Archive of Articles
Rocks and fossils do not come with labels informing us of their age. They must be understood in light of their geologic context, and interpreted within a worldview. Unfortunately, my evolutionary colleagues are often so dominated by uniformitarian brainwashing they can't objectively understand young-Earth evidence. Nevertheless, some of the evidence is clear and open for all to see.
One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet into the air.
A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock. For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone, nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source.
Evidently a tectonic event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner "dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock. Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away, leaving only a vertical pipe.
The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and erosion provides the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up.
In the presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.
[body_edit] =>Rocks and fossils do not come with labels informing us of their age. They must be understood in light of their geologic context, and interpreted within a worldview. Unfortunately, my evolutionary colleagues are often so dominated by uniformitarian brainwashing they can't objectively understand young-Earth evidence. Nevertheless, some of the evidence is clear and open for all to see.
One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet into the air.
A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock. For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone, nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source.
Evidently a tectonic event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner "dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock. Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away, leaving only a vertical pipe.
The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and erosion provides the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up.
In the presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => where-can-we-see-young-earth-evidence [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Endnotes
- http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/amber/
- See also Yeoman, B. April 2006. Schweitzer's dangerous discovery. Discover, p. 37.
* Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. 2006. Amber: A Window to the Recent Past. Acts & Facts. 35 (7).
[body_edit] =>Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Endnotes
- http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/amber/
- See also Yeoman, B. April 2006. Schweitzer's dangerous discovery. Discover, p. 37.
* Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. 2006. Amber: A Window to the Recent Past. Acts & Facts. 35 (7).
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => amber-window-recent-past [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Frank Sherwin, D.Sc. (Hon.) ) -->
"Astrobiology" is a curious science. Like its predecessor "exobiology" it is, as George Gaylord Simpson once quipped, "a science without a subject." We know about astrophysics and astrochemistry, but where is the biology in astronomy? So far, it's only in the imaginations of evolutionists, who think the recipe for life is as simple as "just add water."
Today, astrobiology is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that is (as long as the NASA money flows) attracting a great deal of vibrant research into many interesting questions: What is life? What are the conditions for life? How can we detect it? But it is still a science without its prime subject. Nevertheless, there is motivational power in a suggestive name like astrobiology.
Another phrase motivates much of NASA's astrobiology quest: "follow the water." Since life as we know it depends on liquid water, it seems that watery environments are the best places to look. Doubters that water is essential for life usually do more armchair speculation than lab work. Most realists understand water's incomparable qualities.
"Follow the water" explains the excitement any time scientists find evidence for water at some planet or moon, such as last November's announcement that Saturn's moon Enceladus might have liquid under its erupting south pole. Due to its chemical properties, water can only exist under narrow conditions of temperature and pressure. For many years, scientists assumed this meant that only the surfaces of terrestrial planets within a star's habitable zone, where water could exist as a liquid, could host life. Inferences for watery environments under the ice of moons far outside the habitable zone opened up new vistas for imagination.
Another finding bolstering astrobiological hopes was the ubiquity of life in extreme environments. "Extremophiles" have been found around deep sea vents, under Antarctic ice and in boiling-hot springs. These discoveries, however, beg the question of how these hardy life forms originated.
The "follow the water" motto suffers from a logical flaw: water is necessary, but not sufficient for life. It is no more logical than assuming that if iron is found on a planet, skyscrapers can't be far behind. The key to life is the way its ingredients are organized, not just the materials used.
Though life is notoriously difficult to define, Benton Clark of the University of Colorado captured this essence in his definition of life in an article in Astrobiology Magazine: "life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism."
This suggests a different motto than "follow the water." If taken seriously, it might turn astrobiology in a completely different direction: one that takes seriously intelligence as a cause, and views design detection as the most fruitful approach. It might even lead a scientist to start with John 1:1-3 as a foundation for research. Instead of "follow the water," try "follow the instructions."
* David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
[body_edit] =>"Astrobiology" is a curious science. Like its predecessor "exobiology" it is, as George Gaylord Simpson once quipped, "a science without a subject." We know about astrophysics and astrochemistry, but where is the biology in astronomy? So far, it's only in the imaginations of evolutionists, who think the recipe for life is as simple as "just add water."
Today, astrobiology is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that is (as long as the NASA money flows) attracting a great deal of vibrant research into many interesting questions: What is life? What are the conditions for life? How can we detect it? But it is still a science without its prime subject. Nevertheless, there is motivational power in a suggestive name like astrobiology.
Another phrase motivates much of NASA's astrobiology quest: "follow the water." Since life as we know it depends on liquid water, it seems that watery environments are the best places to look. Doubters that water is essential for life usually do more armchair speculation than lab work. Most realists understand water's incomparable qualities.
"Follow the water" explains the excitement any time scientists find evidence for water at some planet or moon, such as last November's announcement that Saturn's moon Enceladus might have liquid under its erupting south pole. Due to its chemical properties, water can only exist under narrow conditions of temperature and pressure. For many years, scientists assumed this meant that only the surfaces of terrestrial planets within a star's habitable zone, where water could exist as a liquid, could host life. Inferences for watery environments under the ice of moons far outside the habitable zone opened up new vistas for imagination.
Another finding bolstering astrobiological hopes was the ubiquity of life in extreme environments. "Extremophiles" have been found around deep sea vents, under Antarctic ice and in boiling-hot springs. These discoveries, however, beg the question of how these hardy life forms originated.
The "follow the water" motto suffers from a logical flaw: water is necessary, but not sufficient for life. It is no more logical than assuming that if iron is found on a planet, skyscrapers can't be far behind. The key to life is the way its ingredients are organized, not just the materials used.
Though life is notoriously difficult to define, Benton Clark of the University of Colorado captured this essence in his definition of life in an article in Astrobiology Magazine: "life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism."
This suggests a different motto than "follow the water." If taken seriously, it might turn astrobiology in a completely different direction: one that takes seriously intelligence as a cause, and views design detection as the most fruitful approach. It might even lead a scientist to start with John 1:1-3 as a foundation for research. Instead of "follow the water," try "follow the instructions."
* David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => astrobiology-follow- [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => David F. Coppedge ) -->
One of the claims most frequently used by evolutionists for excluding the scientific evidence for creation in public schools and to be denied for publication in scientific journals is that such evidence is not based on natural laws, therefore it cannot be scientific. They claim that evolutionary theory is based on natural laws and thus qualifies as a scientific theory. Hence, the theory of creation must be excluded, but the theory of evolution is admissible (of course, it must be absolutely atheistic). However, evolutionary theory is not based on natural laws but is actually contrary to natural laws.
Let us first consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory. It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe. Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded.
Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman's constant, Planck's constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well.
According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation.
What about the present state of the universe? There are three possibilities. It could be in a steady state, neither increasing nor decreasing in order and complexity. A second possibility would be that it is increasing in order and complexity. The third possibility would be that it is constantly decreasing in order and complexity. Some evolutionary astronomers reject the Big Bang theory and suggest what is called the Steady State Theory. They would suggest the first possibility. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and as evolutionists believe, the present natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then the order and complexity of the universe should constantly be increasing. Creation scientists, on the other hand, maintain that in the beginning God created the universe in a perfect state and therefore matter would have no tendency to increase in order and complexity. Thus, if something has occurred since creation to change the original created state (and we know that it has) the order and complexity of the universe could not be increasing, but it could be decreasing. Fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the order and complexity of the universe is constantly decreasing. Every star in the universe is burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Obviously, that supply of energy cannot last forever. Therefore, unless God intervenes (and the Bible tells us He will), the universe is certain to die. Eventually every star will have burned up all of its fuel and the lights will go out. At this point, there would be no life and no activity anywhere in the universe. It would be dead. If the natural laws which now govern the universe are causing its death and destruction, and these laws are all there is and all there ever has been, how could they have created the universe in the first place? What sort of tortured logic is necessary to suggest such an impossibility? The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin.
The knowledge concerning the laws of thermodynamics was developed about one hundred and fifty years ago, but this knowledge was inscribed in the Bible three thousand years ago. In Psalm 102:25-26 we read, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment . . ." The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but now, in their present state, and fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are wearing out like a suit of clothes. At the time the Bible was written, most people believed that the universe had been here forever and would continue to be here forever. The Bible says, not so, the universe had a beginning and is now wearing out and running down, just as modern science has determined. Furthermore, modern science establishes that the universe had to have a beginning. If the universe had been here forever it would have run down a long time ago. It hasn't run down yet, so it could not have been here forever. Therefore, it had a beginning, and the Biblical statement, "In the beginning," has been scientifically verified, as has its statements concerning the present state of the universe.
Let us now consider theories on the origin of life. Here also the so-called evolutionary origin of life chemist is forced to utilize processes contrary to natural laws. In their experiments designed to produce even very simple molecules, they run into insuperable difficulties. For example, they must postulate some form of energy that would be available to convert simple molecules into more complex molecules. The only forms of energy that would have been available on their hypothetical primitive Earth would have been energy from the Sun, electrical discharges (lightning), radioactive decay, and heat. Most of the available energy would be that from the Sun. All raw forms of energy are destructive. The raw, unshielded ultraviolet light coming from the Sun is deadly, destroying rapidly the biological molecules required for life, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. UV light rapidly kills bacteria by disrupting molecules. All forms of life from bacteria to man are killed by UV light, and you know that if you are hit by lightning you would not become more complex—you would be severely injured or killed.
In all experiments employing these sources of raw energy, the rates of destruction vastly exceed the rates of formation. How then was Miller in his experiment1 able to obtain a small quantity of several amino acids and a few other products? He employed a trap. As tiny quantities of these substances were constantly being created and were immediately isolated in the trap, the gases he employed were circulating continuously through his raw energy, electrical discharges (simulating lightning). Without the trap, the products would have been destroyed by the electrical discharges at rates that vastly exceed the rates of formation, and no detectable quantities of the products would have formed. There could have been no traps available on the hypothetical primitive Earth. If these products were formed in the atmosphere they would be destroyed before they could reach the ocean. Furthermore, the ocean could not have acted as a trap since even there destructive processes would eliminate any surviving products.
In any case, a trap is fatal to the theory. The purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy source, but this brings the process to a complete halt. For amino acids to join together to make a protein, a large quantity of energy is required, but the very purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy. No energy, no further progress. Even as long ago as 1960 the physical chemist, D. E. Hull, taking into account the rates of destruction versus the rates of formation in these origin of life schemes, concluded that, "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist [origin of life chemist], who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates" (Nature 186:693). Coacervates are mere blobs of disorganized material. Please note that Hull states that these so-called origin of life schemes are contrary to proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, which are essentially the same as natural laws.
To the evolutionist, history began with "In the beginning, hydrogen . . ." To the creationist, history began with "In the beginning, God . . ." Science and natural laws come down solidly in support for the fact of creation.
"Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).Endnote
1. Miller, S. L. May 15, 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
* Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Let us first consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory. It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe. Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded.
Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman's constant, Planck's constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well.
According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation.
What about the present state of the universe? There are three possibilities. It could be in a steady state, neither increasing nor decreasing in order and complexity. A second possibility would be that it is increasing in order and complexity. The third possibility would be that it is constantly decreasing in order and complexity. Some evolutionary astronomers reject the Big Bang theory and suggest what is called the Steady State Theory. They would suggest the first possibility. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and as evolutionists believe, the present natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then the order and complexity of the universe should constantly be increasing. Creation scientists, on the other hand, maintain that in the beginning God created the universe in a perfect state and therefore matter would have no tendency to increase in order and complexity. Thus, if something has occurred since creation to change the original created state (and we know that it has) the order and complexity of the universe could not be increasing, but it could be decreasing. Fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the order and complexity of the universe is constantly decreasing. Every star in the universe is burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Obviously, that supply of energy cannot last forever. Therefore, unless God intervenes (and the Bible tells us He will), the universe is certain to die. Eventually every star will have burned up all of its fuel and the lights will go out. At this point, there would be no life and no activity anywhere in the universe. It would be dead. If the natural laws which now govern the universe are causing its death and destruction, and these laws are all there is and all there ever has been, how could they have created the universe in the first place? What sort of tortured logic is necessary to suggest such an impossibility? The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin.
The knowledge concerning the laws of thermodynamics was developed about one hundred and fifty years ago, but this knowledge was inscribed in the Bible three thousand years ago. In Psalm 102:25-26 we read, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment . . ." The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but now, in their present state, and fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are wearing out like a suit of clothes. At the time the Bible was written, most people believed that the universe had been here forever and would continue to be here forever. The Bible says, not so, the universe had a beginning and is now wearing out and running down, just as modern science has determined. Furthermore, modern science establishes that the universe had to have a beginning. If the universe had been here forever it would have run down a long time ago. It hasn't run down yet, so it could not have been here forever. Therefore, it had a beginning, and the Biblical statement, "In the beginning," has been scientifically verified, as has its statements concerning the present state of the universe.
Let us now consider theories on the origin of life. Here also the so-called evolutionary origin of life chemist is forced to utilize processes contrary to natural laws. In their experiments designed to produce even very simple molecules, they run into insuperable difficulties. For example, they must postulate some form of energy that would be available to convert simple molecules into more complex molecules. The only forms of energy that would have been available on their hypothetical primitive Earth would have been energy from the Sun, electrical discharges (lightning), radioactive decay, and heat. Most of the available energy would be that from the Sun. All raw forms of energy are destructive. The raw, unshielded ultraviolet light coming from the Sun is deadly, destroying rapidly the biological molecules required for life, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. UV light rapidly kills bacteria by disrupting molecules. All forms of life from bacteria to man are killed by UV light, and you know that if you are hit by lightning you would not become more complex—you would be severely injured or killed.
In all experiments employing these sources of raw energy, the rates of destruction vastly exceed the rates of formation. How then was Miller in his experiment1 able to obtain a small quantity of several amino acids and a few other products? He employed a trap. As tiny quantities of these substances were constantly being created and were immediately isolated in the trap, the gases he employed were circulating continuously through his raw energy, electrical discharges (simulating lightning). Without the trap, the products would have been destroyed by the electrical discharges at rates that vastly exceed the rates of formation, and no detectable quantities of the products would have formed. There could have been no traps available on the hypothetical primitive Earth. If these products were formed in the atmosphere they would be destroyed before they could reach the ocean. Furthermore, the ocean could not have acted as a trap since even there destructive processes would eliminate any surviving products.
In any case, a trap is fatal to the theory. The purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy source, but this brings the process to a complete halt. For amino acids to join together to make a protein, a large quantity of energy is required, but the very purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy. No energy, no further progress. Even as long ago as 1960 the physical chemist, D. E. Hull, taking into account the rates of destruction versus the rates of formation in these origin of life schemes, concluded that, "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist [origin of life chemist], who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates" (Nature 186:693). Coacervates are mere blobs of disorganized material. Please note that Hull states that these so-called origin of life schemes are contrary to proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, which are essentially the same as natural laws.
To the evolutionist, history began with "In the beginning, hydrogen . . ." To the creationist, history began with "In the beginning, God . . ." Science and natural laws come down solidly in support for the fact of creation.
"Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).Endnote
1. Miller, S. L. May 15, 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
* Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.
[typeID] => 2 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/imp/imp-397.pdf [publishURL] => evolution-not-based-natural-laws [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Duane Gish, Ph.D. ) -->
Rare is the saint who has not breathed the cry of David, "Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?" (Psalm 94:3). It seems like liberal and humanistic educators dominate and control the educational process. A humanistically trained population assumes influential positions in all branches of government which then make, execute, interpret, and enforce laws in conformity to humanistic agendas. The mass media spins liberal policy in a favorable light, conservative policy in an undesirable light, and Christianity as a radical right-wing extremism.
Perhaps more damaging to the Kingdom is the influence among Western churches of claims of personal revelation, a quest for subjective experience, and the rising influence of existentialism and postmodernism—all converge to foster a low view of Scripture.
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).
The answers to these worldly observations, plaintive cries, and rhetorical questions that fret about the apparent power of the wicked, lie in the overarching eternal truths of Scripture.
- God is Truth, whether anyone believes it or not (Romans 3:4).
- God's Word is sufficient to "answer" every man (II Timothy 3:16-17;
I Peter 3:15; II Peter 1:3-4). - God's plan is for His saints to win! (Genesis 1:28; Isaiah 11:9, 55:11; Matthew 6:10; Revelation 11:15).
- Our trust in God's Word and way will bring victory (Psalm 37).
ICR is committed to "preaching" the Word and "contending" for the faith—in every sphere of truth (science, technology, education, commerce, humanities). Your financial help strengthens our hands.
Rare is the saint who has not breathed the cry of David, "Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?" (Psalm 94:3). It seems like liberal and humanistic educators dominate and control the educational process. A humanistically trained population assumes influential positions in all branches of government which then make, execute, interpret, and enforce laws in conformity to humanistic agendas. The mass media spins liberal policy in a favorable light, conservative policy in an undesirable light, and Christianity as a radical right-wing extremism.
Perhaps more damaging to the Kingdom is the influence among Western churches of claims of personal revelation, a quest for subjective experience, and the rising influence of existentialism and postmodernism—all converge to foster a low view of Scripture.
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).
The answers to these worldly observations, plaintive cries, and rhetorical questions that fret about the apparent power of the wicked, lie in the overarching eternal truths of Scripture.
- God is Truth, whether anyone believes it or not (Romans 3:4).
- God's Word is sufficient to "answer" every man (II Timothy 3:16-17;
I Peter 3:15; II Peter 1:3-4). - God's plan is for His saints to win! (Genesis 1:28; Isaiah 11:9, 55:11; Matthew 6:10; Revelation 11:15).
- Our trust in God's Word and way will bring victory (Psalm 37).
ICR is committed to "preaching" the Word and "contending" for the faith—in every sphere of truth (science, technology, education, commerce, humanities). Your financial help strengthens our hands.
[body_edit] => ICR just returned from Grand Canyon having completed another successful tour, with both a 10-day rafting option on the Colorado River and a 7-day bussing adventure throughout the American Southwest. Actually the ICR tours not only explore Grand Canyon, but also Mount St. Helens, Yellowstone Park, Galapagos Islands, and now the new tour to Yosemite accomplish several important goals. Some may ask, "Why does ICR offer such `vacation' packages? Isn't ICR's mission an academic and research one?"
Several reasons come to mind. Most obvious, each of the tours are to areas of ongoing ICR research. From radioisotope dating of Grand Canyon rocks to genetic diversity in the Galapagos Islands, important creation questions are being addressed. Furthermore, since ICR receives no government funding for this research, the tours help facilitate and finance it. Often the ICR scientists will be on site a week before the tour arrives, financed by tour "profits," doing the important field mapping and sample collection.
A second major goal of ICR is communication of creation information. Through the tours, numerous Christians have been more thoroughly trained than otherwise possible with first-hand knowledge gained from hands-on interaction with the sites and researchers involved. Tour veterans are thus prepared for a more effective ministry, and even have their own photographs and stories to tell.
Thirdly, these trained tour participants have tasted of the ICR passion for creation and received lasting input regarding creation's relevance to evangelism and society. Bible study and sweet fellowship impress these truths even more fully. These new ICR ambassadors leave better equipped to carry the ICR message into venues an ICR scientist might not reach.
Yes, the tours are a very important aspect of ICR's ministry. Join us if at all possible. The inaugural Yosemite tour this fall would be a good place to start!
A smiling crowd of creation enthusiasts!
[typeID] => 5
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => return-from-grand-canyon
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
NOTE: The call for papers for the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (ICC) is now closed. Please visit www.icc08.org for information about attending the conference.
[body_edit] =>NOTE: The call for papers for the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (ICC) is now closed. Please visit www.icc08.org for information about attending the conference.
[typeID] => 10 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => call-papers-for-sixth-international-conference-cre [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => ) -->
Negative Responses to The Genesis FloodIn the late 1980s, about twenty-five years after the publication of our book, two significant counter-movements began to appear. Both of these movements were opposed to naturalistic Darwinism, but, at the same time, were opposed to Biblical and scientific creationism.
From a Biblical perspective, this was sadly predictable. Paul confronted the church at Corinth with these words: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Corinthians 11:19). On the one hand, this can be a healthy process. God's people must not adopt any view just because of a human authority figure, however brilliant or eloquent. Each of us needs to examine the "Scriptures daily" to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). On the other hand, large numbers of Christians have been deceived into abandoning Biblical truth.
Progressive Creationism
The first of these movements is called "progressive creationism," represented especially by Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer. He believes that creation began many billions of years ago with a so-called "big bang"; that animals were supernaturally and periodically created (not evolved) through millions of years; that Adam's rebellion against God did not cause death in the animal kingdom; and that the Flood was local in extent. He believes that the Bible's 66 books are fully inspired, but need to be reinterpreted in the light of a 67th book, namely modern science.
In January, 2003, the Institute for Creation Research responded in depth to the challenges of "progressive creationism." I was invited to join three scientists and another theologian to participate in eight panel discussions and responses to the views of Dr. Ross. (After Eden: Understanding Creation, the Curse, and the Cross.) I was especially amazed at the futile effort of "progressive creationists" to reduce the Genesis Flood to a Mesopotamian catastrophe in order to justify millions of years of sedimentation and fossilization before the creation of mankind.
The Intelligent Design Movement
The second counter-movement is even more amazing to behold. It is called "the intelligent-design movement" (IDM), and is dedicated to the proposition that atheistic naturalism and neo-Darwinian evolutionism have completely failed to explain the irreducible complexity of living things. ID scholars also believe that evolutionism can be defeated by scientific and rationalistic arguments without any appeal to the Bible or to the Creator of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Every Christian should applaud legitimate efforts to restore sanity and reality to the study of ultimate origins. Most IDM augmentation is, to this extent, on target. The tragedy of the movement, however, is that it deliberately stops short of honoring God's written revelation on origins, the Bible. In fact, the book of Genesis as literal history seems to be an embarrassment and an unwanted and unnecessary burden to bear in their debate with evolution-oriented scientists.
Dr. Philip Johnson, IDM's leading spokesman counsels: "Get the Bible and the book of Genesis out of the debate, because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, `Do you need a Creator to do the
creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, . . . . They'll ask, `What do you think of Noah's flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they'll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you'll never get out of it" ("Berkeley's Radical" in Touchstone 15:5 [June, 2002], p. 41).Indeed, to assert that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Designer is an essential foundation for origins study. But it is only the very bottom rung of the ladder that leads upward to full Creation Truth. It is vastly insufficient! To truly honor God and to bring genuine light into this enormously important question, one must also believe in the divinely inspired account of origins in Genesis 1 and 2 and in God's record of the magnitude of the Flood in Genesis 6-9. True Christians should be deeply shocked to learn that the Son of God, by Whom all things were "created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), the One "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3), the ultimate Designer of all life, matter, energy, space, and time, has been practically ignored by these who write so eloquently of "intelligent design."
In response, we humbly insist that it is essential to believe the Genesis record of origins in order to please God. This obviously includes the manner in which living things were created ("full-grown," with a superficial appearance of history); the order in which things were created; and the duration of creation events (six 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago). Our Lord explained that Adam and Eve were created "at the beginning"—not millions of years after the earth came into existence (Matthew 19:4). Thus, it is also essential to believe that death in the animal kingdom did not occur before the creation of mankind, but was an effect of Adam's rebellion (Genesis 1:31; and Romans 5:12 in the light of Romans 8:20-23). Trillions of fossilized plants and animals all over the world, with very rare exceptions, can only be explained in terms of the global catastrophism of the Genesis Flood.
In the creation/evolution debate today, there is a truly frightening element that is sadly neglected and can lead to one's eternal loss. Our Lord said: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of Him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory" (Luke 9:26). If we leave Christ Himself out of the discussion, how, then, can we truly help people who are walking in the darkness of materialistic evolutionism?
We agree that discussions and debates concerning Intelligent Design can (in God's providence) temporarily catch the attention of unbelieving minds. But saving faith can only come through the acceptance of the living and powerful Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) and its witness to the finished work of Christ upon the Cross and His bodily resurrection from the dead (cf. Romans 10:9-10). That is why the apostle Paul ended his powerful presentation of Intelligent Design to the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill by asserting that the true and living God of creation now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:16-18). He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (vv.30-31). It was because he honored the Lord Jesus in this address that some men joined him and believed (v.34). On another occasion, Paul wrote: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16).
Here, then, is the burning question that modern proponents of Intelligent Design must answer: are people believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and experiencing a profound renewing of their hearts and minds as a result of hearing their message?
God's words, not ours, can change men's destiny. Saving faith, "cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:9,17). This is the only "wedge" that can separate evolutionists from the blindness of sin and bring them to a full knowledge of Christ the Creator of the world and the only Savior of men.
Thus, while Dr. Hugh Ross and his followers have attempted to reduce the mountain-covering, year-long Deluge in the days of Noah all the way down to a local flooding in Mesopotamia, the Intelligent Design scientists and philosophers officially ignore not only the Genesis record of the Flood, but also the entire book of Genesis and the sixty-five God-inspired books which follow it.
Conclusion
Truly, God's people around the world must make a huge decision concerning the origin of the world: either we take God at His Word because of Who He is, and the God who never lies; or surrender our minds to the ever-changing opinions of finite and sinful men who are saying more loudly than ever before: "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." But God gives us His infinite and eternal perspective on such thinking: "This they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6).
Our Lord Jesus Christ confirmed to us that in the days of Noah ". . . they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). Stop to think: Our Lord said that one man survived "the flood" by entering "the ark" when "the flood came, and took them all away." Could this possibly mean that a regional flood, which did not need any kind of an ark for Noah to survive, took away only some people? Or, as some Christian men of science believe, all mankind in those days was confined to just one region, so that a regional flood could indeed take them "all" away? But even in such a highly unlikely scenario, would an "ark" really be needed? Could not Noah and his family, given even a two-month warning have escaped a regional flood? Would all birds, mammals and reptiles in the world have been destroyed by a regional flood?
The bottom line is this: was the Son of God a dependable source of information about the Flood? Could He ever deceive people? Was He serious when He said: "If ye believe not [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47).
With all of its deficiencies, then, God has apparently used our book to help thousands of people around the world take the Bible more seriously. It does not require great skills in Biblical theology and hermeneutics and exegesis to understand God's message concerning the depth, extent, and significance of the Flood.
Biblical catastrophism, in the final analysis, stands firmly upon the foundation of divine revelation in Scripture, not on the finite and ever-changing theories of men.
* Dr. Whitcomb is co-author of The Genesis Flood. This article is an adaptation of a message given at the Answers in Genesis Mega-Conference on July 18, 2005.
[body_edit] =>The Genesis Flood has been a life-changing experience for its authors, even since 1961 when our book was published. My highly esteemed and long-time friend, Henry M. Morris, co-author of The Genesis Flood, joins me in giving praise to God for allowing our 550-page book to be published and I quote: "The publication of The Genesis Flood made a tremendous difference in my life, culminating in a change from engineering to full-time concentration on creationism and Christian evidences. There were numerous speaking requests, then the formation of the Creation Research Society [1963], then eventually the Institute for Creation Research [1970], and extensive seminars, conferences, debates, etc., all over the world. Many have attributed the global revival of scientific Biblical creationism to the catalytic effect of The Genesis Flood."
In His merciful providence, God sent Henry Morris to Grace Theological Seminary (where I was professor of Old Testament) in September, 1953, to present a paper to the American Scientific Affiliation meeting there, entitled, "Biblical Evidence for a Recent Creation and Universal Deluge." This revolutionized my entire approach to ultimate origins, and God motivated me to spend four years writing a 450-page doctoral dissertation entitled, "The Genesis Flood: An Investigation of its Geographical Extent, Geological Effects, and Chronological Setting" (Winona Lake, IN: Grace Theological Seminary, 1957). Soon, he agreed to co-author The Genesis Flood. Both he and I agreed that a project of such magnitude, dealing with stupendous scientific and theological issues, needed the perspectives of a scientist as well as a theologian.
In this enormously time-consuming process, twenty-one scientists, nine theologians, and two grammarians were asked to review all or part of the manuscript. In retrospect, it seems significant to us that 1959 was also the year of the great Darwinian Centennial celebration in Chicago, at which Sir Julian Huxley, and other atheistic evolutionists, announced that creationism was essentially dead. In retrospect, however, this "graveside service" appears to have been premature!
Negative Responses to The Genesis Flood
In the late 1980s, about twenty-five years after the publication of our book, two significant counter-movements began to appear. Both of these movements were opposed to naturalistic Darwinism, but, at the same time, were opposed to Biblical and scientific creationism.
From a Biblical perspective, this was sadly predictable. Paul confronted the church at Corinth with these words: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Corinthians 11:19). On the one hand, this can be a healthy process. God's people must not adopt any view just because of a human authority figure, however brilliant or eloquent. Each of us needs to examine the "Scriptures daily" to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). On the other hand, large numbers of Christians have been deceived into abandoning Biblical truth.
Progressive Creationism
The first of these movements is called "progressive creationism," represented especially by Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer. He believes that creation began many billions of years ago with a so-called "big bang"; that animals were supernaturally and periodically created (not evolved) through millions of years; that Adam's rebellion against God did not cause death in the animal kingdom; and that the Flood was local in extent. He believes that the Bible's 66 books are fully inspired, but need to be reinterpreted in the light of a 67th book, namely modern science.
In January, 2003, the Institute for Creation Research responded in depth to the challenges of "progressive creationism." I was invited to join three scientists and another theologian to participate in eight panel discussions and responses to the views of Dr. Ross. (After Eden: Understanding Creation, the Curse, and the Cross.) I was especially amazed at the futile effort of "progressive creationists" to reduce the Genesis Flood to a Mesopotamian catastrophe in order to justify millions of years of sedimentation and fossilization before the creation of mankind.
The Intelligent Design Movement
The second counter-movement is even more amazing to behold. It is called "the intelligent-design movement" (IDM), and is dedicated to the proposition that atheistic naturalism and neo-Darwinian evolutionism have completely failed to explain the irreducible complexity of living things. ID scholars also believe that evolutionism can be defeated by scientific and rationalistic arguments without any appeal to the Bible or to the Creator of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Every Christian should applaud legitimate efforts to restore sanity and reality to the study of ultimate origins. Most IDM augmentation is, to this extent, on target. The tragedy of the movement, however, is that it deliberately stops short of honoring God's written revelation on origins, the Bible. In fact, the book of Genesis as literal history seems to be an embarrassment and an unwanted and unnecessary burden to bear in their debate with evolution-oriented scientists.
Dr. Philip Johnson, IDM's leading spokesman counsels: "Get the Bible and the book of Genesis out of the debate, because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, `Do you need a Creator to do the
creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, . . . . They'll ask, `What do you think of Noah's flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they'll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you'll never get out of it" ("Berkeley's Radical" in Touchstone 15:5 [June, 2002], p. 41).Indeed, to assert that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Designer is an essential foundation for origins study. But it is only the very bottom rung of the ladder that leads upward to full Creation Truth. It is vastly insufficient! To truly honor God and to bring genuine light into this enormously important question, one must also believe in the divinely inspired account of origins in Genesis 1 and 2 and in God's record of the magnitude of the Flood in Genesis 6-9. True Christians should be deeply shocked to learn that the Son of God, by Whom all things were "created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), the One "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3), the ultimate Designer of all life, matter, energy, space, and time, has been practically ignored by these who write so eloquently of "intelligent design."
In response, we humbly insist that it is essential to believe the Genesis record of origins in order to please God. This obviously includes the manner in which living things were created ("full-grown," with a superficial appearance of history); the order in which things were created; and the duration of creation events (six 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago). Our Lord explained that Adam and Eve were created "at the beginning"—not millions of years after the earth came into existence (Matthew 19:4). Thus, it is also essential to believe that death in the animal kingdom did not occur before the creation of mankind, but was an effect of Adam's rebellion (Genesis 1:31; and Romans 5:12 in the light of Romans 8:20-23). Trillions of fossilized plants and animals all over the world, with very rare exceptions, can only be explained in terms of the global catastrophism of the Genesis Flood.
In the creation/evolution debate today, there is a truly frightening element that is sadly neglected and can lead to one's eternal loss. Our Lord said: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of Him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory" (Luke 9:26). If we leave Christ Himself out of the discussion, how, then, can we truly help people who are walking in the darkness of materialistic evolutionism?
We agree that discussions and debates concerning Intelligent Design can (in God's providence) temporarily catch the attention of unbelieving minds. But saving faith can only come through the acceptance of the living and powerful Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) and its witness to the finished work of Christ upon the Cross and His bodily resurrection from the dead (cf. Romans 10:9-10). That is why the apostle Paul ended his powerful presentation of Intelligent Design to the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill by asserting that the true and living God of creation now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:16-18). He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (vv.30-31). It was because he honored the Lord Jesus in this address that some men joined him and believed (v.34). On another occasion, Paul wrote: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16).
Here, then, is the burning question that modern proponents of Intelligent Design must answer: are people believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and experiencing a profound renewing of their hearts and minds as a result of hearing their message?
God's words, not ours, can change men's destiny. Saving faith, "cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:9,17). This is the only "wedge" that can separate evolutionists from the blindness of sin and bring them to a full knowledge of Christ the Creator of the world and the only Savior of men.
Thus, while Dr. Hugh Ross and his followers have attempted to reduce the mountain-covering, year-long Deluge in the days of Noah all the way down to a local flooding in Mesopotamia, the Intelligent Design scientists and philosophers officially ignore not only the Genesis record of the Flood, but also the entire book of Genesis and the sixty-five God-inspired books which follow it.
Conclusion
Truly, God's people around the world must make a huge decision concerning the origin of the world: either we take God at His Word because of Who He is, and the God who never lies; or surrender our minds to the ever-changing opinions of finite and sinful men who are saying more loudly than ever before: "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." But God gives us His infinite and eternal perspective on such thinking: "This they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6).
Our Lord Jesus Christ confirmed to us that in the days of Noah ". . . they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). Stop to think: Our Lord said that one man survived "the flood" by entering "the ark" when "the flood came, and took them all away." Could this possibly mean that a regional flood, which did not need any kind of an ark for Noah to survive, took away only some people? Or, as some Christian men of science believe, all mankind in those days was confined to just one region, so that a regional flood could indeed take them "all" away? But even in such a highly unlikely scenario, would an "ark" really be needed? Could not Noah and his family, given even a two-month warning have escaped a regional flood? Would all birds, mammals and reptiles in the world have been destroyed by a regional flood?
The bottom line is this: was the Son of God a dependable source of information about the Flood? Could He ever deceive people? Was He serious when He said: "If ye believe not [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47).
With all of its deficiencies, then, God has apparently used our book to help thousands of people around the world take the Bible more seriously. It does not require great skills in Biblical theology and hermeneutics and exegesis to understand God's message concerning the depth, extent, and significance of the Flood.
Biblical catastrophism, in the final analysis, stands firmly upon the foundation of divine revelation in Scripture, not on the finite and ever-changing theories of men.
* Dr. Whitcomb is co-author of The Genesis Flood. This article is an adaptation of a message given at the Answers in Genesis Mega-Conference on July 18, 2005.
[typeID] => 2 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/imp/imp-395.pdf [publishURL] => history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John C. Whitcomb, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
[body_edit] =>
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => whats-missing-link
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
