Archive of Articles
[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. ) -->
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. ) -->
