Archive of Articles
The blockbuster movie, "Jurassic Park," has captured the nation's fancy this summer, backed by an extensive media campaign. Central to the movie is the idea that mosquitoes, living in the Jurassic period (some 155 to 200 million years ago according to the evolutionist) were entombed in amber (fossilized tree resin) after having bitten dinosaurs. The dinosaur-blood DNA was so well preserved that scientists could clone living dinosaurs!
Is this a possible scenario? It must first be recognized that cloning successes have been realized only within living species. The best results reported are when the nucleus is removed from a female's egg cell, and the nucleus (which contains the DNA) from another type of cell of a different individual of the same species is substituted. On occasion, the embryo grows, following normal development, but frequently the offspring is badly malformed. Among the requirements for success is that the egg and the substituted DNA be from the same species, and that the growth must occur within an egg cell.
Advances in this field have been spectacular, and much research is still going on. Breakthroughs are perhaps forthcoming which will produce more significant results, but as of yet, cloning of large animals remains science fiction.
The next question to be addressed, Is it possible for DNA to be preserved for a long period of time? Some recent discoveries do hint of this. Fossilized leaves and trees have been found which contain remnants of DNA, and tiny remnants of DNA from insects trapped in amber have been extracted, but the entire DNA sequence has never been observed in fossils.
Recent laboratory studies (Nature, vol. 352, 1 August 1991, p. 381) have shown that DNA will break down all by itself. Without the repair mechanism of a living cell, it self-destructs at a rapid rate. Under even the most favorable conditions, it could not remain beyond 10,000 years or so (at least this is what true scientific observations show, as opposed to scientific speculations or science fiction).
The last question: How old are these fossils, and how old is the "dinosaur blood?" The fossil leaves, trees, and insects are thought to be millions of years old, and pose a dilemma for science. The preservation of DNA for so long goes against the observed and measured DNA-breakdown rate. And dinosaurs? All scientists whose articles I have read have agreed that the idea of dinosaur DNA remaining intact in a complete-enough state for cloning will always remain a fairy tale. No advances in technology are likely ever to bridge that gap.
The creation/flood/young-earth model involves a different set of parameters. In this model, the fossils aren't so old, and were rapidly buried—conditions optimum for preservation. Even post-flood fossils aren't so old, but complete DNA molecules would still be extremely unlikely.
So, in order to clone dinosaurs, we need perfectly preserved and complete dinosaur DNA (which we don't have), and a living mother dinosaur to provide the living egg cell (which we also don't have and aren't going to have). The point is, don't lose any sleep over cloned dinosaurs!
You might be more concerned with the scientific community. How long will they continue to allow Hollywood to use fairytale just to promote evolution?
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
The blockbuster movie, "Jurassic Park," has captured the nation's fancy this summer, backed by an extensive media campaign. Central to the movie is the idea that mosquitoes, living in the Jurassic period (some 155 to 200 million years ago according to the evolutionist) were entombed in amber (fossilized tree resin) after having bitten dinosaurs. The dinosaur-blood DNA was so well preserved that scientists could clone living dinosaurs!
Is this a possible scenario? It must first be recognized that cloning successes have been realized only within living species. The best results reported are when the nucleus is removed from a female's egg cell, and the nucleus (which contains the DNA) from another type of cell of a different individual of the same species is substituted. On occasion, the embryo grows, following normal development, but frequently the offspring is badly malformed. Among the requirements for success is that the egg and the substituted DNA be from the same species, and that the growth must occur within an egg cell.
Advances in this field have been spectacular, and much research is still going on. Breakthroughs are perhaps forthcoming which will produce more significant results, but as of yet, cloning of large animals remains science fiction.
The next question to be addressed, Is it possible for DNA to be preserved for a long period of time? Some recent discoveries do hint of this. Fossilized leaves and trees have been found which contain remnants of DNA, and tiny remnants of DNA from insects trapped in amber have been extracted, but the entire DNA sequence has never been observed in fossils.
Recent laboratory studies (Nature, vol. 352, 1 August 1991, p. 381) have shown that DNA will break down all by itself. Without the repair mechanism of a living cell, it self-destructs at a rapid rate. Under even the most favorable conditions, it could not remain beyond 10,000 years or so (at least this is what true scientific observations show, as opposed to scientific speculations or science fiction).
The last question: How old are these fossils, and how old is the "dinosaur blood?" The fossil leaves, trees, and insects are thought to be millions of years old, and pose a dilemma for science. The preservation of DNA for so long goes against the observed and measured DNA-breakdown rate. And dinosaurs? All scientists whose articles I have read have agreed that the idea of dinosaur DNA remaining intact in a complete-enough state for cloning will always remain a fairy tale. No advances in technology are likely ever to bridge that gap.
The creation/flood/young-earth model involves a different set of parameters. In this model, the fossils aren't so old, and were rapidly buried—conditions optimum for preservation. Even post-flood fossils aren't so old, but complete DNA molecules would still be extremely unlikely.
So, in order to clone dinosaurs, we need perfectly preserved and complete dinosaur DNA (which we don't have), and a living mother dinosaur to provide the living egg cell (which we also don't have and aren't going to have). The point is, don't lose any sleep over cloned dinosaurs!
You might be more concerned with the scientific community. How long will they continue to allow Hollywood to use fairytale just to promote evolution?
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => could-dinosaurs-be-cloned [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Each year ICR sponsors a tour called "Grand Canyon Adventure." After an opening seminar in Phoenix and "mini-lectures" on the Canyon rim, a number of us joined a regularly scheduled nature walk and lecture along the rim, led by a very nice young ranger. The story he told about the formation of the Canyon was predictable, with a few minor variations. But we had already given lectures on this subject, explaining the weaknesses in the traditional "story."
To the group's amazement, the ranger did not seem to understand even what he was saying! He said that radiometric dating can be used to date the limestone layers; that off-shore deposits can be uplifted out of water over millions of years with no erosion and that the fossils in the Canyon show a clear progression of evolution from bottom to top. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand the weaknesses in his story, nor did the rest of the crowd of tourists standing around.
From time to time he asked for a response, and someone would attempt to parrot back what they had been taught in class or learned from tourist brochures or PBS specials. Especially one young boy, around 10 years of age. Obviously bright and interested in science, his misconceptions understandably were significant, but all those around complimented and encouraged him for being able to rephrase what he had been told. If a ranger, scientist, teacher, documentary, or newspaper tells it, it must be true. Memorize and repeat!
I remember a prior Grand Canyon trip—this time on a hiking trail. One of the participants was an older lady who, in her younger years, had been a ranger at Grand Canyon. She had been taught the "story" and how to teach it. She knew how to wave her arms and talk of millions and billions of years. She revealed that she and the other ranger/story-tellers viewed their public lectures as entertainment. Tourists come to the Canyon fully expecting to be entertained and awed with talk of vast time, and slow processes, and big words they don't understand—all part of the wonder of national parks. The rangers may not know or believe the story, but people expect it.
But this dear lady, a ranger at the time, through the witness of some Christian friends, had come to know the Lord as her personal Savior one night on the rim. Nobody talked about the Canyon, or creation, or her job, but the next morning when she went out to "tell the story," somehow she knew it wasn't true. The words simply wouldn't come. Within a few weeks she had resigned from the Park Service and ever since had been searching for answers. How precious to see her 30-year-old questions answered, satisfying both mind and spirit.
The story rangers tell today has changed somewhat. They take seminars in how to deflect difficult questions from creationists and Christians. And lately the story includes the evils of "man" and the "deification" of nature. The "story" still contains bad science, but uses the opportunity to teach borderline pantheism—another story rangers are taught and which people expect to hear.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Each year ICR sponsors a tour called "Grand Canyon Adventure." After an opening seminar in Phoenix and "mini-lectures" on the Canyon rim, a number of us joined a regularly scheduled nature walk and lecture along the rim, led by a very nice young ranger. The story he told about the formation of the Canyon was predictable, with a few minor variations. But we had already given lectures on this subject, explaining the weaknesses in the traditional "story."
To the group's amazement, the ranger did not seem to understand even what he was saying! He said that radiometric dating can be used to date the limestone layers; that off-shore deposits can be uplifted out of water over millions of years with no erosion and that the fossils in the Canyon show a clear progression of evolution from bottom to top. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand the weaknesses in his story, nor did the rest of the crowd of tourists standing around.
From time to time he asked for a response, and someone would attempt to parrot back what they had been taught in class or learned from tourist brochures or PBS specials. Especially one young boy, around 10 years of age. Obviously bright and interested in science, his misconceptions understandably were significant, but all those around complimented and encouraged him for being able to rephrase what he had been told. If a ranger, scientist, teacher, documentary, or newspaper tells it, it must be true. Memorize and repeat!
I remember a prior Grand Canyon trip—this time on a hiking trail. One of the participants was an older lady who, in her younger years, had been a ranger at Grand Canyon. She had been taught the "story" and how to teach it. She knew how to wave her arms and talk of millions and billions of years. She revealed that she and the other ranger/story-tellers viewed their public lectures as entertainment. Tourists come to the Canyon fully expecting to be entertained and awed with talk of vast time, and slow processes, and big words they don't understand—all part of the wonder of national parks. The rangers may not know or believe the story, but people expect it.
But this dear lady, a ranger at the time, through the witness of some Christian friends, had come to know the Lord as her personal Savior one night on the rim. Nobody talked about the Canyon, or creation, or her job, but the next morning when she went out to "tell the story," somehow she knew it wasn't true. The words simply wouldn't come. Within a few weeks she had resigned from the Park Service and ever since had been searching for answers. How precious to see her 30-year-old questions answered, satisfying both mind and spirit.
The story rangers tell today has changed somewhat. They take seminars in how to deflect difficult questions from creationists and Christians. And lately the story includes the evils of "man" and the "deification" of nature. The "story" still contains bad science, but uses the opportunity to teach borderline pantheism—another story rangers are taught and which people expect to hear.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-park-rangers-tell-credible-story [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories.
On Day Five (Genesis 1:20-23) God created marine life and flying animals, but animals such as the plesiosaur and flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs. However, the Bible does mention "great whales" (v. 21) literally "great sea monsters" or "great dragons." Such terms bring up images of beasts reminiscent of modern re-constructions of dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles.
Day Six saw land animals created (vs. 24-31). Since dinosaurs were land creatures of a variety of sizes and habits, they would be included among the various "kinds" of "living creatures": the "cattle" or domesticated animals; the "creeping things" or small animals; and the "beasts of the earth", the large animals. They were of necessity air-breathing and land-dwelling.
At first, everything was "very good" (v. 31), but soon sin entered, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3) and, eventually, Noah's Flood (Genesis 6-9). Noah was told to take on board the Ark two of each kind of created animal "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (7:22), including, no doubt, dinosaurs.
Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.
In fact, "dragon legends" are best understood as the faded and/or embellished memories of real human encounters with dragons. Sober historians from Herodotus to Marco Polo to Alexander the Great and many others appear to be relating such encounters, and their descriptions of these beasts sound like dinosaurs. Likewise, American-indian stories of the "thunderbird" sound like a giant flying reptile, and some of their cave drawings resemble dinosaurs.
The barest possibility exists that some land dinosaurs could still be alive, as reported by certain rain-forest inhabitants, but more likely they are all extinct.
There is much we don't know about dinosaurs, but the evidence fits the Biblical model well. Evolutionists, however, have difficulty explaining away dragon legends, cave drawings, and even modern "sightings." Furthermore, they can't explain either their demise or their evolution. The "just-so" stories they tell are inferior to a reconstruction of the past based on the Bible.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories.
On Day Five (Genesis 1:20-23) God created marine life and flying animals, but animals such as the plesiosaur and flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs. However, the Bible does mention "great whales" (v. 21) literally "great sea monsters" or "great dragons." Such terms bring up images of beasts reminiscent of modern re-constructions of dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles.
Day Six saw land animals created (vs. 24-31). Since dinosaurs were land creatures of a variety of sizes and habits, they would be included among the various "kinds" of "living creatures": the "cattle" or domesticated animals; the "creeping things" or small animals; and the "beasts of the earth", the large animals. They were of necessity air-breathing and land-dwelling.
At first, everything was "very good" (v. 31), but soon sin entered, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3) and, eventually, Noah's Flood (Genesis 6-9). Noah was told to take on board the Ark two of each kind of created animal "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (7:22), including, no doubt, dinosaurs.
Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.
In fact, "dragon legends" are best understood as the faded and/or embellished memories of real human encounters with dragons. Sober historians from Herodotus to Marco Polo to Alexander the Great and many others appear to be relating such encounters, and their descriptions of these beasts sound like dinosaurs. Likewise, American-indian stories of the "thunderbird" sound like a giant flying reptile, and some of their cave drawings resemble dinosaurs.
The barest possibility exists that some land dinosaurs could still be alive, as reported by certain rain-forest inhabitants, but more likely they are all extinct.
There is much we don't know about dinosaurs, but the evidence fits the Biblical model well. Evolutionists, however, have difficulty explaining away dragon legends, cave drawings, and even modern "sightings." Furthermore, they can't explain either their demise or their evolution. The "just-so" stories they tell are inferior to a reconstruction of the past based on the Bible.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-dinosaurs-survive-flood [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
We often state that Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture, and without a good foundation the rest won't make much sense. Unfortunately, Christians are typically poorly taught in these concepts, and thus have difficulty in formulating and implementing the Biblical world view as it relates to society as well as doctrines built on creation.
But how about scientific research? Can we do better science and understand the past better by going "Back to Genesis"? Before answering, let me point out several truisms regarding science. First, we can never have all the pertinent data. The data we do have exist in the present, and are studied in the present via the scientific method. When dealing with creation and/or evolution, we are attempting to reconstruct past events by interpreting evidence, which exists in the present, the results of past events, which were not observed and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the interpretation of any set of facts relies, to a great extent, on one's view of the past held before studying the present data. And finally, proving any view of the past is quite impossible. We can, however, compare competing views.
If one holds to a naturalistic worldview, that person will interpret all data within that scheme. Data alone cannot force a change of perspective. But if one holds that the supernatural events given in Scripture really occurred, (i.e., Creation, Fall, Flood, miracles, etc.) then the present data will be interpreted within that model.
The Flood of Noah's day, if it happened the way the Bible says, would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils). In order to fully understand the rocks and fossils, we must first recognize this.
When we do, we will be able to make "predications" about the geologic data. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.
And that's exactly what we do see. In fact, almost all geologists have adopted a much more catastrophic stance in recent years, proposing interpretations as turbidities, basal conglomerates, etc. Individual beds are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale, not local, like modern deposits. Erosion in the past, producing large river valleys, peneplains, and incised meanders was quite different from modern erosion, which accomplishes comparatively little. Almost all mountain chains and volcanic episodes occurred more recently than the major depositional episodes.
We can't prove Noah's Flood scientifically, but we can show that the evidence, properly interpreted, points to a global, catastrophic event like Noah's Flood. The evidence is compatible with Biblical history. It is exactly as it should be, if the Bible is true.
By going "Back to Genesis," we can make sense of the geologic evidence. Conversely, if one denies the Flood as history, the evidence is difficult to interpret. The Biblical framework works in science, and strengthens our faith in God and His Word.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>We often state that Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture, and without a good foundation the rest won't make much sense. Unfortunately, Christians are typically poorly taught in these concepts, and thus have difficulty in formulating and implementing the Biblical world view as it relates to society as well as doctrines built on creation.
But how about scientific research? Can we do better science and understand the past better by going "Back to Genesis"? Before answering, let me point out several truisms regarding science. First, we can never have all the pertinent data. The data we do have exist in the present, and are studied in the present via the scientific method. When dealing with creation and/or evolution, we are attempting to reconstruct past events by interpreting evidence, which exists in the present, the results of past events, which were not observed and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the interpretation of any set of facts relies, to a great extent, on one's view of the past held before studying the present data. And finally, proving any view of the past is quite impossible. We can, however, compare competing views.
If one holds to a naturalistic worldview, that person will interpret all data within that scheme. Data alone cannot force a change of perspective. But if one holds that the supernatural events given in Scripture really occurred, (i.e., Creation, Fall, Flood, miracles, etc.) then the present data will be interpreted within that model.
The Flood of Noah's day, if it happened the way the Bible says, would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils). In order to fully understand the rocks and fossils, we must first recognize this.
When we do, we will be able to make "predications" about the geologic data. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.
And that's exactly what we do see. In fact, almost all geologists have adopted a much more catastrophic stance in recent years, proposing interpretations as turbidities, basal conglomerates, etc. Individual beds are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale, not local, like modern deposits. Erosion in the past, producing large river valleys, peneplains, and incised meanders was quite different from modern erosion, which accomplishes comparatively little. Almost all mountain chains and volcanic episodes occurred more recently than the major depositional episodes.
We can't prove Noah's Flood scientifically, but we can show that the evidence, properly interpreted, points to a global, catastrophic event like Noah's Flood. The evidence is compatible with Biblical history. It is exactly as it should be, if the Bible is true.
By going "Back to Genesis," we can make sense of the geologic evidence. Conversely, if one denies the Flood as history, the evidence is difficult to interpret. The Biblical framework works in science, and strengthens our faith in God and His Word.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => can-science-go-back-genesis [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Whether or not they approve of it, almost everyone in America knows of the search for the remains of Noah's Ark. Many books have been printed on the subject, several movies have been produced, and uncounted lectures have been given. It would be hard not to know that hundreds of people have claimed to have seen the remains over the years and dozens of expeditions have gone in search of it.
Some think the Ark will never be found, that God would not allow it because people might worship it or that such obvious evidence would eliminate the need for faith. Others think the Ark has already been found, although in my opinion, they are mistaken. Still others, including myself, think the search should continue, following every lead.
Regardless of the chances of finding the Ark, we can speculate on the results of a successful search—the discovery and documentation of the Ark of Noah in such a way that anyone with an open mind would have to deal with it. In my opinion, the potential good far outweighs the potential bad, in several areas:
Archaeological: Noah's Flood, as described in Scripture, would have totally destroyed the surface of the planet. No civilization could survive except perhaps in the form of rare artifacts. Noah's Ark thus constitutes the one remaining link to the pre-Flood world.
Biblical: No event in Scripture is doubted as much as the Flood. To find it so clearly demonstrated by a discovery would silence the detractors and increase the faith of many.
Scientific: Evolution inevitably, although to varying degrees, rests on the assumption of uniformity, that "the present is the key to the past." Its basic tenet is that there has never been any episode of earth history dramatically different from episodes possible today, and that by studying the present, we can come to important conclusions about the past. There is no room in this view for a mountain-covering, global flood. To find the Ark at a high elevation would destroy the very concept of uniformity, the basic assumption upon which evolution rests. It would probably ring the death knell of evolutionism.
Theological: Noah's Flood was itself a judgment on sin—that of the pre-Flood civilization. God could not (and cannot) allow sin to go unpunished. Noah's Ark was the means by which the few believers were "saved," i.e., Noah and his family. By calling attention to the past judgment on sin and the past Ark of safety, many minds would be focused on the coming judgment on sin and on our present-day Ark of Safety, Jesus Christ.
God has always used evidence to remove roadblocks to faith. Christ didn't ask His disciples to believe in the resurrection just because He had told them it would happen. He appeared unto them to remove their doubts.
The faith that God requires is not faith in the Ark story or even blind faith in creation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. He has provided ample evidence for these great historic events, so that our faith is a reasonable one. The faith necessary for salvation is faith that His death paid the penalty for our sins.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
Whether or not they approve of it, almost everyone in America knows of the search for the remains of Noah's Ark. Many books have been printed on the subject, several movies have been produced, and uncounted lectures have been given. It would be hard not to know that hundreds of people have claimed to have seen the remains over the years and dozens of expeditions have gone in search of it.
Some think the Ark will never be found, that God would not allow it because people might worship it or that such obvious evidence would eliminate the need for faith. Others think the Ark has already been found, although in my opinion, they are mistaken. Still others, including myself, think the search should continue, following every lead.
Regardless of the chances of finding the Ark, we can speculate on the results of a successful search—the discovery and documentation of the Ark of Noah in such a way that anyone with an open mind would have to deal with it. In my opinion, the potential good far outweighs the potential bad, in several areas:
Archaeological: Noah's Flood, as described in Scripture, would have totally destroyed the surface of the planet. No civilization could survive except perhaps in the form of rare artifacts. Noah's Ark thus constitutes the one remaining link to the pre-Flood world.
Biblical: No event in Scripture is doubted as much as the Flood. To find it so clearly demonstrated by a discovery would silence the detractors and increase the faith of many.
Scientific: Evolution inevitably, although to varying degrees, rests on the assumption of uniformity, that "the present is the key to the past." Its basic tenet is that there has never been any episode of earth history dramatically different from episodes possible today, and that by studying the present, we can come to important conclusions about the past. There is no room in this view for a mountain-covering, global flood. To find the Ark at a high elevation would destroy the very concept of uniformity, the basic assumption upon which evolution rests. It would probably ring the death knell of evolutionism.
Theological: Noah's Flood was itself a judgment on sin—that of the pre-Flood civilization. God could not (and cannot) allow sin to go unpunished. Noah's Ark was the means by which the few believers were "saved," i.e., Noah and his family. By calling attention to the past judgment on sin and the past Ark of safety, many minds would be focused on the coming judgment on sin and on our present-day Ark of Safety, Jesus Christ.
God has always used evidence to remove roadblocks to faith. Christ didn't ask His disciples to believe in the resurrection just because He had told them it would happen. He appeared unto them to remove their doubts.
The faith that God requires is not faith in the Ark story or even blind faith in creation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. He has provided ample evidence for these great historic events, so that our faith is a reasonable one. The faith necessary for salvation is faith that His death paid the penalty for our sins.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => would-discovery-noahs-ark-do-any-good
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
When I was in Moscow a couple of years ago, I lectured to a large group of biology teachers and museum curators at the Museum of Biology in Moscow. After my talk, which was enthusiastically received by all present (except the two Ph.D.'s from the nearby Museum of Evolution), I was given a tour of the museum. Hundreds of school students visit each day, in addition to others of the public. Thus the exhibits were geared to convince students that there is no doubt about evolution—a vital point in Communist education.
One exhibit (in the Darwin Room) was especially effective. As gruesome as it seems, newborn babies, in jars of formaldehyde, were displayed, all of whom exhibited some abnormality which seemed to be a "throwback" to animal ancestry.
One baby had several pairs of nipples in a "nipple line," showing relationship to a dog or pig. Another baby was covered with hair, and was called a "monkey baby." Still another had a "tail." There is no doubt, they believe—humans descended from animals.
This was not my first exposure to such evidences. I had been forced to seek out an answer when all three points were brought out in a debate against a biology professor in Long Beach, California.
As it turns out, evolutionists who know something about these problems don't consider them to be an argument for evolution. Instead, these abnormalities represent fetal development problems, and have nothing at all to do with ancestry. Even more serious abnormalities do occur in a host of expressions, which bear no resemblance at all to any possible ancestor.
You see, almost every cell in the developing fetus (and in the adult body) contains the complete genetic code. Thus each cell possesses, in principle, the information necessary to grow into muscle, bone, teeth, blood, nerve, or organ.
Normal development requires an amazing sequence of events. Growth of each component must occur at the proper time and to the proper extent. Throughout the growth, a variety of proteins are secreted which trigger the growth. The lack of the protein trigger, or the improper amount, or faulty timing will produce abnormal development. The marvelous DNA code oversees and governs this development in a healthy environment.
But if the environment undergoes some sort of shock, this intricate sequence could be interrupted. Examples of this shock might be due to malnutrition, or be drug induced, or temperature related, or even due to physical impact.
The most important thing to remember is that the damaged information which produced these developmental abnormalities is not usually present in the reproductive cells, and thus is not passed on to offspring. A person born with multiple nipples can grow to maturity and have children, and their children would have no greater likelihood of having multiple nipples than any other child has. Since the expressed trait is not inherited, it obviously was not inherited from one's ancestors, whether animal or not.
Why, then, is this used as evidence for evolution? Beats me! I guess there's just nothing better to use.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
When I was in Moscow a couple of years ago, I lectured to a large group of biology teachers and museum curators at the Museum of Biology in Moscow. After my talk, which was enthusiastically received by all present (except the two Ph.D.'s from the nearby Museum of Evolution), I was given a tour of the museum. Hundreds of school students visit each day, in addition to others of the public. Thus the exhibits were geared to convince students that there is no doubt about evolution—a vital point in Communist education.
One exhibit (in the Darwin Room) was especially effective. As gruesome as it seems, newborn babies, in jars of formaldehyde, were displayed, all of whom exhibited some abnormality which seemed to be a "throwback" to animal ancestry.
One baby had several pairs of nipples in a "nipple line," showing relationship to a dog or pig. Another baby was covered with hair, and was called a "monkey baby." Still another had a "tail." There is no doubt, they believe—humans descended from animals.
This was not my first exposure to such evidences. I had been forced to seek out an answer when all three points were brought out in a debate against a biology professor in Long Beach, California.
As it turns out, evolutionists who know something about these problems don't consider them to be an argument for evolution. Instead, these abnormalities represent fetal development problems, and have nothing at all to do with ancestry. Even more serious abnormalities do occur in a host of expressions, which bear no resemblance at all to any possible ancestor.
You see, almost every cell in the developing fetus (and in the adult body) contains the complete genetic code. Thus each cell possesses, in principle, the information necessary to grow into muscle, bone, teeth, blood, nerve, or organ.
Normal development requires an amazing sequence of events. Growth of each component must occur at the proper time and to the proper extent. Throughout the growth, a variety of proteins are secreted which trigger the growth. The lack of the protein trigger, or the improper amount, or faulty timing will produce abnormal development. The marvelous DNA code oversees and governs this development in a healthy environment.
But if the environment undergoes some sort of shock, this intricate sequence could be interrupted. Examples of this shock might be due to malnutrition, or be drug induced, or temperature related, or even due to physical impact.
The most important thing to remember is that the damaged information which produced these developmental abnormalities is not usually present in the reproductive cells, and thus is not passed on to offspring. A person born with multiple nipples can grow to maturity and have children, and their children would have no greater likelihood of having multiple nipples than any other child has. Since the expressed trait is not inherited, it obviously was not inherited from one's ancestors, whether animal or not.
Why, then, is this used as evidence for evolution? Beats me! I guess there's just nothing better to use.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => why-do-some-babies-show-animal-characteristics [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
In general, Muslims accept both the Old Testament and the Gospels, but feel that in the translation of the Bible over the centuries many errors crept in. Thus a new revelation from God to Mohammed, in about 600 A.D. was required to set the record straight. Doctrines such as the deity of Christ and salvation by His atoning death on the cross were rejected. The views on creation and the flood are substantially the same, although interpretations of the Koranic teachings are as widely varied, even among committed Muslims, as they are among evangelical Christians.
The Koran, if one interprets it literally, teaches a six-day creation. Adam and Eve were created in innocent perfection and placed in a beautiful garden. Here Satan tempted them to rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit, thus incurring God's wrath and judgment, and expulsion from the Garden.
The wicked pre-flood civilization is described at length. Eventually, Noah is told to build the Ark; and from its passengers the entire world has been repopulated. The description of the flood closely resembles the Biblical description, with vast rainfall, eruptions, and earthquakes. As to the age of the earth, again a straightforward reading implies a creation of all things a few thousand years ago—no room for billions of years of evolution.
If creation is the foundation, the foundation is in place for a truly theistic world view, and Muslims do have such a view. Unfortunately, the Islamic view of salvation is quite different. The penalty for sin in Islam is death, and it is recognized that everyone sins. The individual must pray for forgiveness, but has no assurance of heaven in the afterlife, and must work hard to earn God's favor. Obviously, Islam has not built truly on the foundation of creation.
But there is also a serious flaw in the foundation—that of the nature of the fall into sin. While Adam and Eve received judgment for their sin, there is no hint in the Koran of the curse on all creation, as described in Genesis 3. To a Muslim, creation fell "Out of balance" at the fall, but didn't come under the "bondage of corruption" spoken of in Romans 8:21. Infants carry no inherited sin nature, although they each do eventually choose to sin. Thus, since an individual's choice of sin brings judgment, so an individual's choice of repentance and good works can bring restoration. There is no other payment for sin as in Christianity, where "Christ died for our sins" (I Corinthians 15:3).
At a recent conference in Istanbul, I mentioned that Darwin's stated reason for accepting evolution by natural processes was the existence of pain and suffering, extinction and death in the world. He concluded there must not be a supernatural Creator, and thus only natural processes were at work.
A conversation with several of the Muslim scientists—all of them firm Muslim believers—revealed that they each had problems with this issue. Perhaps this is the main key to Muslim evangelism, focusing their attention on God's just response to sin (as applied both to creation and to individuals), away from a works-oriented salvation, and, instead, on the finished work of the Creator on the cross.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
In general, Muslims accept both the Old Testament and the Gospels, but feel that in the translation of the Bible over the centuries many errors crept in. Thus a new revelation from God to Mohammed, in about 600 A.D. was required to set the record straight. Doctrines such as the deity of Christ and salvation by His atoning death on the cross were rejected. The views on creation and the flood are substantially the same, although interpretations of the Koranic teachings are as widely varied, even among committed Muslims, as they are among evangelical Christians.
The Koran, if one interprets it literally, teaches a six-day creation. Adam and Eve were created in innocent perfection and placed in a beautiful garden. Here Satan tempted them to rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit, thus incurring God's wrath and judgment, and expulsion from the Garden.
The wicked pre-flood civilization is described at length. Eventually, Noah is told to build the Ark; and from its passengers the entire world has been repopulated. The description of the flood closely resembles the Biblical description, with vast rainfall, eruptions, and earthquakes. As to the age of the earth, again a straightforward reading implies a creation of all things a few thousand years ago—no room for billions of years of evolution.
If creation is the foundation, the foundation is in place for a truly theistic world view, and Muslims do have such a view. Unfortunately, the Islamic view of salvation is quite different. The penalty for sin in Islam is death, and it is recognized that everyone sins. The individual must pray for forgiveness, but has no assurance of heaven in the afterlife, and must work hard to earn God's favor. Obviously, Islam has not built truly on the foundation of creation.
But there is also a serious flaw in the foundation—that of the nature of the fall into sin. While Adam and Eve received judgment for their sin, there is no hint in the Koran of the curse on all creation, as described in Genesis 3. To a Muslim, creation fell "Out of balance" at the fall, but didn't come under the "bondage of corruption" spoken of in Romans 8:21. Infants carry no inherited sin nature, although they each do eventually choose to sin. Thus, since an individual's choice of sin brings judgment, so an individual's choice of repentance and good works can bring restoration. There is no other payment for sin as in Christianity, where "Christ died for our sins" (I Corinthians 15:3).
At a recent conference in Istanbul, I mentioned that Darwin's stated reason for accepting evolution by natural processes was the existence of pain and suffering, extinction and death in the world. He concluded there must not be a supernatural Creator, and thus only natural processes were at work.
A conversation with several of the Muslim scientists—all of them firm Muslim believers—revealed that they each had problems with this issue. Perhaps this is the main key to Muslim evangelism, focusing their attention on God's just response to sin (as applied both to creation and to individuals), away from a works-oriented salvation, and, instead, on the finished work of the Creator on the cross.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-muslims-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->