Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

In scientific processes in order to make a theory into a fact it must me readily replicated and currently observable.

One of things that evolutionists utilize to support their old age earth theory is the millions of years it took to make fossils, petrify trees and form stalactites and stalagmites. The portion of this theory that is most often overlooked is the decomposition of these items would occur long before they could become fossilized or petrified. Another often overlooked fact are trees less than 400 years old that have been found that ran through many different strata. These many geological strata's supposedly took millions of years to form.

Currently we have the formation of stalactites and stalagmites forming in Abraham Lincoln's Monument that equal those that supposedly took thousands if not millions of years to form.

One site that has a current petrifying process ongoing daily that is never mentioned in any scientific journals since the advent of darwinism is a place called The Petrifying Well. This ancient Well – formerly known as the Dropping Well –is believed to be the only one of its kind in England. It is located at the heart of the Mother Shipton Estate – a relic of the Ancient Forest of Knaresborough in England.

The earliest written reference to the Well was by John Leyland, Antiquary to Henry VIII, he visited the Well in 1538 and noted that it was very well known and visited by many to drink and shower under its falling waters as they were believed to have miraculous healing powers.

For the geologists among you, here are some hard facts!
The water springs from an underground lake and seeps up through the earths crust via a layer of porous rock called an “aquifer”.
The spring has never been known to dry up, a measured 700 gallons or 3,200 litres of water flow over the Well every hour, summer, winter, rain or drought!
The waters extremely high mineral content means that everything in it’s path is turned into stone.
The waters leave behind mineral deposits that build up to form a crust of new rock.
The minerals that are most abundantly present are calcium, sodium and magnesium with traces of lead, zinc, iron, manganese and aluminium. These exist in the form of sulphates and carbonates with some chlorides and a little silica. The proportions have remained more or less the same for centuries.
As the waters flow down the front of the Well they leave a small deposit on it’s face, slowly building up over the years.

Twice in its recorded history this has led to the collapse of the Well itself in 1816 and again in 1821 when large pieces became so top heavy they snapped off - Some large pieces can still be seen in the river. However there is no danger of a similar incident today, the Well face is scrubbed and scraped with wire brushes every 8 weeks. It’s a painstaking job that stops the Well face becoming too top heavy.

The Well is made of two types of rock; Tufa, a soft porous, coral like rock. This is the fastest forming deposit of the Petrifying Well, it grows where a constant flow of air causes rapid evaporation and crystallization. Travertine is a harder more compact rock formed where the water flows constantly so that smaller crystals are formed more slowly. Travertine can be cut and polished and made into jewellery.

At different times of the year the mineral content of the water varies slightly this results in the dark and light banding on the face of the Well.

Two large bumps are visible sticking out from the rock face of the Petrifying Well. These are a gentleman’s top hat and a ladies bonnet, placed there by a young couple on their way to York Races in 1853. For some unknown reason they never returned to collect them.

When placed in 1853 the hats would have been hanging at the bottom of the face under the waters just as existing items do. They clearly show the build up and accumulation of rock in 150 years even though its scraped and cleaned regularly to slow it down!


Today’s visitor to the Petrifying Well can see a whole host of everyday objects slowly being petrified in the cascading waters. The most popular item is a teddy bear or soft toy which usually takes between three and five months to turn to stone. Larger non-porous objects can take up to 18 months.

Many celebrities have donated items to be petrified here, even a member of the Royal Family has succumbed to the magic of the Well. Queen Mary who visited the Cave and the Well in 1923 was so taken with it she took off her shoe and left it to be petrified. It now takes pride of place in our Museum. Items worn by cast from Blue Peter, Emmerdale, Coronation Street and Eastenders are also on display, alongside a flat cap once worn by veteran actor Lionel Jeffries, a handbag belonging to Agatha Christie, and a hat belonging to John Wayne!








All this proves that petrification and fossilization does not take extended times claimed by evolutionists but rather occurs rapidly giving large credence to a young earth age.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I know that many people read this thread, and I'm one of them. I am amazed at the amount of evidence and cold hard facts that indicate the theory of evolution is the biggest set of lies and hoaxes in history. One really doesn't need to know much about science to see that the only thing left of the theory of evolution is the vanity of man and the rejection of GOD.

I really want to thank you again for posting excellent information that all Christians can use to teach their children and counter the garbage being taught in public schools. A lesson from Genesis is also called for. GOD'S Creation should be part of the basic education Christians teach their children. Genesis is the only truth about Creation and it should not be withheld from our children and grandchildren.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Philippians 1:6 NASB  For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen, Brother Tom. Genesis is an important part of scriptures. It is the foundation of all the rest of scriptures. I am glad that you mentioned the necessity of a lesson in Genesis. That is one of the many projects that I am currently working on and is the longest of them. If the Lord will allow it will be from Genesis 1 through the flood of Noah.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I look forward to the lesson on Genesis, especially knowing about your background in helping others homeschool. The wonderful thing about this topic is that it can be put in ways that the little ones understand. In fact, it's nice to watch them soak the truth in and start understanding all of the precious things about GOD and JESUS. I think that this experience is why many people enjoy volunteering for Vacation Bible School and Sunday School classes. It's almost as if they know and feel the truth especially about JESUS, and it makes them happy. You can actually watch their little faces light up when they begin to understand that they are never alone and someone loves them as much as JESUS does. I know that you understand exactly what I mean. This is rewarding and satisfying to the point that it's hard to explain unless you've done it, and I know that you've done it.

Brother, I also know that you have a lot on your plate right now, so please take your time. I would like to request that you make a second copy and put it in the "Parenting" section so that more parents and grandparents might see it and be able to use it. I hope and pray that all parents and grandparents teach their children about the things of the LORD. They will also get a chance to see those little faces light up and know this is a labor of love and joy for the LORD and for their children.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Soldier4Christ]

Yes, brother, I definitely do understand that feeling. Not only do their faces light up but there is also an earnest interest, a strong desire to learn more.

I will post it in both places when I get it finished.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell The Story
by Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D.

Abstract
Although the Hebrew text's ordinary morphology, syntax, and vocabulary betray no indication that it should be read other than as a narrative, many who hold it to an old earth model, read it as mere poetry.

Is Genesis 1:1-2:3 a historical narrative (with the plain sense of its words corresponding to reality and the sequence of events portrayed correlating with real time) or is it an extended poetic metaphor? Answering this vital question has been the focus of my RATE research, the results of which will appear as a chapter in the final RATE book.1 Below is just a sample of the exciting results of this study: paired-texts data, control charts, and logistic regression.
The priority of the text: a statistical approach

Although the Hebrew text's ordinary morphology, syntax, and vocabulary betray no indication that it should be read other than as a narrative, many
who hold it to an old earth model, read it as mere poetry. But is this approach defensible? I'm convinced the text will tell us whether the author wanted us to read it as poetry or prose: countable linguistic features—which allow statistical analysis—can inform us of what his original readers would have intuitively grasped.2 I chose to study the distribution of Biblical Hebrew finite verbs (verbs inflected for person, gender, and number), to find the answer.

A statistically valid, stratified random sample of 48 narrative and 49 poetry texts was generated from all the narrative and poetry texts and then subjected to statistical tests in order to answer two questions: (1) Is the finite verb distribution dependent on genre (poetry versus narrative)? and (2) If it is, can the distribution in a given text be used to determine its genre?3
Paired-texts data

The paired-texts data plot (figure 1) contrasts the distributions of finite verbs for narrative and poetic versions of the same event: the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14, narrative; Exodus 15:1-19, poetry); Baraq and Deborah defeating the Canaanites (Judges 4, narrative; Judges 5, poetry). In addition, Genesis 1:1-2:3; Psalm 104 (a poetic account of creation); Genesis 6-9 (the Flood); and two historical psalms, 105 and 106, were plotted. Preterite verbs (green) clearly dominate in narrative.4 On the other hand, imperfects (red) and perfects (yellow) clearly dominate in poetry.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Abstract
Metamorphic rocks are not always easy to date using radio-isotopes. Results obtained usually signify the "date" of the metamorphism, but they may also yield the "age" of the original volcanic (or sedimentary) rock.

Deep inside the Inner Gorge of Grand Canyon, northern Arizona, are the crystalline basement rocks that probably date back even to the Creation Week itself. Clearly visible in the canyon walls are the light-colored granites, such as the Zoroaster Granite, which are stark against the darker, folded strata of the Vishnu Schist and the other metamorphic rock units of the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite1 (see lowest purple and green shading in diagram). These are former sedimentary and volcanic strata that have been transformed by heat and pressure, possibly during the intense upheavals when the dry land was formed on Day 3 of Creation Week.2 Among these metamorphosed volcanic strata are amphibolites, belonging to the Brahma Schist. These were originally basalt lava flows several meters to tens of meters thick. In some outcrops pillow structures have been preserved, testimony to the basalt lavas having originally erupted and flowed under water onto the Creation Week ocean floor.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Science, Education, and the Subject of Origins
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

Abstract
The reaction of the evolutionary establishment to the adoption in August of 1999 by the Kansas State Board of Education of new guidelines for teaching science education is a glaring example.

True science is the search for truth. The single most important principle of science education is the one that instructs students to identify assumptions, use critical thinking, make logical deductions, and consider alternative explanations. When any theory becomes dogma, and its proponents seek every device to protect the theory from challenges and seek to ban alternatives, this is poor science, poor education, and a violation of the academic freedom of students and teachers. These considerations are especially important when applied to the teaching of origins, which not only powerfully influences the teaching of biology and other physical sciences, but also philosophy, psychology, history, and religion. Today evolutionists dominate our educational establishment and scientific organizations. Evolution is accepted and promoted by the majority within the mass media—newspapers, radio, television, and magazines. The evolutionary establishment has reacted in a fit of mass hysteria to even the feeblest challenges to its control of public education and the promotion of evolution as an established fact.

The reaction of the evolutionary establishment to the adoption in August of 1999 by the Kansas State Board of Education of new guidelines for teaching science education is a glaring example. The Board, by a 6–4 vote, sought to demote evolution from the preeminent place as the organizing principle of all of biology and its position as unquestioned fact requiring correct answers on certain tests. Predictably, the evolutionary establishment urged evolutionists throughout the U.S. to make known their objections to members of the Kansas State Board of Education and to contact newspapers throughout Kansas. Most of these papers published articles and editorials denouncing the action of the Board, declaring that the State of Kansas was in danger of becoming the laughing stock of the U.S. Many of these articles inferred that evolution was in danger of being eliminated or drastically curtailed in textbooks. As a result, in the next election several of the Board members who voted for the new guidelines were replaced.

In February 2001, the new State Board of Education voted 7–4 to replace the science guidelines put in place by the previous Board with guidelines that reestablished evolution to its preeminent position. The evolutionary establishment had won. What precisely was the action taken by the earlier Board? Scott Hill, a member of the Board, and one of those who supported the modified guidelines, issued a public statement. In this statement he said:

In a word, the firestorm was about arrogance . . . the fact is a group of closeminded science educators were determined to put in place curricular standards that held up Evolution as the most important concept in all of science. Not only did they suggest a unifying status to evolution, but further suggested the concept transcended science. . . . These narrow-minded drafters ignored input from scores of professional scientists. . . . The State Board did not remove evolution; they did not even deemphasize it. The State Board did not include creationism; they did not even mention it. What the State Board did do was take input from all constituents and develop a set of standards based on good, qualifiable science.

Actually, the most obvious criticism of the action taken by the earlier Kansas State Board should have been that it didn’t go far enough. Should the teaching about the theory of evolution, along with all of its assumptions and evidence believed to support it, be banned? Absolutely not. To do so would violate the academic and religious freedoms of those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, should teachers and students be encouraged to carefully examine and critically evaluate the assumptions that permeate evolutionary theory? Should teachers and students be allowed, even encouraged, to search out and consider scientific evidence that contradicts the assumptions and claims for the validity of the theory of evolution? Absolutely. To do otherwise is poor science and poor education. Should teachers and students be permitted and encouraged to examine and evaluate the scientific evidence that many thousands of scientists throughout the United States of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, eastern religions, and other persuasions believe provides powerful positive evidence for a theistic, supernatural origin of the universe and its living organisms? Absolutely. To do otherwise places a severe constraint on the search for truth and violates the academic and religious freedoms of those who hold such views.

But didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court, in their 1987 ruling on the Louisiana equal time law, which required that the scientific evidence for both creation and evolution be taught, declare that teaching scientific evidence that supports creation in public schools violates separation of church and state and is unconstitutional? Absolutely not. The Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law which required that evidence for both be taught was unconstitutional because it was wrongly motivated by members of the Louisiana legislature. The scientific evidence for creation can be taught in science classrooms if this is done voluntarily by teachers without coercion, and without reference to religious literature of any kind. That this is so has been admitted by prominent evolutionists. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University stated, “Creationists claim their law broadened the freedom of teachers by permitting the introduction of controversial material. But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in ‘creation science.’ It could be taught before, and it can be taught now.”1 Eugenie Scott, who heads the anti-creationist organization, National Center for Science Education, stated that “Reports of the death of ‘scientific creationism,’ however, are premature. The Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state; it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism—and unfortunately many individual teachers do.”2 In spite of this fact, it is incessantly repeated in newspapers that teaching the scientific evidence for creation in public schools violates the constitution and has been prohibited by the Supreme Court. As a result most educators have accepted this false notion, and it is widely promoted by evolutionists.

But doesn’t introducing evidence that supports creation require a Creator and is thus religious in nature? Aren’t scientific theories restricted to the use of natural laws and natural processes? It is true that in our efforts to observe, to understand, and to explain the operation of the universe and the operation of living organisms we do and must employ only natural laws and processes. The evolutionist, however, goes beyond this, stepping outside of empirical science when he insists that we must use these very same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of living organisms. Thus the evolutionist is substituting metaphysics in the place of true science, the search for truth. No theory about origins, creation, or evolution, fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be based on repeatable observations, be subject to scientific test, and be potentially falsifiable. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, life, or a single living kind. These events took place in the unobservable past and are not capable of observation today. All changes that occur among living things are merely fluctuations within limits. No one observes apelike creatures evolving toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. Creation and evolution are theories about history, and such theories are not scientific theories. They do have scientific characteristics, they can be discussed in scientific terms, and there is a mass of circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and it is just as religious. What is more religious, a Creator, or no Creator? Dr. Michael Ruse, an evolutionist (and who was then a philosopher of science professor at Guelph University), was one of the main witnesses for evolution in the 1981 Arkansas federal trial concerning the constitutionality of the equal time law for creation and evolution passed by the Arkansas legislatur (declared unconstitutional by Judge William Overton). At that time he argued strenuously that evolutionary theory was strictly science, while creation theory was exclusively religious. This served as the main basis for Judge Overton’s decision. About 20 years later, in an article published in a Canadian newspaper,3 Ruse, although still a Darwinian evolutionist, revealed his complete turnabout on the question of evolutionary theory and religion. Ruse flatly stated that he now believes that “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . Evolution is a religion” (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the unofficial state-sanctioned religion in U.S. public schools today is this non-theistic humanism which clearly violates the separation of church and state.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

But isn’t the scientific evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, solidly in favor of evolution? Didn’t Darwin provide the mechanism that explained how evolution could and did take place? The amazing thing is that today, 140 years after publication of Darwin’s book, not only is Darwin’s theory under attack by creationists but is under attack by more and more evolutionists! In fact, Søren Løvtrup, well-known Swedish scientist and an evolutionist, has declared that “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”4 The fossil record, for example, does not produce the evidence Darwin predicted. If evolution is true we should find innumerable fossilized ancestors and connecting forms. However, every one of these complex invertebrates appear fully formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms connecting one to another. Furthermore, every major kind of fish known appears in the fossil record fully formed, with no ancestors and no connecting forms. If evolution is true there should have been uncounted billions of transitional forms documenting the intermediate stages between some invertebrate and fishes. There are none. These facts are incompatible with evolution. On the other hand, these facts are precisely what creationists predict. The remainder of the fossil record reveals that each basic type of plant and animal appears fully formed in the fossil record.

Sir Fred Hoyle, world-famous British astronomer, declared after researching the probability of an evolutionary origin of life, the probability of a naturalistic evolutionary origin of life anywhere in the universe in 20 billion years is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747. Sir Fred, formerly an atheist, declared life therefore had to be created, therefore there must be a God. The all-pervasive existence of design and purpose seen throughout the universe and in every detail of the structure and function of living organisms speak eloquently of the existence of the Designer.

Thousands of scientists holding advanced degrees in science from major universities throughout the world reject evolutionary theory and have become convinced on the basis of scientific evidence that the best statement we can make about our origin today is still, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” To deny the opportunity for the students in the tax-supported public schools in our pluralistic democratic society to be taught all of the scientific evidence that supports the two basic theories of origins, creation and evolution, is a denial of academic freedom and constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic, naturalistic worldview or religion.
References

   1. New York Times Magazine, July 19, 1987.
   2. Nature, vol. 329, p. 282, 1987.
   3. Michael Ruse, “How Evolution Became a Religion,” National Post, Toronto, May 13, 2000, p. B-1.
   4. Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Croomhelm, New York, 1987, p. 422.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control
by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.

Abstract
Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life.

According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.

Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life by their presence; they only "maintain" the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the "life from chemicals" theory.

Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the "life from chemicals" theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.

Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry?

Let's take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either. The order in these natural polymers is very precise, and it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose in the human body. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.

Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predictably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting compounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants so that the desired product is formed.

The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity during the chain building process. But evolutionists propose that these complex polymer chains built themselves in a precise, unlikely pattern, without an intelligent chemist controlling the reactions.
Chemical Stability

Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all. By definition, all components in a hypothetical primordial soup would be stable, because if they were not, they would have already reacted. Amino acids are relatively stable in water and do not react to form proteins in water, and nucleotides do not react to form DNA. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? This is the problem of Chemical Stability.
Chemical Reactivity

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction. If life began in a primordial soup by natural chemical reactions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence of these chains. But when amino acids react chemically, they react according to their reactivity, and not in some specified order necessary for life. As the protein or DNA chain is increasing in size through chemical reaction, we should see the most reactive amino acid adding to the chain first, followed by the next most reactive amino acid, and so on.

Let's assume that we begin with the sequence R-T-X, and will add two amino acids "B" and "A" to it. If amino acid "B" is the most reactive amino acid, the sequence would be R-T-X-B-A. However, if "A" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be R-T-X-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids. The polymer chain found in natural proteins and DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates. Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions unthinkably unlikely. This is the problem of Chemical Reactivity.
Chemical Selectivity

Chemical selectivity is a problem of where the components react. Since the chain has two ends, the amino acids can add to either end of the chain. Even if by some magical process, a single amino acid "B" would react first as desired for the pre-determined life supporting sequence followed by a single amino acid "A," the product would be a mixture of at least four isomers because there are two ends to the chain. If there is an equal chance of amino acid "B" reacting in two different locations, then half will react at one end, half at the other end. The result of adding "B" will form two different products. When the addition of amino acid "A" occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of both the products already present. As in the previous example, the major products would be R-T-X-B-A and A-R-T-X-B as well as A-B-R-T-X and B-R-T-X-A and others. The result is a mixture of several isomers of which the desired sequence seldom results, and this is the problem with only two amino acids reacting. As the third amino acid is added, it can react at both ends of four products, and so on, insuring randomness, not a precise sequence.

Since proteins may contain hundreds or thousands of amino acids in a sequence, imagine the huge number of undesired isomers that would be present if these large proteins were formed in a random process. Evolutionists might argue that all proteins were formed in this manner, and nature simply selected the ones that worked. However, this is only an ad hoc assumption and it ignores the fact that we do not have billions of "extra" proteins in our body. Furthermore, nature is not intelligent. There is nothing in nature to do the selecting all-the-while splicing together non-functioning (therefore non-selectable) amino acids toward a working whole. Evolutionists say that nature is blind, has no goal, and no purpose, and yet precise selection at each step is necessary. This is the problem of Chemical Selectivity.

The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would require the existence of a chemical controller. But chemicals cannot think, plan, or organize themselves to do anything. How can chemicals know what it is they're making? How can a chemical reaction make a protein or DNA, put it in an eye, heart, or brain, and do it without a controlling mechanism that knows what the end product is supposed to look like? This sounds much more like the work of an Omniscient Creator. Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention that their theory is anything but random or natural! This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don't know chemistry!

*Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Greenhouse Warming Hype of The Movie The Day After Tomorrow
by Michael Oard, M.S.

Abstract
What is the basis of the idea that global warming would trigger an ice age? There are well over 60 theories of the ice age. We might as well add one more--��global warming, which triggers greater precipitation and melting of glacial ice that sends a huge amount of fresh water over the North Atlantic, stopping the Gulf Stream and the warm conveyer belt of water.

It was billed as a major disaster film about a serious subject. The movie The Day after Tomorrow describes the effects of global warming at a breathtaking pace.1-3 Global warming triggers the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet beneath a team of polar scientists. In chain-reaction-like consequences, the collapse sends a 100-foot tsunami across Manhattan before the city is frozen in ice. Super-tornadoes demolish Los Angeles, large hail knock people out in Tokyo, and New Delhi is buried in snow. Three vast, hurricane-like storms cover the Northern Hemisphere. Temperatures plummet 18°F per second to freeze people solid. Global warming ends up flash freezing the planet into the next ice age. The ice sheets move so fast that a man cannot outrun them. People in the northern United States are frozen, while those living in the south, in a reversal of political roles, plead for refugee status in Mexico to escape the cold in exchange for forgiveness of all Latin American debt. There is a strong anti-Bush political slant to the movie.

The flick is reminiscent of the recent book, The Coming Global Super-storm,4 that describes the development of an ice age in a matter of a few days. The authors of the book were especially inspired by what happened to the woolly mammoths in Siberia during the Ice Age.

What is the basis of the idea that global warming would trigger an ice age? There are well over 60 theories of the ice age. We might as well add one more—global warming, which triggers greater precipitation and melting of glacial ice that sends a huge amount of fresh water over the North Atlantic, stopping the Gulf Stream and the warm conveyer belt of water. Adjacent continents cool and an ice age takes over the world.
Why do scientists endorse the film?

Many scientists were at first aghast at the film, but then they warmed up to its propaganda value. Most people realize that the movie plays ruthlessly on the irrational fears of the average person.

    Campaigners at a pre-release screening on Tuesday in Britain conceded that the film was pure fiction that defied the laws of physics and bore no relation to the impacts they say global warming is already having.5

But it sends a message of the danger of global warming. This is why the movie is being hyped by environmentalists, scientists, and even some politicians such as past Vice-President Al Gore. Wallace Broecker warns of the dire consequence of global warming:

    Through the record kept in Greenland ice, a disturbing characteristic of the Earth's climate system has been revealed, that is, its capability to undergo abrupt switches to very different states of operation. I say "disturbing" because there is surely a possibility that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases might trigger yet another of these ocean reorganizations and thereby the associated large atmospheric changes. Should this occur when 11 to 16 billion people occupy our planet, it could lead to widespread starvation . . .6

Many popular writers are trumpeting the same greenhouse-to-ice-age scare. It is fashionable to blame global warming for wildfires, droughts, floods, more hurricanes, and even blizzards. William Calvin (1998, p. 47) threatens in the Atlantic Monthly: "But warming could lead, paradoxically, to drastic cooling—a catastrophe that could threaten the survival of civilization."7 Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker follows suit with the same dire warning about the possible end of civilization.8 Some are threatening that the climate change will be like the supposed "Permian" extinction, believed to be the worst extinction ever, that wiped out more than 95% of the species on earth. Some even suggest that this extinction was caused by global warming and that it may be too late to do anything about a future catastrophic warming.9 Some advocates of global warming urge that we need to act now.

Many scientists believe the movie is similar to what will happen in the future, but at a slower pace of several decades.10 Still, several decades is a catastrophic pace for an ice age. Climatologists have recently undergone a paradigm shift in that they believe the climate can abruptly shift between glacial and interglacial modes. It is the abrupt changes in oxygen isotopes in the new GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores that have sparked this shift in thinking.9

Other scientists disbelieve the whole story line, but are still committed to abrupt climate change. They see that man-made CO2 could warm the oceans and cause the release of methane hydrates from the bottom.5,10 Methane, another greenhouse gas, released to the atmosphere would result in catastrophic warming.
Is there any basis for the greenhouse scare?

I believe global warming is real. Advocates present much data in support, such as thinning Arctic sea ice, retreating glaciers worldwide, less lake ice over Lake Michigan during the recent decades, etc. Practically all skeptics accept that warming has occurred. The main questions are: (1) what will be the magnitude of the future warming? and (2) will it be harmful?

Advocates are motivated not only by evidence for abrupt climate change in Greenland cores, but also on atmospheric models that predict 2 to 6°F global warming with a doubling of CO2 by the year 2100. Just recently scientists increased the maximum warming to 10°F because of positive feedback mechanisms.11

However, the atmosphere has recently undergone a natural CO2 experiment. The atmosphere has increased in CO2 content about 30% since the industrial revolution. Other greenhouse gases, especially methane, have increased the equivalency of 30% more CO2.12 So, we have essentially increased CO2 by 60%, but the amount of warming claimed is only about 1°F. There is a good chance that a certain percentage of this temperature change is due to systematic warm biases in the long-term temperature measurements. Furthermore, some scientists believe that part of the warming is due to a little bit more solar radiation since the end of the Little Ice Age that ended in the late 1800s.13 So, the real greenhouse warming may be around 0.5°F. Therefore, nature shows that the models are much too sensitive to CO2 increase. Advocates claim that the unexpected slower rise in temperature is caused by the increase of sulfate in the atmosphere during the same period. This may be true, but we need more research to know for sure.

The second question to address is whether a warmer climate will be harmful. Many climatologists admit that a warmer climate will result in more precipitation, and that increased CO2 will increase plant growth that will slow or stop the increase.14 However, the scientists also say that such a benefit would soon end, but this is another subject for research.
Do Greenland cores really represent abrupt climate change?

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Much of the greenhouse scare results from evolutionary/uniformitarian interpretations of rapid changes in the GISP2 and GRIP cores. Such abrupt changes in oxygen isotopes occur throughout the ice age portion of the cores and even when the climate was warming at the end. The end ice age cold spike is called the Younger Dryas. These rapid changes are believed to represent abrupt changes that take place within a few decades or less with the change lasting for about a thousand years:

    These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably 20°C [38°F] in central Greenland. . . . The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric circulation, change in as little as 1-3 years.15

So, one can make a case that it is the evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm applied to the ice cores that is mostly responsible for the recent greenhouse scare.

We can instead apply Biblical earth history to the Greenland cores and we find out that such rapid changes in oxygen isotopes likely represent cold/warm oscillations during one rapid ice age.16,17 Otherwise the Greenland cores show that the climate has been generally in a steady state since the Ice Age. Since the Flood caused the Ice Age, we do not need to fear a future ice age.
How should Christians view the greenhouse scare?

The Bible teaches us that we are stewards of the earth; we should take care of it. Greenhouse warming is a significant issue. Those who are led to directly participate in the environmental issues should become involved. However, they need to look beyond all the hype and ad-hominen attacks by radical environmentalists, who claim that those atmospheric scientists skeptical of a significant greenhouse warming are motivated by the energy companies. We need a balanced approach by listening to the evidence from both sides of the debate. We also need to gather as much real data devoid of interpretation as possible. In that way we will be able to make practical suggestions to solve potential problems.
References

   1. Controversial disaster film casts spotlight on global warming, May 4, 2004, Environmental News Network
   2. Scientists warm to climate flick, despite bad science, May 5, 2004, The Associated Press
   3. Brown, P., T. Radford, and J. Vidal, May 13, 2004, Never mind the weather overkill: Scientists praise Hollywood's global warning, The Guardian
   4. Bell, A. and W. Strieber, 2000. The Coming Global Superstorm, Pocket Books, New York.
   5. Callus, A., May 12, 2004, Climate change gets a Hollywood makeover, Reuters
   6. Broecker, W. S., 1997. Thermohaline circulation, the Achilles heel of our climate system: Will man-made CO2 upset the current balance? Science 278, p. 1,588.
   7. Calvin, W. H., 1998. The great climate flip-flop. Atlantic Monthly 281 (1): p. 47.
   8. Kolbert, E., 2002. Ice memory: Does a glacier hold the secret of how civilization began—and how it may end? New Yorker January 7, pp. 30-37.
   9. Lynas, M., May 17, 2004, NS Essay—global warming: is it already too late? New Statesman
  10. Disaster flick exaggerates speed of ice age, May 13, 2004
  11. Sisson, T. W., J. W. Vallance, and P. T. Pringle, 2001. IPCC report cautiously warns of potentially dramatic climate change impacts. EOS 82 (9), p. 113, 114, 120.
  12. Michaels, P. J. and R. C. Balling, Jr., 2000. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming, CATO Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 31.
  13. Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley, 1995. Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters 22 (23):3,195-3,198.
  14. Report: global warming not so bad, May 13, 2004. Search CNN.com
  15. Hammer, C., P. A. Mayewski, D. Peel, and M. Stuiver, 1997. Preface. Journal of Geophysical Research 102 (C12): p. 26,315.
  16. Oard, M. J., 2003. Are polar ice sheets only 4500 years old? Impact #361, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California.
  17. Oard, M. J., 2002. Wild ice-core interpretations by uniformitarian scientists. TJ 16 (1):45-47.

* Michael Oard has a Master's of Science Degree in Atmospheric Science.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Story of Two Professors
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

Abstract
The focus of the Bishop case was to challenge the college's claim that they had the absolute right to restrict even occasional in-class and out-of-class comments that mentioned a professor's personal views on the subject of his academic expertise.

There were once two professors whose story tells us much about higher education today. Professor Hardison was a philosophy professor who liked to discuss biology, and Bishop was an anatomy professor who liked to discuss philosophy, but there their similarity ends.

 Richard Hardison

Dr. Hardison works hard trying to convince students that his opinions about God, evolution, and the purpose of life are correct. One of his admiring students said that Hardison was especially effective in helping him "think clearly about philosophy and theology, particularly with regard to reason and faith" (Shermer, p. xv). Although Hardison has helped many people accept his way of thinking, the story of only one such student will be told here, that of Michael Shermer.

Dr. Shermer was introduced to Christianity as a youth, and in his senior year of high school he professed to accept Christ (p. 2). Headed for the ministry, he enrolled in Pepperdine University (a Church of Christ school) to major in theology. While taking a philosophy class at Glendale College, the budding minister took a course by Hardison. Deciding to witness to his professor, Michael gave him a book on Christian theology. The professor took it upon himself to refute the book, and typed out a list of problems that he gave to Michael. Soon followed many long discussions, both in and after class, in which Hardison won Michael over—and he converted from evangelical Christianity to evangelical atheism, active in proselytizing against Christianity and God.

Shermer now especially opposes all attempts by believers to "use science and reason to prove God's existence" (p. xiii). Ironically, as editor of Skeptic Magazine and author of numerous books, he spends a great deal of time using "science and reason" to disprove (or at least to argue against) God's existence. He is especially active in attacking creationism because, in his words, "the number-one reason people give for why they believe in God is . . . the classic cosmological or design argument: The good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity of the world or universe compels us to think that it could not have come about without an intelligent designer. In other words, people say they believe in God because the evidence of their senses tells them so" (p. xiv). For this reason, many professors (like Hardison) attack the classic cosmological design argument to win students over to atheism.

Although Hardison has been very active in converting students to his worldview, I could not find any record of complaints or concerns about his proselytizing. He is regarded as an excellent teacher, sincerely interested in students, even as he actively challenges their faith and, evidently not infrequently, wins students to his views. Sometimes students object, feeling that he is proselytizing against religion, but their complaints have never made it to court (and, if they did, the ACLU and the other organizations would in all likelihood defend Hardison's academic freedom).
Dr. Philip Bishop

Dr. Philip Bishop is an associate professor of physiology at the University of Alabama, and director of the university's human performance laboratory. He was also a popular teacher who began each semester's classes with a two-minute discussion about his conclusion from his study of physiology that he believed provided abundant evidence for intelligent design instead of evolutionary naturalism (McFarland, p. 2). Challenged on this, an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel upheld a university demand that he never mention his religious beliefs in class. Bishop also included an optional unit titled, Evidence of God in Human Physiology, taught on his own time, but the court ordered him to stop it also (Jaschik, p. A23).

The University endeavored to stop only Bishop—no one else—from mentioning, even briefly, his personal worldview in the classroom (Bishop brief, p. 7). Bishop's brief argued that if only those professors with an atheistic or agnostic worldview could freely express their views, students may erroneously conclude that all professors shared this worldview. McFarland characterized the case as follows:

    The university administration ordered Dr. Bishop to discontinue his classroom speech as well as his optional on-campus talk. No other faculty and no other topic have been similarly curtailed. Dr. Bishop obtained a federal court order protecting his free speech and academic freedom, but it was overruled in a disastrous opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court held that public university professors have no constitutional right of academic freedom and that their right of free speech in the lecture hall is subject to absolute control (censorship) by the University administration (p. 2).

The focus of the Bishop case was to challenge the college's claim that they had the absolute right to restrict even occasional in-class and out-of-class comments that mentioned a professor's personal views on the subject of his academic expertise.

Although Bishop's comments were nondisruptive, noncoercive, and clearly identified as personal bias, the university argued that allowing professors to present their own views implies that the university endorsed them, arguing that it endorses "everything it does not censor" (Bishop, p. 10). Bishop argued that occasional expressions of personal belief at a public university "cannot be construed as bearing the university's imprimatur, and thus are protected under the First Amendment when they are nondisruptive and noncoercive" (Bishop, p. 9).

The appeal stressed that the university restricted Dr. Bishop's speech "solely because of its religious content," and argued that "speech presenting a religious perspective is entitled to the same nondiscriminatory treatment as other forms of speech" (p. 13). Contrary to extensive case law and the Constitution, the court of appeals' decision authorized "virtually limitless censorship of in-class or classroom-related speech by professors" (Bishop, p. 9) if it can be construed as religious, or even religiously motivated, even if the views expressed are clearly identified as personal.

Strictly applied, this ruling concludes that it is inappropriate for a professor to state that he is Jewish or Moslem, goes to church, or believes in God. Yet the same professor is allowed to state that he does not believe in God or hold a religious worldview. In short, he can lecture against whatever the state defines as "religious" values or beliefs, but not for them. The court of appeals ruled that the university had a "legitimate interest" in preventing religion from "infecting" students "because expression of a religious viewpoint `no matter how carefully presented . . . engenders anxiety in students'" (Bishop, p. 15).

The appeals court also held that the "expression of a religious position in a secular subject, no matter how carefully presented, creates the appearance of endorsement of that position by the University and engenders anxiety in students who may feel compelled to feign a similar belief and, worse still, deny their own beliefs" (Bishop, 16). If there is even a hint of endorsement for theism, all other considerations (including the First Amendment) must be suppressed. Consequently, only atheism can be taught. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the petition for certiorari, and the case ended.
Comments of others on the Bishop Case

Faculty commonly, often blatantly, inject their own religious views—often agnosticism or atheism—in class. Such views however, are normally not circumscribed, and if an attempt were made to do so, a howl of protest from the academic community would likely result (Johnson, pp. 179-184). The courts have consistently ruled in favor of faculty that injected anti-religious, atheistic, or agnostic material into their classes, but against faculty that injected the opposite in their classes (Bergman, pp. 1-34 ).

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Professor of biological sciences at Cornell University, William B. Provine, first presents the theistic side in his class then, for the rest of the term, endeavors to demolish the arguments for theism. He noted that at the beginning of his course, about 75% of his students were either creationists or at least believed in purpose in evolution, i.e., were theists and believed that God directed evolution. Provine (p. 63), proudly notes that the percentage of theists dropped to 50% by the end of his course—this compares to about 90% in society as a whole (Shermer, p. 156). Obviously successful in influencing his students toward atheism, and very open about his success, the university and courts have not interfered.
Conclusions

Many parallels exist between the two professors. Both were popular, well liked, regarded as good teachers, and knowledgeable in their fields. Both endeavored to help students understand their point of view, as Dr. Hardison did openly in class via writings that he gave to students and by meeting with them after class. Conversely, Bishop discreetly invited students to hear his views that supported theism, but only after class. In one case, the court was not even asked to be involved. The other case resulted in a clear court decision—Bishop was not to bring up his views, even outside of the classroom, nor was he allowed to tell students what his personal religion is because it could make non-Christians uncomfortable.

One professor has full academic freedom, the other's academic freedom was clearly proscribed. The difference is their views: one was an atheist, the other a theist. One was encouraged to openly present his views to students in and outside of class, and no concern was expressed about making Christians uncomfortable. The other professor, under pain of termination, was not even to hint what he personally believes to students. Dr. Bishop was also required to teach a view with which he personally disagrees, and was not allowed to present his feelings about it to students. Many more similar cases could be cited, but these effectively illustrate the concerns of many persons that college has become a means of indoctrinating students in a worldview that is hostile towards, not only theism, but religion of all forms. How can the courts in any sense claim neutrality in this controversy?
References

Bergman, Jerry. The Criterion; Religious Discrimination in America. Richfield, MN: Onesimus, 1984. Out of print.

Bishop, Phillip A. v. O.H. Delchamps, Jr., et al. Brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, Oct. Term, 1991.

Hartwig, Mark. "Christian Prof. Loses Free-Speech Case." Moody Monthly, June 24, 1991, p. 55.

Jaschik, Scott. "Academic Freedom Could Be Limited by Court Ruling." The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 17, 1991, p. A23.

Johnson, Phillip E. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, & Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Myers, John (Ed.). "U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of Bishop: Academic Freedom stumbles in wake of 11th Circuit Court Ruling." The Real Issue, 11(3), Oct. 1992.

Provine, William. "Response to Johnson Review." Creation/Evolution, Issue No. 32, Summer, 1993, pp. 62-63.

Shermer, Michael. How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. NY: Freeman, 2000.

Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. NY: Freeman, 1997, p. 156.

*Dr. Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.