Archive of Articles
American newspapers have been filled lately with news of the revitalized SETI project (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). After decades of unfruitful searching, NASA has now instituted an extremely well-funded effort, using some of the best radio telescopes in the world, all in hopes of intercepting a message from intelligent life out there."
On Monday, October 12, 1992, a day symbolically selected to correspond to the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the Americas; the telescopes and computers began monitoring billions of channels for any signal reflecting an intelligent source. The ten-year project will cost $100 million tax dollars.
Does this project have a chance of success? And is it a worthy scientific project, with worthy scientific goals? Is it a good use of money? Experts disagree on all these points.
Many scientists have now concluded that the laws of science and conditions on Earth preclude the possibility of life evolving naturalistically here on earth. In fact, probability calculations can show that the chances of life forming even once anywhere in the universe are vanishingly small, even given a whole universe of habitable planets in 20 billion years.
Yet how can these ideas be reconciled with those of Astronomer Carl Sagan and others, who glibly state there are probably billions of advanced civilizations in the universe. Clearly advocates are not speaking from a careful study of the probability of life forming by natural processes. This is a religious quest, not scientific.
But the issue doesn't just end with a waste of money on a quixotic quest. NASA has now designated $300,000, together with $700,000 from the National Science Foundation, to develop a SETI-based science-and-math curriculum for elementary and middle school grades. To do so, they have gathered a team of curriculum-writing scientists and educators, and have funded them for three years.
The existence of extraterrestrials will be implicitly assumed, and math-and-science projects will be designed around that theme. While increased interest among students in math and science is surely a worthwhile goal, this effort consists of nothing more than another example of state-mandated, government-funded indoctrination of students in the rationalistic mind set.
But what is the scientific basis for the assumption of extraterrestrial existence? Nothing at all. This religious view may masquerade as science and be promulgated in science classrooms, but it is not science. Students deserve better.
Students could have better, if curriculums acknowledged the presuppositional nature of all issues that deal with their unobserved past or the far away regions of space. We have very limited knowledge of these subjects, but there are two basic ways of interpreting the known data (i.e., the creation and evolutionary world views), and students would develop better critical-thinking skills in an open, non-dogmatic consideration of these issues. Indoctrination in a poorly supported way of thinking will not help.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>American newspapers have been filled lately with news of the revitalized SETI project (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). After decades of unfruitful searching, NASA has now instituted an extremely well-funded effort, using some of the best radio telescopes in the world, all in hopes of intercepting a message from intelligent life out there."
On Monday, October 12, 1992, a day symbolically selected to correspond to the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the Americas; the telescopes and computers began monitoring billions of channels for any signal reflecting an intelligent source. The ten-year project will cost $100 million tax dollars.
Does this project have a chance of success? And is it a worthy scientific project, with worthy scientific goals? Is it a good use of money? Experts disagree on all these points.
Many scientists have now concluded that the laws of science and conditions on Earth preclude the possibility of life evolving naturalistically here on earth. In fact, probability calculations can show that the chances of life forming even once anywhere in the universe are vanishingly small, even given a whole universe of habitable planets in 20 billion years.
Yet how can these ideas be reconciled with those of Astronomer Carl Sagan and others, who glibly state there are probably billions of advanced civilizations in the universe. Clearly advocates are not speaking from a careful study of the probability of life forming by natural processes. This is a religious quest, not scientific.
But the issue doesn't just end with a waste of money on a quixotic quest. NASA has now designated $300,000, together with $700,000 from the National Science Foundation, to develop a SETI-based science-and-math curriculum for elementary and middle school grades. To do so, they have gathered a team of curriculum-writing scientists and educators, and have funded them for three years.
The existence of extraterrestrials will be implicitly assumed, and math-and-science projects will be designed around that theme. While increased interest among students in math and science is surely a worthwhile goal, this effort consists of nothing more than another example of state-mandated, government-funded indoctrination of students in the rationalistic mind set.
But what is the scientific basis for the assumption of extraterrestrial existence? Nothing at all. This religious view may masquerade as science and be promulgated in science classrooms, but it is not science. Students deserve better.
Students could have better, if curriculums acknowledged the presuppositional nature of all issues that deal with their unobserved past or the far away regions of space. We have very limited knowledge of these subjects, but there are two basic ways of interpreting the known data (i.e., the creation and evolutionary world views), and students would develop better critical-thinking skills in an open, non-dogmatic consideration of these issues. Indoctrination in a poorly supported way of thinking will not help.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => does-seti-have-chance-it-science [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
A lot of talk is swirling around these days about traditional values. Just what are they? To most people, encouragement of the strong, nuclear family, fiscal responsibility, respect for law and order as balanced by freedom, good education without a political agenda, reasoned patriotism, respect for human life, religious freedom, and a few others would make the list of traditional values. But what do these concepts have in common? Does belief in creation belong on this list?
Traditional values are not simply "the ideals upon which America was founded," although when America was founded, each item in the above list was prominently present. And they are not just "the way we used to do things," although America used to do things this way. Nor are they merely balanced by a new list of non-traditional values, even though such a new list exists and seems to be winning almost every confrontation with the traditional values.
To define the underlying philosophy behind traditional values would no doubt prove illusive, but it seems to me, to believe in traditional values is to believe in the existence of an absolute standard. While there is individual freedom within certain parameters, some things are definitely wrong and some things are definitely right, and these truths don't change. For example, a heterosexual marriage, lasting for life, with a loving, nurturing relationship between members is definitely right. Premarital chastity and marital fidelity are right, while promiscuity is definitely wrong. A relationship based on sodomy is wrong. A sodomite couple adopting children is wrong. It is wrong to encourage sexual encounters among children; wrong to pass out condoms in junior high school.
Likewise, it is wrong for the government overly to tax away the fruit of a worker's labor. Similarly, it is wrong to let criminals go unpunished, just as it is wrong to propose a society without the restraint of law.
Those who hold to traditional values believe in the sanctity of human life; abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and genocide are definitely wrong. It is wrong to force anyone to worship in a certain fashion, just as it is wrong to force someone not to worship. Some things are right; others are wrong.
It does't take too much to recognize the basis for these rights and wrongs. They all stem from the concept that there is a Creator God who designed people, the family, government, and society to operate in a certain fashion. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation and the wisdom to write them down in a Book, so people would know what they were. To teach about this Creator, His creation, and His guidelines for His creation is not only a traditional value, it is the basis for all traditional values. America was founded by leaders who understood these principles and designed her constitution and laws to reflect them. Little wonder why those proposing the abandonment of traditional values all believe in evolution!
With an election coming up in America, one needs to observe which candidates or referendums reflect traditional values, based on a creationist way of thinking.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>A lot of talk is swirling around these days about traditional values. Just what are they? To most people, encouragement of the strong, nuclear family, fiscal responsibility, respect for law and order as balanced by freedom, good education without a political agenda, reasoned patriotism, respect for human life, religious freedom, and a few others would make the list of traditional values. But what do these concepts have in common? Does belief in creation belong on this list?
Traditional values are not simply "the ideals upon which America was founded," although when America was founded, each item in the above list was prominently present. And they are not just "the way we used to do things," although America used to do things this way. Nor are they merely balanced by a new list of non-traditional values, even though such a new list exists and seems to be winning almost every confrontation with the traditional values.
To define the underlying philosophy behind traditional values would no doubt prove illusive, but it seems to me, to believe in traditional values is to believe in the existence of an absolute standard. While there is individual freedom within certain parameters, some things are definitely wrong and some things are definitely right, and these truths don't change. For example, a heterosexual marriage, lasting for life, with a loving, nurturing relationship between members is definitely right. Premarital chastity and marital fidelity are right, while promiscuity is definitely wrong. A relationship based on sodomy is wrong. A sodomite couple adopting children is wrong. It is wrong to encourage sexual encounters among children; wrong to pass out condoms in junior high school.
Likewise, it is wrong for the government overly to tax away the fruit of a worker's labor. Similarly, it is wrong to let criminals go unpunished, just as it is wrong to propose a society without the restraint of law.
Those who hold to traditional values believe in the sanctity of human life; abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and genocide are definitely wrong. It is wrong to force anyone to worship in a certain fashion, just as it is wrong to force someone not to worship. Some things are right; others are wrong.
It does't take too much to recognize the basis for these rights and wrongs. They all stem from the concept that there is a Creator God who designed people, the family, government, and society to operate in a certain fashion. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation and the wisdom to write them down in a Book, so people would know what they were. To teach about this Creator, His creation, and His guidelines for His creation is not only a traditional value, it is the basis for all traditional values. America was founded by leaders who understood these principles and designed her constitution and laws to reflect them. Little wonder why those proposing the abandonment of traditional values all believe in evolution!
With an election coming up in America, one needs to observe which candidates or referendums reflect traditional values, based on a creationist way of thinking.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => creation-one-traditional-values [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Recently I was called for jury duty. The one trial for which I was selected seems trivial enough (except for those involved), but it contained certain intricacies.
It involved a cab driver who picked up two late-night, stranded motorists. All three had been drinking. Before it was over, there had been a nasty fight and the motorists claimed the cabby stole their money. All involved—the fares, the cabby, the police, the dispatcher, etc., had a different story, and all were convincing. As the jury, we had the difficult job of sorting it all out, of reconstructing the past, unobserved by any of us, as best we could from partial and conflicting evidence. We didn't have direct access to the past, only the evidence which existed in the present and the stories of those who had witnessed portions of the past events. Not an easy task!
When attempting to answer the origins' question, scientists are in a similar situation. Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. Creationists and evolutionists agree precisely when dealing with these issues, (i.e., with science). All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. How then can there be such disagreement about the past?
This present/past issue is the crux of the creation/evolution controversy. No scientist had direct access to the past—all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present, observing the processes, which operate in the present. Science is limited to the present. It is not illegitimate for a—scientist to attempt to reconstruct the past—to try to answer the question, "What happened in the past to make the present get to be this way?" But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations.
As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking—schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct.
Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were "manufactured" by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category. And on and on.
These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don't have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better—the one most likely correct.
But creationists have another advantage. Even though we can't "study the past," we can study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Recently I was called for jury duty. The one trial for which I was selected seems trivial enough (except for those involved), but it contained certain intricacies.
It involved a cab driver who picked up two late-night, stranded motorists. All three had been drinking. Before it was over, there had been a nasty fight and the motorists claimed the cabby stole their money. All involved—the fares, the cabby, the police, the dispatcher, etc., had a different story, and all were convincing. As the jury, we had the difficult job of sorting it all out, of reconstructing the past, unobserved by any of us, as best we could from partial and conflicting evidence. We didn't have direct access to the past, only the evidence which existed in the present and the stories of those who had witnessed portions of the past events. Not an easy task!
When attempting to answer the origins' question, scientists are in a similar situation. Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. Creationists and evolutionists agree precisely when dealing with these issues, (i.e., with science). All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. How then can there be such disagreement about the past?
This present/past issue is the crux of the creation/evolution controversy. No scientist had direct access to the past—all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present, observing the processes, which operate in the present. Science is limited to the present. It is not illegitimate for a—scientist to attempt to reconstruct the past—to try to answer the question, "What happened in the past to make the present get to be this way?" But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations.
As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking—schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct.
Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were "manufactured" by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category. And on and on.
These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don't have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better—the one most likely correct.
But creationists have another advantage. Even though we can't "study the past," we can study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => can-scientists-study-past [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
No doubt you've noticed the recent flurry of newspaper articles and TV interviews which have been proclaiming that the Big Bang theory had finally been proved. An observation by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite had verified a basic prediction of the Big Bang, so astronomers claimed. In fact, this discovery was so stupendous, "It was like looking at God, if you're religious," one said.
Within a week of the pronouncement, I happened to be at a major observatory, and discussed the find with a resident astronomer. He, too, was bubbling with excitement as he spoke. The Big Bang was now a fact, not merely a theory, I was told.
Upon further questioning, he admitted that the Big Bang concept had been at death's door, despite the fact that students have always been taught it, without reservation. This discovery had "saved" the Big Bang.
This astronomer admitted that many recent discoveries had seriously weakened the Big Bang theory. You see, the theory predicts some 15 or so billion years ago, all the matter and all the energy in the entire universe was packed into a single "cosmic egg," a super-dense electron-sized particle. An instability arose, and it exploded (i.e., in a big bang), producing an even distribution of matter and energy in all directions.
This was "proven" by the discovery, in 1964, of a very low-level background radiation the leftover "whisper" of the Big Bang. In all directions, the background radiation was measured at 2.7° Kelvin (equivalent to -270.5° Celsius!) with no variation—perfectly smooth.
But recent observations of the universe have revealed a very "lumpy" universe, with huge clusters of millions of galaxies and immense voids—not at all as expected from theory or the smooth background radiation. This led astronomers to propose that there must have been irregularities in the original "bang" to account for the present "lumpy" universe.
So now you know why astronomers were ecstatic when the COBE satellite measured small fluctuations in the background radiation, for now the Big Bang—everybody's favorite story—had been fully "proved."
But wait! It must be recognized that the variation has not been verified yet by others. No one has yet carefully examined the data. Most telling, the variation was extremely slight—only 30 millionths of a degree. At a lecture this week, one of the designers of the satellite told Dr. Gish that the COBE was not capable of measuring such a small variation. Others have said it is impossible for anything to be perfectly smooth, and even with these variations, the background radiation is smooth! And given the large-scale "lumpiness" or non-homogeneity of the universe, these small variations hardly seem related.
The astronomer I talked to said he was "quite religious, in a way." He knew there must be a God, since there were many things in astronomy he couldn't understand. But now he knew that God either must either be the Big Bang or have caused the Big Bang.
No, the Big Bang hasn't been "saved." At best, its death has been postponed for a few years. Worse, astronomers now have an excuse to continue in their "willful ignorance" (II Peter 3:3) and unbelief.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
No doubt you've noticed the recent flurry of newspaper articles and TV interviews which have been proclaiming that the Big Bang theory had finally been proved. An observation by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite had verified a basic prediction of the Big Bang, so astronomers claimed. In fact, this discovery was so stupendous, "It was like looking at God, if you're religious," one said.
Within a week of the pronouncement, I happened to be at a major observatory, and discussed the find with a resident astronomer. He, too, was bubbling with excitement as he spoke. The Big Bang was now a fact, not merely a theory, I was told.
Upon further questioning, he admitted that the Big Bang concept had been at death's door, despite the fact that students have always been taught it, without reservation. This discovery had "saved" the Big Bang.
This astronomer admitted that many recent discoveries had seriously weakened the Big Bang theory. You see, the theory predicts some 15 or so billion years ago, all the matter and all the energy in the entire universe was packed into a single "cosmic egg," a super-dense electron-sized particle. An instability arose, and it exploded (i.e., in a big bang), producing an even distribution of matter and energy in all directions.
This was "proven" by the discovery, in 1964, of a very low-level background radiation the leftover "whisper" of the Big Bang. In all directions, the background radiation was measured at 2.7° Kelvin (equivalent to -270.5° Celsius!) with no variation—perfectly smooth.
But recent observations of the universe have revealed a very "lumpy" universe, with huge clusters of millions of galaxies and immense voids—not at all as expected from theory or the smooth background radiation. This led astronomers to propose that there must have been irregularities in the original "bang" to account for the present "lumpy" universe.
So now you know why astronomers were ecstatic when the COBE satellite measured small fluctuations in the background radiation, for now the Big Bang—everybody's favorite story—had been fully "proved."
But wait! It must be recognized that the variation has not been verified yet by others. No one has yet carefully examined the data. Most telling, the variation was extremely slight—only 30 millionths of a degree. At a lecture this week, one of the designers of the satellite told Dr. Gish that the COBE was not capable of measuring such a small variation. Others have said it is impossible for anything to be perfectly smooth, and even with these variations, the background radiation is smooth! And given the large-scale "lumpiness" or non-homogeneity of the universe, these small variations hardly seem related.
The astronomer I talked to said he was "quite religious, in a way." He knew there must be a God, since there were many things in astronomy he couldn't understand. But now he knew that God either must either be the Big Bang or have caused the Big Bang.
No, the Big Bang hasn't been "saved." At best, its death has been postponed for a few years. Worse, astronomers now have an excuse to continue in their "willful ignorance" (II Peter 3:3) and unbelief.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => has-big-bang-been-saved [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The following excerpts are from letters received in recent weeks by ICR President Henry Morris. I believe these testimonies will encourage our supporters as they do us. These are typical of many received daily, both in the mail and at our seminars and other meetings.
"As I read the Acts & Facts, I marvel at the amount of work being done by such a small staff. I know of no sound gospel work being done in the states that even remotely compares with the work you are doing for our Lord and His Name in these last days."
From Mexico
"I studied The Genesis Flood at Biola College in 1964, and later read it to our children while they were in third and fifth grade. Now they excel in math and science and we believe we owe much to you for their success."
Missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators
"Let me express to you the enrichment and blessing Days of Praise has been to me! The challenging and thought-provoking patterns of content with which they are filled are spiritually invigorating."
Pennsylvania
"I devour each of the newsletters you send, order books from you to better educate myself and my family, and donate to your ministry financially whenever possible.... I thank you from the bottom of my heart, Dr. Morris, for the ministry of ICR."
Illinois
"I have been praising God for the past year for helping me to discover Dr. Morris' books. I studied geology in college and was spiritually crippled by the 'fact' of evolution for more than 20 years.... I read What is Creation Science ? the way a man dying of thirst drinks water. I can't tell you what this has done for my faith."
A Geologist
"I went about 15 years as an unbelieving 'Christian' looking and seeking and hoping for a god, but . . . my mind, knowledge, and intellect just wouldn't allow me to do so. I was challenged to face the issue of my unbelief and . . . was given a small list of books to begin my quest, . . . including your book Scientific Creationism which I am reading for my third time. I was left dumfounded.... Now for the first time in my life—I believed!"
Colorado
"For the last 2-1/2 years I have been sharing the gospel with my Mormon friend. She happens to be majoring in civil engineering (at Virginia Tech). I mentioned that one of the foremost creationist scientists used to be head of her department, a guy named Morris. Guess whose name is on her hydraulics textbook! . . . (She) called me to see where to get your book on Job.... Believe it or not, it was the theology in the book, and not any evidence, that was a major influence on her. . . . On New Year's Eve, shortly after midnight, after another two hours of long distance, she received Christ into her life!"
From Ohio
"I was an avid atheist, a dedicated evolutionist and materialist just before the days which brought me into acquaintance with the ICR good news. This is, indeed, purely the work of the Savior, Jesus, that brought me from the darkest world to the brilliant world with Jesus.... My spiritual father (is) Dr. Henry Morris.... Presently I have begun writing an article on creation versus evolution to be presented on my campus .... Sooner or later, I'm embarking on the business of translating one of Dr. Morris books into my tongue, Amharic."
From the University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The following excerpts are from letters received in recent weeks by ICR President Henry Morris. I believe these testimonies will encourage our supporters as they do us. These are typical of many received daily, both in the mail and at our seminars and other meetings.
"As I read the Acts & Facts, I marvel at the amount of work being done by such a small staff. I know of no sound gospel work being done in the states that even remotely compares with the work you are doing for our Lord and His Name in these last days."
From Mexico
"I studied The Genesis Flood at Biola College in 1964, and later read it to our children while they were in third and fifth grade. Now they excel in math and science and we believe we owe much to you for their success."
Missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators
"Let me express to you the enrichment and blessing Days of Praise has been to me! The challenging and thought-provoking patterns of content with which they are filled are spiritually invigorating."
Pennsylvania
"I devour each of the newsletters you send, order books from you to better educate myself and my family, and donate to your ministry financially whenever possible.... I thank you from the bottom of my heart, Dr. Morris, for the ministry of ICR."
Illinois
"I have been praising God for the past year for helping me to discover Dr. Morris' books. I studied geology in college and was spiritually crippled by the 'fact' of evolution for more than 20 years.... I read What is Creation Science ? the way a man dying of thirst drinks water. I can't tell you what this has done for my faith."
A Geologist
"I went about 15 years as an unbelieving 'Christian' looking and seeking and hoping for a god, but . . . my mind, knowledge, and intellect just wouldn't allow me to do so. I was challenged to face the issue of my unbelief and . . . was given a small list of books to begin my quest, . . . including your book Scientific Creationism which I am reading for my third time. I was left dumfounded.... Now for the first time in my life—I believed!"
Colorado
"For the last 2-1/2 years I have been sharing the gospel with my Mormon friend. She happens to be majoring in civil engineering (at Virginia Tech). I mentioned that one of the foremost creationist scientists used to be head of her department, a guy named Morris. Guess whose name is on her hydraulics textbook! . . . (She) called me to see where to get your book on Job.... Believe it or not, it was the theology in the book, and not any evidence, that was a major influence on her. . . . On New Year's Eve, shortly after midnight, after another two hours of long distance, she received Christ into her life!"
From Ohio
"I was an avid atheist, a dedicated evolutionist and materialist just before the days which brought me into acquaintance with the ICR good news. This is, indeed, purely the work of the Savior, Jesus, that brought me from the darkest world to the brilliant world with Jesus.... My spiritual father (is) Dr. Henry Morris.... Presently I have begun writing an article on creation versus evolution to be presented on my campus .... Sooner or later, I'm embarking on the business of translating one of Dr. Morris books into my tongue, Amharic."
From the University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => testimonies-letters-president [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->