Search Tools

Creation's Easter Message by John D. Morris, Ph.D. While many Christians still consider the Creation doctrine a fringe issue, a proper understanding of the Christian message finds creation at its core—a necessary, foundational component of the Christian worldview—without which Christianity flounders around in illogic. It's helpful to think of creation as the "big picture," which answers the vital questions. Who made us? Who is God? What does He expect of me? What is sin? What is the penalty for sin? The "big picture" of Christianity looks like this. The Almighty, transcendent Godhead created all things. As a reflection of His character, creation was initially "very good," free from death, pain, violence, and suffering. But mankind, created in God's very "image," rejected the Creator's authority, and all of creation incurred sin's penalty. Now all things—mankind, animals, plants, natural systems, even the basic elements—all suffer helplessly under the "bondage of corruption" (Romans 8:21). The "wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). In grace, however, the Creator Himself entered creation as the Man, Christ Jesus, who lived a sinless life for which no sin penalty was owed, then died a sacrificial death, fully atoning for man's sin and satisfying God's holy justice. On the cross, as all was finished, He dismissed His Spirit. Only the Creator could accomplish such a thing! After three days in the grave, the Creator of life chose to reenter His lifeless body, in victory over sin and death, offering us eternal life if we merely trust Him, believing that His death and resurrection paid the penalty for our sin. This present, sin-dominated world will one day be replaced by "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (II Peter 3:13). The Creator's full intent for His creation will be delayed no longer. The truth of creation is thus woven all through the Christian message. But what of evolution's message, or that of evolution's bedfellows, theistic evolution, progressive creation, the framework hypothesis and the gap theory. In each one, death dominated long before Adam sinned, thus death cannot truly be the penalty for sin. This obviously invalidates the death of Christ on the cross for our sin. The New Earth (Revelation 21_22) will certainly not reinstate the principle of struggle for existence, death of the weak, and survival of the fittest, which supposedly reigned for millions of years before Adam. Any view of Christianity which incorporates long ages of death and suffering before Adam makes a shambles of the cross. This Easter season, as we remember our salvation made possible by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross and His triumphant resurrection from the grave, let us understand it within the "big picture" of a "very good" Creation, ruined by our rebellion, but restored by the willing sacrifice of our great Creator/Savior.  The Bible is Scientifically Accurate The Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. Learn more...

Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. The following article has been adapted from my contributions to an ongoing debate over origins issues in the letters to the editor section of our local newspaper [1]. Our town, Los Alamos, located in the mountains of northern New Mexico, is the home of the Los Alamos National Laboratory which, with approximately 10,000 employees, is one of the larger scientific research facilities in the United States. Can Random Molecular Interactions Create Life? Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy. This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos. Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 1080 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos [2], 1012 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 1018 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history. Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about one thousand protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible non-living chemical environment. Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly [3]. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity. This line of argument applies, of course, not only to the issue of biogenesis but also to the issue of how a new gene/protein might arise in any sort of macroevolution process. One retired Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow, a chemist, wanted to quibble that this argument was flawed because I did not account for details of chemical reaction kinetics. My intention was deliberately to choose a reaction rate so gigantic (one million million reactions per atom per second on average) that all such considerations would become utterly irrelevant. How could a reasonable person trained in chemistry or physics imagine there could be a way to assemble polypeptides on the order of hundreds of amino acid units in length, to allow them to fold into their three-dimensional structures, and then to express their unique properties, all within a small fraction of one picosecond!? Prior metaphysical commitments forced him to such irrationality. Another scientist, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, asserted that I had misapplied the rules of probability in my analysis. If my example were correct, he suggested, it "would turn the scientific world upside down." I responded that the science community has been confronted with this basic argument in the past but has simply engaged in mass denial. Fred Hoyle, the eminent British cosmologist, published similar calculations two decades ago [4]. Most scientists just put their hands over their ears and refused to listen. In reality this analysis is so simple and direct it does not require any special intelligence, ingenuity, or advanced science education to understand or even originate. In my case, all I did was to estimate a generous upper bound on the maximum number of chemical reactions -- of any kind -- that could have ever occurred in the entire history of the cosmos and then compare this number with the number of trials needed to find a single life protein with a minimal level of functionality from among the possible candidates. I showed the latter number was orders and orders larger than the former. I assumed only that the candidates were equally likely. My argument was just that plain. I did not misapply the laws of probability. I applied them as physicists normally do in their every day work. Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science. At the time of this editorial exchange, he was also leading a campaign before the state legislature to attempt to force this fraud on every public school student in our state. Just How Do Coded Language Structures Arise? One of the most dramatic discoveries in biology in the 20th century is that living organisms are realizations of coded language structures. All the detailed chemical and structural complexity associated with the metabolism, repair, specialized function, and reproduction of each living cell is a realization of the coded algorithms stored in its DNA. A paramount issue, therefore, is how do such extremely large language structures arise? The origin of such structures is, of course, the central issue of the origin of life question. The simplest bacteria have genomes consisting of roughly a million codons. (Each codon, or genetic word, consists of three letters from the four-letter genetic alphabet.) Do coded algorithms a million words in length arise spontaneously by any known naturalistic process? Is there anything in the laws of physics that suggests how such structures might arise in a spontaneous fashion? The honest answer is simple. What we presently understand from thermodynamics and information theory argues persuasively they do not and cannot! Language involves a symbolic code, a vocabulary, and a set of grammatical rules to relay or record thought. Many of us spend most of our waking hours generating, processing, or disseminating linguistic data. Seldom do we reflect on the fact that language structures are clear manifestations of non-material reality. This conclusion may be reached by observing the linguistic information itself is independent of its material carrier. The meaning or message does not depend on whether it is represented as sound waves in the air or as ink patterns on paper or as alignment of magnetic domains on a floppy disk or as voltage patterns in a transistor network. The message that a person has won the $100,000,000 lottery is the same whether that person receives the information by someone speaking at his door or by telephone or by mail or on television or over the Internet. Indeed Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it [5]. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy. Linguists therefore today speak of this gap between matter and meaning-bearing symbols sets as the 'Einstein gulf' [6]. Today in this information age there is no debate that linguistic information is objectively real. With only a moment's reflection we can conclude its reality is qualitatively different from the matter/energy substrate on which the linguistic information rides. From whence then does linguistic information originate? In our human experience we immediately connect the language we create and process with our minds. But what is the ultimate nature of the human mind? If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial. The implications are immediate for the issue of evolution. The evolutionary assumption that the exceedingly complex linguistic structures which comprise the construction blueprints and operating manuals for all the complicated chemical nanomachinery and sophisticated feedback control mechanisms in even the simplest living organism simply must have a materialistic explanation is fundamentally wrong. But how then does one account for symbolic language as the crucial ingredient from which all living organisms develop and function and manifest such amazing capabilities? The answer should be obvious -- an intelligent Creator is unmistakably required. But what about macroevolution? Could physical processes in the realm of matter and energy at least modify an existing genetic language structure to yield another with some truly decel capability as the evolutionists so desperately want to believe? On this question Prof. Murray Eden, a specialist in information theory and formal languages at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out several years ago that random perturbations of formal language structures simply do not accomplish such magical feats [7]. He said, "No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call 'genetic grammaticality' has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation." In a word, then, the answer is no. Random changes in the letters of the genetic alphabet have no more ability to produce useful new protein structures than could the generation of random strings of amino acids discussed in the earlier section. This is the glaring and fatal deficiency in any materialist mechanism for macroevolution. Life depends on complex non-material language structures for its detailed specification. Material processes are utterly impotent to create such structures or to modify them to specify some decel function. If the task of creating the roughly 1000 genes needed to specify the cellular machinery in a bacterium is unthinkable within a materialist framework, consider how much more unthinkable for the materialist is the task of obtaining the roughly 100,000 genes required to specify a mammal! Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications -- from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories -- which assume and imply material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief. It is utter fantasy. Coded language structures are non-material in nature and absolutely require a non-material explanation. But What About the Geological/Fossil Record? Just as there has been glaring scientific fraud in things biological for the past century, there has been a similar fraud in things geological. The error, in a word, is uniformitarianism. This outlook assumes and asserts the earth's past can be correctly understood purely in terms of present day processes acting at more or less present day rates. Just as materialist biologists have erroneously assumed material processes can give rise to life in all its diversity, materialist geologists have assumed the present can fully account for the earth's past. In so doing, they have been forced to ignore and suppress abundant contrary evidence that the planet has suffered major catastrophe on a global scale. Only in the past two decades has the silence concerning global catastrophism in the geological record begun to be broken. Only in the last 10-15 years has the reality of global mass extinction events in the record become widely known outside the paleontology community. Only in about the last 10 years have there been efforts to account for such global extinction in terms of high energy phenomena such as asteroid impacts. But the huge horizontal extent of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary formations and their internal evidence of high energy transport represents stunning testimony for global catastrophic processes far beyond anything yet considered in the geological literature. Field evidence indicates catastrophic processes were responsible for most if not all of this portion of the geological record. The proposition that present day geological processes are representative of those which produced the Paleozoic and Mesozoic formations is utter folly. What is the alternative to this uniformitarian perspective? It is that a catastrophe, driven by processes in the earth's interior, progressively but quickly resurfaced the planet. An event of this type has recently been documented to have occurred on the earth's sister planet Venus [8]. This startling conclusion is based on high resolution mapping performed by the Magellan spacecraft in the early 1990's which revealed the vast majority of craters on Venus today to be in pristine condition and only 2.5% embayed by lava, while an episode of intense volcanism prior to the formation of the present craters has erased all earlier ones from the face of the planet. Since this resurfacing volcanic and tectonic activity has been minimal. There is pervasive evidence for a similar catastrophe on our planet, driven by runaway subduction of the pre-catastrophe ocean floor into the earth's interior [9]. That such a process is theoretically possible has been at least acknowledged in the geophysics literature for almost 30 years [10]. A major consequence of this sort of event is progressive flooding of the continents and rapid mass extinction of all but a few percent of the species of life. The destruction of ecological habitats began with marine environments and progressively enveloped the terrestrial environments as well. Evidence for such intense global catastrophism is apparent throughout the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and much of the Cenozoic portions of the geological record. Most biologists are aware of the abrupt appearance of most of the animal phyla in the lower Cambrian rocks. But most are unaware that the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary also represents a nearly global stratigraphic unconformity marked by intense catastrophism. In the Grand Canyon, as one example, the Tapeats Sandstone immediately above this boundary contains hydraulically transported boulders tens of feet in diameter [11]. That the catastrophe was global in extent is clear from the extreme horizontal extent and continuity of the continental sedimentary deposits. That there was a single large catastrophe and not many smaller ones with long gaps in between is implied by the lack of erosional channels, soil horizons, and dissolution structures at the interfaces between successive strata. The excellent exposures of the Paleozoic record in the Grand Canyon provide superb examples of the this vertical continuity with little or no physical evidence of time gaps between strata. Especially significant in this regard are the contacts between the Kaibab and Toroweap Formations, the Coconino and Hermit Formations, the Hermit and Esplanade Formations, and the Supai and Redwall Formations [12]. The ubiquitous presence of crossbeds in sandstones, and even limestones, in Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and even Cenozoic rocks is strong testimony for high energy water transport of these sediments. Studies of sandstones exposed in the Grand Canyon reveal crossbeds produced by high velocity water currents that generated sand waves tens of meters in height [13]. The crossbedded Coconino sandstone exposed in the Grand Canyon continues across Arizona and New Mexico into Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Kansas. It covers more than 200,000 square miles and has an estimated volume of 10,000 cubic miles. The crossbeds dip to the south and indicate that the sand came from the north. When one looks for a possible source for this sand to the north, none is readily apparent. A very distant source seems to be required. The scale of the water catastrophe implied by such formations boggles the mind. Yet numerical calculation demonstrate that when significant areas of the continental surface are flooded, strong water currents with velocities of tens of meters per second spontaneously arise [14]. Such currents are analogous to planetary waves in the atmosphere and are driven by the earth's rotation. This sort of dramatic global scale catastrophism documented in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and much of the Cenozoic sediments implies a distinctively different interpretation of the associated fossil record. Instead of representing an evolutionary sequence, the record reveals a successive destruction of ecological habitat in a global tectonic and hydrologic catastrophe. This understanding readily explains why Darwinian intermediate types are systematically absent from the geological record -- the fossil record documents a brief and intense global destruction of life and not a long evolutionary history! The types of plants and animals preserved as fossils were the forms of life that existed on the earth prior to the catastrophe. The long span of time and the intermediate forms of life that the evolutionist imagines in his mind are simply illusions. And the strong observational evidence for this catastrophe absolutely demands a radically revised time scale relative to that assumed by evolutionists. But How Is Geological Time To Be Reckoned? With the discovery of radioactivity about a century ago, uniformitarian scientists have assumed they have a reliable and quantitative means for measuring absolute time on scales of billions of years. This is because a number of unstable isotopes exist with half-lives in the billions of year range. Confidence in these methods has been very high for several reasons. The nuclear energy levels involved in radioactive decay are so much greater than the electronic energy levels associated with ordinary temperature, pressure, and chemistry that variations in the latter can have negligible effects on the former. Furthermore, it has been assumed that the laws of nature are time invariant and that the decay rates we measure today have been constant since the beginning of the cosmos -- a view, of course, dictated by materialist and uniformitarian belief. The confidence in radiometric methods among materialist scientists has been so absolute that all other methods for estimating the age of geological materials and geological events have been relegated to an inferior status and deemed unreliable when they disagree with radiometric techniques. Most people, therefore, including most scientists, are not aware of the systematic and glaring conflict between radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods for dating or constraining the age of geological events. Yet this conflict is so stark and so consistent that there is more than sufficient reason in my opinion to aggressively challenge the validity of radiometric methods. One clear example of this conflict concerns the retention of helium produced by nuclear decay of uranium in small zircon crystals commonly found in granite. Uranium tends to selectively concentrate in zircons in a solidifying magma because the large spaces in the zircon crystal lattice more readily accommodate the large uranium ions. Uranium is unstable and eventually transforms through a chain of nuclear decay steps into lead. In the process, eight atoms of helium are produced for every initial atom of U-238. But helium is a very small atom and is also a noble gas with little tendency to react chemically with other species. Helium therefore tends to migrate readily through a crystal lattice. The conflict for radiometric methods is that zircons in Precambrian granite display huge helium concentrations [15]. When the amounts of uranium, lead, and helium are determined experimentally, one finds amounts of lead and uranium consistent with more than a billion years of nuclear decay at presently measured rates. Amazingly, most of the radiogenic helium from this decay process is also still present within these crystals that are typically only a few micrometers across. However, based on experimentally measured helium diffusion rates, the zircon helium content implies a time span of only a few thousand years since the majority of the nuclear decay occurred. So which physical process is more trustworthy -- the diffusion of a noble gas in a crystalline lattice or the radioactive decay of an unstable isotope? Both processes can be investigated today in great detail in the laboratory. Both the rate of helium diffusion in a given crystalline lattice and the rate decay of uranium to lead can be determined with high degrees of precision. But these two physical processes yield wildly disparate estimates for the age of the same granite rock. Where is the logical or procedural error? The most reasonable conclusion in my view is that it lies in the step of extrapolating as constant presently measured rates of nuclear decay into the remote past. If this is the error, then radiometric methods based on presently measured rates simply do not and cannot provide correct estimates for geologic age. But just how strong is the case that radiometric methods are indeed so incorrect? There are dozens of physical processes which, like helium diffusion, yield age estimates orders of magnitude smaller than the radiometric techniques. Many of these are geological or geophysical in nature and are therefore subject to the question of whether presently observed rates can legitimately be extrapolated into the indefinite past. However, even if we make that suspect assumption and consider the current rate of sodium increase in the oceans versus the present ocean sodium content, or the current rate of sediment accumulation into the ocean basins versus the current ocean sediment volume, or the current net rate of loss of continental rock (primarily by erosion) versus the current volume of continental crust or the present rate of uplift of the Himalayan mountains (accounting for erosion) versus their present height, we infer times estimates drastically at odds with the radiometric time scale [16]. These time estimates are further reduced dramatically if we do not make the uniformitarian assumption but account for the global catastrophism described earlier. There are other processes which are not as easy to express in quantitative terms, such as the degradation of protein in a geological environment, that also point to a much shorter time scale for the geological record. It is now well established that unmineralized dinosaur bone still containing recognizable bone protein exists in many locations around the world [17]. From my own first hand experience with such material, it is inconceivable that bone containing such well preserved protein could possibly have survived for more than a few thousand years in the geological settings in which they are found. I therefore believe the case is strong from a scientific standpoint to reject radiometric methods as a valid means for dating geological materials. What then can be used in their place? As I Christian, of course, I am persuaded the Bible is a reliable source of information. The Bible speaks of a worldwide cataclysm in the Genesis Flood which destroyed all air breathing life on the planet apart from the animals and humans God preserved alive in the Ark. The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me not to conclude that these events must be one and the same. With this crucial linkage between the biblical record and the geological record, a straightforward reading of the earlier chapters of Genesis is a next logical step. The conclusion is that the creation of the cosmos, the earth, plants, animals, as well as man and woman by God took place just as it is described only a few thousand years ago with no need for qualification or apology. But What About Light From Distant Stars? An entirely legitimate question then is how we could possibly see stars millions and billions of light years away if the earth is so young. Part of the reason scientists like myself can have confidence that good science will vindicate a face-value understanding of the Bible is because we believe we have at least an outline of the correct answer to this important question [18]. This answer draws upon important clues from the Bible while applying standard general relativity. The result is a cosmological model that differs from the standard Big Bang models in two essential respects. First, it does not assume the so-called cosmological principle, and, second, it invokes inflation at a different point in cosmological history. The cosmological principle is the assumption that the cosmos has no edge or boundary or center and, in a broad-brush sense, is the same in every place and in every direction. This assumption concerning the geometry of the cosmos has allowed cosmologists to obtain relatively simple solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity. Such solutions form the basis of all Big Bang models. But there is growing observational evidence that this assumption is simply not true. A recent article in the journal Nature, for example, describes a fractal analysis of galaxy distribution to large distances in the cosmos that contradicts this crucial Big Bang assumption [19]. If instead the cosmos has a center, then its early history is radically different from that of all Big Bang models. Its beginning would be that of a massive black hole containing its entire mass. Such a mass distribution has a whopping gradient in gravitational potential which profoundly affects the local physics, including the speed of clocks. Clocks near the center would run much more slowly, or even be stopped, during the earliest portion of cosmic history [20]. Since the heavens on a large scale are isotropic from the vantage point of the earth, the earth must be near the center of such a cosmos. Light from the outer edge of such a cosmos reaches the center in a very brief time as measured by clocks in the vicinity of the earth. In regard to the timing of cosmic inflation, this alternative cosmology has inflation after stars and galaxies form. It is noteworthy that within the past year two astrophysics groups studying high-redshift type Ia superdecae both conclude cosmic expansion is greater now than when these stars exploded. The article in the June 1998 issue of Physics Today describes these "astonishing" results which "have caused quite a stir" in the astrophysics community [21]. The story amazingly ascribes the cause to "some ethereal agency." Indeed, the Bible repeatedly speaks of God stretching out the heavens: "...O LORD my God, You are very great, ... stretching out heaven as a curtain... (Ps. 104:1-2); "Thus says God the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out..." (Is. 42:5); "... I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself..." (Is. 44:24); "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, and I ordained all their host." (Is. 45:12). As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" (Ex. 20:11). May He forever be praised. References A collection of these letters is available on the World Wide Web at C. W. Allen, Astrophysical Quantities, 3rd Ed., University of London, Athlone Press, p. 293, 1973; M. Fukugita, C. J. Hogan, and P. J. E. Peebles, "The Cosmic Baryon Budget," Astrophys. J., 503, 518-530, 1998. H. P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 377-398, 1978; Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992. F. Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, J. M. Dent, London, 1981. A. Einstein, "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge", in The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, P. A. Schilpp, ed., Tudor Publishing, NY, p. 290, 1944. J. W. Oller, Jr., Language and Experience: Classic Pragmatism, University Press of America, p. 25, 1989. M. Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, eds., Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 11, 1967. R. G. Strom, G. G. Schaber, and D. D. Dawson, The Global Resurfacing of Venus, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 10899-10926, 1994. S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K. P. Wise, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History," pp. 609-621; J. R. Baumgardner "Computer Modeling of the Large-Scale Tectonics Associated with the Genesis Flood," pp. 49-62; "Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood," pp. 63-75, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1994. O. L. Anderson and P. C. Perkins, "Runaway Temperatures in the Asthenosphere Resulting from Viscous Heating, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 2136-2138, 1974. S. A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of Grand Canyon," in Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, S. A. Austin, ed., Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 46-47, 1994. Ibid., pp. 42-51. Ibid., pp. 32-36. J. R. Baumgardner and D. W. Barnette, "Patterns of Ocean Circulation over the Continents During Noah's Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 77-86, 1994. R. V. Gentry, G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment, Geophysical Research Letters, 9, 1129-1130, 1982. S. A. Austin and D. R. Humphreys, "The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 17-33, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks, eds., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1990. G. Muyzer, P. Sandberg, M. H. J. Knapen, C. Vermeer, M. Collins, and P. Westbroek, "Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs," Geology, 20, 871-874, 1992. D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1994. P. Coles, "An Unprincipled Universe?," Nature, 391, 120-121, 1998. D. R. Humphreys, "New Vistas of Space-Time Rebut the Critics," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12, 195-212, 1998. B. Schwarzschild, "Very Distant Superdecae Suggest that the Cosmic Expansion is Speeding Up," Physics Today, 51, 17-19, 1998. Additional Resources  Astronomy and the Bible by Donald B. DeYoung (1989, 146 pp.) The Origin of the Universe by Harold S. Slusher (1980, 90 pp.) The Age of the Solar System by Harold S. Slusher and Steven G. Robertson (1982, 131 pp.) Origin of the Universe - video by Duane Gish (50 min.) What is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker (2nd ed., 1987, 336 pp.) Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere by Larry Vardiman (1990, 32 pp.) Journeys to the Edge of Creation - 2 videos: "Our Solar System" & "The Milky Way and Beyond"     by the Moody Institute of Science (40 min. each) Back to top

That's A Fact « Prev Page   Displaying 31 - 40    Next Page » Throwing a Strike Great pitchers make throwing a ball look easy, but there’s a lot more to it than you might think. How does God’s design allow us to throw even one pitch for a strike? Biblical Giants You may know the story of how David fought Goliath, a giant man armed with a sword. Just how big were Goliath and other giants of the Bible? How can this be explained today? Jurassic Omelette Which came first? The chicken or the egg? And what about dinosaur eggs? Missing in Action The missing link… Commonly thought of as a hypothetical ape-like creature. This evolutionary rock star is supposed to bridge the gap between man and ape. But there are missing links all over Darwin’s evolutionary tree. And guess what… they are still missing. Three in One For centuries philosophers and theologians have tried to explain the Trinity. Some have tried but our attempts often fall short. However, God in His wisdom provided an example in creation that is a parallel to His own Triune existence—the universe. More... Muscle Man Bodybuilders are known for having the best muscles. It’s no easy feat, because the structure of our muscles is complicated and the biological processes are sophisticated in both man and animals. Intelligent Surveys You would think after 200 years, the theory of evolution would have convinced more people. How many people today actually believe the theory of evolution? Back Trouble Ever have back troubles? Evolutionists would have you think that the root of back pain comes from evolutionary ancestors. But the fact of the matter is, two legs or four, we all get back troubles. Goldilocks Planet Scientists have been searching for the Goldilocks planet for years. Like the fairy tale, it’s about finding a planet that’s “just right” for life. But earth is the only planet that’s able to support life, as created by a loving God. « Prev Page   Displaying 31 - 40    Next Page » More Videos from ICR Click here for more videos that support a biblical worldview with empirical scientific evidence. In addition, please see for DVDs that you can purchase for family and friends.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Introduction Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished a five-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth. Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here! RATE Articles Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (#364) by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results (#353) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (#352) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon (#309) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. RATE Audio RATE - What Earthly Reason? Download MP3 RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 1 Download MP3 RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 2 Download MP3 RATE - Diamonds: A Creationist's Best Friend Download MP3 RATE - Thousands, Not Billions Download MP3 RATE Resources Thousands... Not Billions Understand the findings of the RATE project. Dr. DeYoung authored this non-technical book in order to equip the layperson to defend scientific six-day creation and refute modern dating techniques.   Thousands... Not Billions - DVD As a companion to the non-technical book, or by itself, Thousands...Not Billions is the ultimate multimedia resource for any family, student or teacher's library. Evolution and modern science has questioned the Biblical account of Creation for years, and now compelling new scientific research by ICR challenges modern science and their dating techniques.   Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume I The RATE book is a definitive resource on radioactive dating for every scientist's library, whether evolutionist or creationist. It examines radioisotope theory, exposes its plaguing problems, and offers a better alternative. Free download [2.8MB PDF] Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II The age of the earth is an important issue in Christianity today. If the 6 day Genesis account is fallacious, then how can the rest of Scripture be relied upon? Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative addresses the issues raised by the first RATE technical book in 2000. Free Download

Impact of the Empty Tomb by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. * There are "many infallible proofs" of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the testimony of the empty tomb is the most conclusive of all. Jesus had been buried, with the tomb sealed and guarded by a watch of Roman soldiers. Yet on the third day of His burial, on the morning of the first day of the week, the body was no longer there, and the empty tomb still stands today as an unanswerable proof that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. There are other proofs, of course. The ten or more recorded appearances of the resurrected Christ to His disciples, the amazing change of demeanor of the disciples from that of fearful hideaways to fearless evangelists, the worldwide spread of the Christian faith as founded on the resurrection, and so on. But the impact of the empty tomb was the foundation and bulwark of all the rest. As we consider its impact on the world, and on us today, it is instructively fascinating to consider first its impact on those who first encountered it. Impact on the Soldiers A watch (possibly a "quaternion" of four Roman soldiers--compare Acts 12:4) had been designated by the Roman Governor Pilate to guard the tomb after Jesus' body had been buried there by Nicodemus and Joseph. The account is in Matthew 27:62-66. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. The "great stone" had already been " the door of the sepulchre" by Joseph when he and Nicodemus buried Jesus (Matthew 27:60), but now the soldiers (as directed by the chief priests) sealed it in place with the official Roman seal, which could only be broken on penalty of death. Then they took their guard positions for the rest of the three-day period. Probably they took turns at sleeping, one sleeping while three remained awake on guard. Certainly none of the hiding disciples (or anyone else) would have dared to try to invade the tomb for any reason. The soldiers had probably been selected from that "whole band of soldiers" (Matthew 27:27) that had stripped Jesus in Pilate's hall and scourged Him and mocked Him and then taken Him out to crucify Him. They had watched Him suffer and die, but then they had also experienced the great darkness and the great earthquake (Matthew 27:45, 51), and had heard their centurion cry out: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark 15:39). They had no reason to fear the disciples, but they must have had some concern about what God might do to them, if indeed, Jesus was the Son of God, as their centurion had cried. In any case, they certainly would not be lethargic and careless about their assignment, or about to fall asleep while on duty. They were hardly prepared for what did happen! And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men (Matthew 28:2-4). As soon as they recovered and were able to move, they scattered from the site, rightly deciding that the mighty angel was more to be feared than the priests or even Pilate. But what to do next? They realized that the happening at the tomb would soon become known, including their flight, and they realized Pilate might well have them put to death for leaving their post. Their best hope would be the priests, who seemed to have some kind of influence with the governor, and perhaps would be able to understand their plight. Therefore, some of them (what happened to the others is not recorded) headed for the temple, to tell Caiphas and the others that the tomb was empty, though it was not because of the disciples, who were still somewhere in hiding. ...behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day (Matthew 28:11-15). Under other circumstances, the soldiers would have been afraid to say they all four had been sleeping on duty. But they were also greedy, and the "hush-money" convinced them. They were in mortal danger anyway, and they realized that Pilate might be amenable to bribery too, and they really had no other choice. Roman officials were indeed known to take bribes to render desired decisions (note the reputation of the governor Felix as implied in Acts 24:26). The idea that the disciples had stolen the body while the soldiers slept circulated for a while, but it was so unreasonable that it could not survive very long. In the first place, if the soldiers really were all asleep (which is practically inconceivable), they could not have known what happened. Secondly, the work of moving the stone, stripping the grave clothes off the body, and carrying the body away, would surely have awakened at least some of the soldiers. Finally, the disciples could never have persisted in preaching a lie about resurrection when it began to cost them all their possessions and finally their lives to do so. Thus the story circulated by the soldiers was basically unbelievable and could not convince people very long. But it served the immediate purpose, presumably, of sparing the soldiers' lives for the time being. They did know that the tomb was empty, however, and we can at least wonder whether some of them also might have eventually come to believe that Jesus was really the Son of God, and to seek His forgiveness and salvation. Impact on the Priests When the priests and Pharisees heard the report of the soldiers, they could tell that these hardened and callous men were telling the truth, and that the tomb really was empty--not opened up by the disciples but by a mighty angel of God. If they had been skeptical, they would surely have gone to the tomb themselves to investigate. They did not do so, however, but instead bribed the soldiers (and possibly Pilate later) to lie about the matter. One would think that these respected religious leaders, now that they knew that Christ really had risen from the dead, would have been willing to confess their mistake and receive Christ gladly as their long-awaited Messiah. Instead they became more determined than ever to oppose Him and His disciples, denying the almost undeniable truth of His victory over death and the grave. They had known about His miracles and His wonderful teachings for over three years, yet they still bitterly opposed Him and sought for some means to destroy Him, still deluding themselves and others with the notion that He was a "deceiver," doing His mighty works by the power of the devil. Just three days earlier, before the assembled Sanhedrin Council, Jesus had acknowledged that He was indeed the very Son of God and that "ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). They should by all reason have fallen down to worship Him, but instead they accused Him of blasphemy and "they all condemned him to be guilty of death" (Mark 14:64), still convincing themselves that He was a deceiver. When the soldiers came back to them with their amazing report of mighty angels and an empty tomb, thus confirming that He was back from the dead as He had promised, they surely must have realized that He was all that He had claimed and could do all that He had promised. No one but God could defeat death, for it was God who had pronounced the judgment of death on all who sin. No one but the Creator could bring life out of death, for it was He who had created life in the beginning. Jesus was, therefore, as He had claimed, "the bread of life," "the light of the world," "the resurrection, and the life," "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 6:35; 8:12; 11:25; 14:6), and He could, indeed, "give unto them eternal life" (John 10:28) if they would only believe that He was Lord and had been raised from the dead. As the Apostle Paul said later: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9). They surely must have realized all this by now, for He had risen from the tomb. Instead, like old Pharaoh, they "hardened [their hearts]" (Exodus 8:15) yet again, and proceeded to do everything in their power to deny His resurrection and to prevent His followers from proclaiming it. They may once have thought Jesus was a deceiver, but now knew He was not. They themselves became conscious deceivers, bribing the soldiers also to deceive. The sad thing is that many Jews to this day still believe this impossible lie. Impact on Pilate Pilate had no sympathy or agreement with these Jewish elders when he gave them the watch they requested for the tomb, but (possibly through fear of their political influence with King Herod or other authorities) reluctantly agreed to do so. He knew that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God and his wife had, because of a dream, warned him not to have anything to do with "that just man" (Matthew 27:19). Yet he gave in to the Jews anyway, and consented to have Jesus executed. Then, once he had delivered Jesus up to be crucified, his fears must have been increased by the supernatural darkness and the great earthquake. Next, Joseph of Arimathaea, known to Pilate as a rich and godly member of the Council, had come to request the body of Jesus, and Pilate knew that this would mean Joseph's expulsion from the Council and ostracism and persecution by his colleagues there. This was bound to make a deep impression, and then here came his own centurion with his conviction that Jesus had been the Son of God after all. Very soon after the soldiers' report to the priests, the news must have reached Pilate also about the empty tomb. He could hardly believe the story that the disciples had stolen the body, nor would he have appreciated the part that his soldiers had played in its fabrication. It is doubtful that the soldiers escaped punishment after all, not because of sleeping on their watch, but because of the obvious lie that they had done so, no matter how much money the priests may have offered Pilate. He would surely have forced the truth out of his soldiers when he questioned them. That means that Pilate, as well as the soldiers and the priests, also realized that "that just man" whom he had sent to the cross, had risen from the dead. There is a rather doubtful tradition that Pilate, as well as some of the soldiers, eventually accepted Christ as Savior and Lord. If so, it was a remarkable testimony to the grace of God, and an answer to His prayer on the cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). In any case, Pilate knew that the tomb was empty and there is no record that either he or the chief priests ever tried to find the body. Beyond any doubt, they would have tried diligently to find the body if they really thought there was any chance at all that it was somewhere on Earth. After the great conversion on the day of Pentecost, with the flame of Christianity rapidly spreading through Jerusalem and into other regions, the Jewish leaders did everything they could to stamp it out. Displaying the dead body of Jesus would have done this instantaneously, because the preaching of Peter and the others centered on the triumphant fact of the resurrection. This they could not do, however, and they knew they could not do it, because they knew the tomb was empty on that first Lord's Day morning. Impact on the Women Other than the soldiers, the first ones to learn about the empty tomb were faithful women who had watched Joseph and Nicodemus bury Him there. Matthew and Mark both mention Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (evidently the "mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome," and possibly also "Mary the wife of Cleophas"--Matthew 27:61; 28:1; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). Luke gives a more complete account in Luke 23:55-24:11 as follows: And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. These faithful women thus were privileged to see that the tomb was empty before any of the apostles did. In fact, when the women hurried back to tell the apostles, the latter did not believe them. However, Peter and John were not with the others at the time, and neither was Mary Magdalene, who had run back to tell Peter and John as soon as she noted the stone rolled away from the sepulchre (John 20:1). The other women did see the emptied tomb and they heard the angels tell the glorious news that Christ had risen from the dead. Great must have been their dismay and disappointment when the disciples would not believe them. These dear women, just a few hours before, had been as despondent as the disciples, sure that the Lord they had loved and served was gone forever. They also had forgotten His promise to rise again. But at least they were not in hiding, as the disciples were. They were bold enough, and loving enough, to strike out very early that Sunday morning and head back to the garden tomb where they had watched Joseph and Nicodemus bury Jesus, determined to do what little they could to honor His dead body with their spices and ointments. They worried as to how they could roll away the heavy stone from the door (Mark 16:3), but came on anyway. They knew nothing, of course, about the Roman seal and the soldiers, but one feels that, even if they had, they would have come and tried anyway. When Mary Magdalene had first seen that the stone was rolled away, she jumped to the conclusion that some of His enemies had already removed His body, perhaps because they thought it was not fitting for Him to be buried in a garden tomb recently built by a previously respected member of the Council. Mary Magdalene immediately ran back to tell Peter and John, who were apparently at John's home, where John had taken Mary, the mother of Jesus, to give her whatever care and comfort he could after the terrible crucifixion (note John 19:26-27). Mary Magdalene did not, at that time, enter the tomb itself, but the other women did, and they quickly found that Jesus was not there. It was only then that they saw the two men (or rather, angels who had assumed the form of men) who told them the wonderful, almost incredible, news that Christ was risen from the dead, as He had said He would do. Mary Magdalene was not present at the time to hear this wonderful news. She had already rushed back to tell Peter and John what she thought was the disturbing news that someone had removed the body, perhaps hoping against hope that they could do something to bring it back. But then, while weeping later at the empty tomb, Mary herself became the very first one to see, not the empty tomb where Jesus had lain in death, but the risen Christ Himself, alive forevermore! Her unique love had been rewarded with this very special privilege. The stirring account of this special meeting is given in John 20:11-19. Impact on the Disciples Most of the eleven disciples reacted with skepticism when the excited women came back to the place where they were secretly assembled (note John 20:19; Mark 16:11). They had not only seen that Jesus was not in the tomb and heard the angels say that He had risen, but had even seen Christ Himself, for according to Matthew 28:9, "as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." This particular appearance to the women was some little time after He had earlier met with Mary Magdalene. Mark 16:9 makes it clear that, "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." The disciples were probably in the same "large upper room" (Luke 22:12) where they had observed the last supper with Jesus and where they later assembled after Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:13). This was in the city of Jerusalem, whereas Joseph's garden tomb was well outside the city, and it evidently took the women longer to reach the disciples than it had taken Mary Magdalene to find Peter and John and then get back to the tomb with them. As mentioned above, Peter and John were probably with Mary the mother of Jesus at John's home. The account does not say where that was, but it was probably not very far away, since the two disciples "ran both together" (John 20:4), with John running faster, to get to the sepulchre. Mary also had run (John 20:2) to get from the tomb to the two disciples. But now we should look directly at John's own account (John 20:1-10). The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. The linen clothes that had been wrapped tightly around the body of Jesus obviously figure very importantly in John's record. They were lying there on the shelf where Jesus' body had been placed, in exactly the position where He had been, but the body was not in them. Even the separate little cloth, which had been wound around His head was collapsed inward where the head had lain. The words "wrapped together in" are one word in the original--same as "wrapped in" in the parallel account in Matthew 27:59. It was clear that someone had not simply removed the clothes from the body, and then taken the body away. The only possible explanation of what John saw was that the body had simply passed through the clothes, leaving them just where they had been, except that they had collapsed inward by themselves. And that could only mean that Jesus was alive again, except that His body was now a resurrection body, physical and real, yet able to pass through the linen clothes and, later, even through closed doors. When the women first saw this unique sight, they were just "perplexed" (Luke 24:4). Apparently even Peter, who entered the tomb before John did, failed to understand their significance at first. But when John came in, "he saw, and believed!" It was he who, before any of the other disciples, really understood what had happened and "believed" that Jesus Christ had defeated man's ancient enemy, death, and was risen from the dead. The scene and its thrilling significance to John have been movingly memorialized in a poem entitled, "John the Beloved," written many years ago by Ruth Margaret Gibbs. I run with Simon Peter to the tomb, Feel, as a dream, the racing wind go by, The muttered doubts, the chilling blight of gloom; And still there rings within my ears a cry Born of a whisper that the women made: "The place is empty where our Lord was laid." Was not His death upon a cross enough? The gaping crowds that waited on the crest, The sneering, mocking soldiers and their rough And hooting blasphemy . . . ? Can He not rest, Can He not sleep, forget the world of men . . . ? What mean these strange and idle tales, then? My feet have outrun Simon; here before The sepulcher I stand on blessed earth That holds the kingdom and the King, and more—The promises of our Messiah's birth! Oh, heart that labors, if I could but place My head upon His bosom, see His face. Now Simon's shadow darkens all the tomb; He enters weeping; I can share his tears. . . . To find the linens lying in the room As they were wrapped will put away my fears. Stoop, burdened shoulders, I must look and prove; Bow down, my soul, in grief before His love. My eyes run rivers down; they cannot see. My sandals move beyond the arch of stone. . . . But, lo, the Master is not . . . can it be We stand within the sepulcher alone. . . ? Or do I dream, or am I one gone mad With fancies like the whispering women had? He is not here! And yet the linens line The place He lay as though they hold Him fast. He is not here! What miracle, what sign Is this that tells of death and terror past . . . ? Look up my soul, and faith take root and grow: My Lord and Savior lives! I know . . . I know. The disciple whom Jesus loved thus immediately believed in the resurrection when he saw the linen clothes lying still as they had been, yet in a now-empty tomb, though he and the others had all apparently forgotten His promise to rise after three days (e.g., Matthew 20:17-19). Neither had they understood the prophecies in the Old Testament that He would rise again (Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10; etc.). But very soon they would all understand and go forth into all the world as Spirit-filled proclaimers of the great truth of Christ's substitutionary death and bodily resurrection. It took the personal appearance of Christ Himself to convince the other disciples, however. They would not even believe the testimony of Mary Magdalene that she had seen Jesus nor the testimony of the two who talked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:9-13), nor apparently the testimony from John of the significance of the empty tomb (Luke 24:24). Finally, "the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst" (John 20:19). Even then they were slow to believe in the bodily resurrection. Rather, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit" (Luke 24:37). One of them, Thomas, was not there at the time, and he would not even believe their account (John 20:25) until he could see for himself. All of this goes to show that any theory about some kind of "Passover plot" by the disciples is absurd. They had to be convinced that He was alive by "many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3) before they would even venture out of hiding! The idea of pretending Christ had risen in order to advance some bold and nefarious plot of their own could never have even entered their minds. If they had stolen the body, or (as some have thought) if Jesus had never actually died on the cross, and also considering the fact that they were already fearful that they were about to meet a fate similar to His, it is inconceivable that they could suddenly have gone forth preaching the resurrection as they did with such power that multitudes were soon converted. The body of Jesus was certainly no longer in the tomb, nor could it be produced anywhere else. If perchance, the women had gone to the wrong tomb (as some have imagined), or the Jews or the Romans had moved the body to another tomb (as others have supposed), the authorities could quickly have stopped the spreading flame of Christianity merely by exhibiting the dead body of the Lord. They could not do this, however, though they tried all manner of persecution and other means to stop the spread of Christianity, for the good reason that Christ had risen from the dead and later ascended back to heaven. Many skeptics have tried to avoid the truth of the resurrection by saying that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. The tomb was empty, they say, because Jesus recovered from his wounds in the cool of the tomb and then went back to be with His disciples and friends. This "swoon theory," as it has been called, is even more incredible than the other anti-resurrection ideas, though it has been advocated by many. An ultra-liberal theologian of the nineteenth century, David Strauss, though he did not believe in the bodily resurrection himself, nor in the inspiration of the Bible, pilloried the swoon theory in the following incisive words: It is impossible that one who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given to the disciples that impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, that he was the Prince of life, which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resurrection could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death, or at the most could have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, or elevated their reverence into worship.1 Strauss, the first great rationalistic interpreter of the Bible in modern times, while not believing in either the deity or the Resurrection of Christ himself, nevertheless (in an 1865 book, New Life of Jesus Christ, London, 1865 p. 397) admitted that the Resurrection was "the Touchstone not of lives of Jesus only, but of Christianity itself,...decisive for the whole view of Christianity." These two quotations from Strauss were taken from a great little book, The Supernaturalness of Christ, by Dr. Wilbur M. Smith (published in 1940 and now out of print) which provided much further evidence in support of its subject. Once the disciples had been firmly convinced of the reality of the Resurrection, they went forth and practically "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6) with their proclamation of its reality. As Luke testified: "with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all" (Acts 4:33). Impact on the World and Us Today It is profoundly significant that two thousand years of the worldwide spread of Christianity have been accompanied by two thousand years of strident unbelief. Not only have the Jews opposed the Resurrection, but so have the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Marxists, and every conceivable form of anti-Christian thought. Even more deplorable has been the rationalism of so-called "Christian" modernists, liberals, and cultists of every variety of compromising pseudo-Christianity. Yet with all this opposition, no scholar or anyone else has ever yet been satisfactorily able to explain away the empty tomb of Christ. The unbreakable historic record that Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried in a specific sepulchre, and was out of that tomb three days later, can be explained only by His Resurrection. Every other proffered theory has failed miserably. His tomb is empty! The tombs of Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Karl Marx, and every other religious founder and philosophical genius still hold and will hold the remains of their occupants until they go back to the dust. But not that of the Lord Jesus Christ. His body was there for only three days, and then, having been resurrected, glorified, and immortalized, He appeared to His disciples, showing Himself to be "alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). Then He ascended back to heaven and ever since has been "at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" (Romans 8:34). One day, all the graves will be emptied! Jesus said to those who are His followers: "Because I live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19). He has promised to return some day (perhaps today!), and "if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him....and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17). In that great day, all made possible by the Resurrection of Christ, the graves of every believer in Christ of every age and place will be emptied, and we shall all receive glorified bodies like that of Christ Himself. "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2; note also Philippians 3:20-21). "Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). But it is not only the graves of Christian believers that will be emptied. In the new earth where true Christians will live forever with the Lord, there will be no place at all for graves and tombs and sepulchers, for there will "be no more death" (Revelation 21:4), and, of course, no more sin whose wage is death. Even the great fossil graveyards in the sedimentary rocks surrounding the earth will be obliterated, for "the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10) and God will then build "a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13). At that time, all the graves of the lost will also be emptied of their contents. Even those whose bodies were buried in the earth's waters, especially those who died in the great Flood on the wicked antediluvian world, will be brought before God. "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works" (Revelation 20:13). Of course, the works of no man in any age have ever been spotless and fruitful enough to permit him to remain forever in the presence of our all-holy Creator, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Therefore, "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). Since every person who ever lived was created in the image and likeness of the eternal God (Genesis 1:26; James 3:9), every person will continue to exist forever, either in heaven with the Lord Jesus or in the lake of fire with the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). The difference is in their acceptance or rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ as He is--omnipotent Creator, redeeming Savior, and risen Lord. And, lest anyone think that the doctrine of hell and everlasting punishment is anachronistic in this enlightened age, he should realize that the claims and teachings of Christ (which surely emphasize this doctrine) have been verified by His resurrection. Only the Creator of life could overcome death, which had been imposed by Him as the wages of sin in the first place. He knows whereof He speaks! And lest anyone think this punishment to be too harsh and unloving, he should awake to the great revelation that, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). For a man or woman created in the image of God to reject or ignore such infinite love surely is the greatest of all sins, the one unforgivable sin. Such a one must spend eternity somewhere, and Christ--who knows!--says it must be far away from God. As a matter of fact, it will be less miserable for that person to spend eternity in hell than to be forced to be forever in the presence of the God and Savior whose sacrificial love he had spurned all his life. Each person should never forget that the empty tomb has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead after suffering and dying for his or her personal sins and for the sins of all the world. His resurrection in turn proves that He is the God of all creation, for only God can conquer death. And that proves that all His promises and all His warnings are true and will be totally fulfilled when He comes again. Therefore, one great promise is especially fitting in conclusion. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus |that is, openly acknowledge Jesus as your Lord|, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead |that is, that He died for all your sins and completely satisfied the terrible debt you incurred before God and thereby demonstrated the sin-debt to be completely settled by His glorious victory over death|, thou shalt be saved |that is, saved from your deserved destiny in hell and given everlasting life with Him in the new earth|" (Romans 10:9). "Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (Psalm 2:12). References Strauss, D. 1879. The Life of Jesus for the People. London, UK: 412. * Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

Smile... The Future's On Its Way by C.J. Horn Why the Future is Secure: A Perspective on Forgiveness As I watched our daughter come up the aisle of the church all dressed in white satin and lace, her blonde hair and head veiled, I couldn't help but think of how the eternal city was described as a bride adorned for her husband. As she passed where I stood, she handed me one small dried white rose, the symbol of her purity. The white rose came from a rose bush we bought as a gift on her sixteenth birthday. Although she had made a commitment to remain morally pure until marriage, she had received much criticism for this decision by the time of her sixteenth birthday. Criticism ranged from comments from young men who questioned her right to withhold "their rights" in the relationship, to stinging inferences that she was only a virgin because she had no invitations to do otherwise. We bought the rose bush as a symbol of our support for her commitment. The first rose petals from that bush are pressed in our family Bible. Our daughter kept and dried another of the first tiny blooms of that rose bush. She kept it with other keepsakes on a small shelf in her room. Long before any proposal of marriage, my daughter and I talked about her carrying the white rose hidden in her wedding bouquet. One day while we were talking in her room, I picked up the dried rose. She said, "Be careful, Mom, it's very fragile." Snow - Pure and Fragile The truth is that anyone who has been forgiven by God has the right to carry a white rose of purity, based on God's ability to forgive and cleanse from every sin. Many years after our daughter's wedding day, I was visiting the east coast. It had been a long, hard winter, and even though it was March, it was snowing. One morning a red cardinal flew through the barren branches outside of my sister's kitchen window. The sun shown on the white landscape, as the red cardinal hopped along through the snow. I thought of Isaiah 1:18: ..."Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Snow is a fragile crystal that melts in the sunlight, but God uses its whiteness to illustrate the purity He gives the forgiven. In a previous chapter on prayer, it has been discussed that we are to forgive others as God forgives us. Forgiveness is an essential part of the relationship that exist between people. However, the forgiveness we extend to others is based necessarily on our humanity and will always be tainted with memory. God's forgiveness, on the other hand, causes Him to view the sinner without sin. To illustrate this, He gives the example "white as snow." Snow reflects light in such a way that it can actually blind the human eye. It is used by God to portray salvation. When a person becomes a "new creature" in Christ Jesus at salvation (2 Corinthians 5:17), he becomes a vessel like the snow that reflects the pure light of Christ's life. "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). The Cost of our Purity The key to this whiteness is the payment for sin by Jesus Christ. Scripture has many examples of how God purifies us from sin through the blood of Jesus Christ. "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." (Psalms 103:12). "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (Hebrews 8:12). It is difficult for man to comprehend what Jesus did by dying on the cross. Jesus told his disciples that "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day" (Luke 9:22). Volumes have been written about what Jesus suffered in order to shed His own blood for our sins. Prophetic scriptures gave some insight into the grisly hours before and during His crucifixion. He had been beaten beyond recognition: "... His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men" (Isaiah 52:14). He alone could satisfy God's justice. And He would be abandoned in order to do so: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? (Psalm 22:1). The pain of the crucifixion was unbearable: I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. (Psalm 22:11-15). The Blood That Cleanses The idea of blood being necessary in the forgiveness of sin is repugnent to many. What a man believes about the blood of Christ will be founded upon his belief in the literal occurrence of the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. God told Adam and Eve if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would "surely die" (Genesis 2:17). They ate and the penalty was death. The reason shedding blood is necessary to redemption is that the "life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). If a person is to "surely die," their blood will be shed. This is why it was absolutely necessary for Christ to die in order to be substituted for the penalty that man deserved. It was not just any blood that could satisfy this requirement, "for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus shed His own blood for the sins of the whole world. "...and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22). Man thinks of being clean as something that happens to the outside of the body. This was a failing of the Pharisees that Jesus indicted for making "clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess" (Matthew 23:25). Being clean by Biblical standards is being free from sin. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7). The Forgiven are to Forgive When we consider what Christ had to suffer in order to forgive us our sin, it is no wonder He has the right to ask that we forgive others. It is actually His place to mete out any justice for sins committed. Whenever we feel that we just cannot forgive someone for what they have done to us, it is good to contemplate what He undeservedly suffered just to preserve our relationship with the Father. "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. (Hebrews 12:3-4). C.S. Lewis on Forgiveness C.S. Lewis died in 1963 at the age of 65. His discussion on forgiveness is timeless: One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children... we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means...well, exactly how do I love myself? self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Now I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life . namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. ...Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery...But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again. In thinking through forgiveness in this way, we can see why God is able to love us in spite of what sin has done in our life. Since He is our Creator, He knows what we should be. Some Things Are Secure By adopting an attitude of forgiveness toward others, we can secure any future relationship. When Paul made his great dissertation on love in 1 Corinthians 13, he never once mentioned the word forgiveness. But it is clear that the tone of love is a forgiving spirit. Love is patient, kind, longsuffering, etc. Love "is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil"(1 Corinthians 13:5) The key to being a loving person is to take the offensive (not offended) part in the relationship. Paul explains this by his comments later in that same chapter. He says, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11). A child is self-centered. He does not have the maturity to maintain a relationship because he is always in a reactionary mode. The mature believer can say with confidence that he loves whom he chooses and can maintain any relationship, based on love's ability to "hope all things." He is secure because of his definition of love, and because he knows God loves him. This type of security reaches into the future. It is not subject to man's actions, or to the world's ills. God is our example on how we must proceed with forgiveness. He chose to repair the relationship between man and Himself, and He bridged the gap completely. He secured our eternal future with His sacrifice. We can secure our future on earth by adopting His way. If I cannot find it in my heart to forgive someone, I can always ask God to help me find it in His heart. I can adopt the divine attitude of forgiveness, which looks not at crimes, but at remedies. A forgiven sinner can live again--toward victory in the future. That is my free gift to the brother who has offended me. « The Next Generation The Future's on Its Way »

Smile... The Future's On Its Way by C.J. Horn Education - Not Information: A Perspective on Education The "information highway" was a phrase popularized in the 1990's because of the advent of computerized access to all unclassified media information. Children and adults alike spend their work and leisure hours at a computer terminal. On the side of productive learning is the fact that thorough research on any subject that has been put on this "highway" can be accomplished quickly with a minimum of cost. On the down side, however, is the fact that the learner can only accumulate what has been placed in circulation on this technological superhighway. If there is a failing of a computerized method of education, it is the same failing that has faced public education. The information available is necessarily subjective, as is any information found in a textbook, in the school library, or classroom. Subjective means the information presented as reality is that which is perceived as such after it has filtered through the mindset of the writer. History, science, math, social studies, and, in fact, all educational material is written by a person with a worldview. The worldview of that writer will show forth in what has been written. If the writer views history, geography, geology, biology, sociology or any learning discipline through an evolutionary framework, then the writing will reflect this view. If an evolutionary framework architects the structure on which all learning proceeds, that framework will be that the world and all that is in it (people, plants, animals, rocks, continents, sea life, etc.) are the accidental product of random chance. It is difficult to illustrate random chance. That is why the evolutionary foundation and outgrowths of much of the learning of today are difficult to pinpoint. However, no one would expect an engineer to build a bridge without planning and design. To say that everything that is to be studied proceeded from nothing plus random chance is to ask a physicist to make conclusions based on a blackboard empty of calculations. Random chance as the basis for studying all that man sees around him crushes the foundation of any concrete conclusion. A science education does not begin in a physics laboratory, however. It begins at the simplest level, perhaps with a child looking at a flower and making observations. Alexander Bell said, "The period of childhood is the great observing period in human life. The child is an explorer in a new land in which marvelous discoveries may be made each day." The child has no thorough knowledge of the intricate workings of photosynthesis, pollination, etc. but he does share an instinct that is common to all humankind. Most children around the age of three begin to ask the question "Why?" They have found this word to be an instant conversation promoter and enjoy the attention the word provokes. It is interesting that children from all cultures ask this question in their own language. It may be more than just a silly question asked by children. One educator has said, "'Why?' gets back to a purpose, and purpose gets back to a person." If a child asks why, and the answer is, "Because of nothing, and from nothing," the educational process has begun in a vacuum. Many fine scientists may be lost in our generation because they are not equipped with the most fundamental of truths. The Bible teaches, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). One can fill the mind of a child full of information, but if that information is incorrect, then it is not education. Education is, first of all, a body of truth and the wise exercise of it. The core of that truth is the knowledge of the Creator who gives meaning to all other facts in the universe. And education's goal is the exercise of that truth in the execution of the God-given role mankind has as the supreme caretaker of all creation. A Personal Word My high school children and I were invited to be one of the "visual aids" in a class of fifteen PhD candidates (mainly secondary school principals and administrators). These "students" were conducting panel discussions and giving presentations about things that were impacting the modern public school system. Because I was a homeschooling parent, I and my children were invited. After an hour of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of public education versus home schooling, I was asked THE QUESTION by one of the PhD candidates (a high school chemistry teacher). It was, "Why are you home schooling?" A home schooling family makes a definite statement about the present state of much of education. Many public school science teachers and, in fact, most teachers in the public sector have received their credentials in universities that teach man is a product of billions of years of an upward spiral of random chance and mutations. This theory of origins envelopes a child's educational process from the biology textbook to the literature class. My answer was not popular that day, but at least it was truthful. Evolution is Destructive Dr. George Lindsey is an educator who has done over two decades of research in the field of evolution's "contribution" to the advancement of learning. He maintains that evolution not only makes no contribution to learning, it can actually be harmful to that learning process. I recently interviewed Dr. Linsdey on this subject. He made some telling points about how evolution is going to affect education and research for years to come. Dr. Lindsey talked about the contributions of creation scientists in the past: "Louis Pasteur, a creation scientist, did more than anyone had done in the field of inoculations and immunology, and his work was based upon the biblical perspective that only life can beget life. He reasoned that if humans have a pathogen (disease causing organism) in their bodies, that it should be possible to find its origin by tracking it back generation to generation. Once the source is discovered, a method to block the pathway can be developed preventing the infection. If medical science had assumed the evolutionary perspective, that pathogens could spontaneously generate, then Pasteur's solution would not have been discovered, perpetuating devastating worldwide suffering." What many researchers in scientific laboratories fail to understand is they have brought a faulty premise into the laboratory with them. Many scientists in these research facilities have been taught from their earliest education that ultimate truth cannot be discovered and the wonders they see in the microscope are all a product of random chance. Truth is approached as a moving target and all that is in the world has no ultimate purpose beyond what the person at the microscope can muster. Dr. Lindsey went on to state, "For many years, doctors took the evolutionary perspective on tonsils, believing they were a useless leftover organ from our distant past. As a result they would remove them at the slightest provocation (which in many cases resulted in causing other problems)." Now science has discovered that the tonsils are a part of the immune system--we don't understand fully how they work, but they have a role in the body's disease prevention. As a result, now doctors are much more "pro-tonsil" and will not remove them unless there are very significant reasons. If we want the best results we should tint our research with the creation perspective. Even if we don't understand entirely the function of an organ, the fact that God put it in the human body means that it must have value and we can continue to search for that value as opposed to labeling it worthless. This has certainly proved true in the case of the tonsils. "Science" always meant "knowledge" until its 19th century relegation to that which can occur only naturally without outside influence. This was done to exclude creationism from science classrooms. At any rate, the "scientific method" means to observe, to test, to repeat, etc. Knowledge which can be obtained in this manner is said to be "scientific." A creation scientist does not have to apologize because he believes the Bible. Evolutionists believe in things they cannot prove by the scientific method. It is logical to make the assumption that the God who created the universe would be able to state facts about that world in His Word to man. A proof of this is as man's knowledge (those things he can observe and test) expands, he finds more and more scientific truths abound in Scripture. Dr. Lindsey continued: Scientific research has documented that the chemicals responsible for blood clotting in a new born baby reach a peak on the eighth day after birth--and it is interesting and more than coincidental that the mandate in the Bible was to circumcise a male on the eighth day. Here we see what I call scientific biblical information lining up with modern day scientific discovery. When God wrote the Bible, even if He did not go into total detail regarding science, what He did say on the subject is absolutely accurate and true and truth has practical value and application. On the other hand, if something is not true, as in the case of evolution, then its application is not only going to be impractical, but harmful. Dr. Lindsey's comments sound like a modern day version of Psalm 36. We see this in a study of Psalm 36 which contrasts the differences between the evolutionist with "no fear of God before his eyes" (Psalm 36:1) and the creationist. Remember, the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding" (Proverbs 9:10). It could be said the creationist believes, "In Thy light shall we see light" (Psalm 36:9). The End Result of "Nothingness" The person in Psalm 36 who does not fear God ascribes to the first tenet of the Humanist Manifest II, which is the hallmark of evolution: "No God will save us, we must save ourselves." The Psalmist gives insight into the heart and mind and actions of a person who does not fear God: "The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good" (Psalm 36:3). Iniquity is an interesting Biblical concept, broad in its meaning and destructive in its consequences. Dr. James Strong, in his Concordance of the Bible, describes the "iniquity" of Psalm 36 thus: "from a word meaning to 'pant,' hence to exert oneself, USUALLY IN VAIN, TO COME TO NAUGHT, nothingness" This word is translated as several other words in the Old Testament that give insight into the character of a person who has no fear of God: "False, unjust, unrighteous, vanity, evil or wicked." The difficult thing for most Christians to realize is that vanity (iniquity) is not neutral in its Biblical sense. It is DESTRUCTIVE. One may think of a vain idea as being empty or perhaps without effect. But one must look at the effects of emptiness in order to gain an understanding of the destructiveness of what the Psalmist calls vanity. If a person chooses to reject God and embrace untruth, then he, by Biblical definition is called "vain" or "evil" or "wicked." The Bible speaks of this type of person: "Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion" (Isaiah 41:29). "When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish: and the hope of unjust men perisheth" (Proverbs 11:7). "The hope of the righteous shall be gladness: but the expectation of the wicked shall perish" (Proverbs 10:28). No matter what the expectation of a person who begins with untruth, the end of unbelief is not productiveness, rather it is to perish. Evolution is the Counsel of the Wicked When Solomon spoke of vanity, he coupled the meaning with "leading astray." Jeremiah also speaks of this: "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain (lead you astray): they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:16). This "vision of their own heart" was not some ancient idea dead and buried in the time of Jeremiah. These false prophets were in the business of keeping people from knowing the one true God. Evolution's primary foundation stone is just that; there is not one true God. Proverbs 12:5 says "the thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit." Evolution is deceitful because it is not true and can be defined as the "counsel of the wicked." When the Psalmist asked in Psalm 14:4 "Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge?" the word he employed for "iniquity" is the same as the "words of iniquity and deceit" mentioned in Psalm 36. "Knowledge" in Psalm 14:4 is knowledge of the Lord and the Psalmist is saying that the choice is between a knowledge of the Lord or iniquity. The Psalmist then says these people "eat up my people (God's people) as they eat bread" (Psalm 14:4). Turning one's back on the knowledge of God destroys not only learning, it destroys people. How Does This Relate to Educating Children? Further light is shed on the devastation of iniquity elsewhere in the Psalms: "He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail" (Proverbs 22:8). This verse is speaking of the education of children. When one "sows iniquity" or in essence pulls God out of the picture, then he can reap only vanity--or destructiveness. Under these circumstances the "rod" of correction will not be applied for godly training, but in anger, and it is doomed to "fail." It can be concluded that iniquity and untruth are an exertion for nothingness or toward failure. It's the "no win scenario." It is like a self-collapsing hole that is not only worthless in itself, but becomes destructive and self-perpetuating in its influence. Note, for instance, Proverbs 17:4, "A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue." An evil person will listen to lies. Not only does a lie corrupt the thinking to begin with, (as in the evolutionary lie), but after the person believes the lie, it snares him into believing other lies. Although the above commentary may sound pretty bleak, it does give some insight into why the children of our society seem to have no hope. They have been fed the lie of evolution and its destructive influence is filtering through to every area of their life. Psalm 36 also gives the other side of the issue. It speaks of one who believes God as Creator: "O LORD, thou preservest man and beast. How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings. They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life" (Psalm 36:6-8). The Bible: More Than Just Another Book The Bible says "the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" By contrast, the wicked don't even know what they stumble at. (Proverbs 4:18). In order to recognize error, one must have a strong working knowledge of truth. Experts decry the present state of our educational system and develop and redevelop methods of education. People wonder why children of past generations were better educated, better thinkers, inventors and responsible citizens. It certainly isn't because those generations had the wealth of technology we have today, or better or bigger libraries. It isn't because their facilities were large or because their teachers were specialists in their respective fields. The reason the children of past generations had a brighter future is because Psalm 36 is true. "In Thy light (the Lord's light), we shall see light." It has only been in recent generations that the Bible has been banned from the educational process. When truth is pulled from the foundation of education, then there can be no true illumination, only destruction. Lindsey sounds a warning about what will happen if the evolutionists continue to have control of our educational system: I have read articles by evolutionists who have taken their theory to the logical scientific conclusion as a scientific tool. They believe if evolution could turn molecules into man, there should be no problem so difficult it cannot correct. If evolution, by accident, can do what all the scientists in the world with their laboratories and modern technology cannot do (create life in all its forms) then evolution should certainly be able to solve all the much simpler problems in the world around us. These evolutionary authors have recommended that we stop doing some of the things we are doing and wait on evolution. Why preserve the environment or some particular ecological niche when we are just preserving the inferior? The logic of an evolutionist would conclude that since evolution has done a better job than man ever could, we should stand back and let nature take its course. Basically stated, they believe the world will accidentally get better and better. The Truth is Useful, Error is Useless Lindsey concluded: The problem with this random chance approach to improving the real world is that scientifically it does not work. In the history of science, there has never been documented a single problem which has been solved by evolution. Real scientific observations tell us that accidents always result in chaos and cause problems. If you want things to improve, it takes deliberately imposing plan and purpose on the circumstances. As a problem solving tool, time and chance are useless. Let me emphasize again--if something is true it will be useful, and if it is not true, it will be useless. No one will argue that the goal of education is to produce useful, productive, fulfilled human beings. If that goal is to be accomplished, then one must look to the foundation upon which that education is built. If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end. -- Daniel Webster. « Whose in Charge Here? Identifying the Enemy »

Smile... The Future's On Its Way by C.J. Horn Whose In Charge Here?: A Perspective on Authority The first thing the woman of Samaria did after she met Jesus at the well, was go back to her neighborhood and say, "Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ" (John 4:29). When the people met Jesus for themselves, they said to her, "Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world" (John 4:42). The above verses impacted me one day as I heard the voices of our children playing outdoors. My hearts' desire was that my children would believe, not because of what I said about Jesus, but because they would "hear Him" themselves. I bowed my head and prayed they would have their own personal faith in God. It was just a few moments later when our daughter came in the door carrying a flower. She held it up to me and said, "Mommy, look what God made!" The Faith of Children The first faith of small children is often kindled through the world around them. Apart from the love given by parents, I believe the most tangible evidence a child has that there is a God comes from things he can touch and examine. That is why it is so important that a child be taught that the world around him is a result of the creative acts of an intelligent, personal God. Believing in the Creator establishes the foundation for many of life's important issues. Psalm 24 and The Ownership Clause The Earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof; The world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas, and Established it upon the floods. Psalm 24:1,2 The Word of God claims "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas and established it upon the floods" (Psalm 24:1,2). "Earth" means the habitable part of our world as we know it today. It is the "dry land" that God called "earth" in Chapter One of Genesis. It is also the word that God uses in Genesis 1:1 when He says: "IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH." "Earth" in Genesis 1:1 means all that God created from which to build our physical universe, including "terra firmae." "Earth" in Psalm 24 is that habitable part of the world upon which we firmly plant our feet. Other verses in Scripture reiterate this "ownership clause" in Psalm 24: "...for all the EARTH is mine" (Exodus 19:5); "know how that the EARTH is the Lord's" (Exodus 9:29). Psalm 24:1 continues with "the fullness thereof." If there is any doubt in one's mind as to the truth of who owns the earth, God doubles the emphasis by adding a word that many other times in the Bible is translated "all that is therein." In essence, Psalm 24:1 says, "The whole earth is the Lord's and all the parts that make up the whole!" The next phrase, "the world and they that dwell therein," calls particular attention to the earth's inhabitants. In fact, in the original Hebrew, the word "world" in this verse actually means the "habitable part." "They that dwell therein" is a straight-forward statement about this earth's inhabitants, as if God wanted there to be no doubt in anyone's mind that He is saying that everything and everybody is His! Upon what is Psalm 24's "Ownership Clause" based? God gives us the foundation of His claim in the 2nd verse of Psalm 24: "For He hath founded it..." (Vs 24:2). He claims ownership and then tells us that He has the right to do so, because He has "founded" the earth. Elsewhere in the scriptures, "founded" is translated "ordain" or "foundation" and it means to settle or establish. God has "established the earth forever" (Psalm 78:69) -- He has "laid the foundation of the earth" (Psalm 102:25). Another verse where God uses this phrase is Psalm 89:11: "The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fullness thereof, thou hast founded them." "House Rules" Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or Who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; Who hath not lifted up His soul unto vanity, Nor sworn deceitfully. Psalm 24:3,4 After Psalm 24 establishes the ownership clause, it seems to switch subject to another, going to the above questions. Why does God ask this particular question at this particular place in the Scripture? Better yet, ask what gives Him the right to ask the above question or to make these rules? In His wisdom, He prefaced the rules about who can stand in His presence with the "Ownership Clause" of Psalm 24:1,2. God's position as Creator and Owner of all gives Him the right to make the rules! God the Creator He says He is... or do parents bend to what is presently called "science?" I won't pretend to present an exhaustive argument on the creation/evolution controversy, but would like to say a few words about the subject and then direct the reader to the numerous materials available through the Institute for Creation Research (P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021; website ) for thoroughly researched, difinitive information on the creation/evolution issue. Creation or Evolution? Modern day evolutionary science has been equated with what is "natural" and therefore, by definition, has excluded the supernatural. However, let's take a moment to think about true science and define it as it should be that which can be known or observed or repeated...or even falsified! Given this definition, is either theory (creation or evolution) truly "scientific"? Evolutionary theory is built upon the premise that one kind of living creature has gradually changed into another. If the scientific method is applied to this theory, then one would expect to see creatures gradually changing into other creatures. Evolutionary scientists say evolution cannot be observed, however, because it is happening so slowly there is not enough time in any one lifetime, or several lifetimes, to observe it. Therefore, evolutionary scientists have developed an intricately woven time line, stretching over billions of years. This seeming infinite time table is necessary if evolution is chosen as a fact. However, for argument's sake, let's say that evolution cannot be observed because it happens too slowly. If that is the case, one would expect to find at least one true example of evolution occurring at some time in the past. The fossil record (a record of creatures who lived in the past, some now extinct) is used to convince school children there are gradual steps in evolution. Pictures are shown of fossilized remains that supposedly are evidence evolution has occurred. These fossils in reality represent nothing more or nothing less than the representation of a creature that experienced the kind of conditions at death necessary to produce a fossil (i.e. heat, rapid burial, etc.) Why cannot ONE fossilized remain be found of a creature who exhibited just ONE of the steps necessary for a living organism to change into another? Long names are assigned to various fossil remains (i.e. Archaeopteryx). These extinct creatures are presented as true examples of evolution. The truth is, such creatures were created by God during the creation week in the same form they are found today in the fossil record. There are animals alive today that present a mosaic of characteristics spanning man-made classifications, (for instance the platypus), but these creatures are not evidence of evolution. They are and always will be what God created them to be! Why All this Fuss? Is it important to settle the question whether or not God is the Creator? If one is in doubt about the question of origins and chooses to ride the fence between creation and evolution, one is faced with some inevitable consequences. First, refusing to take a stand on the origin of the universe leaves one with a God who is compelled to cooperate with some uncertain "course of nature," or with a God who is part of some unknown naturalistic "committee." Secondly, if one's God is not the author and owner of all, room must be made for someone or something else to make the rules for life and practice. That's why it is very important to settle the question of origins. Who Shall Stand? "He that hath clean hands, And a pure heart; Who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, Nor sworn deceitfully." If one chooses to believe that God is the Creator, then one must then take a serious look at Psalm 24:3 and 4. What is the question really asking? What do these requirements mean? The ownership clause of Psalm 24 has been prefaced with Psalms 22 & 23. In Psalm 22, we see a vivid description of the suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" (Psalm 22:1). The Psalm resolves in the words of our Lord to the heavenly Father "thou hast heard me..."(Psalm 22:21). Psalm 23, one of the most memorized, and possibly best-loved portions of Scripture, describes in shepherd's terminology the relationship that Jesus Christ' purchased for us in those hours of agony at Golgotha. Then Psalm 24 begins with a straight forward ownership clause: "The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof...". The point is Jesus Christ is the Creator (as stated in Colossians 2. "For by Him (the Son) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, " (2:16,17). He is also the redeemer of Psalm 22, and the One who provides for us as the Great Shepherd of Psalm 23, "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (I Peter 2:25). He is the one who speaks in Psalm 24. Revelation 5 speaks of the "title deed" to the earth and the Lamb, who alone is "worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for (He) wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" (Revelation 5:6,9). It is Jesus who is undisputed owner of the earth because He is Creator, and because He redeemed the earth and us from sin. Based on what the Bible teaches, Jesus is the One who asks the questions in Psalm 24, and who also provides the answer. Standing with Clean Hands Let's take the qualifications one at a time. What are "clean hands"? When we look at the New Testament to find "clean," the first usage we see of this term is in Matthew 8:2: "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." This word in the Greek is "katharizo" (katharidzo), from the word "katharos." The Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) uses the term "katharos" in Psalm 24, speaking of "clean" hands. The source of Biblical "cleanliness" is Jesus Christ. The same Hebrew word translated clean in Psalm 24 is also translated "innocent" elsewhere in Scripture. The majority of the uses of "innocent" are used in the context of "innocent blood." The following account in the New Testament gives us this perspective: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood..." Matthew 27:3,4 It would be safe to say that Jesus again is the only One who fulfills the requirement of innocence. In fact, the whole concept of "clean" in this verse is that of being blameless, guiltless, or without sin. After Jesus knelt and drew on the ground next to the woman who was taken in adultery, he said to her accusers, "...he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). Every man left without throwing a stone. In contrast, it is said of Jesus: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Standing with a Pure Heart What about the fact that only the one with a pure heart will stand in God's presence? Jesus said in Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God," and then He also says in John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." When Matthew spoke of the "pure in heart" -- the word He used for "pure" in the original Greek is the same word "katharos" translated "clean" when the lepers asked Jesus to make them "clean." In order to stand in God's presence, the heart must be as pure as the hands are clean. Never Swearing Deceitfully The next requirement in Psalm 24 is having not "sworn deceitfully." Taking an oath, or Biblical "swearing" is a very serious matter. Swearing, in its Biblical sense, was to "seven" oneself, as if a declaration were to be repeated seven times. Given the idea of "seven" in Scripture, this meant that something was declared to its fullest intent. To swear "deceitfully" would be the most devastating type of lying. One good example of this type of deceit is found in the 34th chapter of Genesis. Dinah, one of the children of Israel, was raped by Shechem of the Hivites. The man who had taken Dinah by force wanted to marry her. Her brothers deceived Shechem's people by telling them they would only consent to the marriage if he and every male in their tribe was circumcised. The morning after the circumcision, when every man had been disabled by the same, Dinah's brothers slaughtered the tribe. Although one is appalled by such behavior, the Old Testament stories are given us "for our admonition" (I Corinthians 10:11) to show us the things of which we are all capable, apart from the grace of God. One may try to say he has never "sworn deceitfully," but John said "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" and "make Him a liar" (I John 1:8,10). Jesus is the only one of whom God said there was never "any guile (deceit) found in His mouth (I Peter 2:22). Jesus has never "sworn deceitfully." Isaiah 53:9 And He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death; because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth. But the truth about us is "the scripture hath concluded all under sin" (Galatians 3:22) that "all the world may become guilty before God" (Romans 3:19). That seems unjust, unless one knows that God did not leave us in this state. John says "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9). He sent His Son to be the One righteous sacrifice and we are found holy and righteous in HIM. (II Corinthians 5:21). Lifting The Soul Unto Vanity With all of the above, we finally come to the final requirement which is the key to making all of Christ's righteousness our own: He that has not "lifted up His soul unto vanity" will stand in God's presence. Not "lifting up the soul to vanity" is the key to standing in God's presence and clothed with the righteousness of the One who alone meets the requirements to stand there. Satan's heart was "lifted up because of his beauty" (Ezekiel 28:17), Nebuchadnezzar's heart was lifted up because of his riches and kingdom (Daniel 5). When anyone lifts up his soul to anything besides the Lord, he is lost. Psalm 24 asks the question, "Who shall ascend to thy holy hill" and ends with a graphic portrayal of a triumphal entry: "Lift up your gates ye everlasting doors and the King of Glory shall come in!" Jesus is the very first one who entered into the presence of the Lord as the firstfruits (I Corinthians 15:20; James 1:18) after He purchased our salvation, and we can enter God's presence, not on our own, but through Jesus Christ' righteousness. The final verses of Psalm 24 may, in fact, picture His triumphal entry into the presence of God, following His resurrection from the dead. He is the King of Glory and when He entered the holy of holies with His own blood, our salvation was complete for all eternity. The adjectives that describe Him at his entry (strong and mighty, mighty in battle) depict our Lord as the victor in the greatest battle ever fought -- that which eliminated death forever! Parenting and God's Presence What does the presence of God have to do with parenting? For us it has everything to do with our goal as parents. Our third and youngest child was stillborn. Many of the events of that time made his death especially tragic for us. But out of the depths of that tragedy grew a deep-seated conviction about the ultimate aim we have for our children. Psalm 16:11 says it best: "In Thy presence is fullness of joy." Believers have been given an entrance into the presence of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We can come "boldly unto the throne of grace" and that is true joy. Yet, while we are in this body, "we ourselves groan (agonize) within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Romans 8:23). When we finally "graduate" into the presence of God, as our little boy did, there is no more parting. This is why I want to know what God requires in order to be in HIS presence. This is why I want my children to believe in the God of the Scripture, who sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins and purchase with His own blood an entrance into God's presence for eternity. I want them to believe for themselves, educated and grounded in truth, with their own home built upon the solid rock of the truth of God's word. « Help Lord! Education, Not Information »

The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all. Evolution Is Not Happening Now First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3 Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4 The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes: And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5 Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that: The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6 Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so! Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7 Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8 Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9 Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10 So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations? Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11 As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn. All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12 Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that: The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13 Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically: Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14 Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation. The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry. Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution. The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders? Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process? The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense. Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs." The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15 There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions. Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17 It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model. The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics. Evolution Could Never Happen at All The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20 The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22 Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23 A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24 It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! 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. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26 They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27 The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28 A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29 Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this. As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30 Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31 Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent! The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33 Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35 That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism. References Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300. Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89. Ibid. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78. Ibid., p. 83. Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157. Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12. Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343. Lewin, op. cit., p. 36. Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from 'Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608. Ibid. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125. Ibid., p. 222. Ibid.

Creation and its Critics: Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. CONTENTS Introduction SECTION I - Creation and Religion SECTION II - Qualifications of Creationists SECTION III - Creationist Motives and Ethics SECTION IV - Creation and Science Conclusion Introduction With the sharp renewal of interest in creation that has taken place in recent years, there has also developed a well-orchestrated reaction against it, spearheaded by the strongly entrenched evolutionist establishments in science, education, and the news media. These criticisms became especially strident with the passage in 1981 of "creation laws" in Arkansas and Louisiana. The anti-creationist reaction has currently (June 1986) reached extravagant proportions. More than thirty books have been written against creationism and at least three anti-creationist periodicals are now being published. It seems that practically every secular newspaper and periodical in the country must have printed by now one or more articles critical of creationism. Many of these books and articles have focused their attacks particularly on the Institute for Creation Research, claiming that the dynamic of the modern movement has come largely from the writings and lectures of its scientists. Most of the criticisms being published against the creation movement are strongly biased and badly distorted. Whether these false charges are based on sincere misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation we shall not attempt to judge. In any case, they are false, and need to be answered. Since it is clearly impossible to try to write individual rebuttals to all the anti-creationist books and articles that have been published, this booklet has been prepared to try to answer some of the more common criticisms. Using a question-and-answer format, we have tried to organize them in convenient reference form, with brief and cogent corrections to the various misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations that are currently being circulated. We would encourage concerned creationists everywhere to assist in distributing the information contained in this booklet wherever people have been prejudiced against creationism by such false charges. SECTION I - Creation and Religion Question: "Since creationism is based on the Genesis creation story, why should it be included in public education?" Answer: Scientific creationism is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching. One can present the scientific evidences for creation (and against evolution) without referring at all to the Bible or to any type of religion. Entire books1 have been written on scientific creationism without a single quotation from the Bible and without basing any argument on Biblical authority or doctrine. Such arguments deal with genetics, paleontology, geology, thermodynamics, and other sciences with theology or religion. Indeed, the scientific case for creation is based on our knowledge of DNA, mutations, fossils, and other scientific terms and concepts which do not even appear in the Bible. Furthermore, creationist scientists many who were formerly evolutionists made a thorough study of the scientific evidences related to origins and are firmly convinced (not by religious faith but by the scientific evidences) that the scientific data explicitly support the Creation Model and contradict the Evolution Model. Question: "But isn't this so-called scientific creationism simply a backdoor method of getting Biblical creationism introduced?" Answer: We could just as easily ask whether teaching evolution is a backdoor method of introducing atheism. Scientific creationism and Biblical creationism can, in fact, be taught quite independently of each other. We ourselves are opposed to the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools. Teachers of biblical creationism should have a good knowledge of the Bible and a firm commitment to its authority, and these qualifications cannot be imposed on public school teachers. Biblical creationism, as well as other sectarian views of creation, should be taught in churches (as well as synagogues and mosques) but only scientific creationism in public schools. Both can well be taught in religious schools. Question: "What is the difference between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism?" Answer: The first is based solely on scientific evidence, from such sciences as those listed above; the second is based on Biblical teachings. The Genesis record includes the account of the six days of creation, the names of the first man and woman, the record of God's curse on the earth because of human sin, the story of Noah's ark, and other such events which could never be determined scientifically. On the other hand, scientific creationism deals with such physical entities as fossils, whereas the Bible never refers to fossils at all. It is quite possible for scientific creationism to be discussed and evaluated without any reference whatever to Biblical creationism. Question: "Why is it that only Protestant fundamentalists are concerned about creation?" Answer: The doctrine of creation is of concern to people of a wide variety of religious views. Evolutionism is the basic premise of many religions, including Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Liberal Protestantism, Modernist Catholicism, Reform Judaism, and others, not to mention humanism and atheism; so these all would naturally tend to oppose creationism. In view of these and other religious implications, it is absurd to claim that evolution is strictly scientific. On the other hand, creationism is also basic in a number of religions only all the denominations of conservative Protestantism, but also traditional Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, as well as conservative Islam and other monotheistic religions. It is much broader in scope and importance than as a particular doctrine of Biblical fundamentalists. Indeed, it is offensive and discriminatory to these other creationists to hear constantly that creation is only of concern to certain Protestant conservatives. Question: "But isn't the very fact that creationism requires a Creator proof that it is religious, rather than scientific?" Answer: It must be remembered that there are only two basic models of origins, evolution and creation. Either all things have developed by continuing naturalistic processes, or they have not; there is no other alternative. Each model is essentially a complete world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, of origins and destiny. Neither can be either confirmed or falsified by the scientific method, since neither can be tested or observed experimentally, and therefore either one must be accepted on faith! Nevertheless, each is also a scientific model, since each seeks to explain within its framework all the real data of science and history. Creationism is at least as non-religious as evolutionism, and creationists are sure that the Creation Model fits the facts of true science better than the Evolution Model. It is true that creationism is a theistic model, but it is also true that evolutionism is an atheistic model (since it purports to explain everything without a creator). If theism is a religious faith, then so is atheism, since these are two fully comparable systems, each the opposite of the other. Question: "Why can't evolution be regarded as the method of creation, instead of having two competing models of origins?" Answer: It is important to define terms, especially on this issue. The belief that God used evolution to make man is properly called theistic evolution, not creation. Evolution purports to explain the origin of things by natural processes, creation by supernatural processes; and it is semantic confusion to try to equate the two. Theistic evolution says there is a God behind the natural processes which cause evolution; atheistic evolution says there is not. Both forms of evolution assume the same framework of evolutionary history and the same evolutionary mechanisms, so there is no scientific way to discriminate between the two, as there is between creationism and evolutionism. Theistic evolution must be judged on the basis of theological criteria, not scientific. The creation and evolution models. on the other hand, can be compared and evaluated on strictly scientific criteria, as is done, for example, in the book mentioned previously, What is Creation Science? Creationists maintain that evolution is a poor scientific model of origins, strictly on the basis of scientific criteria. Question: "How can creationists expect to have their doctrines taught in public schools when they believe that evolution was invented by the devil and is responsible for communism, racism and many other evils in the world?" Answer: At most, such beliefs are no more offensive than the frequent evolutionist charge that creationists are ignorant fanatics, and that creationism and Biblical Christianity are responsible for religious wars, witch hunts, and all sorts of moral bigotry. The latter charges are actually frequently made in public institutions, whereas evolutionists are merely fearful that the former charges might be made if they ever gave creationists an even break. As a matter of fact, creationists have repeatedly stressed that any religious, social and moral implications of evolution and/or creation should not be discussed in public institutions at all. Only the scientific aspects of the two models should be discussed, leaving all religious and moral implications for discussion at home, church or elsewhere as appropriate. As far as the actual beliefs of creationists are concerned, this should be completely irrelevant in a land of religious freedom. The role of the devil in propagating the evolutionary concept is a legitimate topic of study for those who believe in Biblical authority, since the Bible does teach the reality of a great personal being who is the ultimate source of all rebellion against the authority of God in His creation. Those who do not believe the Bible should not be concerned one way or the other, since they do not believe there is a devil anyway. Evolutionists are completely unwarranted in taking any personal offense to this teaching of the Bible. Creationists do not regard them as "agents of the devil," as some have complained, but only as unknowing victims of the one who has "deceived the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). If, indeed, creationism is true and scientific, and if evolutionism is false and contrary to true science (and this is the question at issue) then it is also reasonable for creationists to seek a causal explanation for the world's pervasive and age-long belief in evolution. The Bible-believing Christian (and one should remember that our country and legal system were established in the first place by Bible-believing creationist Christians) thus necessarily must be committed to some such ultimate explanation. However, this in no way implies any personal charge against any individual evolutionist. Furthermore, these are religious matters, not scientific, and creationists believe they should all be excluded from public instruction anyhow. Creationists do not want their beliefs caricatured by non-Christian teachers any more than evolutionists want them promulgated by Christian teachers. They should not be discussed at all in public schools. By the same token, creationists do not suggest that any modern evolutionist is a fascist, communist, racist, imperialist or any other type of social activist. To believe that fascism, communism, etc., are based on an evolutionary philosophy, however, is only to believe what the founders and leaders of these systems have always themselves insisted. If present-day evolutionists object to this fact, they should direct their complaints to the spokesmen for these systems, not to the creationists. Once again, however, creationists do not propose that these or any other social, moral or political implications of either evolution or creation should be included in public education anyway; so the objection is irrelevant. Question: "Why should creationists insist on teaching creationism in public schools when they do not teach evolutionism in their own churches and religious schools?" Answer: This widely circulated criticism reveals a serious misunderstanding of the nature of public schools and other tax-supported institutions. These are supported by both groups of citizens and evolutionists therefore both basic scientific models of origins should be taught in them, as objectively as possible. If Christians want to have only creation taught, that they should establish private schools for that purpose. By the same token, if secularists or others want to have only evolution taught, they should establish private humanistic schools for that purpose. For evolutionists to insist that their evolutionary religion should be subsidized by the taxes of creationists is both arrogant and unconstitutional. The two-model approaching both evolution and creation on a strictly scientific and objective basis the only approach in the public schools which is consistent with the constitution, with civil rights, religious neutralism, scientific objectivity, educational effectiveness, academic freedom, and general fairness. Question: "Since creationism includes the creation of 'apparent age,' doesn't this imply the supposed Creator has deceived us?" Answer: The concepts of creation does, indeed, involve the creation of "apparent age" better, the creation of "functioning completeness." By its very essence, true creation involves processes no longer in operation. The products of these creative processes include the whole functioning universe. One may try to calculate an "apparent age" of any particular system in this functioning cosmos by use of some present (non-creative) process involved in that system, but at best this can only be as good as the assumption of the "initial conditions" which are used in the calculation (see the discussion of this subject in, for example, What is Creation Science?, pp. 239-253). The Creation Model quite reasonably implies that these initial conditions were produced in the system by the processes of creation and were of whatever nature and magnitude they needed to be for that system thenceforth to function optimally in the completed world as created. This concept is inherent in the very nature of creation. To say that there can be no creation of "functioning completeness" (or "apparent age," if you prefer) is the same as saying there can be no creation; this begs the whole question, of course, and is equivalent to defining away every option except atheism. 1 For example see the book What is Creation Science? by Henry M Morris and Gary E Parker (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers 1982. 306 pp. ). SECTION II - Qualifications of Creationists Question: "Why should such a small minority as the creationists expect to impose their beliefs on others?" Answer: Creationists are not a small minority. A nationwide poll commissioned by the Associated Press and NBC News late in 1981 showed that over 86% of the people favored having creationism taught in the schools. Nevertheless, creationists only request fair treatment, not favored treatment, in the schools. The attitude of the liberal humanistic establishments in science and education, in trying to maintain an exclusive indoctrination in evolutionary humanism, seems incredibly intolerant and arrogant in a free country. In 1982, a Gallup poll, as widely reported through the New York Times service (e.g., San Diego Union, August 30, 1982, p. A12), found that at least 44% of the national population believed not only in creation, but in recent creation! Question: "America's news media are apparently almost completely opposed to the creation movement; does not this fact refute the claim that a significant part of the population favors creation!" Answer: Unfortunately, there is firm evidence that the leaders of the news media are completely out of touch with the opinions of the American people, even though they are supposed to be "opinion makers." For example, columnist Pat Buchanan, through the Chicago Tribune New York News syndicate on December 30, 1981, cited a recent article by Lichter and Rothman in Public Opinion magazine, which had reported on detailed interviews with the 240 leading editors, reporters, columnists, TV anchormen, producers, correspondents, and film editors people judged to be the leaders of the media in deciding what news to report and how to report it. The answers to all the questions demonstrated the extremely strong liberal bias of this group (as opposed to the much more conservative leanings of the people they supposedly represent). This abnormally left-wing bias was evident in all areas of thought sociological, scientific and political. Only 8% of them regularly attend either church or synagogue. and over half have no religious affiliation whatever. With this kind of profile, it would be surprising to find even the smallest semblance of sympathy for creationism in the media. The creation movement and arguments are, as a result, almost always misrepresented and distorted, often viciously, in newspaper and magazine articles and in radio and television coverage. Question: "But why are all real scientists evolutionists?" Answer: All real scientists are not evolutionists! There are thousands of bona fide scientists today who have become creationists, all of whom have postgraduate degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who have records and credentials quite comparable to those of any other segment in the scientific professions. Although most scientists may still be evolutionists—especially those who control the scientific societies and journals—the creationist minority is respectable and growing. There are creationist Ph.D.'s in every branch of pure and applied science today geology, physics, engineering, medicine, and all the rest it is obvious now that a man or woman can be well trained and experienced in any discipline of science and can understand the factual data of that science within the framework of the Creation Model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known to be growing most rapidly today among people with scientific and technological training. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that practically all of these scientists were indoctrinated in evolutionism throughout their training. To become or remain creationists, they have had to study and think themselves through the evidences and arguments for both models, all on their own initiative, and usually against the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them, like the author of this booklet, were themselves evolutionists throughout their college years and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of later personal critical study and reevaluation. Question: "Then why don't creationists publish in the standard scientific journals?" Answer: Creationists do publish in the standard scientific journals, in their own respective scientific disciplines, and their publications' records compare well with any other comparable group. For example, the scientists who have served on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published at least 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers addition to hundreds of creationist articles and at least 50 books on creationism and related subjects. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For example, when the high school biology textbook produced by the scientists of the Creation Research Society was ready for publication in 1969, the 15 leading high school textbook publishers were contacted about possibly publishing the book. It was a comprehensive and well organized book, written by a fully-qualified team of Ph.D. biologists and other scientists, and should have been financially profitable for any publisher. Nevertheless, not one of these publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript! They claimed their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist textbook, so it was necessary for the Society to have it published by a Christian book company. The book has gone through two editions, and has been widely used in private schools. Question: "But isn't it true that all the really important scientists are evolutionists?" Answer: It is extremely difficult today for creationists to get Ph.D. degrees or to secure and retain faculty positions in the major universities. Similarly the major scientific societies and periodicals are controlled by committed evolutionists. Students in science programs are exposed only to evolution in their classes and textbooks and often their advancement after graduation depends in part on conformity to the system. Under such circumstances it is remarkable that thousands of scientists have become creationists anyhow. One organization alone, the Creation Research Society, has had well over 700 members who have postgraduate degrees. Even though the modern scientists whose names are most familiar to the public are evolutionists (Sagan, Gould, Leakey, etc.) there are nevertheless many creation scientists today who hold equally important and demanding positions in scientific research and development. In fact most working scientists are apparently so deeply involved in their own projects that they don't even think very much about the creation-evolution question. They have not taken any public stand either as evolutionists or creationists and probably have not studied the evidence enough to decide. Many are (like the writer was for a number of years) evolutionists simply by default and conformity rather than conviction. Of even greater significance than the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times, however, is the fact that most of the greatest scientists of the past founding fathers of modern science creationists and, for that matter, even Bible-believing Christians. One could go down the list of the names of the great men who founded the various disciplines of modern science like Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin and scores of others of like calibre he would find a very large percentage of them to have been men who believed the Bible to be the Word of God and the God of the Bible to have created all things in the beginning. Somehow these beliefs didn't deter them from understanding science! For brief biographical testimonies of more than 60 of these great creationist scientists of the past, see the book, Men of Science-Men of God (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), 128 pp. SECTION III - Creationist Motives and Ethics Question: "Why do creationists make it appear that scientists are questioning evolution when they are really only questioning current beliefs about evolutionary mechanisms?" Answer: This is an entirely unwarranted charge, usually made when creationists cite the writings of Stephen Gould or other modern evolutionary critics of neo-Darwinism. If those who make the charge would read or listen to the full context of what the creationists say, they would surely realize that no such misrepresentation was made or intended. Creationist scientists are all well aware that Gould and other modern advocates of "saltatory" evolution (as opposed to "gradualistic" evolution) are still evolutionists. This very fact has been made a key point of creationist writings and lectures. The fact is that the so-called "punctuationists" are now using exactly the same arguments against the neo-Darwinians that creationists have been using for years (e.g., the gaps in the fossil record), and these "revolutionary evolutionists" resent having this recognized. The latter still maintain their faith in evolution despite the complete lack of evidence for it. It does seem strange to creationists that evolutionists can be so confident about the "fact" of evolution and still remain so completely uncertain as to its mechanism. Evolution is claimed to be "scientific," and still going on; so it seems like it should be observable and measurable. Yet, after 150 years of intense study of biological variations, evolutionists are still completely in the dark about the supposed mechanism of evolution. This fact surely is cause for beginning to doubt the validity of the very concept of evolution. Question: "Who profits from the sale of creationist books?" Answer: The largest publisher of creationist literature is Creation-Life Publishers, of San Diego. However, CLP is in the bush leagues of publishing compared to the giants who publish high school and college evolutionist textbooks. Not only those publishers, but also their authors, have a vested interest in maintaining the high profits and royalties which they receive from the lucrative textbook markets, especially in the elementary and secondary schools. This is surely one key reason for their emotional opposition to the introduction of creationist books into the schools. The inordinate fear of the Creation Research Society biology textbook has already been mentioned. The outcries of indignation that have been widely voiced at the very thought of creationist publishers or writers profiting from creationist books need to be evaluated in light of the personal interests of those who are resisting it. As a matter of fact, the Creation-Life Publishing Co. was only organized in 1974 in order to provide a needed outlet for creationist books, since the established publishers were all afraid they would be a financial liability, and since the Institute for Creation Research did not have adequate resources to publish its own books. A small group of concerned individuals (including a few ICR staff members) provided the necessary investment capital to get CLP started, knowing it was a serious risk, but feeling that the cause of creationism warranted it. Furthermore, the company has had a substantial net loss for its first twelve years, and no stockholder has yet received any monetary dividends or interest on his investment. Of course, if and when the publishing of creationist books ever does begin to be profitable? we can be sure that the big publishing companies will then also begin publishing creationist books, and, with their resources, would probably soon take over this market. In the meantime the record following facts should be noted as to the relation between CLP and ICR: Although some ICR staff members are CLP shareholders, the large majority of shares are held by people not connected with ICR. CLP publishes many books produced by ICR, but also publishes many other books. A significant number of ICR books are published by other publishers than CLP. There is no organizational connection at all between the two, only an informal cooperation. Question: "Isn't it unethical for creationists, in order to support their arguments, to quote evolutionists out of context?" Answer: The often-repeated charge that creationists deliberately use partial quotes or out-of-context quotes from evolutionists is, at best, an attempt to confuse the issue. Creationists do, indeed, frequently quote from the evolutionary literature, finding that the data and interpretations used by evolutionists often provide very effective arguments for creation. With only rare exceptions, however, creationists always are meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context. Evolutionists have apparently searched creationist writings looking for such exceptions and, out of the hundreds or thousands of quotes which have been used, have been able to find only a handful which they have been able to interpret as misleading. Even these, if carefully studied, in full light of their own contexts, will be found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation of the situation under discussion. On the other hand, evolutionists frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. The most disconcerting practice of this sort, one that could hardly be anything but deliberate, is to quote a creationist exposition of a Biblical passage, in a book or article dealing with Biblical creationism, and then to criticize this as an example of the scientific creationism which creationists propose for the public schools. Another frequent example is that of citing creationist expositions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and charging them with ignoring the "open system" question, when their writings are specifically dealing in context with that very question. In any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly quote creationists out of context than creationists do evolutionists. Question: "Do creation organizations and their leaders profit financially by promoting creationism?" Answer: The Institute for Creation Research is a nonprofit organization, dependent primarily upon individual donations for its operation. Its staff scientists have all taken jobs at ICR for smaller salaries than they were making, or could have made, in public education, and they also turn over all honoraria at ICR meetings to ICR for its general operations. ICR is careful to maintain sound financial policies, with its books audited annually, and with expenditures always kept strictly within its income. Its fundraising methods are always low-key and non-emotional. We cannot, of course, speak for other creationist organizations, except to say that we know of no individual or organization that has profited significantly in a financial way from promoting creationism. If any have ever attempted to do so, they soon found that this is no way to make money! The ICR is the largest creationist organization, but its annual expenditures are significantly less even than the budgets of most individual university science departments. Question: "Why, then, does ICR lobby for the passage of creationist legislation which would require purchase of creationist books?" Answer: Neither the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation-Life Publishers, nor the Creation Research Society is engaged in promoting, financing, or lobbying for creationist legislation. Neither do they file lawsuits or other political or legal actions aimed at compelling the teaching of creationism in public schools. This is a widely repeated charge, but it is completely false. The ICR constitution, in fact, precludes such activities. It is true that certain other creationist organizations do this, and ICR has been willing to provide assistance (when such assistance was requested and financed by such organizations) in the form of scientific and legal consultation, service as expert witnesses, etc. Such aid is made available for the purpose of trying to help keep such activities, if they take place at all, on a high scientific, academic, and constitutional level. Although individual creationists hold widely differing convictions on this particular subject, most creationists educators believe that compelling unwilling teachers to teach creationism in the public schools is unwise and unnecessary. We prefer the approach of education and persuasion to that of legislation and coercion. There is already no constitutional or legal impediment to teaching creation science along with evolution science in any state of widespread publicity to the contrary in Arkansas after a biased judicial decision following a poor state defense. It is simply a matter of persuading school boards and teachers that they ought to do so and then helping to provide materials to enable them to do so. Many are already doing this and no doubt many others will as time goes on, without any need for compelling laws or ordinances. Question: "Since the creation/evolution question is actually involved in one way or another in every discipline, wouldn't it be impossibly expensive for schools to institute a two-model approach?" Answer: Creationists are sensitive to the costs of such changes, of course (they are taxpayers, too!), but there are reasonable ways in which that can be accomplished. All school districts order new textbooks every five years or so, anyway. If the appropriate textbook committees would simply specify the types of books desired, and make it clear they would not purchase any others, the publishing companies would quickly provide books to conform to these specifications. In the interim before the next adoption, workshops, supplemental materials, and other aids could be provided within existing budgets (which allow for this sort of thing anyway) to enable teachers to adapt their current textbooks and class instruction to a two-model approach. For teachers whose consciences recoil at teaching creationism, substitute teachers or teacher interchanges could be scheduled for, say, three-week units on the creationist alternative in each course where the subject comes up. Enough creationist materials and teachers are already available, so that this interim period need not be either traumatic or costly. Such procedures are not unusual at all. School boards frequentIy mandate new curricula and provide for their implementation when they perceive a legitimate need, as in the need for health education, nondiscriminatory textbooks, etc. The study of origins is foundational in all disciplines and surely warrants openness and fairness in its classroom treatment. Furthermore, instruction from a two-model approach is the best learning method, and therefore most economical in the long run. It is essentially inquiry-based, whereby the student is asked to explore all the facts and arguments related to both creation and evolution. Then, using the process skills of science, the student himself becomes the decision-maker. Careful tests have shown that this approach results in a greater understanding of evolution as well as creation. SECTION IV - Creation and Science Question: "Since creation is not testable, and therefore cannot really be scientific, why should it be included in science curricula?" Answer: Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally. Both can be stated and discussed as scientific models however, and it is poor science and poor education to restrict instruction to only one of them. The fact that creation is not repeatable in the laboratory is irrelevant, since evolution (in the sense of "vertical" transformation from any given kind of organism to a more complex kind of organism) is not only never observed in the laboratory (or in all recorded history for that matter) but also seems impossible in light of the entropy principle (see below). Since creation was completed in the past, we would not expect to see it take place now, whereas evolution is supposed to be still going on. Yet it has never been observed and the entropy principle seems to guarantee that it will never occur at all. In this sense, creation is thus more "scientific" than evolution and should certainly be recognized as at least a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. Question: "Even though evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is at least based on natural processes, whereas creation is based on supernatural processes; doesn't this prove creation is intrinsically unscientific?" Answer: This frequent humanistic assertion is nothing less than thoughtless arrogance at best. Whoever decided that "science" should be defined as "naturalism," anyway? The word science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge." True scientists are supposed to "search for truth," wherever that search leads. It is surely possible that a great Creator exists (and, of course, absolutely impossible to prove He does not exist!); so it is at least possible that creation is the true explanation of the origin of the tremendous and intricately complex universe in which we live. It is inexcusable for evolutionists (whether they are atheistic evolutionists or "theistic" evolutionists) to arbitrarily exclude even the consideration of special creation as a scientific model from public institutions, when it might well be true, and therefore profoundly and perfectly scientific. Question: "Why can't creationists understand that their entropy argument against evolution is completely irrelevant, since the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems and the earth is an open system?" Answer: Why won't evolutionists quit echoing this irrelevant canard, and listen to what creationists actually are saying? Evolutionists seem to think that the principles of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems but professional thermodynamicists never say this. The imaginary age-long evolution of the biosphere must, of course, be discussed in terms of open-system thermodynamics, but this fact in no way helps the case for evolution. The influx of heat energy into an open system (as, say, from the sun onto the earth) will not naturally improve the organization of that system, as evolution would require, but will increase the entropy (that is, the disorganization) of the system more rapidly than if the system remained closed. To verify this, one need only examine the simple thermodynamic equation for heat flow into an open system. Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution? Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth? The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism. For example, the growth of a seed into a plant is directed b~ its qenetic code and implemented by the mechanism of photosynthesis. Similarly the "evolution" of a building from a pile of bricks and lumber is directed by a blueprint and implemented by the construction machinery and the muscular skills of the builders. The evolution of the earth's biosphere in the space/time continuum, from primeval chemicals to a complex array of plants, animals and human beings represents a far greater increase in organized complexity than a plant or a building, yet it apparently had no directing program (chance?) and no solar energy conversion mechanism (mutations?). Thus, the entropy principle does indeed define any significant amount of upward naturalistic evolution as completely unscientific. Evolution would require an unending string of miracles to make it work! Question: "But hasn't this problem been solved by Prigogine and other scientists?" Answer: The real problem has hardly been addressed, let alone solved! Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine received a Nobel prize in 1977 for his work in non-equilibrium thermodynamic theory but he did not solve, or even claim to solve, the problem of harmonizing evolution with entropy. He showed that under certain conditions of high energy flow and high energy dissipation, with large overall increases of entropy, certain ephemeral "ordered systems"called "dissipative structures" be formed as a side effect of the dissipative process. Priogogine expressed the hope that these might eventually somehow provide a clue to the origin of life. That was as close as he (or anyone else) has come to resolving the conflict between evolution and entropy. Evolutionists who believe this conflict can be handled merely by repeating the vacuous statement that the earth is an open system are thereby inadvertently acknowledging that they badly misunderstand the basic principles of thermodynamics. Question: "Don't creationists realize that the earth is far older than the 10,000 year age postulated by the creation model?" Answer: The scientific creation model is not tied to the young earth concept at all, despite very wide misunderstanding on this point. The basic evidences for creation and against evolution (e.g., the gaps in the fossil record. the laws of thermodynamics, the complexity of living systems) are completely independent of the age of the earth or the date of creation. Creationists therefore do not propose that creationism be tied in public schools to a recent creation. On the other hand, there are many sound scientific evidences that the earth is young more numerous and based on data at least as good as the few evidences for an old earth apparently the only reason for not including these in public education is the fact that the evolution model requires an old earth before it can be considered feasible at all. The creation model does not depend on a young earth, but evolution does imply an old earth. Why shouldn't both types of evidences be included, so that students can have access to all the information relevant to a decision on this important subject? Question: "But doesn't the Bible teach a young earth?" Answer: The Bible certainly does teach that all things were created in six days several thousand years ago, if its record is taken naturally and literally. Unfortunately, many Christians have been so intimidated by the evolutionists' insistence on an old earth that they have resorted to various forms of non-literal interpretation to try to accommodate the geological ages in the Genesis account of creation. In any case, although scientific creationism is compatible with Biblical creationism, each can be taught and evaluated quite independently of the other, and scientific creationists are as opposed to the teaching of Biblical creationism in public school as evolutionists are. Although the young earth is indeed a teaching of true Biblical creationism, it is not a necessary teaching of scientific creationism, and it is only the latter which should be taught in tax-supported institutions. Biblical creationism, on the other hand (including its teaching of literal recent creation) should be taught in Bible-believing churches. Both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be incorporated in Christian schools and colleges. Only scientific creationism should be taught in public schools. Question: "What about the teaching of a worldwide flood?" Answer: The same distinction should be made as with the teaching of a young earth. The Bible, taken naturally and literally, indeed does teach both a recent creation and a subsequent worldwide hydraulic cataclysm, but neither of these are necessary components of scientific creationism. As with the evidence for a young earth? there is a great amount of sound scientific evidence for catastrophism, rather than uniformitarianism, in earth history, including good geologic and ethnologic evidence for a worldwide flood. There is no good reason why all these scientific data should not be incorporated in public instruction. However, this question is quite distinct from the basic creation-evolution question, and should be kept separate in public school classrooms and textbooks. In other words, there are three basic questions at issue here: Special creation versus naturalistic evolution as the ultimate explanation of the universe, life and man. Age of the earth; ancient earth versus young earth. Uniformitarianism versus catastrophism (including not only intermittent local catastrophism, but also a global cataclysm) as the basic framework of interpretation in earth history. Each of these issues can and should be treated as a separate scientific issue in public education. They are related issues, of course, but each is important in its own right and is capable of discussion and evaluation quite independently of the others. Furthermore, although all three (creation, young earth and worldwide flood) are taught in the Bible, they can and should be discussed (in public schools) solely in terms of the scientific evidences, pro and con, related to each. Question: "Creationists say there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, while evolutionists maintain that there are; which is right? Answer: After many decades of insistence by the neo-Darwinians that evolution proceeded slowly and gradually by accumulation of small beneficial mutations by natural selection, it is gratifying to creationists that more and more evolutionists today have abandoned gradualism for what they call "punctuationalism," the idea that evolution proceeds by quantum leaps, accomplishing major changes very rapidly. The main reason for this change has been the belated acknowledgement that the fossil record billions of fossils now discovered shows no evidence of true transitional forms. However, although these ubiquitous gaps are widely recognized by evolutionists when arguing among themselves, they are quick to bridge the gaps when debating with creationists, insisting that there are many transitional forms. The transitional forms cited are almost always the sameArchaeopteryx (the reptile-like bird), the therapsids (the mammal-like reptiles), and the horses. Others are mentioned occasionally, but these are clearly the most likely candidates for intermediacy. Even if these were convincing, however, the very fact that the same fossils are continually being offered as examples is an eloquent testimony to the scarcity of transitional forms. If total evolution were really true, it would seem that all fossils should be transitional forms! As a matter of fact, even the handful of examples exhibited are not really evolutionary transitional forms anyhow. For an up-to-date discussion of this subject, see the book, Evolution The Challenge of the Fossil Record, by Dr. Duane Gish (C L P, 1985). Neither these nor any other supposed transitional forms meet any of the following requirements for true transitional forms: (1) transitional or incipient structures, such as half-scales/half-feathers on reptile/birds; (2) series of gradually changing intermediates from one major kind to another, rather than sharp changes; (3) correlation of even the sharp changes with geologic time sequences. For example, true birds are now known to be at least as "old" geologically as Archaeopteryx; the early horses overlap chronologically with more modern horses and each is quite distinct from the others, with no gradual intermediates; the mammal-like reptiles died out even before the main age of reptiles, and no one knows which, if any, ever evolved into mammals. All were evidently fully functional in their own environments, with neither vestigial structures from previous evolutionary stages nor incipient structures destined for future utility. At best, each was a "mosaic" form, not a transitional form, with a mosaic of useful features including some found in certain other animals, but all uniquely created with their own peculiar combination of structures for their own intended purposes. Conclusion It is impossible in such a brief treatment as this to deal with all the charges, questions, criticisms and innuendoes that have been published by anti-creationists. As mentioned earlier, over thirty books have recently been published with anti-creationist themes (not to mention many more with straightforward evolutionist themes), as well as articles of this type in almost every journal and paper in the country. It would take one's full time just to read them all, let alone try to answer them. Nevertheless, there is much duplication and repetition in all of these, and it is feasible to collect the more commonly encountered questions and criticisms and try to answer them all at once. That has been the purpose of this little book. The answers necessarily have been kept brief, rather than comprehensive, but it is hoped that judicious readers will be able through them to sense the fallacies and irrelevancies of all these main anti-creationist charges. In studying these various attacks on creationism, one can only wonder at the reluctance of evolutionists to allow the scientific evidence to speak for itself. Instead of emotional polemics against creationists and their religious beliefs, why not simply present and document the scientific data that are supposed to prove evolution? If the data and arguments for evolution are really valid, there is no need to be so traumatically fearful about the data and arguments of the creationists. On the other hand, if there is even a possibility that creation could be true, aren't scientists supposed to be interested in truth? There are the only two possible ultimate world views or creationism it should be to the greater benefit of everyone to be able to study and evaluate for themselves, objectively and dispassionately, all the scientific evidences and arguments for both.

Humans in particular seek a "reason to exist" and for the most part find it difficult to accept that we are simply here to consume the earth's resources and die.  However, God in the beginning created the heavens, the earth, and all living creatures—especially mankind—with special purposes in mind, which He explained in His Word. Here is the essence of the naturalistic-evolutionary "story." There is no God (or "god" is in the forces of nature, or in man himself).  Nothing "supernatural" exists (except perhaps some "extra-terrestrial" race of super-intellects that have evolved in other parts of the universe.  Since no evidence for the Bible's "God" exists, we can be certain that there is no such thing as a "plan for your life."  And since there is so, there is no future, no "afterlife."  Speculative Hollywood movies notwithstanding, and the many reported "out of the body experiences" to the contrary, no rational naturalist believes in any form of "eternal life."  When you're dead, you're dead! Such hopeless beliefs drive many into lives of debauchery and hedonism, and fill the couches of psychologists and psychiatrists all over the world.  Teenage suicide is alarmingly high, and the therapitst themselves continue to manifest one of the highest suicide rates in civilized countries.  Scandals abound among the leaders of world business, politics, and churches. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:19). There is no "good news" in the evolutionary theory. There is, however, glorious wonder and life-changing power in the "everlasting gospel" (Revelation 14:6). • power to transform (Romans 12:2) • power to enrich (2 Corinthians 9:11) • power to bring satisfying peace to all situations (Hebrews 13:20-21) • power to change the mortal body into the immortal and everlasting being that will live eternally with the Creator (1 Corinthians 15:53-54). Conventional wisdom tells us to "grab all the gusto you can; you only go around once in life!" We are told to "just be yourself" and that we should "let the good times roll." These and hundreds more clichés sprinkled throughout our culture misdirect our thinking and undermine real satisfaction, purpose, and meaning in life. God designed humanity to enjoy the happiness of stability, the happiness of productivity, and the happiness of success (see Psalm 1).  Jesus said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).

The scientific method requires that the scientist test a theory based on observed or predicted facts. The scientist must formulate a theory or a hypothesis based on what has been observed, then design a test by which the theory may be verified as valid or not. If the theory produces observed events that correspond with the theory postulated in advance, then the scientist has a serious beginning point from which to claim further science (knowledge) about the specific test. Over the last several hundred years, a number of theories have been repeated so often that they are now considered scientific laws. Scientists are confident that these laws correctly model the absolute truth of reality. Should someone claim they have had a subjective experience that contradicts one of these laws, the burden of proof is on that person to prove that they can repeatedly demonstrate that the law is false. The standard of measure remains absolute truth about reality, verified through repeated observation.

The scientific method is limited by that which can be tested, reproduced, and falsified. That which lies outside of these parameters is not science but is in the realm of faith, the un-testable assumptions based on the presumption of naturalism or the revelation of creation. Science can test an assumption by evaluating the accuracy of the predictions of the different models. That model (theory, belief, revelation) that best predicts that which is observable is the more creditable model of reality. However, since new observations cannot be made, verification is limited. The assumptions the scientist brings to the study of origins can obscure the evidence. Historical science does not benefit from the repeatable observations that have served as the cauldron of truth for scientific knowledge.

Meteorology is the study of atmospheric phenomena, including weather processes and climate trends. Through experiments, scientists gain a more complete understanding of what makes weather work. Through modeling, meteorologists can project the workings of weather to predict such things as storm tracks and intensities. The same modeling technology is also used to extrapolate the workings of weather into the past. These standard models have been used, for example, to calculate the intensity of huge storms that piled massive amounts of frozen precipitation onto continents, which initiated the post-Flood Ice Age. Evidence for Global WarmingIntroduction More...Global Warming? Trees to the Rescue! A recent collaboration of scientists found that forests "have become dramatically more efficient in how they use water," and the key to that efficiency was an uptick in atmospheric carbon dioxide. More...Leaked Emails May Show Global Warming Research Is a FraudOver a thousand sensitive emails and documents from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were published online in late November without CRU’s permission. Some of their content suggests that the data used to support the theory of human -caused global warming have not been accurately represented. More...Global Warming Halts, Arctic Ice Multiplies How could polar ice increase if man-made pollutants—which have not appreciably diminished of late—continue to heat the earth, melt glaciers, and kill polar bears? Something is missing from the models scientists are using to make contradictory climate predictions. More...Oil Companies, Global Warming, and Hurricanes: How Does Real Science Analyze Cause and Effect? The prophet Jeremiah once vigorously argued with Jewish men and women who insisted that their troubles were caused by a failure to worship the queen of heaven. People today might sneer at such irrational idolatry, but is modern society immune from illogical and superstitious thinking? Perhaps we can learn a lesson in logic by comparing Jeremiah's situation to a bizarre lawsuit over damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. More...Rainforest Fossils Demonstrate Dramatic Climate Change Researchers are recovering beautiful fossils from the Cerrejón Formation of Colombia. Most recently, a study examined the formation’s fossilized flora and the rainforest environment in which they lived. There is evidence of dramatic ocean surface temperature changes, as well as global and local climate changes, since the formation was deposited. More...

Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?A recent comprehensive analysis compared the human Y chromosome with the chimpanzee Y chromosome, and the researchers found that they were “remarkably divergent.” Most of their findings do not fit well with the often-repeated erroneous statement that humans and chimps are 98 percent similar, nor with the more general hypothesis that they share a common ancestor. More...Chimp DNA Mutation Study—Selective Yet Surprising A popular evolutionary belief is that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor 2 to 6 million years ago. Apparently, evolutionists still aren't too sure of their own theory: now they've more than doubled that timeline. More...Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences Since the original 2005 chimpanzee genome report, researchers obtained and made available for public use additional chimpanzee DNA sequences, courtesy of federal tax dollars.1 However, this new chimpanzee DNA sequence is somewhat flawed—it is not represented on its own merit because researchers assembled the chimp genome’s sequence fragments based on the human genome framework.2, 3 More...Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research DataA recent presentation at the 2011 Creation Biology Society (CBS) meetings has stirred the pot once again on the human-chimp DNA similarity issue among creationists, intelligent design proponents, and some evolutionists.1 It was reported that a query of 40,000 chimp genomic DNA sequences against the most recent assembly of the human genome provided an average similarity estimate of 97 to 98 percent. More...First Phase Complete in Human and Chimp Genome-Wide DNA Comparison The ICR life sciences team has been conducting a large-scale comparison project of human versus chimp DNA sequence, the first phase of which has now been completed. The research involved the use of 40,000 purportedly random chimpanzee DNA sequences obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology that were produced as part of the chimpanzee genome project. More...Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution Results from a recent study in human and chimpanzee genetics have shipwrecked yet another Darwinian hypothesis. More...Human lincRNA Regions Vastly Different from Chimpanzee It was once thought that the areas between protein-coding genes located around the genome were vast purposeless wastelands of alleged “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are literally teeming with functional activity that is key to life. More...Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Is the Evolutionary Dogma Valid? One of the major missions in ICR’s current research emphasis is to scientifically challenge the evolutionary tree of life as a valid biological paradigm.1 A common manifestation of this evolutionary dogma is the claim that humans are 95 to 99 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. More...Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Refuting the Appeal to Human Genetic TestingA current research emphasis of the ICR life sciences team is the “tree of life,” a standard icon of the evolutionary paradigm.1 Evolutionists commonly try to buttress their claim of a universal tree of life by pointing to the genetic similarity between chimpanzees and humans. Evolutionists make several major claims in this regard: More...Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.1 The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry. More...New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity. More...New Human-Chimp Chromosome 2 Data Challenge Common Ancestry Claims One of the leading arguments used to support the concept that apes—particularly chimpanzees—and humans descended from a common ancestor is the “chromosome 2 fusion model.” This scenario involves the claim that the end-to-end fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (now called 2A and 2B in chimpanzees) formed one stable large chromosome in humans (chromosome 2). More...

The language of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are technically precise and linguistically clear. Any reader would understand that the author of those pages intended to convey a normal six-day creation, involving God’s supernatural intervention both to create (something from nothing) and to make and shape (something basic into something more complex). Three days (Day 1, Day 5, and Day 6) involve creation. Three days (Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4) involve the organization, integration, and structuring of the material created on Day 1. Life was created on Day 5, a life in which all animals and man share. A special image of God was created on Day 6 that only man has. The movement from “simple to complex” may appear to follow evolution’s theory, but the specific order (water > land > plants > stellar and planetary bodies > birds and fish > land animals > man) most emphatically does not. The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day. The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle. When God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger (certainly the most emphatic action ever taken by God on behalf of His revealed Word), God specifically designated a seventh day to be a “Sabbath” day (rest day) in memory and in honor of the work-six-days, rest-one-day activity of God during the creation week (Exodus 20:11). In that context, spoken and written by God Himself, the creation week can mean only a regular week of seven days, one of which is set aside as holy.

Obedience to the Dominion Mandate also requires the concordant development of physical and biological technologies (engineering, agriculture, medicine, etc.). These activities under the stewardship of the Dominion Mandate imply the complementary enterprises known by the modern terms of science and technology, research and development, theory and practice, etc. Technology, development, and practice suggest the application and utilization of the physical and biological processes and systems, as learned from their scientific study, for the benefit of mankind and the glory of God. There have also arisen the social sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.) and their respective technologies for implementation in organized human societies (economics, government, politics, etc.), so that these fields now also come within the bounds of the Dominion Mandate and thus are proper disciplines. As with scientific research, factual and quantitative data in all areas of study is most accurate and useful in technological development. The interpretive and philosophical applications, however, are either tainted or enhanced by one’s spiritual condition.

For DNA and proteins to function properly, a barrier must surround these molecules to prevent unwanted reactions with the chemicals in the environment. As expected, DNA has the information to maintain this barrier, the cell membrane, and proteins provide the catalyst for carrying out the reactions necessary for building and maintaining this barrier. Information in DNA also constructs the cell membrane so that it selects substances useful to the cell and protects against those that will cause harm. These three factors, DNA information, protein catalysts (enzymes), and a protective environment, are all required simultaneously for life to exist as cells. Cells also represent the very existence of physical life, an observation that led to the Cell Theory: • All living things are made of cells. • All cells come from similar pre-existing cells. • Cells perform the functions of all living things. From this simple observation, it is clear that life comes from similar pre-existing life and not from non-living material or unrelated life forms, a theory termed Biogenesis. Scripture tells us that ultimately all life originated from Christ (John 1).

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is ImpossibleThere were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."1 Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . More...Cell Origin Research Is in Hot WaterResearchers have tried for decades to replicate the conditions and compounds they think were necessary for the first living cell to evolve. Their experimental failures have collectively sent the clear message that such an event is extremely unlikely or even impossible. Still, many scientists continue to search for an origin of life by strictly natural means—most recently in undersea hydrothermal vents. More...Image credit: Paul HarrisonConference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a StandstillWhere did the first living cell come from? Since Charles Darwin's time, his naturalistic followers have been diligently seeking the answer. During a recent conference at Arizona State University, a collection of scientists discussed this very question. By the end of the discussion, the answer was clear—they don't know. More...Could a Virus Jump-Start the First Cell? Evolutionists have had a hard time imagining how mitochondria evolved. One theory is that these cellular powerhouses originated when bacteria invaded a primitive cell. A recent study deciphered the structure of a key mitochondrial enzyme, some features of which were described as providing "new insights" into this theory. The insights it actually provided, though, make an evolutionary origin even less likely. More...First Cell's Survival Odds Not in Evolution's FavorHow did life begin? For those who reject the testimony of Genesis, the search is restricted to clues in nature. One such clue is the minimum essentials required for growth and reproduction. If that number is small enough, then life might conceivably have formed by chance. More...Origin of Cells Study Uses Bad ScienceAnimal and plant cell DNA is so complicated that all the cellular machines that process, regulate, and manipulate it are constantly in need of cellular fuel. In fact, each animal and plant cell uses so much fuel that specialized fuel-production facilities called mitochondria are required. A new evolutionary study attempted to provide evidence supporting a bacterial origin for mitochondria, but all it really did was beg the question. More...Origin of Life 'Gateway' Remains HiddenUK researchers believe they may have “broken new ground” in the ongoing quest to find out how living cells first evolved. The New York Times proclaimed, “An English chemist has found the hidden gateway” to the origin of life. But despite this claim, what the scientists really demonstrated was that the molecules of life can only come from living cells. More...Origin of Life Research Still DeadScientists are hoping to revive a 50-year-old failed experiment that tried to discover how biological life could have originated from non-living chemical processes. Dr. Jeffrey Bada and Adam Johnson reanalyzed the sludge in the bottom of some of the late Stanley Miller’s vials. What they found were 10 newly-identified amino acids. Does that mean that science is closer to proving abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-life? More...Origin of Life Studies Cancel Each OtherIn 2009, biologist Ken Miller wrote in New Scientist that "the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself." The problem is not only still unsolved from an evolutionary standpoint, it shows all the signs of being unsolvable by strictly natural means. Two new studies purport to have made some progress in resolving this dilemma. Ironically, however, they cancel each other out. More...

Science and the Bible agree. ICR zoologist and Research Associate Frank Sherwin tells us how in this 5-part podcast series on the scientific evidence for creation. From submicroscopic machines to the mighty oceans, Frank explores the marvels of design, buried clues from the past, and the myth of human evolution. 1) Marvelous Molecular Machines We’ve seen in museums, textbooks, magazines, and in our biology classes that all life is made up of cells. Inside these cells are tiny, submicroscopic, molecular machines that function to sustain life. How do these biological machines work? And what does the Bible have to say about the intricate design we see in nature? 2) The Flood of Fossils Fossils are featured in national parks, textbooks, and museums around the world. Were they formed over millions of years of evolution? Or are they a record of God’s judgment through a global Flood? 3) The Mighty Oceans It’s hard to ignore the oceans when they cover a vast majority of the planet. But did you know that evolution theory does not explain the origin of the oceans or the trillions of creatures that live in them? 4) The Myth of Human Evolution Have you ever wondered if your appendix, wisdom teeth, and tonsils were useless structures due to human evolution over millions of years? Find out whether the fossil record supports human evolution or the special creation of man in the beginning. 5) God's Marvelous Insects Did you know that the moth smells with its antennae? Whether we look at moths, ants, bombardier beetles, dragon fly eyes, or even the brains of bees, the wonders of God’s design in the insect world are “clearly seen.”              For more radio programs, click here.

And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

New Defender's Study Bible Notes

Introduction to Genesis In a very real sense, the book of Genesis is the most important book in the world, for it is the foundation upon which all the other sixty-five books of God’s written Word have been based. When Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, gave a key Bible study to His disciples on the way to Emmaus, He began with Genesis! “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). We would do well to follow His example. If we want to understand the New Testament, we first need to understand Genesis; the New Testament contains at least two hundred direct quotations or clear allusions to events described in Genesis–more than from any other book in the Old Testament. All the great doctrines of Christianity–sin, atonement, grace, redemption, faith, justification, salvation, and many others–are first encountered in Genesis. The greatest doctrine of all–the special creation of all things by the eternal, self-existent God–is revealed in the very first chapter of Genesis, the foundation of all foundations. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the greatest attacks on the Bible have been directed against the integrity and authority of Genesis. Since the only alternative to creation is evolution, these attacks are all ultimately based on evolutionism, the assumption that this complex universe can somehow be explained apart from the infinite creative power of God. The creation account in Genesis is supported by numerous other references throughout the Bible, and this is true for all the later events recorded in Genesis as well. To some degree, archaeological discoveries, as well as other ancient writings and traditions, also support these events, but the only infallibly correct record of creation and primeval history is the book of Genesis. Its importance cannot be over-estimated. Authorship Until about 200 years ago, practically all authorities accepted the fact that Moses wrote Genesis and all the rest of the Pentateuch as well. The first writer to question this seems to have been a French infidel physician, Jean Astruc, about the time of the French revolution. Astruc argued that two writers wrote the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, on the basis of the different names for God used in the two chapters. Later writers during the 19th century, notably the German higher critic Julius Wellhausen, developed this idea into the elaborate documentary hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch. According to this notion, the Pentateuch was written much later than the time of Moses, by at least four different writers or groups of writers, commonly identified now by J, E, D and P (standing for the Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly documents, respectively). Although some form of this theory is still being taught in most liberal seminaries and college departments of religion, it has been thoroughly discredited by conservative scholars. This is discussed further in the Introductions to Exodus and other books of the Pentateuch. In any case, there is no valid reason to question the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, except for Genesis itself. For Genesis, however, there is real substance to the documentary idea, though certainly not in the Astruc/Wellhausen form. In fact, it seems very likely that Moses was the compiler and editor of a number of earlier documents, written by Adam and other ancient patriarchs, rather than being the actual writer himself. After all, the events of Genesis took place long before Moses was born, whereas he was a direct participant in the events recorded in the other four books of the Pentateuch. It is reasonable that Adam and his descendants all knew how to write and, therefore, kept records of their own times (note the mention of “the book of the generations of Adam” in Genesis 5:1). These records (probably kept on stone or clay tablets) were possibly handed down from father to son in the line of the God-fearing patriarchs until they finally were acquired by Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. During the wilderness wanderings, Moses compiled them into the book of Genesis, adding his own explanatory editorial comments where needed. Genesis is still properly considered as one of the books of Moses, since its present form is due to him, but it really records the eye-witness records of these primeval histories, as written originally by Adam, Noah, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and other ancient patriarchs. The respective divisions of Genesis can be recognized by the recurring phrase: “These are the generations of...” The archaeologist P. J. Wiseman has shown that these statements probably represent the “signatures,” so to speak, of the respective writers as they concluded their accounts of the events during their lifetimes. The Hebrew word for “generations” (toledoth) was translated in the Septuagint Greek by the Greek word genesis (used in the New Testament only in Matthew 1:1, there translated “generation”). Thus these divisional notations have indirectly provided the very name for the book of Genesis, which means “beginnings.” It is interesting to note, as an indirect confirmation of this concept of Genesis authorship, that while Genesis is cited at least 200 times in the New Testament, Moses himself is never noted as the author of any of these citations. On the other hand, he is listed at least 40 times in reference to citations from the other four books of the Pentateuch. There are also frequent references to Moses in the later books of the Old Testament, but never in relation to the book of Genesis. In sum, we can be absolutely confident that the events described in Genesis are not merely ancient legends or religious allegories, but the actual eyewitness accounts of the places, events and people of those early days of earth history, written by men who were there, then transmitted down to Moses, who finally compiled and edited them into a permanent record of those ancient times.

1:1 created. No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. All begin with the space/time/matter universe, already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have “evolved” into its present form. Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a “big bang” and then developing through natural forces into complex systems. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personified as different gods and goddesses. But, very significantly, the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1. Appropriately, therefore, this verse records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the Tri-universe, the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. The Creator of this tri-universe is the triune God, Elohim, the uni-plural Old Testament name for the divine “Godhead,” a name which is plural in form (with its Hebrew “im” ending) but commonly singular in meaning. The existence of a transcendent Creator and the necessity of a primeval special creation of the universe is confirmed by the most basic principles of nature discovered by scientists: (1) The law of causality, that no effect can be greater than its cause, is basic in all scientific investigation and human experience. A universe comprising an array of intelligible and complex effects, including living systems and conscious personalities, is itself proof of an intelligent, complex, living, conscious Person as its Cause; (2) The laws of thermodynamics are the most universal and best-proved generalizations of science, applicable to every process and system of any kind, the First Law stating that no matter/energy is now being created or destroyed, and the Second Law stating that all existing matter/energy is proceeding irreversibly toward ultimate equilibrium and cessation of all processes. Since this eventual death of the universe has not yet occurred and since it will occur in time, if these processes continue, the Second Law proves that time (and, therefore, the space/matter/time universe) had a beginning. The universe must have been created, but the First Law precludes the possibility of its self-creation. The only resolution of the dilemma posed by the First and Second Laws is that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The so-called big bang theory of the origin of the cosmos, postulating a primeval explosion of the space/mass/time continuum at the start, beginning with a state of nothingness and then rapidly expanding into the present complex universe, contradicts both these basic laws as well as Scripture.

1:5 Day. The use of “day” (Hebrew yom) in Genesis 1:5 is its first occurrence in Scripture, and here it is specifically defined by God as “the light” in the cyclical succession of light and darkness which has, ever since, constituted a solar day. Since the same word is used in defining all later “yoms” as used for this “first” yom, it is incontrovertible that God intends us to know that the days of creation week were of the same duration as any natural solar day. The word yom in the Old Testament almost always is used in this natural way, and is never used to mean any other definite time period than a literal day. This becomes especially clear when it is combined with an ordinal (e.g., “first day”) or with definite bounds (e.g., “evening and morning”), neither of which usages in the Old Testament allow non-literal meanings. It is occasionally, though rarely, used symbolically or in the sense of indefinite time (e.g., “the day of the Lord”), but such usage (as in English or other languages) is always evident from the context itself. Thus the so-called day-age theory, by which the days of creation are assumed to correspond to the ages of geology, is precluded by this definitive use of the word in its first occurrence, God Himself defining it!

1:11 bring forth grass. The ability of the earth to begin immediately producing abundant plant life everywhere, on the very same day as the forming of the land surfaces, shows that the upper portion of the crust was a rich soil, fertile in chemical nutrients and retaining adequate moisture to sustain the lush vegetation. This fact illustrates an important principle. True creation necessarily involves the theory of a “creation of apparent age,” or better, “creation of functioning maturity.” That is, the soil did not gradually form over hundreds of years by rock weathering and other modern uniformitarian processes. It was readied instantaneously by divine fiat. The plants did not develop from seeds; rather the herb was formed “yielding seed.” Similarly, the fruit trees were “yielding fruit,” not requiring several years of preliminary growth as do modern fruit trees.

1:17 light upon the earth. The establishment of the sun and moon in their light-giving functions for the earth half-way through creation week is obviously inconsistent with the day-age theory. This is compounded by the fact that plant life on the earth was made one day before the sun, a situation which would be absurdly impossible if this “day” was an “age.” Furthermore, these “lights” were to be used to measure days and years. This is the plural (yamin) of the Hebrew “day” (yom). They were also to “rule over the day and over the night,” and all this was done on the fourth day. This repeated use of the same word in the passage requires the meaning in each case to be the same. The fourth “day” was thus obviously a solar day like all the rest.

2:4 in the day. As per the ancient Babylonian practice, the next tablet, beginning at 2:4b, keys in to the previous one by a phrase which both associates with the preceding histories and initiates the new narrative. The “day” of this verse does not necessarily refer to the entire creation week, as day-age theory advocates allege. It more likely refers to the first day of that week, when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Genesis 2:4a, then proceeded also to “make” them through the rest of the six days.

3:19 dust thou art. The Curse thus applies to man and woman, to the animals and to the physical elements, God’s whole creation. It is so universal as to have been discovered and recognized empirically as a general scientific law, the law of increasing entropy (“in-turning”). This famous Second Law of Thermodynamics is sometimes also called the law of morpholysis (“loosing of structure”). It expresses the universal tendency for systems to decay and become disordered, for energy to be converted into forms unavailable for further work, for information to become confused, for the new to become worn, for the young to become old, for the living to die, even for whole species to become extinct. One of the most amazing anomalies of human thought is that the concept of evolution, which has never been observed in action scientifically and is exactly the opposite of the universally proved scientific principle of increasing entropy. This theory is nevertheless believed to be the most fundamental principle of nature by almost the entire intellectual establishment!

7:20 mountains. The words “high hills” and “mountains” are the same in the original Hebrew. The waters were 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains, patently including Mount Ararat, which is now 17,000 feet high. In the “local-flood” theory, Mt. Ararat would have had the same elevation before and after the Flood, but it should be obvious that a 17,000-foot flood is not a local flood!

11:8 scattered them abroad. The tower had been completed and was actively in use, but the city was still unfinished. Probably all families except that of Nimrod himself departed from Babel, leaving him and his immediate family the burden of developing his own tribe at Babel as best they could. These probably became the Sumerians. The others scattered into various regions as already described in Genesis 10, some eventually developing great civilizations. This account, originally written by Shem (Genesis 11:10), is reflected in somewhat distorted form in the legends of other nations, including a tablet excavated at Ur. There is no better scientific theory to date for the origin of the various families of languages. All such theories seem to point to an origin in the Middle East.

11:19 two hundred and nine years. There is a sudden drop in longevity here, from 464 years for Eber to 239 years for Peleg. This is the most likely spot, therefore, for a genealogical gap in the record. However, this sharp decline may also be explained by the traumatic changes in living conditions caused by the confusion of tongues and the resultant migrations and struggles. The close inbreeding since the Flood, aggravated further by the Dispersion, would also contribute to an increased mutational load carried by the population, and this would tend to further reduce the life-span. In any case, even if genealogical gaps do exist (in either Genesis 5 or Genesis 11, for that matter) they could only involve a few generations at most; in no case could they be stretched sufficiently to accommodate the evolutionist’s imagined million-year history of man.

About the New Defender's Study Bible