I'm currently with my wife, daughter, brother, and parents in the Smoky Mountains. When we were driving into the Smokies, and the mountains were first coming into view, I was struck with realization. I personally consider the Smoky Mountains to be one of the most beautiful sights to see. The heavily forested slopes and the deep vales between the peaks offer a breathtaking example of God's creative power.
But, oddly enough, those mountains are not primarily a testimony to God's design and creativity. Though they do reflect that, the mountains are an even stronger testimony to God's divine judgment. The Smokies are an example of massive tectonic activity and rapid erosion (this is how Dr. Andrew Snelling refers to it in his book Earth's Catastrophic Past by ICR). This amount of tectonic activity and erosion can only be a result of Noah's Flood. Those beautiful, breathtaking mountains are a direct result of God's divine judgment upon a wicked, antediluvian world. The Flood brought about such a geologic change as to totally rework the topography of Earth.
However, a lesson can be learned from this. Oftentimes, even when God brings righteous, holy judgment, He also enacts a process to bring about great beauty. God destroyed the Earth with the Flood. But, He didn't leave it there. He allowed the scarred and damaged Earth to recover. More so, He beautified this Earth again. Of course, the current landscape doesn't even compare to the Earth's original beauty. But, God did allow us some beauty to admire. And for that, we must be thankful.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Monday, June 16, 2014
New Book Ties Engineering to Philosophy
Engineering and the Ultimate is the product of the Engineering and Metaphysics Conference held at Oral Roberts University in 2012. It seeks to open up new pathways for engineering to escape the intellectually stifling philosophy of pragmatism. They point out in the book that the classical and medieval engineers saw their work as pointing to a grander reality that they saw in nature. Their designs sought to reflect the beautiful design in nature. And they weren't ashamed to admit it. The book is of a definite Christian orientation (both Catholic and Protestant). Overall, it is friendly to Intelligent Design, however, one author, Alexander Sich, makes a scientific case against Intelligent Design [ID]. He instead argues that ID is a useful philosophy but should be treated as a scientific model. Many of his arguments have been refuted in the past. I refer the reader to Evolution News and Views for more information.
I only have one problem with the book. It has no bibliographic information for itself! In order to find it, I had to look through the bibliographic info of one of the author's papers. So, here it is in full: Bartlett, Jonathan, Dominic Halsmer, and Mark R. Hall. Engineering and the Ultimate: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Order and Design in Nature and Craft. Broken Arrow, OK: Blyth Institute Press, 2014.
Other than that one minor issue, I personally found the book to be quite enlightening. Having little personal experience with engineering, I found it to be a good introduction to the interaction between engineering and philosophy. I highly recommend it, and I hope that the Blyth Institute Press continue to publish more solid scientific work!
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
A Response to Bill Nye
First of all, Mr. Nye, I was impressed by the fact that you agreed to debate Ken Ham in such a public arena. It was a thrilling debate to observe :). I want you to know, right up front, that I graduated from Pensacola Christian College with a Bachelor's degree in Science Education. Believe me, I'm all about science. I absolutely love it! But, like Mr. Ham, I'm also a Christian and a Young-Earth Creationist. This, however, does not hamper my view of or interest in science. There were a few things said in the debate tonight that I wanted to address. I'm not an expert, but I have studied the origins issue for well over a decade (ever since I was about nine), and I have not limited myself to just creation science. I have read Peter Atkins, Paul Davies, John Barrow, Richard Feynman, David Berlinski--none of them Young-Earth Creationists. Please, bear with me as I address these issues.
The first is a question that Mr. Ham never answered (effectively, at least). You asked him to name some prediction (hint: future discovery) that creation science had successively made. He constantly mentioned past predictions (which I agreed with). However, one prediction kept coming to mind as you constantly asked: that of the strengths of planetary magnetic fields. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (retired from Sandia National Laboratories), predicted the strengths of the planetary magnetic fields in our Solar System based on the Genesis account. (Dr. Humphreys is known for his work in creation cosmology). He successfully predicted the magnetic field strengths. Here's the link.
You also talked about radioisotope dating. That problem was answered and totally debunked by the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Project (RATE). The project was 8 years in the undertaking, and the resultant research was published. The two volumes may be published at Christian Book Distributors (on sale!) for $52.99 at this link. I highly recommend that you acquire them. They are well worth the reading.
One problem that you mentioned with the creation model is that of biogeography (the kangaroos on their merry way to Australia). That is somewhat of a conundrum for creationists, but that doesn't mean we aren't working on it. Check out more here.
Once again, thank you so much for an intellectually stimulating debate regarding our origins. I really do hope that this will revive the old creation/evolution debates of the past.
The first is a question that Mr. Ham never answered (effectively, at least). You asked him to name some prediction (hint: future discovery) that creation science had successively made. He constantly mentioned past predictions (which I agreed with). However, one prediction kept coming to mind as you constantly asked: that of the strengths of planetary magnetic fields. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (retired from Sandia National Laboratories), predicted the strengths of the planetary magnetic fields in our Solar System based on the Genesis account. (Dr. Humphreys is known for his work in creation cosmology). He successfully predicted the magnetic field strengths. Here's the link.
You also talked about radioisotope dating. That problem was answered and totally debunked by the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Project (RATE). The project was 8 years in the undertaking, and the resultant research was published. The two volumes may be published at Christian Book Distributors (on sale!) for $52.99 at this link. I highly recommend that you acquire them. They are well worth the reading.
One problem that you mentioned with the creation model is that of biogeography (the kangaroos on their merry way to Australia). That is somewhat of a conundrum for creationists, but that doesn't mean we aren't working on it. Check out more here.
Once again, thank you so much for an intellectually stimulating debate regarding our origins. I really do hope that this will revive the old creation/evolution debates of the past.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Don't Miss It!
My readers may have heard about the debate coming up very shortly between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. It is scheduled for February 4, at 7 p.m. EST. They will be streaming it live through debatelive.org. Amazingly, all 900 tickets for the debate sold out two minutes after they were up for sale. This result clearly shows that Americans are still very interested in the conflicting theories of origins espoused by evolution and creation. For more information on the debate, you can find it at this link. The debate is not concerned with falsifying the theory of evolution (even though, Darwin's theory of evolution has been falsified many times over in the creation literature--check my favorite sites list for more info). These two men will be debating on the viability of creation science to explain the earth's origins.
Of course, there has been staunch opposition to this debate. Primarily, this opposition has arisen from the atheist camp. Even the prestigious Richard Dawkins has expressed his disapproval in this matter (Dawkins is notorious for refusing to debate creationists). Bill Nye has been urged to back down, yet he won't because he believes it to be a great opportunity to finally bury the creation issue in a public forum.
Surprisingly, a very small amount of support has come from the Intelligent Design camp. To clarify, ID does not necessarily endorse creationist views, and ID is DEFINITELY NOT some form of creationism (happy Mr. Klinghoffer :). Yet David Klinghoffer has expressed his desire to watch the debate. Why? Two reasons: 1) Bill Nye actually has the guts to debate someone who is anti-evolutionist; 2) Ken Ham may be able to finally clarify the differences between ID and creationism. We shall see.
Please pray for Ken Ham. He needs God's wisdom, strength and protection. And, who knows, maybe Bill Nye will get saved because of this. Wouldn't that be ironic!
Of course, there has been staunch opposition to this debate. Primarily, this opposition has arisen from the atheist camp. Even the prestigious Richard Dawkins has expressed his disapproval in this matter (Dawkins is notorious for refusing to debate creationists). Bill Nye has been urged to back down, yet he won't because he believes it to be a great opportunity to finally bury the creation issue in a public forum.
Surprisingly, a very small amount of support has come from the Intelligent Design camp. To clarify, ID does not necessarily endorse creationist views, and ID is DEFINITELY NOT some form of creationism (happy Mr. Klinghoffer :). Yet David Klinghoffer has expressed his desire to watch the debate. Why? Two reasons: 1) Bill Nye actually has the guts to debate someone who is anti-evolutionist; 2) Ken Ham may be able to finally clarify the differences between ID and creationism. We shall see.
Please pray for Ken Ham. He needs God's wisdom, strength and protection. And, who knows, maybe Bill Nye will get saved because of this. Wouldn't that be ironic!
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Is "Intelligent Design" Bankrupt?
According to the Evolution Lobby Committee (in the words of Dawkins), the New Atheists, and most Theistic Evolutionists, the Intelligent Design Movement [IDM] is merely "creationism dressed up in a new tuxedo." However, IDM and the Creation Science Movement both disagree. IDM says that it is different from creation science because it deals only with science--it doesn't depend on and texts or literature. Creation science emphasizes a difference because Intelligent Design does not emphasize the name of the Designer. Because of this, some have taken to referring to Intelligent Design as a "bankrupt theory." I happen to agree with this sentiment.
Intelligent Design prides itself on being unbiased--"following the evidence wherever it leads." Yet, when the evidence leads to a young-earth, or no Big Bang, or an absence of any kind of macroevolution, IDM balks. They are not prepared to entertain THAT kind of evidence! IDM also boasts of not specifying the identity of the Designer. Yet, most of the Intelligent Design Movement are Christians of some shade or fashion. In fact, most are Protestants. And, Protestants have historically taken the stand of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as advocated by the Reformers. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:31: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." [KJV] Whatever we, as Christians, are to do, we should do it to bring glory and honor to God. This includes honoring Him as Creator.
There is a danger here. A danger that pervades all the ranks in IDM. There are many Christians (and Catholics) who recognize who the Creator is (if not openly, then in secret). But there are Jews, Muslims, and agnostics that subscribe to the IDM, because they see the inherent stupidity of Darwinism. One of the most prominent men in the IDM, David Berlinski, is an eminent philosopher and mathematician. He is a Jew. He is also agnostic. Yet, he recognizes the problems inherent in IDM. He is perfectly fine with bashing Darwinism (which he does quite well!). But he hobnobs with men like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson. What's so bad about that? These three men are Christians: they could be a good influence on him. But, he's still an agnostic. Yet he shows no signs of being bitter towards the gospel, so he must not be smothered with it. I can't say this for sure, but the desire to separate the science from God might possibly lead to Christians not directly giving the gospel to those unsaved. Instead, they may try to win them indirectly with evidence and reason, ignoring the work and Person of the Holy Spirit. This is dangerous. What if Berlinski should die? Being Christians, wouldn't most of his colleagues be mortified to know of the condition of his soul? I pray for Berlinski (and Dawkins) every night. I pray for their salvation. When God is distanced from His role as Creator and Designer, He is also often distanced from His role as Savior.
Intelligent Design prides itself on being unbiased--"following the evidence wherever it leads." Yet, when the evidence leads to a young-earth, or no Big Bang, or an absence of any kind of macroevolution, IDM balks. They are not prepared to entertain THAT kind of evidence! IDM also boasts of not specifying the identity of the Designer. Yet, most of the Intelligent Design Movement are Christians of some shade or fashion. In fact, most are Protestants. And, Protestants have historically taken the stand of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as advocated by the Reformers. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:31: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." [KJV] Whatever we, as Christians, are to do, we should do it to bring glory and honor to God. This includes honoring Him as Creator.
There is a danger here. A danger that pervades all the ranks in IDM. There are many Christians (and Catholics) who recognize who the Creator is (if not openly, then in secret). But there are Jews, Muslims, and agnostics that subscribe to the IDM, because they see the inherent stupidity of Darwinism. One of the most prominent men in the IDM, David Berlinski, is an eminent philosopher and mathematician. He is a Jew. He is also agnostic. Yet, he recognizes the problems inherent in IDM. He is perfectly fine with bashing Darwinism (which he does quite well!). But he hobnobs with men like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson. What's so bad about that? These three men are Christians: they could be a good influence on him. But, he's still an agnostic. Yet he shows no signs of being bitter towards the gospel, so he must not be smothered with it. I can't say this for sure, but the desire to separate the science from God might possibly lead to Christians not directly giving the gospel to those unsaved. Instead, they may try to win them indirectly with evidence and reason, ignoring the work and Person of the Holy Spirit. This is dangerous. What if Berlinski should die? Being Christians, wouldn't most of his colleagues be mortified to know of the condition of his soul? I pray for Berlinski (and Dawkins) every night. I pray for their salvation. When God is distanced from His role as Creator and Designer, He is also often distanced from His role as Savior.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
BioLogos Leads the Charge . . .
Many Christians (and non-Christians alike) are familiar with the organization, BioLogos. For those who are not, allow me to identify them and their mission (agenda?). BioLogos is an organization that seeks to unify Christian belief with accepted, consensus mainstream science. In essence, they want to fully integrate evolutionary thinking (accepted, consensus mainstream science) with orthodox Christian doctrine.
Why do they want to do this? Because, in their minds, Christian scholars look flat-out stupid because we accept the Genesis creation account as literal history. They think that Christians will be more accepted into the mainstream science if we accept the evolutionary timescales. By seeking this, BioLogos treads on dangerous grounds. They seek to change the literal straightforward interpretation of God's Word to accommodate to fallible, human reasoning. That's something that I won't even pretend to comprehend. But, let's look at their reasoning. Will accepting evolution really make Christianity more palatable to the secular crowd?
As a prime example, I will use Richard Dawkins. Dawkins really doesn't need an introduction. He is (without question) the most outspoken and popular New Atheist alive today. And, he's not ashamed of what he believes. Contrast his unashamed beliefs with those of two men he debated: Francis Collins and John Lennox. Now, Collins and Lennox are both extremely intelligent men. Collins led the Human Genome Project, and Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University. But, both men made a mistake when debating Dawkins. They both confessed to belief in evolution. And Dawkins was quick to take them up on their concessions. It was sad to read Dawkins' response to Collins' confession. He questioned Collins on what kind of God would use such a brutal and merciless process as evolution. Collins really had no substantial answer. When Lennox debated Dawkins and confessed, the look of smugness and victory that crossed Dawkins' face as he briefly hammered Lennox about it was heart-breaking. In both cases, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins.
Don't take what I said as my confession to atheism. By no means: in fact, quite the opposite. I agreed with Dawkins, because he was right. And it bolstered my faith. Dawkins was completely unimpressed with two Christian scholars who accepted evolution. And I agreed with him. There is no excuse for a Christian to accept evolutionary theory when it contradicts the plainly written Word of God and even God's Nature. How could a loving God reconcile Himself with the brutalities of evolution? [I may address this in a later blog.] Dawkins' responses clearly showed his contempt for compromising religion with an obviously atheistic worldview. Dawkins has been known for saying that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins is out to destroy creation science and religion in general. He has no use for cowardly Christians who can't stand up for Biblical beliefs. Compromising with evolution surely didn't get his support.
There is another issue (and I will just briefly touch on this). They want to be accepted. Why? Paul advocates in Romans 12:2 a different philosophy: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are not to be part of the world. Notice, also, that Paul said to renew our minds. So, we should not be in line with the world's thinking either. Evolution is part of the world's thinking. We must be separate. Which is more important: God's approval or man's? The choice is yours.
Why do they want to do this? Because, in their minds, Christian scholars look flat-out stupid because we accept the Genesis creation account as literal history. They think that Christians will be more accepted into the mainstream science if we accept the evolutionary timescales. By seeking this, BioLogos treads on dangerous grounds. They seek to change the literal straightforward interpretation of God's Word to accommodate to fallible, human reasoning. That's something that I won't even pretend to comprehend. But, let's look at their reasoning. Will accepting evolution really make Christianity more palatable to the secular crowd?
As a prime example, I will use Richard Dawkins. Dawkins really doesn't need an introduction. He is (without question) the most outspoken and popular New Atheist alive today. And, he's not ashamed of what he believes. Contrast his unashamed beliefs with those of two men he debated: Francis Collins and John Lennox. Now, Collins and Lennox are both extremely intelligent men. Collins led the Human Genome Project, and Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University. But, both men made a mistake when debating Dawkins. They both confessed to belief in evolution. And Dawkins was quick to take them up on their concessions. It was sad to read Dawkins' response to Collins' confession. He questioned Collins on what kind of God would use such a brutal and merciless process as evolution. Collins really had no substantial answer. When Lennox debated Dawkins and confessed, the look of smugness and victory that crossed Dawkins' face as he briefly hammered Lennox about it was heart-breaking. In both cases, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins.
Don't take what I said as my confession to atheism. By no means: in fact, quite the opposite. I agreed with Dawkins, because he was right. And it bolstered my faith. Dawkins was completely unimpressed with two Christian scholars who accepted evolution. And I agreed with him. There is no excuse for a Christian to accept evolutionary theory when it contradicts the plainly written Word of God and even God's Nature. How could a loving God reconcile Himself with the brutalities of evolution? [I may address this in a later blog.] Dawkins' responses clearly showed his contempt for compromising religion with an obviously atheistic worldview. Dawkins has been known for saying that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins is out to destroy creation science and religion in general. He has no use for cowardly Christians who can't stand up for Biblical beliefs. Compromising with evolution surely didn't get his support.
There is another issue (and I will just briefly touch on this). They want to be accepted. Why? Paul advocates in Romans 12:2 a different philosophy: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are not to be part of the world. Notice, also, that Paul said to renew our minds. So, we should not be in line with the world's thinking either. Evolution is part of the world's thinking. We must be separate. Which is more important: God's approval or man's? The choice is yours.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Creation and Design
Oftentimes, proponents of Darwinism confuse creation science with intelligent design. And, almost every time, both creationists and the ID movement respond with a negative. They are not the same thing. Now, creationists do believe in design. And, the ID movement has definite theistic implications (just read Signature in the Cell to find out).
The other day, one of my coworkers brought up the subject of origins. Now, both of us are Christians. Neither of us was debating whether God created, or how. We're also both Young-Earth Creationists (that's really the only position the Bible allows). He brought up the fact that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature. I affirmed it. He asked why. I told him that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature rather than Creationist literature because Creationist literature is often written toward the layperson that doesn't necessarily have a background in science. But, most ID literature presumes at least some background in science (especially those books actually published by the Discovery Institute). I prefer to read the more challenging and technical literature. He rejoined with a comment about not believing in ID. This seems to be common objection among Christians. I responded that yes, I do believe in ID. Why shouldn't I?
There are several reasons why a Christian can (and should) accept Intelligent Design:
1) We as Christians believe that God created everything. Because God created everything, He also would have had to design it as well. God is also intelligent. Therefore, I should see evidence of Intelligent Design: and I do.
2) The theory of Intelligent Design is merely a scientific theory. It presupposes no metaphysical or philosophical beliefs before detecting design in nature. However, the metaphysical and philosophical implications of ID often lead to theism (the late astronomer, Allan Sandage, and the biologist, Dean Kenyon, are perfect examples). Intelligent Design has such broad implications that fitting it into creation science is relatively simple (but, remember, they're still distinct modes of inquiry!).
3) Finally, ID seeks to tear down the paradigm that Darwinism has created for science. In some ways, ID is more qualified to do this than Creationism because it doesn't come with any religious underpinnings. Scientists are more prone to doubt Darwin than accept creationism. And, we can't convert them to creationism (and Christ) without first making them doubt Darwin. ID accomplishes this. Also, because ID is hostile toward Darwinism, it tends to be rather benign towards creation science. Of all the anti-evolution theories, ID is the one that has not attacked creation science. In fact, in some ways, ID has found an ally in creation science.
These different reasons give indication that ID is compatible with creation science. Now, obviously, not every person in ID is a Young-Earth Creationist. Some believe in the Big Bang (which Young-Earth Creationism normally opposes), common descent, and a very old Earth. But, as a creationist, I can believe in ID, because I do believe that God marvelously created this wonderful universe that we live in.
The other day, one of my coworkers brought up the subject of origins. Now, both of us are Christians. Neither of us was debating whether God created, or how. We're also both Young-Earth Creationists (that's really the only position the Bible allows). He brought up the fact that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature. I affirmed it. He asked why. I told him that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature rather than Creationist literature because Creationist literature is often written toward the layperson that doesn't necessarily have a background in science. But, most ID literature presumes at least some background in science (especially those books actually published by the Discovery Institute). I prefer to read the more challenging and technical literature. He rejoined with a comment about not believing in ID. This seems to be common objection among Christians. I responded that yes, I do believe in ID. Why shouldn't I?
There are several reasons why a Christian can (and should) accept Intelligent Design:
1) We as Christians believe that God created everything. Because God created everything, He also would have had to design it as well. God is also intelligent. Therefore, I should see evidence of Intelligent Design: and I do.
2) The theory of Intelligent Design is merely a scientific theory. It presupposes no metaphysical or philosophical beliefs before detecting design in nature. However, the metaphysical and philosophical implications of ID often lead to theism (the late astronomer, Allan Sandage, and the biologist, Dean Kenyon, are perfect examples). Intelligent Design has such broad implications that fitting it into creation science is relatively simple (but, remember, they're still distinct modes of inquiry!).
3) Finally, ID seeks to tear down the paradigm that Darwinism has created for science. In some ways, ID is more qualified to do this than Creationism because it doesn't come with any religious underpinnings. Scientists are more prone to doubt Darwin than accept creationism. And, we can't convert them to creationism (and Christ) without first making them doubt Darwin. ID accomplishes this. Also, because ID is hostile toward Darwinism, it tends to be rather benign towards creation science. Of all the anti-evolution theories, ID is the one that has not attacked creation science. In fact, in some ways, ID has found an ally in creation science.
These different reasons give indication that ID is compatible with creation science. Now, obviously, not every person in ID is a Young-Earth Creationist. Some believe in the Big Bang (which Young-Earth Creationism normally opposes), common descent, and a very old Earth. But, as a creationist, I can believe in ID, because I do believe that God marvelously created this wonderful universe that we live in.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Cambrian Explosion...or Graveyard?
Creationists need to be careful when discussing the fossil record with unbelievers (or believers). When discussing the fossil record, it is relatively easy to point out the obvious absence of transitional forms, the mixed up strata, and the obvious discontinuities between fossil species. However, there is one area that creationists misuse much of the time. The Cambrian Explosion.
What is the Cambrian Explosion? About 530 million years ago (according to evolutionary time), there is an abrupt appearance of thousands of different body plans and animal phyla. These phyla have no obvious ancestors in the fossil record. Charles Darwin once said that the fossil record was one of his greatest enemies. When the Cambrian Explosion was first discovered, it caused quite a stir, and the secular scientific community still has not given a satisfactory explanation.
But, apparently, the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement has. Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute is publishing a new book in June called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Now, so ENV doesn't take what I say and put it on the same plane as what Jerry Coyne says (I hope they don't), I am not going to say one way or the other about what the book deals with. First, I haven't read it yet. Second, I am looking forward to reading it. I currently own a copy of Signature in the Cell (it took me awhile to find the hardcover edition!), and I am very much enjoying it. I agree with almost everything he says in the book. I am going to make one assumption about Dr. Meyer's book: because of the title, I am going to assume that the book deals with the sudden appearance of animal life.This is where ID really sticks it to the Darwinists. They point out that you cannot have all of these brand new animal phyla without a sudden, massive influx of new information. That is very true. According to the fossil record, these animals never existed before--they are brand new. Therefore, they must have been designed.
This is the point at which creationists need to take notice. It is is fallacious for creationists to use the term, "Cambrian Explosion," because there was no explosion. The one major advantage that creationism has over ID is that we have an Infallible Guide to direct our research into origins studies. The Creator has told us how He created. We know that He created in six literal days approximately six thousand years ago (yes, there has been extensive research done in this area by legitimate scientists--just check out some of the links on this blog). On days five and six, all animal phyla were supernaturally brought into existence ex nihilo. If all animal phyla were brought into existence at the same time, then how could there be a sudden appearance of more animal phyla later in the fossil record?
Because, this was not a record of appearance. It was a record of death and burial. Approximately 4,300 years ago, another WORLDWIDE event happened. Christians refer to it as Noah's Flood, of simply, The Flood. I am prepared for a round of snickers at the mention of it, but it's okay. Several good books have been written on the subject (of course, most who would derisively laugh at the idea of The Flood would never dare actually read a technical, academically rigorous book on the subject). The Flood wiped out all living things except for those preserved on the ark. The Cambrian Explosion is a testament to the catastrophe that buried them, not some random, unknown influx of design from some unidentified Designer. Creationists need to be careful not to adopt the same terminology as ID and therefore confuse the issues.
(This will make Discovery Institute and ENV happy!) ID and Creationism are not the same thing. ID merely postulates that there is design. Creationism advances a coherent origins model based upon God's record account and supplemented by scientific evidence. When Creationists speak of the Cambrian Explosion, I think a better term is in order. I think it should be referred to as the Cambrian Graveyard. For truly, it is a Graveyard--a testament to Divine Judgment.
What is the Cambrian Explosion? About 530 million years ago (according to evolutionary time), there is an abrupt appearance of thousands of different body plans and animal phyla. These phyla have no obvious ancestors in the fossil record. Charles Darwin once said that the fossil record was one of his greatest enemies. When the Cambrian Explosion was first discovered, it caused quite a stir, and the secular scientific community still has not given a satisfactory explanation.
But, apparently, the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement has. Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute is publishing a new book in June called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Now, so ENV doesn't take what I say and put it on the same plane as what Jerry Coyne says (I hope they don't), I am not going to say one way or the other about what the book deals with. First, I haven't read it yet. Second, I am looking forward to reading it. I currently own a copy of Signature in the Cell (it took me awhile to find the hardcover edition!), and I am very much enjoying it. I agree with almost everything he says in the book. I am going to make one assumption about Dr. Meyer's book: because of the title, I am going to assume that the book deals with the sudden appearance of animal life.This is where ID really sticks it to the Darwinists. They point out that you cannot have all of these brand new animal phyla without a sudden, massive influx of new information. That is very true. According to the fossil record, these animals never existed before--they are brand new. Therefore, they must have been designed.
This is the point at which creationists need to take notice. It is is fallacious for creationists to use the term, "Cambrian Explosion," because there was no explosion. The one major advantage that creationism has over ID is that we have an Infallible Guide to direct our research into origins studies. The Creator has told us how He created. We know that He created in six literal days approximately six thousand years ago (yes, there has been extensive research done in this area by legitimate scientists--just check out some of the links on this blog). On days five and six, all animal phyla were supernaturally brought into existence ex nihilo. If all animal phyla were brought into existence at the same time, then how could there be a sudden appearance of more animal phyla later in the fossil record?
Because, this was not a record of appearance. It was a record of death and burial. Approximately 4,300 years ago, another WORLDWIDE event happened. Christians refer to it as Noah's Flood, of simply, The Flood. I am prepared for a round of snickers at the mention of it, but it's okay. Several good books have been written on the subject (of course, most who would derisively laugh at the idea of The Flood would never dare actually read a technical, academically rigorous book on the subject). The Flood wiped out all living things except for those preserved on the ark. The Cambrian Explosion is a testament to the catastrophe that buried them, not some random, unknown influx of design from some unidentified Designer. Creationists need to be careful not to adopt the same terminology as ID and therefore confuse the issues.
(This will make Discovery Institute and ENV happy!) ID and Creationism are not the same thing. ID merely postulates that there is design. Creationism advances a coherent origins model based upon God's record account and supplemented by scientific evidence. When Creationists speak of the Cambrian Explosion, I think a better term is in order. I think it should be referred to as the Cambrian Graveyard. For truly, it is a Graveyard--a testament to Divine Judgment.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
A Need to Stand in the Gap
This year has seen the passing of two Giants of the Faith. Dr. Duane Gish of Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Dr. Dave Hunt of The Berean Call (TBC) have gone home to be with the Lord.
Dr. Gish was a champion of debate. He has been compared to Thomas Huxley in his skills. Many have referred to him as "Creation's Bulldog" (a reference to Huxley as "Darwin's Bulldog"). He authored many books, including Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say No! and Letter to a Theistic Evolutionist. He will be greatly missed from the creationist ranks.
Dr. Dave Hunt was a champion of logic. He co-founded TBC with T. A. McMahon in order to combat the deadly influences creeping into the Church. He did a fantastic job! He wrote many books, including Judgment Day: Islam, Israel, and the Nations, Psychology and the Church, What Love Is This: Calvin's Misrepresentation of God, and Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny: Answering Dawkins, Darwin and the New Atheists. He is considered one of the greatest writers and thinkers of modern fundamentalism. He will be greatly missed.
What shall we do, now? Two giants have been taken home. It is time for us, the younger Christians, to start filling in the gaps. The Lord's work has not finished yet. There is still much to do.
For further information:
Remembering Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation's 'Bulldog'
To Our Berean Call Family
Dr. Gish was a champion of debate. He has been compared to Thomas Huxley in his skills. Many have referred to him as "Creation's Bulldog" (a reference to Huxley as "Darwin's Bulldog"). He authored many books, including Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say No! and Letter to a Theistic Evolutionist. He will be greatly missed from the creationist ranks.
Dr. Dave Hunt was a champion of logic. He co-founded TBC with T. A. McMahon in order to combat the deadly influences creeping into the Church. He did a fantastic job! He wrote many books, including Judgment Day: Islam, Israel, and the Nations, Psychology and the Church, What Love Is This: Calvin's Misrepresentation of God, and Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny: Answering Dawkins, Darwin and the New Atheists. He is considered one of the greatest writers and thinkers of modern fundamentalism. He will be greatly missed.
What shall we do, now? Two giants have been taken home. It is time for us, the younger Christians, to start filling in the gaps. The Lord's work has not finished yet. There is still much to do.
For further information:
Remembering Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation's 'Bulldog'
To Our Berean Call Family
Monday, February 18, 2013
Berlinski Gives It to the Atheists!
When the New Atheists start their polemic rants against Creationism, Intelligent Design, or just religion in general, Christian philosophers and scholars rise to the occasion to defend. But the Atheists rarely (if ever) listen. They just don't have time for the petty Christian scholars. Dr. Berlinski is a different matter.
Dr. Berlinski is not a Christian, nor is he necessarily religious. He is a self-proclaimed secular Jew. In the book he references the days gone by of "sunny agnosticism." As an agnostic, you would think that he would side with the New Atheists against religion. WRONG!
Berlinski delivers an amazing defense of religious philosophy and God Himself. In some ways, he presents a more cogent and persuasive proof of God than most Christians. His book was a great pleasure to read.
It has been said that Darwin's Origin of Species was written as "one long argument." I cannot personally comment on this, for I have not read it (yet). Berlinski's book is one long (enjoyable) argument! He has fun dishing it out to the Atheists. He is very respectful of religious thought.
I definitely recommend this book.
David Berlinski: www.davidberlinski.org
Friday, December 21, 2012
Which is YOUR authority?
What is the fundamental problem with old-earth creationism (e.g. theistic evolution, progressive creationism, gap theory, literary framework hypothesis)? Quite frankly, there are many problems. Biblical Creationists have combatted these problems head-on and quite effectively for decades. These problems have been countered through both science and biblical interpretation. But, this is not the fundamental problem. Does a problem exist? Quite possibly, the "problem" could be nothing more than a difference of interpretation (such as different methods of baptism). But no, it is more serious than that.
The fundamental problem of old-earth creationism (OEC) is the indecision these individuals have concerning their choice of final authority. Many times, the OEC's will admit that a "cursory" reading of Genesis 1-11 obviously requires a literal reading and understanding. In other words, it demands to be interpreted as having occurred over a period of six days around 6,000 years ago. But then they make a mistake. They usually preface this mistake with a phrase like, "But the scientific data says..." Now, this might sound like a dumb question -- but, if the Bible makes it clear that the Earth is young, then does it really matter what the scientific data says, or seems to say? I suppose that, before we go any further, we should determine how science and scripture relate to each other.
Hugh Ross (founder of Reasons to Believe) is often known to refer to Nature and Science as the 67th Book of the Bible (added on to the other 66 books). Let us make a distinction here that Hugh Ross (and many others) refuse to make. Historically and traditionally, there have been two modes of revelation from God to man. The first involves Natural Revelation; this involves Nature and Science. In this sense, God is making His Existence known to us by the mere existence of the universe. By looking out at creation, God wanted us to know He existed. But, being omniscient as He is, He knew that man would intellectually rebel against Him and would seek to explain the existence of the universe completely naturalistically. He knew this (funny, how this has happened -- Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and others). To counter this, He gave us Special Revelation. This is His written Word that He gave us over the span of 3,500 years of human history. This Word is set down: inspired, preserved, and inerrant. His special revelation is to take precedence over His natural revelation. Of course, His creation will always be in harmony with his Word (if interpreted correctly). Unfortunately, many choose to ignore this harmony and instead compromise the naturalistic theories of man by molding, bending, and distorting God's revealed Word to us, thereby compromising its integrity.
This is the fundamental problem of OEC's. Biblical Creationists do not have this problem because they recognize the harmony that exists, but they place God's Word over scientific data because it is our Final Authority.
For more information:
www.icr.org
www.creation.com
www.answersingenesis.org
www.creationresearch.org
The fundamental problem of old-earth creationism (OEC) is the indecision these individuals have concerning their choice of final authority. Many times, the OEC's will admit that a "cursory" reading of Genesis 1-11 obviously requires a literal reading and understanding. In other words, it demands to be interpreted as having occurred over a period of six days around 6,000 years ago. But then they make a mistake. They usually preface this mistake with a phrase like, "But the scientific data says..." Now, this might sound like a dumb question -- but, if the Bible makes it clear that the Earth is young, then does it really matter what the scientific data says, or seems to say? I suppose that, before we go any further, we should determine how science and scripture relate to each other.
Hugh Ross (founder of Reasons to Believe) is often known to refer to Nature and Science as the 67th Book of the Bible (added on to the other 66 books). Let us make a distinction here that Hugh Ross (and many others) refuse to make. Historically and traditionally, there have been two modes of revelation from God to man. The first involves Natural Revelation; this involves Nature and Science. In this sense, God is making His Existence known to us by the mere existence of the universe. By looking out at creation, God wanted us to know He existed. But, being omniscient as He is, He knew that man would intellectually rebel against Him and would seek to explain the existence of the universe completely naturalistically. He knew this (funny, how this has happened -- Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and others). To counter this, He gave us Special Revelation. This is His written Word that He gave us over the span of 3,500 years of human history. This Word is set down: inspired, preserved, and inerrant. His special revelation is to take precedence over His natural revelation. Of course, His creation will always be in harmony with his Word (if interpreted correctly). Unfortunately, many choose to ignore this harmony and instead compromise the naturalistic theories of man by molding, bending, and distorting God's revealed Word to us, thereby compromising its integrity.
This is the fundamental problem of OEC's. Biblical Creationists do not have this problem because they recognize the harmony that exists, but they place God's Word over scientific data because it is our Final Authority.
For more information:
www.icr.org
www.creation.com
www.answersingenesis.org
www.creationresearch.org
Sunday, December 16, 2012
God of the Gaps
Many times, secularists accuse creation scientists and ID advocates of using the "God of the Gaps" concept. What is this concept? Essentially, it claims that anything we don't understand about science or nature can be supplemented by the fact that "God made it that way." While this is true, it does not serve as a legitimate scientific reason for explaining something in nature. And it is true as well that some creationists do use this argument. But, what many don't realize is that secularists use a "God of the Gaps" scenario as well. I call it the "Natural-Selection of the Gaps."
What is this? The primary axiom of evolution states that every living thing arose from a prior ancestral organism through a combined process of mutations coupled with natural selection. I will deal with mutations in a later post. Natural selection is a favorite catchword with evolutionists nowadays. What is natural selection? Natural selection states that as organisms evolve, environmental conditions affect the organim during its evolution so as to cause some of the organisms to die out and some to thrive. This is also referred to "survival of the fittest." It is true that unfit organisms in an environment will not survive. However, by stating this, they are actually imbuing nature with a certain power and ability that it does not possess. They claim that the environment chooses the creatures that are fit to survive, and those that are not. How can the environment (or nature in general) choose anything, for it is not a sentient being? Nature can no more choose the creatures that will fill its environment than a book can choose to be written.
While this is bad enough, whenever asked about how an organism can be so well designed to survive in a certain environment, they claim "Natural selection." Yet, they give no explanation as to how nature did this. They claim it as their default mechanism. And yet, they accuse creationists of using a default mechanism. But, let's think about this. Which is a more logical default mechanism? Believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is capable of doing all things, or believing in an impersonal natural, mystical force that somehow guided evolution? I think I will stick with a belief in God.
I do not espouse the "God of the Gaps" theory. I do not use it except in circumstances where I do not understand the concept fully, or if there is no explanation yet. In a future post, I will deal with natural selection and mutations. We'll see where they lead.
What is this? The primary axiom of evolution states that every living thing arose from a prior ancestral organism through a combined process of mutations coupled with natural selection. I will deal with mutations in a later post. Natural selection is a favorite catchword with evolutionists nowadays. What is natural selection? Natural selection states that as organisms evolve, environmental conditions affect the organim during its evolution so as to cause some of the organisms to die out and some to thrive. This is also referred to "survival of the fittest." It is true that unfit organisms in an environment will not survive. However, by stating this, they are actually imbuing nature with a certain power and ability that it does not possess. They claim that the environment chooses the creatures that are fit to survive, and those that are not. How can the environment (or nature in general) choose anything, for it is not a sentient being? Nature can no more choose the creatures that will fill its environment than a book can choose to be written.
While this is bad enough, whenever asked about how an organism can be so well designed to survive in a certain environment, they claim "Natural selection." Yet, they give no explanation as to how nature did this. They claim it as their default mechanism. And yet, they accuse creationists of using a default mechanism. But, let's think about this. Which is a more logical default mechanism? Believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is capable of doing all things, or believing in an impersonal natural, mystical force that somehow guided evolution? I think I will stick with a belief in God.
I do not espouse the "God of the Gaps" theory. I do not use it except in circumstances where I do not understand the concept fully, or if there is no explanation yet. In a future post, I will deal with natural selection and mutations. We'll see where they lead.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Great New Resource from ICR
I've been following creation science for about a decade now. I subscribe to Acts & Facts, ICR's monthly newsletter. I also keep up with new creationist literature coming out. Here's the latest from ICR:
Having a book completely devoted to a creationist perspective on microbiology is like having a breath of fresh air. For years, the creation science movement has published apologetics, general science, and biblical commentary books. Now, a new rush of semi technical science literature is being published.
This book is amazing. The graphics are stupendous, and the photos truly do show God's unique design in His creation. The primary author is Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, but two main contributors are Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson and Dr. Brad Forlow. Their work is phenomenal. The information covered is somewhat technical, such as the terminology, but the authors do their best to explain everything. They take you step-by-step through the cell, showing the intricate structure and the incredible complexity found within the DNA molecule. Very interesting articles are interspersed throughout the book, covering areas as diverse as the "Complexity of the Brain" to "Human Reproduction." Most importantly of all though, are the overt biblical overtones contained in the book. The authors make no qualms about putting forth the biblical framework or adhering to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. This, they insist, is what separates The Design and Complexity of the Cell apart from similar books found within the Intelligent Design community. An amazing book -- well worth the money spent. You can purchase it at http://www.icr.org
Having a book completely devoted to a creationist perspective on microbiology is like having a breath of fresh air. For years, the creation science movement has published apologetics, general science, and biblical commentary books. Now, a new rush of semi technical science literature is being published.
This book is amazing. The graphics are stupendous, and the photos truly do show God's unique design in His creation. The primary author is Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, but two main contributors are Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson and Dr. Brad Forlow. Their work is phenomenal. The information covered is somewhat technical, such as the terminology, but the authors do their best to explain everything. They take you step-by-step through the cell, showing the intricate structure and the incredible complexity found within the DNA molecule. Very interesting articles are interspersed throughout the book, covering areas as diverse as the "Complexity of the Brain" to "Human Reproduction." Most importantly of all though, are the overt biblical overtones contained in the book. The authors make no qualms about putting forth the biblical framework or adhering to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. This, they insist, is what separates The Design and Complexity of the Cell apart from similar books found within the Intelligent Design community. An amazing book -- well worth the money spent. You can purchase it at http://www.icr.org
Monday, October 15, 2012
Creation Science Journals on the Rise
Even though most secular scientists don't give a care about creation science, several organizations have published creation science peer-reviewed journals. In the past, the big two have been Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation. But, these are subscriber-based, print magazines. A new, free, online journal is up called Answers Research Journal. I'll just give you the tid-bit. Go check it out for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)