Search Tools


Host an ICR Demand the Evidence Conference at Your Church Bring creation truth to your area with an ICR conference. Speakers include Henry Morris III, John Morris, Randy Guliuzza, Nathaniel Jeanson, Frank Sherwin, and other ICR science experts. Choose our most popular Sunday format. ICR will provide teachers for combined children, youth, and adult Sunday school classes, along with Sunday morning and evening speakers and optional afternoon Q&A sessions. Discover the answers to these and other questions: Can Genesis be trusted when it says God created the world in six days? What does belief in evolution say about the character of God? Is the earth really millions or billions of years old? Who has the last word on interpreting what God said and did—scientists or Scripture? Are Christians prepared to combat false doctrine and those who would compromise the Word of God? For more information on scheduling a DTE conference or other ICR event, visit www.icr.org/events, email events@icr.org, or call 800.337.0375. Sample Sunday Conference Schedule 8:30 a.m.   Resource tables open   9:00 a.m.   FIRST HOUR - Worship Service Dr. Henry Morris III The Controversy Over Creation: Why does Creation create such strong reactions?   Dr. Henry Morris III holds four earned degrees, including a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary and the Presidents and Key Executives MBA from Pepperdine University. A former college professor, administrator, business executive, and senior pastor, Dr. Morris is an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies, and national conferences. The eldest son of ICR's founder, Dr. Morris has served for many years in conference and writing ministry. His love for the Word of God and passion for Christian maturity, coupled with God's gift of teaching, has given Dr. Morris a broad and effective ministry over the years. He has authored numerous articles and books, including The Big Three: Major Events that Changed History Forever, Exploring the Evidence for Creation, and 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation.     9:00 a.m.   Combined Adult Sunday School Dr. Randy Guliuzza The Importance of the Doctrine of Creation   Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image.     9:00 a.m. FOR THE KIDS - Combined Elementary Sunday School Dr. John Morris Dinosaurs!   Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark, served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools, and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on the scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author of such books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy, and the newly released The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life.         9:00 a.m.   YOUTH EMPHASIS - Jr. High/Sr. High Sunday School Mr. Lalo Gunther The Genesis Worldview   Before becoming a Christian in 1995, Lalo Gunther was a member of a gang in southern California. He was saved after a police officer witnessed to him about Christ, and he left his former lifestyle behind. He graduated from San Diego Christian College (formerly Christian Heritage College, co-founded by ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris) and went to work in ICR's distribution warehouse in 2000, eventually managing ICR's warehouse operations. Mr. Gunther is a former youth pastor and has a passion for conveying the truth of the gospel to young people. He currently serves as ICR's Special Events Coordinator and represents ICR at numerous conferences and seminars around the country each year.     10:30 a.m. SECOND HOUR - Worship Service Dr. Henry Morris III The Controversy Over Creation: Why does Creation create such strong reactions?   Dr. Henry Morris III holds four earned degrees, including a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary and the Presidents and Key Executives MBA from Pepperdine University. A former college professor, administrator, business executive, and senior pastor, Dr. Morris is an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies, and national conferences. The eldest son of ICR's founder, Dr. Morris has served for many years in conference and writing ministry. His love for the Word of God and passion for Christian maturity, coupled with God's gift of teaching, has given Dr. Morris a broad and effective ministry over the years. He has authored numerous articles and books, including The Big Three: Major Events that Changed History Forever, Exploring the Evidence for Creation, and 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation.       10:30 a.m. Combined Adult Sunday School Dr. Randy Guliuzza The Importance of the Doctrine of Creation   Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image.     10:30 a.m.   College (20-somethings) Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson The Bible and Biological Change   After receiving his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School in 2009, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson joined ICR as a Research Associate. While at Harvard, he assisted in adult stem cell research, specifically on the role of Vitamin D in regulating blood stem cells. Dr. Jeanson has a B.S. in Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, where his research efforts involved working with single-celled algae to decipher molecular mechanisms of plant function. Additionally, he has submitted testimony to the Massachusetts governing bodies in opposition to human embryonic stem cell research and has been a panelist at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life convention. Currently, Dr. Jeanson’s research at ICR involves the investigation of molecular mechanisms of biological change from a young-earth perspective. He also serves as a member of the Master Faculty of ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics. He regularly contributes research articles to ICR's monthly magazine Acts & Facts.     12:00 p.m. Lunch, Resource Tables, Book Signings     1:00 p.m. FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY Dr. Randy Guliuzza Made in His Image   Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image.     2:00 p.m. Creation Science Q&A Panel Discussion   Pick up a 3x5 card at the ICR Resource Table during the morning services and write down your question. Turn these cards in BEFORE LUNCH. The Panel will cover as many questions as time permits.   6:00 p.m. EVENING SERVICE Dr. John Morris The Fossil Record   Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark, served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools, and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on the scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author of such books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy, and the newly released The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life.          

Who We Are After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation. Founded by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, ICR exists to conduct scientific research within the realms of origins and Earth history, and then to educate the public both formally and informally through graduate and professional training programs, through conferences and seminars around the country, and through books, magazines, and media presentations. ICR was established for three main purposes: Research. As a research organization, ICR conducts laboratory, field, theoretical, and library research on projects that seek to understand the science of origins and Earth history. ICR scientists have conducted multi-year research projects at key locations such as Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Yosemite Valley, and Santa Cruz River Valley in Argentina, and on vital issues like Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), Flood-activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), and other topics related to geology, genetics, astro/geophysics, paleoclimatology, and much more. Education. As an educational institution, ICR offers formal courses of instruction, conducts seminars and workshops, and presents lectures, as well as other means of instruction. With 30 years experience in graduate education, first through our California-based science education program (1981-2010), and now through the degree programs at the School of Biblical Apologetics, ICR trains men and women to do real-world apologetics with a foundation of biblical authority and creation science. ICR also offers a one-year, non-degree training program for professionals called the Creationist Worldview. Additionally, ICR scientists and staff speak to numerous groups each year through seminars and conferences. Communication. ICR produces and/or publishes books, films, periodicals, and other media for communicating the evidence and information related to its research and education to its constituents and to the public in general. ICR’s central publication is Acts & Facts, a full-color monthly magazine with a readership of over 200,000, providing articles relevant to science, apologetics, education, and worldview issues. ICR also publishes the daily devotional Days of Praise with over 300,000 readers worldwide. Additionally, the scientists and staff at ICR publish various books and videos on medicine, history, apologetics, theology, and science. The three radio programs produced by ICR can be heard on outlets around the world. Today, situated on its Dallas campus, the Institute for Creation Research continues to expand its work and influence in each of these three areas of ministry, endeavoring to impact the lives and ministries of pastors, teachers, students, and families with the wonders of God’s creation.

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

The Bible Is a Textbook of Science by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.* "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12). The Christian polemicist frequently is confronted with the problem of the scientific "errors" in Scripture, especially in its first eleven chapters. Often he is tempted to resort to the solution of neo-orthodoxy and to protest that "the Bible is, after all, not a textbook of science, but rather of religion." "It is meant to tell us the fact of creation, not the method of creation; it tells us who is Creator, not when or how He created. It points us to a confrontation with the Creator, not an understanding of earth history." It is obvious, of course, that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events. This type of apologetic device is both logically unsatisfactory and evangelistically unfruitful. How can an inquirer be led to saving faith in the divine Word if the context in which that Word is found is filled with error? How can he trust the Bible to speak truly when it tells of salvation and heaven and eternity which he is completely unable to verify empirically he finds that data which are subject to test are fallacious? Surely if God is really omnipotent and omniscient, He is as well able to speak with full truth and perspicuity when He speaks of earthly things as when He speaks of heavenly things. IMPORTANCE OF BASIC PRESUPPOSITIONS It is salutary for anyone dealing with questions of this sort to recognize the essential nature of faith and presuppositions in his reasonings. "Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith. This faith may be in the doctrine of uniformity, which assumes that the present processes may be extrapolated indefinitely into the past or future and that therefore "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:4). If one, because of his basic presupposition, wishes to believe in uniformity in this way, it is logically possible for him to do so and to explain all the pertinent data in this context. He can determine the ages of rocks and suns by projecting present rates of change into the limitless past; he can develop theories about the evolution of species and life and galaxies and chemical elements and everything in the universe, if he wishes, and no one can prove him wrong, for the simple reason that these events are not reproducible and therefore not subject to scientific checking. The most that can be done is to argue that his theories are either probable or improbable on the premise of his own uniformitarian presupposition, depending upon the logical consistency of the superstructure he has erected upon this foundation. But this is all within the context of his pure assumption faith uniformity. One can equally logically start with some other assumption and then develop his explanations of the data within that framework. For example, one may assume, if he wishes, that all things in the universe were created by divine fiat five minutes ago. He could say that our apparent memories of earlier events were also created five minutes ago, and once again, no one could prove him wrong. He had logically explained all the data that exist, given his initial premise. As a matter of fact, one could assume, if he wishes, that all existence is illusory, a disease of mortal mind. The important point, here, is that one may pretty well believe what he wants to believe. He can erect a logical system within which he can explain all the physical data upon any one of any number of mutually exclusive and contradictory premises. But we are concerned here mainly with the Biblical framework, and with the assumption that the Bible is truly the Word of God as it claims to be. If one starts with the presupposition that God has written the Bible as His own perfect revelation of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the world, then it again is perfectly possible to correlate all the physical data of science and history within that framework. The decision as to which presupposition leads to the most logical and self-consistent system of interpretation must necessarily be based on statistical arguments, and these are notoriously subjective in nature. Thus, in the last analysis, it is a spiritual and moral decision rather than a scientific decision. One can interpret everything in terms of Biblical creationism and catastrophism or in terms of evolutionary uniformitarianism, and all the pertinent data can be understood, at least in broad outline, within the framework of either system. Our concern here is simply to show that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to do so. Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28). THE BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK Those who, by faith, accept the Biblical cosmogony, do so for a perfectly good reason. It is obviously impossible to prove that God does not exist. There is, at the very least, a good possibility that He does exist. If so, it follows that all things are His creatures. The very minds with which we attempt to develop logical thought-structures are created by Him and must operate within the limitations which He has set upon them. It is therefore necessary, if we would understand anything of the true origin, purpose, and destiny of the world and of ourselves, for us to look to God for His own revelation of these things. God can only be known as He wills to be known. The Bible claims, in numerous ways, to be God's unique revelation. It was accepted as such by Jesus Christ, who also claimed to be God incarnate, and who vindicated His claim by His uniquely perfect life, His atoning death, and especially by His glorious bodily resurrection from death. The Bible, with this perfect claim to absolute divine authority does very clearly establish a framework of interpretation within which men are expected to formulate their understanding of the data of science. It is most reasonable and most gracious of God so to do, since it is quite impossible for man, with his study of present processes, to know anything for certain about the prehistoric past or the eschatological future. Only God can know these things, and we are able to know the truth about these matters only through faith in God's statements concerning them. Therefore, the Bible-believing Christian goes to the Bible for his basic orientation in all departments of truth. The Bible is his textbook of science as well as his guide to spiritual truth. In its very structure, in fact, the Scriptures provide fundamental perspective on the entire Bible-science question. The word Bible means simply book, and it is significant that the first mention of book in the Old Testament speaks of the "origins of Adam" (Genesis 5:1), and the first mention of book in the New Testament speaks of the "origin of Jesus Christ" (Matthew 1:1) . The true book, therefore, by implication, is concerned essentially with the first Adam and the second Adam, and the relation between the two. It is also meaningful that the final mention of book in the Bible is in Revelation 22:19, speaking of the "book of this prophecy" and the "book of life," with a grave warning against tampering with the words of the Book. The word science is essentially synonymous with knowledge, and is so used in Scripture. The first mention of knowledge in the Bible, in Genesis 2:9, is in connection with the "tree of knowledge." One might paraphrase by saying that God warned man against partaking of the "tree of science." There were to be prescribed limits within which man was to exercise dominion over the world; for his own good, he was not intended to venture outside these bounds and know in an experimental fashion the "science of good and evil." By contrast, the first use of knowledge in the New Testament, in Luke 1:77, speaks of the "knowledge (Greek, gnosis) of salvation," and the final mention speaks of the "knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18). It is instructive also to compare the words knowledge and wisdom. The former has to do primarily with awareness of facts, whereas the latter has to do with interpretation and correlation and explanation of facts. They are in general parallel to what we mean by our technical words science and philosophy. This also corresponds with their usage in Scripture. In the New Testament knowledge is normally the translation of the Greek gnosis or epignosis. In one passage (I Timothy 6:20) it is actually translated, in the KJV, by science, referring to the opposition of "science falsely so-called." Wisdom, in the New Testament, is translated from the Greek sophia, which, when compounded with the Greek for "love of," and transliterated into English, becomes "philosophy," the "love of wisdom." It is significant that the only time the actual word philosophy is used in the Bible is in Colossians 2:8, which warns: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." True knowledge and true wisdom, which, is to say, science and true philosophy, must come from God alone, and therefore must conform to His framework of revealed Truth. The wise man said: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," and he also said: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). The Apostle Paul, in a tremendous doxology, shouted: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen" (Romans 11:33-36). And he also emphasized that in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). Not only religious knowledge, but all knowledge; all the treasures of science and true philosophy are hid in Jesus Christ, who is the Creator and Sustainer of the physical universe! It is not only legitimate then, but absolutely mandatory, for the Christian to depend implicitly on the scientific and philosophic framework revealed in Holy Scripture if he is to attain a true understanding of any of the factual data with which science deals, and their implications. It is not surprising at all, then, when we find that the Bible does speak rather explicitly about basic principles in every area of science. THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES We shall consider science under two very broad categories, the physical sciences and the life sciences, the latter including also the so-called social sciences. The physical sciences include such disciplines as chemistry, physics, geology, meteorology, hydrology, and the like. The life sciences include biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology and others. As far as the physical, or inorganic sciences, are concerned, perhaps the most fundamental fact concerning them, long ago revealed in Scripture and only recently acknowledged by modern science, is that the physical world is basically nonphysical in its ultimate essence. The mechanics of the universe can only be comprehended, and then only vaguely, in terms of non-mechanical, mathematical concepts. The Scriptures have made it quite clear that the physical universe was created ex nihilo and is fundamentallyspiritual in essence. For example, Hebrews 11:3 states: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Some might object that the Greek word for worlds really here means ages. It probably can mean both, but in view of the modern recognition of the universe as a space-matter-time continuum, it would clearly be correct to speak of either space or matter or time or all of them as having been created by the word of God. And the basic "stuff" of this continuum is most definitely not "apparent" to the physical senses. The same truth is revealed in Hebrews 1:2-3: "By his (God's) Son he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power . . . " Thus, by power, by the Word, all things were made, and all things are upheld. Jesus Christ, through the continual outflow of His limitless divine energy is thus sustaining all the material stuff of the universe which He had once created. Here is clearly spelled forth the modern scientific truth of the equivalence of matter and energy. Here also is revealed the ultimate source of the mysterious nuclear forces, the binding energy of the atom. One might also refer to Colossians 1:16-17 for the same teaching. As far as the laws or processes of the physical universe are concerned, these all devolve upon two extremely broad and powerful principles, the so-called first and second Laws of thermodynamics. Let it be emphasized that, if there is really such a thing as a law of science, these two principles meet that definition. There is no other scientific law supported more fully and certainly by more numerous and meaningful lines of evidence than are these two laws. All physical processes (and all biologic processes, for that matter) involve the interplay of two basic entities called energy and entropy. One could say that any event occurring in space and time is a manifestation of some form of exchange of energy. The particular event or process basically is just this transformation of one or more forms of energy (kinetic or motion energy, electrical, chemical, light, heat, sound, electromagnetic, nuclear, or other forms of energy) into one or more other forms. In this process, the total energy remains unchanged; no energy is either created or destroyed, although its form may and does change. This is the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. This law has been validated on both the cosmic and sub-nuclear scales and is a truly universal law, if there is such a thing. And, since energy really includes everything, even matter, in the physical universe, it is as certain as anything can possibly be, scientifically, that no creation of anything is now taking place in the universe, under the normal conditions which science is able to study. But in the process, some of the energy is always transformed into non-usable heat energy, and thus becomes unavailable for future energy exchanges. The concept of entropy has been developed to describe this phenomenon, entropy being a measure of the unavailability of the energy of the system or process. The second law of thermodynamics describes this by stating that there is always a tendency for the entropy of any closed system to increase. Or, in more general terms, the second law states that there is always a tendency for any system to become less organized. Its disorder or randomness tends to increase. If isolated from external sources of order or energy or "information," any system will eventually run down and "die." These laws are basic in every scientific system or process. As far as science has been able to show, they are universal in scope, with no exceptions known. They were only discovered and validated by science, however, about a hundred years ago, after much uncertainty and controversy. If men had been willing to develop their scientific systems on the basis of Biblical presuppositions, however, it should have been quite obvious all along that the basic physical processes were those of conservation and decay, as now formalized in the statements of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The Bible does not, of course, state these principles in the mathematical symbols or technical jargon of modern physics but the basic truths are quite clearly enunciated. The conservation principle is strongly emphasized in the summary statement at the end of the period of creation, when the Bible says: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:13; italics added). This statement is as clear as it could possibly be in teaching that God's creative acts were terminated at the end of the six days. Whatever processes He may have used in creating and making, all His work ceased when God rested on the seventh day. Nothing is now being created and this is what was finally formalized by science in the first law of thermodynamics. The most significant implication of this fact, for modern philosophers, is that it is therefore quite impossible to determine anything about certain creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything at all about creation time of creation, the duration of creation, the order of creation, the methods of creation, or anything else his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there, and there is nothing in present physical processes which can tell us about it. Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of creation! Present processes are those of maintenance or providence. Not only is nothing being created but also nothing is being destroyed. He is "upholding all things by the Word of his power." By the same omnipotent Word who created all things, "the heaven and the earth which are now, are kept in store" (II Peter 3:7). But we have already noted another very significant characteristic of all such present processes. It is true that nothing is being destroyed, but it is also strangely true that everything tends to become less useful. This is the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase, which states that the natural tendency is toward increasing disorder and randomization. Energy tends to become less available for useful work, and the process can only be maintained by a continual influx of fresh energy from outside the system itself. Everything tends to grow old, to wear out, or to run down. There is a universal tendency toward decay and death. And who cannot help but sense that this state of affairs, universal and inexorable though it seems to be, is somehow undesirable and abnormal in a universe created by a Holy and Omnipotent Creator? But this is all explained and long anticipated in Scripture, which attributes it to the entrance of sin into the world. At the end of the creation and making of all things, the Bible says that "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31; italics added). There was no disorder, no lack of harmony, no decay and, above all, no death in the world as originally made by God. For the Bible believing scientist, this can only mean that any evidence he finds in the present order of things, or in the records of the past, that indicates disorder and struggle, suffering, decay, and death, must necessarily be understood as entering the world after (not before or during) the six days of creation. Specifically the Bible tells us that this happened as a result of the sin of the first man, Adam, who had been designated by God as master of the earth and everything in it. When he sinned, God pronounced a curse on both Adam and his dominion. "Cursed is the earth for thy sake" (Genesis 3:17). And from that day on, as the Scripture says: "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22). The whole world, both the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is, are "waxing old, as a garment" (Hebrews 1:11). THE AUTHOR Henry M. Morris has been professor of Hydraulic Engineering and chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, since 1957. The Ph.D. degree was awarded him by the University of Minnesota. While holding membership in several scientific societies, Dr. Morris was also engaged in numerous Christian activities and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Appalachian Bible Institute. The above article appeared in the October - December 1964 issue of BIBLIOTHEA SACRA and is electronically and photographically reproduced and reprinted with permission of the author, Dr. Henry Morris. *Dr. Morris was Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

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 »

The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life by John Morris, Ph.D., and Frank Sherwin, M.A. Foreword Dr. John Morris received his Ph.D. in geological engineering from the University of Oklahoma and is President of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, Texas. Frank Sherwin received his graduate training in biology from the University of Northern Colorado, Both have extensive resumes in creation research and ministry. During their many travels throughout the United States and abroad, they have lectured in schools, universities, churches, and other venues, presenting the scientific and biblical evidence for creation. The combination of Morris’ training and experience in geology and Sherwin’s expertise in zoology has resulted in this beautiful and persuasive book on The Fossil Record. There are some evolutionists who, while defending evolution, do admit that the fossil record provides adequate evidence to determine which has the strongest evidence, creation or evolution. Thus, evolutionists Glenister and Witzke state that “the fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and creationist models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.1 Futuyma expressed a similar belief when he said: Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.2 The authors begin by documenting that the worldviews of those involved in this contest are of considerable importance. Thus, Richard Lewontin, evolutionist and Harvard professor, states: Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism. They are irreconcilable world views.3 The authors make it abundantly clear that theirs is the biblical worldview, which holds that God created the earth and all living organisms, as related in the first ten chapters of the book of Genesis. They then describe what should be found in the fossil record if creation is true and contrast that to what should be found if evolution is true. This discussion includes information on important aspects of geology and dating methods. As you read this book, you will find that Morris and Sherwin indeed present powerful scientific evidence from the fossil record that living organisms appeared abruptly on the earth in a fully formed state and remained in stasis until the present day. They exhibit amazing complexity from the start, not simple-to-complex evolution. Their fossils point to rapid burial in catastrophic, watery conditions, and are typically found today in mass fossil graveyards with organisms from mixed habitats, having suffered agonizing deaths. These features are just what should be present if they resulted from creation and a cataclysmic flood such as that recorded in the Bible. The authors then dig into the most interesting part of this book as they lay out the scientific evidence from the fossil record that in many cases is devastating to evolution. One example was so utterly contradictory to evolution that the evolutionist source proclaimed that “this is one count in the creationist’s charge that can only evoke in unison from the [evolutionary] paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere”!4 Thus, they leave the evolutionists in a position of no defense. Morris and Sherwin have thoroughly searched the scientific literature that augments their personal field study of the fossil evidence related to many features from fossils of the smallest organisms to the origin of man. They have assembled a wealth of material that is sufficient to enable all who study the fossil record with an open mind to realize that the record declares that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I urge everyone who has an interest in the fossil record to obtain a copy of this excellent book. Duane Gish, Ph.D. Senior Vice President Emeritus Institute for Creation Research References Glenister, B. F. and B. G. Witzke, 1983, Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It?, D. B. Wilson, ed., Ames, IA: State University Press, 58. Futuyma, D. J., 1983, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 197. Lewontin, R., 1983, In the Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism, L. R. Godfrey, ed., New York: W.W. Norton and Co., xxvi. Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth History – The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 408. This beautiful, full-color book in hardcover is only $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). Order your copy today!   The Fossil Record The claim that fossils document evolution is simply not true. ICR geologist Dr. John Morris and zoologist Frank Sherwin unearth the evidence of earth’s history and conclude that the fossil record is incompatible with evolution, but remarkably consistent with the biblical account of creation and the great Flood of Noah’s day. To order The Fossil Record, click here.  

Cedar Hill, Texas THIS EVENT IS CONCLUDED. Hillcrest Baptist Church Sunday, August 22, 2010 “The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals…have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” —Dr. John MacArthur, from The Battle for the Beginning Discover the answers to these and other questions: Can Genesis be trusted when it says God created the world in six days? What does belief in evolution say about the character of God? Is the earth really millions or billions of years old? Who has the last word on interpreting what God said and did—scientists or Scripture? Are Christians prepared to combat false doctrine and those who would compromise the Word of God? For 40 years, the Institute for Creation Research has led the way in research and education in the field of scientific and biblical creation, bringing the evidence for creation to churches, schools, and in citywide conferences. Speakers like Dr. Henry Morris III, Dr. John Morris, Dr. Randy Guliuzza, and others present solid evidence from science and Scripture. Conference Schedule   8:30 a.m.   Resource tables open   9:00 a.m.   FIRST HOUR - Worship Service Dr. Henry Morris III The Controversy Over Creation: Why does Creation create such strong reactions?   Dr. Henry Morris III holds four earned degrees, including a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary and the Presidents and Key Executives MBA from Pepperdine University. A former college professor, administrator, business executive, and senior pastor, Dr. Morris is an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies, and national conferences. The eldest son of ICR's founder, Dr. Morris has served for many years in conference and writing ministry. His love for the Word of God and passion for Christian maturity, coupled with God's gift of teaching, has given Dr. Morris a broad and effective ministry over the years. He has authored numerous articles and books, including The Big Three: Major Events that Changed History Forever, Exploring the Evidence for Creation, and 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation.     9:00 a.m.   Combined Adult Sunday School Dr. Randy Guliuzza The Importance of the Doctrine of Creation   Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image.     9:00 a.m. FOR THE KIDS - Combined Elementary Sunday School Dr. John Morris Dinosaurs!   Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark, served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools, and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on the scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author of such books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy, and the newly released The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life.         9:00 a.m.   YOUTH EMPHASIS - Jr. High/Sr. High Sunday School Mr. Lalo Gunther The Genesis Worldview   Before becoming a Christian in 1995, Lalo Gunther was a member of a gang in southern California. He was saved after a police officer witnessed to him about Christ, and he left his former lifestyle behind. He graduated from San Diego Christian College (formerly Christian Heritage College, co-founded by ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris) and went to work in ICR's distribution warehouse in 2000, eventually managing ICR's warehouse operations. Mr. Gunther is a former youth pastor and has a passion for conveying the truth of the gospel to young people. He currently serves as ICR's Special Events Coordinator and represents ICR at numerous conferences and seminars around the country each year.     10:30 a.m.   SECOND HOUR - Worship Service Dr. Henry Morris III The Controversy Over Creation: Why does Creation create such strong reactions?   Dr. Henry Morris III holds four earned degrees, including a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary and the Presidents and Key Executives MBA from Pepperdine University. A former college professor, administrator, business executive, and senior pastor, Dr. Morris is an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies, and national conferences. The eldest son of ICR's founder, Dr. Morris has served for many years in conference and writing ministry. His love for the Word of God and passion for Christian maturity, coupled with God's gift of teaching, has given Dr. Morris a broad and effective ministry over the years. He has authored numerous articles and books, including The Big Three: Major Events that Changed History Forever, Exploring the Evidence for Creation, and 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation.       10:30 a.m. Combined Adult Sunday School Dr. Randy Guliuzza The Importance of the Doctrine of Creation   Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image.     10:30 a.m.   tenthirty - College (20-somethings) Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson The Bible and Biological Change   After receiving his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School in 2009, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson joined ICR as a Research Associate. While at Harvard, he assisted in adult stem cell research, specifically on the role of Vitamin D in regulating blood stem cells. Dr. Jeanson has a B.S. in Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, where his research efforts involved working with single-celled algae to decipher molecular mechanisms of plant function. Additionally, he has submitted testimony to the Massachusetts governing bodies in opposition to human embryonic stem cell research and has been a panelist at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life convention. Currently, Dr. Jeanson’s research at ICR involves the investigation of molecular mechanisms of biological change from a young-earth perspective. He also serves as a member of the Master Faculty of ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics. He regularly contributes research articles to ICR's monthly magazine Acts & Facts.         12:00 p.m. Lunch, Resource Tables, Book Signings Box lunches provided by Hillcrest Baptist Church for $5.00 each. Contact the church to reserve a lunch. 1:00 p.m. FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY Dr. Randy Guliuzza Made in His Image   Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image.     2:00 p.m. Creation Science Q&A Panel Discussion   Pick up a 3x5 card at the ICR Resource Table during the morning services and write down your question. Turn these cards in BEFORE LUNCH. The Panel will cover as many questions as time permits. 2:30 p.m. Conference Ends Conference Location: Hillcrest Baptist Church 265 W Pleasant Run Road Cedar Hill, Tx 75104 972-291-3521 Church website:  www.hillcrestbc.com Pre-registration is not required.      

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.

ICR Research at a Glance Investigating the science that confirms biblical creation Astronomy Distant Starlight Project: answering the question of how starlight can arrive within the biblical time frame Intergalactic Structures Project: analyzing SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) data for patterns that challenge Big Bang assumptions Genetics Human Genome Project: disproving the myth that humans and chimps have 98% identical DNA Chimp Genome Project: reconstructing the chimp genome without evolutionary assumptions Climate Refuting Milankovitch Project: exposing circular and inconsistent reasoning in secular methodologies Pre-Flood Climate Project: reconstructing antediluvianconditions to confirm creation Fossils Dinosaur Proteins Project: characterizing the nature and extent of short-lived fossil biomaterials like intact vertebrate proteins and elements such as radiocarbon found inside dinosaur and other ancient bones Geology Column Project: analyzing rock layers globally to reconstruct the stages of the Genesis Flood and explain why certain fossils are found only in certain areas, and to determine the approximate topography of the pre-Flood world Physics Radiometric Dating Project: exposing the errors in secular dating methods to negate deep time Accelerated Decay Project: analyzing the conditions under which decay can be accelerated Isotope Project: analyzing samples for intermediate half-life elements to refute deep time Anatomy Organism Interface Project: applying engineering principles to reveal biological details of how organisms successfully relate with their environments and with other organisms Keep Up to Date on ICR Research Scientific research sometimes leads to unexpected but exciting conclusions. Stay abreast of ICR’s research results with updates on how our four sub-projects are progressing. Magazine articles Technical articles Meet the ICR Science Team Who are the scientists engaged in ICR’s mission to conduct quality scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history? Meet the team of individuals who are applying their training and expertise to questions that impact our understanding of the Genesis account of creation, the Flood, and beyond. Read the bios of the ICR Science Team. A Legacy of Creation Science Research For over 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science, as well as in ancient biblical studies. The institute’s mission has been to advance quality research that impacts our understanding of the creation model as described in Genesis. Since ICR’s founding by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, ICR scientists have endeavored to utilize their research to demonstrate the evidence for creation as understood in Scripture, with the ultimate goal of magnifying the Creator. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) Learn more about the history of ICR. Click below to review previous ICR research initiatives. The RATE Project The CLIMATE Project The FAST Project The COSMOS Project The EPIPHANY Project

ICR Scientists Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. Research Associate - Physics B.S., University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 1969 M.S., University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 1971 Ph.D., Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana 1987 Tim Clarey, Ph.D. Research Associate - Geology B.S., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 1982 M.S., University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 1984 M.S., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 1993 Ph.D., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 1996 Randy Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. ICR National Representative - Life Sciences B.S., South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota 1984 B.A., Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois 1982 M.P.H., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 2003 M.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1996 Leo (Jake) Hebert III, Ph.D. Research Associate - Physics B.S., Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas 1995 M.S., Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 1999 Ph.D., University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 2011 John D. Morris, Ph.D. President Emeritus - Geology B.S., Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 1969 M.S., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1977 Ph.D., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1980 Frank Sherwin, M.A. Research Associate - Life Sciences B.A., Western State College, Gunnison, Colorado 1978 M.A., University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 1985 Brian Thomas, M.S. Science Writer B.S., Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas 1993 M.S., Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas 1999 Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. Director of Life Sciences B.S., Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 1985 M.S., University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 1990 Ph.D., Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 1996

Many would suggest that the Bible is an antiquated religious book, filled with scientific fallacies and mistakes. Others believe that the Bible is a book of true religion, but dealing solely with spiritual subjects, with any matters of science and history to be interpreted spiritually or allegorically. Either the Bible is wholly reliable on every subject with which it deals, or it is not the Word of God. Although the Bible is obviously not a science textbook (otherwise it would be continuously out of date), the Bible does contain all the basic principles upon which true science is built. The Bible abounds with references to nature and natural processes, and thus frequently touches on the various sciences. For instance, there are many passages that deal with principles of hydrology, geology, astronomy, meteorology, biology, physics, cosmology, and the grand principles of the space-mass/energy-time continuum. Again, if the God revealed in the Bible truly exists, then everything that He reveals would of necessity be true. One often hears of mistakes or errors in the Bible. Seldom, when confronted, is there an example provided. When such “errors” are cited, they fall into three kinds of alleged mistakes: 1) mathematical rounding, 2) relative motion, or 3) miracles. Obviously, mathematical rounding is both scientific and in constant use today, as is the use of relative motion for all sorts of navigation and distance calculations. To deny the miraculous is to assume that one is omniscient. Just as the Bible has become a source book for history and archaeology, so it is also a source book for the foundational principles of science. Those who ignore the information of Scripture will be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

In addition to a wide range of natural processes from astronomy and geology that show a young universe, biological systems also most easily fit within a history measured in the thousands, rather than millions, of years. Mutational Buildup Indicates Living Populations Are Young Mutations relentlessly build up over many generations. Current mutation rates show that today’s animal species have a recent origin. More... Living Fossils Display No Signs of Evolution’s Long Ages Instead of showing evolutionary relationships, fossils show that either a life form went extinct, or it has a living counterpart. More... Original Biochemistry Shows That Fossils Are Recent Fresh biological material within some fossils is being continually discovered, despite the protests of biochemists that it should have decayed long ago. More...

Arithmetic and the Genetic Code Where do physical traits such as height and eye color come from? Biologists say these characteristics are phenotypic (physical) expressions of the genotype—the genetic code. The case for creation can be seen in this amazing genetic code of life. The human body’s trillions of cells use over 75 special kinds of protein and RNA molecules to make one protein following DNA’s detailed instructions. More...Bees Solve Math Problems Faster Than Computers Bees can solve complex mathematical problems that would normally keep computers busy for days, according to a new report. Scientists determined that bees routinely solve the "traveling salesman problem," in which a subject must determine the shortest route between multiple destinations. But the scientists don't know how the bees do it with a brain the size of a grass seed. More...Cicadas Make Great Mathematicians Entomologists regularly discover examples of mathematical genius hardwired into various tiny-brained arthropods. More...Does the Bible Contain a Mathematically Incorrect Value for "Pi"? Inserting the value of circumference and diameter given by Scripture into the equation yields a value of P to be 3, and it is this apparent error which gives Bible detractors such glee. More...Evolutionary Math? Most people have heard of “evolutionary biology.” But the term “evolution” is often applied in a broader sense (gradual, naturalistic changes over long ages) to other fields of study. Some people study geology or astronomy from an evolutionary perspective. But has anyone ever studied “evolutionary mathematics”? What would an evolutionist mathematician study? Can the existence of numbers and mathematical laws be explained by a time-and-chance naturalistic origin? More... More...Insect Arithmetic--Pure Genius! by Frank Sherwin, M.A., & Brian Thomas, M.S. * As entomologists study insects and spiders, they regularly discover examples of mathematical genius hardwired into the tiny-brained arthropods. These amazing insect algorithms light the path of insect origins. More...Plants Use Math to Ration Food Use Researchers discovered that even under highly controlled conditions, the model mustard plants they were studying exhibited an amazing level of bioengineering and performed mathematical operations. More...Study Demonstrates Babies Reason Logically Before They Can Even SpeakAmong living creatures, only humans can think about thinking. Researchers recently performed a new set of cognitive tests on one-year-olds to discover how soon humans develop the ability to reason. Their findings surprised them. More...

Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results Since tissues like skin and cartilage are known to spontaneously decay in only thousands of years, published finds of original soft tissues in fossilized remains clearly show that the fossils could not be millions of years old. Many of these studies relied on only a few different detection methods. Now, a team of researchers has applied more than six different techniques to verify that tissues from inside a mosasaur humerus bone consist of mosasaur and not microbial molecules. More...Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes NewsAlthough creation-based organizations have reported for over a decade on the technical scientific journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains, mainstream media outlets have largely been silent on the subject But a recent segment that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even “may be changing the whole dino ballgame.” More...Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to StayIn recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago. More...Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood? Scientists suggest they have solved the problem of how soft tissues like dinosaur blood vessels could have persisted for millions of years. Do their results really back up that claim? More...Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels?Over a decade ago, paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer accidentally discovered soft tissues preserved inside dinosaur bone.1 While examining the bone structure from an incompletely fossilized T. rex nicknamed "B. rex," she came upon what appeared to be blood vessels and blood cells on her microscope slides. In an interview years later, she recalled, "I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can't be. More...Dinosaur Soft Tissues: They're Real!

Geology, astronomy, and biology all point to a divine Designer. ICR zoologist and researcher Frank Sherwin examines the evidence in this 5-part podcast series. Mr. Sherwin uncovers the scientific and biblical evidence for a global Flood, designed universe, and true origin and history of biological structures. 1) Mount St. Helens: An Outdoor Laboratory Geologist Dr. Steve Austin called the Mount St. Helens eruption “the geologic event of the twentieth century.” Mount St. Helens was not the largest volcano episode of the last century, but it became the most informative. What can the Mount St. Helens explosions, volcanic mud flows, and rapid ecological recovery tell us about the Genesis Flood? 2) Mount St. Helens Recovery The Mount St. Helens events give us a glimpse into Earth’s geologic power, the origin of rocks, and the formation of geologic features. How does the ecological recovery of Mount St. Helens affirm the work of creation scientists? And what does this outdoor science lab teach us about the great Flood of Noah’s day? 3) The Unique Earth and Unique Universe How do scientific measurements and fundamental constants reflect the Creator’s divine hand? Our universe permits physical, interactive life only because these and many other numbers are exquisitely and independently balanced. How did such incredibly fine-tuned numbers come about: by chance and time, or by plan and purpose? 4) The Moon Our moon is unusually large, but it’s just the right size to aid life on Earth. As a masterpiece of design, it shouts God’s creation. How does lunar science support biblical truth? 5) Hair, Feathers, and Scales Creation scientists observe hair, feathers, and scales as unique structures revealing design. Evolutionary naturalists disagree, of course, maintaining a common origin for these skin appendages. Why does this issue matter? And how does this impact the study of origins and biological history?              For more radio programs, click here.

How can Christians confidently defend biblical creation in an increasingly skeptical culture? What creation evidence does our own solar system display? ICR astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle answers these questions and more, sharing several logical arguments that confirm biblical creation. 1) Design of the Solar System The solar system is wonderfully designed for life—and for fascinating science, too! Both benefits reveal the richness of the Lord’s creativity. Discovering the truth the Lord has hidden for us to search out and find is the fun and thrill of science. What examples have we discovered in our own solar system? 2) Genesis and Distant Starlight Critics posit many questions about distant starlight and the Bible. Is there a problem with stars being billions of lightyears away? How does the Bible bring clarity to this issue? And how have scientific and mathematical discoveries affirmed the Genesis creation narrative? 3) Science Confirms Biblical Creation Ironically, many scientists attempt to disprove the Bible using disciplines like genetics and geology. But these fields continue to produce research that confirms the Bible. What steps should we take to promote biblical creation? What has science revealed? 4) The Ultimate Proof of Creation Who has time to memorize the overwhelming lines of evidence confirming creation? Isn’t there an easier way to communicate with a skeptic? Dr. Lisle presents one bulletproof argument that demonstrates the truth of creation. 5) Jews and Greeks 1 Corinthians 1:23 states, “but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.” This short passage gives us an important key to reaching our culture today with the gospel message. And it ties in very strongly to the creation-evolution debate.              For more radio programs, click here.

What you believe about Genesis impacts both faith and science. In this series, ICR physicist Dr. Jake Hebert unravels the mysteries of the Ice Age, hermeneutics, geological dating methods, and more. How should Christians respond to old-earth arguments? Can we view scientific research through the lens of Scripture? And how should we to respond to those who compromise the first book of the Bible? 1) Celebrating a Broken Climate "Pacemaker" There is strong geological evidence for one ice age. Yet, secular scientists published an iconic technical paper that detailed multiple ice ages over long periods of time. Why did they miss the mark? How does science confirm the creationist position? And what major global event caused this frigid climate change? 2) How Theology Informs Science Theology—formerly called “the queen of the sciences”—used to be held in high regard. However, skeptics like Lawrence Krauss continually make derogatory comments about theological topics. Why have many scientists discarded theology as irrelevant? Can we still find practical value in theology when conducting scientific research? 3) Genesis Compromise Unravels the Bible Christians who accept the idea of millions of years might not be aware that they’re holding to a logically inconsistent position. How can we find clarity in the obvious tension between Genesis history and secular scientists’ claims? Should we accept Genesis 1-2 as written? Find out why our understanding of the beginning is foundational for faith in Jesus. 4) How Consistent Are Old-Earth Clocks? One argument often made for an old earth is the professed agreement of age assignments from various dating methods. Is this “case closed” for the age-of-the-earth debate? Dig deeper and uncover the contradictions in dating methods. Discover the reasons why millions and billions of years are not scientific. 5) Refuting a Favorite Old-Earth Argument In 2010, the BioLogos Foundation published an article that proposed “biblical and scientific shortcomings of flood geology.” Discover the background of this paper’s research, ICR scientists’ response, and solid biblical and scientific counterarguments for recent creation and the global Flood.              For more radio programs, click here.

Can we believe both the Bible and geology? ICR geologist and Research Associate Dr. Tim Clarey uncovers how both fit together in this 5-part podcast series on creation geology. Dr. Clarey shares a unique geological perspective on the worldwide Flood, the origin and demise of dinosaurs, and the ice age. 1) Summary of Megasequences across North America and the Global Flood Many wonder if the global Flood was real. Can we trust Genesis? What really happened during this worldwide, watery catastrophe? What do rock layers across North America reveal? 2) Summary of Megasequences across Africa and the Pre-Flood World Dr. Clarey shifts focus from North America to Africa. How does the African continent show a similar geological story? How can we know the Flood was not merely localized around the Black Sea? And what impact does this have on the Christian faith? 3) Dinosaur Evolution and the Fossil Record Is dinosaur evolution a fable? Secularists claim that the terrible lizards evolved from ancestors. But what do the fossils show? Are they truly millions of years old? Do dinosaurs disprove the Bible? 4) Oil as a “Soft Tissue” Oil is in the news almost every day due to fluctuating prices and controversial fracking. How does oil fit into the Bible? Was oil made in the Flood? How does this important commodity influence a biblical worldview? 5) Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the Ice Age Flood secrets long buried reveal fascinating confirmation for the Genesis account. Where did the water come from to Flood the entire earth? Did the plates move rapidly and break apart during the Flood? Was there really a Pangea? Where did all of the water go post-Flood? And why was there an ice age?              For more radio programs, click here.