists claim are a separate human species and other scientists claim are the
same species as modern humans, but were suffering from dwarfism and
microcephaly. Robert Martin of the Field Museum, Chicago, and colleagues, have
examined the various studies and have written a technical comment in Science 19
May 2006 claiming that the evidence fits the microcephaly theory and claim that
the stone tools found in the same cave as the bones “belong to types
consistently associated with modern humans, or Homo sapiens.” They also claim
that a skull cast of a microcephalic used in one study was not suitable because
it was from a child and was badly made. Martin commented: “There has been too
much media hype and too little critical scientific evaluation surrounding this
discovery, and it is simply unacceptable that papers should be published without
providing proper details of the specimens examined.”

ED. COM. There certainly has been more media hype than critical evaluation on
this topic. However, if both scientists and popular media read the original
studies, which not only described the skull, but also the arms, legs and other
bones, they would admit that the bones are an ape-like head with an ape-shaped
jaw and ape-sized body with ape-like body proportions. (See Nature, vol. 431,
p1055, 28 Oct 2004 and Nature vol. 437, p1012, 13 Oct 2005 and Evidence News
articles 4 May 2005 and 12 October 2005.) Overall the bones most closely
resemble an Australopithecine, a type of extinct ape, whose most famous example
is “Lucy”. The stone tools found in the cave are similar to those associated
with normal humans, but this is simply evidence that humans have been in this
area. This interpretation of the bones and tool does not fit any of the
evolutionary views of the bones and as long as evolutionists are determined to
fit the evidence into their theory the debate is sure to go on. (Ref.
anthropology, ape-men, primates)

[Soldier4Christ]

“I recently heard John Mackay at a meeting at Edinburgh Scotland
and was impressed with his presentation and approach. I have relayed to one of
my colleagues how he explained that Thymine has a higher affinity for Thymine so
it supports design being involved in DNA creation. He went off disbelieving of
this and found out that this is only under UV light or Infra Red Energy which to
me would be the conditions Evolutionists would think was there in the beginning.
Can you please refer me to the exact research John was referring to and the
arguments that go with it to help me reason with this person. They also think
that with time, evolution, i.e. the creation of DNA, the world, could just
happen. How can I reason against this?

ED.COM. Dr Eager replies: “The bases that act as the letters in DNA are attached
to the sugar-phosphate backbone and the base on the opposite strand, but not to
bases on either side. If they do bond with adjacent bases they cannot be read by
the DNA copying machinery. In UV light adjacent thymine bases tend to bond with
one another to form a thymine dimer. Normally the DNA surveillance and repair
mechanisms will find thymine dimers, remove them and replace them with normal
letters, as the thymine–thymine bond destroys the coded information sequence.
When there is a lot of UV light the repair mechanism cannot keep up with the
damage and the genes containing them are not copied properly. This is a well
known cause of skin cancer.

Thymine dimers are good evidence against evolution and for creation because:

1. The evolutionists claim that UV light is a source of energy for forming
pre-biotic organic chemicals. UV light would make more thymine dimers which
destroys the information in DNA, rather than enable the formation of properly
configured DNA with all the base bonding in meaningful ways to the backbone and
the opposite bases.

2. DNA within cells tends to be degraded by UV unless the surveillance repair
mechanism can maintain it. The repair mechanism involves many proteins, which
are coded for by DNA. This is an example of irreducible complexity. If the
repair mechanisms are not there, or are even partly defunct, the cells can
become cancerous or are deliberately destroyed by the cell. We know this because
there is rare inherited tendency to form skin cancer caused by damage to the
repair mechanism that normally removes damaged DNA. (Try searching for
"Xeroderma pigmentosa")

3. Whilst the chemical behaviour and structure of DNA can be explained by the
laws of chemistry, the information carried in the sequence of chemical letters
along the strands of DNA cannot. To understand, think of written information on
a printed page. Chemistry will explain the colour of the ink and how it is
bonded to the paper, but it will not explain the difference between an ink blot
and a page of organized information printed with that same ink in a science
textbook. That difference did not come from the properties of the ink, but from
the creative minds of the Intelligent Authors, interpreted by the intelligent
minds of readers who have been pre-programmed to know what organized bits of ink
communicate.

[Soldier4Christ]

BUMPY BEETLE WINGS INSPIRE ENGINEERS, according to a report in New Scientist
online news 8 May 2006. The Namib desert beetle has wings covered with
water-attracting bumps. In between the bumps the wing surface is covered with a
strongly water-repelling wax. This combination of bumps and wax enables the
beetle to collect water from the fogs that blow across the desert. The bumps
attract droplets of water, which gradually build up until they are large enough
to roll off the bumps and across the waxy surface to the beetle’s mouth.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed a way to
copy the beetle’s method of condensing and channelling fluids by laying down
water-attracting polymers in a pattern over a layer of a water-repelling
Teflon-like substance. By changing the pattern of water-attracting bumps the
scientists can control the flow of liquid over the surface. The US military are
interested in using the method to design self-decontaminating surfaces. Other
scientists suggest it could be used to control the flow of cooling fluids over
microchips or make fluid flow through chemical sensing devices without needing a
pump.

ED. COM. If these scientists are able to design fluid controlling devices using
the design copied from the beetle wings they will have proven that it took
creative design and precision engineering to make the beetle wing surface. The
beetle wing is not the only water collecting device used by organisms that live
in deserts. Cactus spines also collect water and let it drip onto their roots.
Biologists claim that this kind of water collection device evolved so that
animals and plants could survive in the desert. However, this method of
collecting water would have been very effective in the good world described in
Genesis 1 and 2:4-6, which tells us the ground was watered by a daily mist that
rose up from the earth. (Ref. bio-engineering, insects, design)

[Soldier4Christ]

CREATING LIFE GETS HARDER, according to a report in BBC News Online, 3 April
2006. In recent years biologists have speculated what would be the minimal
number of genes needed to make a functioning artificial cell, and some have
tried to estimate it by seeing whether cells could survive after having one of
their genes knocked out. However, this method only studies one chemical process
at a time and many living cells have backup systems that enable them to make the
many other chemicals they also need to survive. Lawrence Hurst of the University
of Bath, UK, and colleagues, have studied two bacteria and developed a
mathematical model that works out what genes they would need to survive in their
normal environments. They then used the model to predict what would be the
smallest number of metabolic processes they would need to live, assuming they
had all the right nutrients available. Their results suggested that single gene
knock-out studies underestimated the minimal number of genes by about 50%. Hurst
commented: “The surprise was the metabolism got to be really rather larger than
people had suggested the smallest metabolism could be.” Hurst’s results may also
be an underestimate as, according to Dusko Ehrlich, of the Institut National de
la Recherche Agronomique in France, “The paper deals only with biochemical
reactions, not DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, or replication. They deal with
precursors but don't deal with many macromolecules. Many essential genes are
required for synthesis of macromolecules.”

ED. COM. When biologists are able to work out what genes are essential for life,
and manage to put them together with the right nutrients and make a living cell,
they will have proven that it takes intelligence and creativity to make life,
not chance naturalistic or random processes. Therefore, scientists doing these
gene studies and those who read about them are truly without excuse for not
acknowledging that the genes they are merely copying and reassembling, were made
by a much greater Creator. (Ref. genetics, genome, biochemistry)

[Soldier4Christ]

MALARIA FREE MOSQUITOES ARE THE NORM, according to an article in Science,
vol. 312, p514, 28 April 2006. In order for mosquitoes to spread malaria, the
disease causing micro-organisms have to infect the mosquito first. A few years
ago some mosquitoes were found which could prevent the malaria causing cells
from doing this, and some scientists suggested that genetic engineering
techniques should be used to spread the resistance genes among the mosquito
population. In order to find out which genes enable mosquitoes to resist
infection, a group of scientists captured mosquitoes from a malaria infested
region and let them produce one generation of offspring. They allowed the
offspring to feed on malaria infected blood and then examined them to see which
ones were infected with malaria parasites. Many of them were not infected in
spite of feeding from infected blood. The scientists then looked for genes
conferred resistance and found a small region on the 2L chromosome. One gene
named APL1 appeared to be particularly important, because when it was
deliberately knocked out the mosquitoes became infected. The scientists were
surprised that the genes for resistance to the parasites are “remarkably common”
and “the mosquitoes that don’t have those genes may just be the odd ones out”.
This study has led other scientists to suggest that control of malaria should
concentrate on finding ways to kill the non-resistant mosquitoes. Matt Thomas of
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Australia commented:
“Why put new resistance genes into mosquitoes if they already have their own.”

ED. COM. The results of this study and the scientists’ conclusions are exactly
what you would predict from a Biblical Creation framework of thinking. In the
beginning God made a good world with no disease, where all animals ate plants.
Therefore, all mosquitoes fed on plant juices (which all male mossies still do),
and kept any micro-organisms they happened to absorb under control. Therefore,
there would be no malaria. As the world degenerated some mosquitoes lost their
ability to keep micro-organisms under control and became infected with single
celled organisms. After Noah’s flood, plants degenerated due to the harsh
climate, and female mosquitoes were unable to get enough iron and protein from
plants to make their eggs, so they took to drinking blood when they were ready
to lay eggs. (At all other times mosquitoes still live on plant juices.) Those
mosquitoes that had the damaged genes would have accidentally transferred
micro-organisms into the blood of the person they were feeding from and started
a vicious cycle of infection and transmission of malaria. The moral of the story
is don’t do an Attenborough by asking “If there is a God of Love why did He
invent malaria?" when it is our sinful rebellion which is to blame. (Ref.
degeneration, infection, disease)

[Soldier4Christ]

ADJUSTABLE FOCUS GLASSES MADE, as reported in news@nature and ScienceNOW 3
April 2006. Scientists at the University of Arizona, Tucson, have developed a
liquid crystal lens that increases its magnifying power when a small electric
current is applied to it. The lens could be used by people who currently need
reading glasses or bifocal lenses to see close objects. The great advantage of
such a lens is that people who need glasses for close work don’t need to change
glasses, or rely on a small part of their visual field as they do with bifocals.
As about 90 percent of the population eventually needs glasses for reading and
other close work, the scientists see a great future for their invention.

ED. COM. During his recent visit to the UK John Mackay debated well known
evolutionist Dr Steve Jones (London University Biology Prof)on a BBC program
hosted by Jeremy Vine. During the interview Steve Jones said that he had taken
off his glasses and could no longer see and that proved the human eye could not
have been designed, therefore naturalistic evolution was the only acceptable
explanation for such a poor design. The fact that the human eye lens often
becomes stiff and unable to change focus in later life is a reminder that our
bodies are going downhill, not evolving upwards, and some parts degenerate
faster than others. Thus the human eye is a good reminder of the Biblical
history of the world – from designed perfection to degeneration, not simple to
complex as the evolutionists claim. The fact that it takes creative optical
engineers, who understand the properties of materials and the laws of physics,
to design a lens that does the same thing as a healthy human eye lens, is
evidence that the biological lens took creative design, not chance random
processes to build. As someone who wears bifocals and has to go through life
with part of the visual field out of focus this editor is pleased to see the
results of creative design on artificial lenses in this life, and looks forward
to eyes that won’t degenerate in the next life. (Ref. optics, engineering,
physics)

[Soldier4Christ]

How Old Is Life?



According to evolution, life has been on Earth for billions of years. It is common to claim that life originated some three to four billion years ago. Even though spontaneous generation of life has been soundly disproved in every experiment, evolutionists think at least once that non-living chemicals came together on their own, without the aid of any non-natural agency, and formed a living cell, complete with its own genetic code. Under the guidance of these genetic instructions, the cell was capable of life's functions, and reproducing other similar cells with their own similar genetic codes. In this process of code reproduction, mutations may alter the coded content somewhat, so that the detailed instructions vary a little, leading to evolutionary change.

Efforts are underway to push life's origin back into the universe's more distant past, even suggesting that life came to Earth on a meteorite (or spaceship). Speculations of life's "naturalistic" origin long ago and far away seem fueled by man's aversion to being accountable to a "supernatural" Being.

A naturalistic origin of life is evo-lution's biggest hurdle. Obtaining useful variations of the genetic code seems easy compared to spontaneously obtaining the first genetic code. Even natural selection cannot act on the chemical precursors of life, for it can only choose between living variants as to survivability.

Mutations in existing codes, while they do not speak to the origin of the code, can tell us something about how old life can be. Most mutations are only slightly harmful, but others are acutely harmful. Most of these harmful mutations, whether mild or acute, pass on to the next generation, thus each succeeding generation is more "mutant." Today, the codes mutate at rates much higher than evolution would predict. Evolutionists have long known that if the mutation rate were as high as one per generation in the reproductive line, genetic deterioration would be a certainty. But the measured rate is between 100 to 300 harmful mutations per person that are fixed within the population! (I recommend Dr. John Sanford's new book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.) Mutations are leading, not to evolutionary advancement, but to extinction!

One obvious conclusion we can reach from the observed rate of deterioration is that mankind (or any species on Earth) cannot have been here for millions of years—or it would have already gone extinct. Instead, life appears to have been recently created and cannot last for millions of years into the future.

[Soldier4Christ]

Blue-t-ful Beetles, Birds, `n Butterflies

The strikingly iridescent blue seen in some butterfly, beetle, and bird feathers is well-known and enjoyed by scientists and laymen alike. This is due to creatures (and some plants) reflecting or absorbing certain frequencies of light due to the external chemical composition of their body. In past decades, it has been realized that although the color of these structures are clearly and unusually blue—no blue pigment can be found!

The South American butterfly, Morpho rhetenor, has wings composed of extremely tiny scales like all members of the Lepidoptera. Biologists magnified scales of the upper wing surface 20,000 times and saw "a regular grid of precisely constructed wedge-shaped ridges spaced at intervals of about 0.00022 mm. This pattern is repeated so accurately that the maximum deviation is only 0.00002 mm. No earthly workshop specializing in miniaturization [nanotechnology], would be able to make one single wing scale with this required precision."1 Detailed investigation of other butterflies reveals iridescence due to "nanoscale structures that produce ultra-high reflectivity and narrow-band spectral purity."2

The beautiful colors of male peacock plumes are due to variations in the photonic lattices. These are found at the nanoscale level in the tiny barbules of the magnificent feathers.

Beetles of the genus Hoplia found in France have chitin sheets (a stiff polysaccharide) in the scales of its exocuticle.3 The light is reflected due to a sophisticated network of airspace and rods of chitin. The title of this particular article says it all, "Blue beetle has natural nanophotonic design." Creation scientists heartily agree and would add that the design they speak of means a Designer.

Sadly, we find once again that scientists ignore the clear case for creation and simply say that millions of years ago, "biological systems were using nanometer-scale architectures to produce striking optical effects."4 The two authors use the word "remarkable" several times to describe various photonic structures, but at the end of the article state that they have assembled themselves. This is hardly a scientific explanation, of course.

At the end of one article, the author says ". . . Nature may be able to teach scientists a new approach to the fabrication of technologically useful photonic structures."5 The creation scientist gives glory not to "Nature," but to the One true Creator. We can indeed learn from Him as we investigate His living creation.

   1. Gitt, W. 1997. In the Beginning was Infor-mation. Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, p. 15.
   2. Vukusic, P., et al. March 1, 2001. Now you see it—now you don't. Nature, v. 410, p. 36.
   3. Harper, R. February 2006. Blue beetle has natural nanophotonic design. Biophoton-ics, v. 13, p. 22.
   4. Vukusic P. and J. Roy Sambles. August 14, 2003. Photonic structures in biology. Nature, v. 424, p. 852.
   5. Blau, S. January 2004. Light as a Feather. Physics Today Online, www.physicstoday.org.

* Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?



"Australopithocines evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago." This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.

The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as "primitive" humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.

The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendents, "anatomically-modern" humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.

Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a "missing link" being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). God made His creatures to reproduce "after their own kind," and it appears from the fossils that they have done just that.

* William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is an ICR Research Assistant in Geology.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Intelligent Design and/or Scientific Creationism
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

 "He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? . . . He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?" (Psalm 94:9-10)

Although we have published a number of articles dealing with the "Intelligent Design" movement, we at ICR continue to get numerous inquiries—both from Christians and from the secular media—as to ICR's exact position relative to the ID movement. In particular, why do the leaders in that movement continually try to distance themselves from us Biblical creationists, even though our own leaders are also fully credentialed scientists just like theirs?

But then, why do the news media, as well as the scientific and legal establishments, keep insisting that Intelligent Design is merely a disguised form of creationism, accusing the ID people of hypocritically trying to hide that fact? For example, the following recent quote represents quite fairly the attitude almost universally characteristic of the modern scientific establishment. The author, a biology professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is a prolific writer and debater against creationism. To him Intelligent Design is: "a thinly veiled version of creationism, a pseudo-intellectual enterprise that has nothing to do with science or philosophy (or indeed, good theology), and everything to do with inserting a religious wedge into public school education." (Massimo Pigliucci:

    "More Than You Ever Wanted to Know about Intelligent Design," Evolution, vol. 59, December 2005, p. 2719.)

Having lost several creation/evolution debates with Dr. Duane Gish of ICR, Dr. Pigliucci evidently considers himself an authority on such things.

As a matter-of-fact, he is at least partially right. Some of the leaders of the ID movement have been frankly calling it a "wedge" with which they hope to open up the atheistic science establishment, so that teachers can at least acknowledge intelligent creation of life as a possibility.

But, as we creationists have been predicting, they are now finding this outcome highly unlikely at best. Scientists for the most part are adamant that scientific systems and processes, including their origin, must be studied and taught strictly on a naturalistic basis, with no consideration for God.

For those who really believe in an omnipotent purposeful God, this attitude is absurdly wrong, though the modern judiciary apparently agrees with it. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has seemingly concurred, as far as science teaching in public schools is concerned.

This was not the case with the founders of science. Respected scientists such as Newton, Boyle, and most others all believed in Intelligent Design as the very foundation of science. And the same was true with our nation's early schools and colleges. In fact, the very first edition of Webster's Dictionary (1828) defined "science" thus: "1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect."

Nor is it a modern notion. "The heavens declare the glory of God" said King David long ago. "He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? . . . He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?" (Psalm 94:9-10). The evidence for Intelligent Design everywhere and in everything is so obvious that only "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1), and those who refuse to see it and desperately seek some evolutionary way of explaining it are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

Scientists and theologians of later generations have often tried to organize the evidence in more formal ways, such as the "watch and watchmaker" analogy of William Paley in his famous book Natural Theology (1802). And now we have Michael Behe and William Dembski and others in the ID movement with their more mathematical approach to recognizing design through such concepts as irreducible complexity and others.

ICR has stressed the need for intelligent design in our creationist arguments ever since we started. In his debates, Dr. Duane Gish has always argued that such creatures as the butterfly and the bombardier beetle could not possibly have arisen by chance variation and natural selection. Dr. Bliss a generation ago lectured on the marvels of the bacterial flagellum that has now become such a favorite example of the Intelligent Design theorists. Creationists have welcomed the insights and arguments of the ID group: we certainly do not see any conflict with scientific creationism. To us, it is not Creation or Intelligent Design.

But the ID people (creation by Intelligent Design) insist that these are two different systems and that Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationism—especially not Biblical Creationism. They feel it best to leave the Bible and the Biblical God out of the argument entirely. Some even feel that evolution is okay, provided that it is not atheistic Darwinian evolution. Thus, theistic evolution is quite compatible with Intelligent Design (Michael Behe himself admits to being an evolutionist). And some (e.g., William Dembski) say that the Designer does not necessarily have to be a deity!

They argue, of course, that such flexibility is necessary to get the creation idea into the public arena at all. However, it is also now becoming increasingly apparent that ID will never be allowed in the public schools either, regardless of how it is compromised.

And what good would it do anyhow? If the ID system has to be so diluted as to be acceptable to any religion or philosophy except raw atheism, then why bother? Would believing in some false god or goddess and following some cultic system of practice be preferable to believing and practicing atheistic secular humanism? Think about it!

We think it sad that the schools and colleges are now not only closing the doors to ID speakers but also, probably as a related action, to genuine creationism as well. In the past, young-earth creationists were frequently invited to participate in debates and seminars on university campuses. Our lectures and debates have always focused especially on the scientific evidence, while never hedging on our belief in God and the Bible, and God has blessed these events in the lives of many students.

There's another very important factor to keep in mind. As Christians, we ought to be more concerned with winning souls for eternity than getting a hearing in the public forum. And even more important than winning souls for Christ is unreservedly honoring God's Word, forever "settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Someday all the schools will be gone and even heaven and earth will "pass away" but His Word "shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

By attempting to argue without the Bible, however, the Intelligent Design theorists are ignoring the most important aspect of the whole question—namely, the history of life on Earth. After all, the creation/evolution issue is really a question of history, rather than science. Not could evolution happen, but did it happen? Evolutionists seem to think that Darwin proved that natural selection could account for all the amazing evidences of design in nature. If they can imagine how a feature might have evolved, they feel that proves it did happen. Any impossible event will occur if there is enough time, they like to claim.

But the actual historical record says that macroevolution did not occur—both the written record in the revealed Word of God and the inferred record from the fossils and the many scientific evidences of a young Earth, (as greatly strengthened by the recent ICR/CRS RATE Project results).

By ignoring this historical evidence—especially that in the Bible—the Intelligent Design movement alone cannot possibly succeed. In the meantime, it is diverting interest among Christians away from the much more cogent case for scientific Biblical creationism and thus tragically hindering a true witness for Christ and the Bible.

We do heartily commend the Intelligent Design scientists for the brilliant new arguments and evidences they have added to the traditional case for Intelligent Design. But we insist the issue does not stop there. The Biblical testimony is all important, not to mention the very strong scientific evidence for recent creation and the global flood. Since the latter events cannot be proved scientifically (not being repeatable) they can always be explained away if one so desires, but it is certainly stronger than the scientific evidence for evolutionary uniformitarianism, (that evidence is not repeatable either!). The only way we can be absolutely sure of what happened in prehistoric times is for someone who was there and who is trustworthy to tell us what happened.

That is exactly what we have in the revealed Word of God. But evolutionists refuse to believe God and Intelligent Design theorists ignore Him. Both are mistaken.

So what if the public schools won't listen? Our nation's earliest schools were home schools and private Christian schools, and these produced the highest states of both literacy and morality in any nation's history. There is no Biblical warrant for government-controlled schools anyway. Government schools today should probably best be viewed as mission fields rather than educational centers. Almost the same can be said of secularized religious schools. Concerned parents should not entrust their children's spiritual and educational health to them.

In summary, I personally believe that the Intelligent Design movement is good as far as it goes, but it stops short of a valid and effective and useful worldview. It should not be a case of Intelligent Design versus Creationism but rather Intelligent Design Explained, Amplified, and Confirmed by Scientific Biblical Creationism.

* Dr. Henry M. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Insufficient Design
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

The modern Intelligent Design movement (ID) has been making substantial pro-gress in recent years, at least in terms of public interest. As one evolutionist recently warned his colleagues:

    The success of the ID movement to date is terrifying. In at least 40 states, ID is being considered as an addition to the required science curriculum in public schools.1

The "terrified" author of this observation is Professor of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University. She says she is being stalked by ID advocates!

    Now I know that I and my colleagues are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position.2

The editor of the prestigious magazine Science, in his lead editorial in a recent issue, expressed his alarm thus:

    Alternatives to the teaching of biological evolution are now being debated in no fewer than 40 states. Worse, evolution is not the only science under such challenge. In several school districts, geology materials are being rewritten because
    their dates for Earth's age are inconsistent with scripture (too old).3

The editor even entitled his diatribe "Twilight for the Enlightenment?"

Similar alarmist articles have been published in numerous other science journals and also in many popular magazines (such as Newsweek) and local papers. Our own San Diego Union Tribune in a lengthy lead editorial for November 21, 2005, called Intelligent Design "Voodoo Science" in the editorial title. The language seems inflammatory just about everywhere.

One writer becomes unreasonably virulent in his latest editorial.

    The "Intelligent Design" movement is the most pernicious pseudoscience of our time. It seeks to undermine the teaching of evolution, at a minimum, but at its root is a broad attack on the nature of science itself. . . .4

He then calls ID "an ancient and long-discredited faith-based idea with zero scientific evidence."5

Is ID Really Intelligent?

The reason for calling attention to this almost universally negative reaction to the ID movement among leaders in science, education, law, journalism, and other fields is to note the unrealistic hope that ID leaders have about their movement. Christians have been pointing out for a very long time that the ubiquitous evidences for design in nature constitute strong evidences for God and creation. But atheists and other unbelievers have long hailed Darwinism as their deliverance from this constraint.

Now the ID people think that by distancing their movement from creationism and the Biblical God as the obvious Designer, they can make ID acceptable. They are learning, however, that opposition to ID is even stronger among scientists, if anything, than the opposition to straightforward creationism.

Many evolutionists now regard ID as a hypocritical form of creationism and thus really a religion rather than science.

Another skeptic has pointed out what he thinks is a very different reason for rejecting the main ID contention.

    According to Behe and Dembski, the more complex a system, the more likely it was designed—this is the essence of Point A in Behe's concept.

    Point B (irreducibility) in Behe's concept asserts that an IC system loses its function if even a single part is missing.6

That is, a system is irreducibly complex (IC) if it could no longer function if even one part is missing. That, according to these two leaders of the ID movement (Michael Behe and William Dembski) means it must have been intelligently designed.

But this particular writer opines that this would be proof that it was not designed by any kind of intelligence! Thus, it must have been assembled somehow by impersonal time and chance.

    The simple fact is, though, that if an IC system has been designed, it is a case of bad design. If the loss of a single part destroys the system's function, such a system is unreliable, and therefore, if it is designed, the designer is inept.7

This is a clear example of specious reasoning, but Perakh belabors it at some length. It does lead, however, to an important conclusion. That is, mere complexity is not proof of design.

For example, a perfectly cubical object found in a pile of rocks, say, would certainly have been designed for some kind of purpose—say, as a toy block for a child to play with or as one of a pair of dice for a gambler to throw. An irregular rock in that same pile, on the other hand, would be much more complex and therefore more difficult to specify than the cube but it clearly would have been formed randomly by a hodgepodge of forces over a long period of time.

In other words, complexity in itself is not evidence of design. But if it is organized and purposive complexity, then it would surely seem to have been designed. Therefore, instead of wasting time and talent on evolutionary speculation as to how natural selection might have generated a particular animal, say, creationists believe that the scientist would more profitably have tried to determine why the Designer created such an animal.

In any case, evolutionists almost universally conclude that: "As currently promoted, ID theory is neither new nor good science."8

Creation and/or Design

The most serious deficiency in the ID movement, however, is its neglect of the most important of the alleged evidences for evolution—that is, the problem of the fossils. These are the remains of billions and billions of once-living plants and animals now preserved in the sedimentary crust of the earth. These all give abundant evidence of suffering and death during all the supposed geological ages which they are supposed to depict.

Did the Designer do that? If so, just how and why? The only adequate answer is in the Bible, in its record of man's sin, the resulting global Curse and eventual Deluge. But the very purpose of the ID movement is to argue for intelligent design without reference to the Bible and the God of the Bible. Without those factors, however, it would seem that the only alternative would be to assume the Designer to be a sadistic producer of global evil as well as the intelligent producer of irreducible complexity.

We so-called "Young-Earth Creationists" also have always believed and taught what seem to us to be irrefutable evidences of intelligent design in nature, but that is not enough. We simply have to take the Biblical record as God's Word, in which He has taught the real and total truth about origins, as well as about sin and death, then providing also the wonderful solution to all such problems in the glorious Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Whether these facts are considered scientific or not, they are historical facts which should be considered if Truth is the ultimate goal.

We appreciate the tremendous contribution the ID leaders have made to the origins question, but we feel we must urge them to believe the whole counsel of God and return to the true Biblical record of recent Special Creation, the Fall and Curse, the worldwide Flood, and the promised return of God in Christ to consummate His purposes in Creation.

Although it is unlikely that full-fledged creation will ever be accepted in public schools, it can be argued that Intelligent Design will not be accepted there either. Even if an occasional school board decides to insist on it, it would be a travesty to make teachers who don't believe it try to teach it.

But remember that government schools are unscriptural in the first place. The home is, Biblically speaking, ultimately responsible for the teaching of its youth. The original schools and colleges of our country were always either homeschools or sponsored by Christians, with government schools "evolving" later.

If the options of homeschooling or religious schooling are not available (as was true for my own six children), then the parents should monitor what their offspring are being taught in the public schools and colleges and help them get it all back in Biblical perspective.

Two key Bible texts are appropriate in this connection. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, . . . rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15). Then, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (I Peter 3:15).

Endnotes

   1. Pat Shipman, "Being Stalked by Intelligent Design," American Scientist (vol. 93, November/December 2005),
      p. 502.
   2. Ibid., p. 501.
   3. Donald Kennedy, "Twilight for the Enlightenment?" Science (vol. 308, April 8, 2005), p. 165.
   4. Kendrick Frazier, "Evolution and the
      ID Wars," Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 29, November/December 2005), p. 4. Frazier is Editor of this magazine.
   5. Ibid.
   6. Mark Perakh, "Does Irreducible Complexity Imply Intelligent Design?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 29, November/December, 2005), p. 34.
   7. Ibid., p. 35.
   8. Michael F. Antolin and Joan M. Herbers, "Evolution's Struggle for Existence in America's Public Schools," Evolution (vol. 55, December 2001),
      p. 2383.

[Soldier4Christ]

Creation And The Constellations

“Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south” (Job 9:8,9).

The book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible. It is not surprising therefore, that it contains a number of references to creation and the flood, for these great events were still relatively fresh in the thinking of Job and his contemporaries. The first of these creation references in Job is our text above, and it is remarkable that it centers especially on the stars and their constellations. Still another constellation is mentioned in Job 26:13: “By His Spirit He hath garnished the heavens; His hand hath formed the crooked serpent.” Finally: “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” (Job 38:31–33). The term “Mazzaroth” actually means the twelve constellations of the Zodiac.

Thus God not only created the stars but arranged them in star groupings that could be used for “signs and for seasons” (Genesis 1:14). Since God does nothing without a holy purpose, we can be sure that these sidereal signs were not to be used as astrological signs. God’s Word, in fact, forbids the practice of astrology (e.g., Isaiah 47:12–14). The constellations must all in some way have testified of the coming Savior. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Corinthians 4:6). Before the Scriptures were given, the testimony of God’s primeval promises had somehow been written indelibly in the heavens, for those in Earth’s earliest ages who had eyes and hearts to see.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Global warming has forced animals to evolve already



Some species of animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to rapid climate change within just a few generations, scientists believe.

Smaller animals in particular that can breed quickly, such as squirrels, some birds and insects, are showing signs of evolving new patterns of behaviour to increase their chances of survival. Scientists say that many of the genetic adaptations are to cope with changes in the length of the seasons rather than the absolute increases in summer temperatures.

Larger animals and species that are slow to reproduce may on the other hand find it difficult to cope with climate change because they cannot adapt genetically as quickly as smaller, more fertile creatures that have rapid life cycles.

"Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Christina Holzapfel, from the University of Oregon in Eugene.

Examples included Canadian red squirrels reproducing earlier in the year, German blackcap birds migrating and arriving earlier at their nesting grounds, and northern American mosquitoes living in water-filled leaves of carnivorous plants which can adjust their life cycles to shorter more "southern" day lengths.

William Bradshaw, professor of biology at Oregon, said that global warming is going at a faster rate at more northerly latitudes which is causing longer growing seasons, and less cold stress caused by extreme winter weather. "Over the past 40 years, animal species have been extending their range toward the poles and populations have been migrating, developing or reproducing earlier," Professor Bradshaw said.

"These expansions and changes have often been attributed to 'phenotypic plasticity', or the ability of individuals to modify their behaviour, morphology or physiology in response to altered environmental conditions," he said.

However, the scientists point out that in addition to these ad-hoc changes in behaviour, there is another type of evolutionary change at the level of the genes which is being caused by rapid climate change.

"Phenotypic plasticity is not the whole story. Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Dr Holzapfel.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers point out that there is little evidence to suggest that animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to the higher summer temperatures associated with climate change. Dr Holzapfel said that adaptations to changing seasons are likely to come first because this will have a more direct bearing on an individual's breeding potential.

"However, it is clear that unless the long-term magnitude of rapid change is widely acknowledged and effective steps are taken to mitigate its effects, natural communities that we are familiar with will cease to exist," she says.

* Global warming could be returning the world to the way it was four million years ago when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today, according to another study in Science.


___________________________

My comments:

How stupid do these scientists think we are? This is not a genetic change, there is no change in the animals DNA. It is simply a change in the pattern of their behaviour which they clearly stated even in this article. It is no different than humans putting on cooler clothing earlier in the season when we have an unexpected warm season. This is just another example of how desparate these scientists are in trying to prove that evolution exists.

[Soldier4Christ]

South Carolina Approves Guidelines Requiring Critical Analysis of Evolution

(AgapePress) - A lawmaker in South Carolina is hailing the approval of new evolutionary biology standards for public high schools. The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee has approved these standards, which require students to "summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

State Senator Mike Fair, a member of the Education Oversight Committee, believes the update of the public schools' biology curriculum guidelines is a step in the right direction. "That, we think, is going to give a new freedom to teachers and a new freedom to the students in the science classrooms around South Carolina," he says.

With these standards in place, students will be less afraid to ask questions, Fair asserts. And likewise, these educational objectives will give teachers the freedom "to answer questions and to do what we think good science is all about, and that is to always be asking questions," he says.

Opponents of the new standards want to protect "philosophical materialism," the South Carolina senator contends. He describes this mindset as a "religion" that runs rampant on college campuses.

"Biology departments in the universities around our state are absolutely controlled by people who are afraid, for some reason or another, to look into and encourage students to look at all aspects of the question of evolution," Fair says. He believes the newly established biology standards will help change this situation.

According to the Seattle, Washington-based Discovery Institute, South Carolina is the fifth U.S. state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolution. The state's new guidelines do not, however, require the teaching of alternative theories to Darwinian evolution.

Senator Fair believes the new biology standards for South Carolina high schools will help create an atmosphere where science education can flourish without materialist ideology. Also, he says it is his hope that these guidelines will be a precursor to allowing alternatives to the theory of evolution, such as intelligent design, to be taught in the state's schools.