Archive of Articles
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. ) -->
We've all heard it—the constant haranguing from educators and the media that only the lunatic "fundamentalist" fringe in America still believes in creation. To hear them talk, one would think that evolution has not only been proven, but that all thinking persons have accepted it.
Readers of these pages hopefully are aware that these sweeping pronouncements are not so. In reality, the fringe element in American society is the naturalistic evolutionist, not the fundamentalist!
Results released on November 28, 1991, of a national opinion survey by Gallup Poll, support this position. The pollsters found that 41 percent of all Americans consider themselves "born again," or "evangelical Christians," "up from 33 percent in 1986. Doesn't sound like a "fringe" group" to me.
When asked about their views on origins, 47 percent of the respondents replied that they believed in a special, recent creation of man by God (up from 44 percent in 1982), while another 40 percent held to a God-directed form of evolution (up from 38 percent in 1982). Only nine percent held to a strictly naturalistic brand of evolution.
The problem lies in the fact that almost all university professors espouse this minority view. Typically out of touch with mainstream America (and perhaps reality), university professors include a high percentage of Marxists, New-Age advocates, and atheists. And yet, mainstream America unthinkingly pays large sums of money in tuition to have their young people brainwashed by this radical, fringe element.
Thankfully, the radical professors don't do a very good job at brainwashing. A typical response by academicians to polls such as this, would be, "What are we doing wrong? How can we teach evolution better? Most students are wise enough to reject ideas such as humans descending from animals by chance, that humans are capable of producing a utopian earth, etc. When I was on the faculty of a major university, many, many students came to me telling of brainwashing and intimidation attempts by their professors, and found intellectual satisfaction in more reasonable beliefs.
But their real problem is that evolution is an illogical theory. Logical people know we didn't come from animals; most children simply will not believe it. One has to go to school a long time before the brainwashing really sinks in.
In a country where the majority rules and government should reflect the perspective of the people, how can we begin to change things? Jesus called us to influence society for the better, and it could be that He wants some to become involved in politics. At the very least, each Christian should faithfully vote for those candidates who stand for Biblical values in family and society.
It frequently has been shown that less than 25 percent of Christians ever vote, while other activist groups, such as the homosexuals, vote at over a 90-percent rate. No wonder they have such influence.
If just half of America's Christians knowledgeably voted, then, within a decade, nearly every elected official would be at least sympathetic to the Christian position.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>We've all heard it—the constant haranguing from educators and the media that only the lunatic "fundamentalist" fringe in America still believes in creation. To hear them talk, one would think that evolution has not only been proven, but that all thinking persons have accepted it.
Readers of these pages hopefully are aware that these sweeping pronouncements are not so. In reality, the fringe element in American society is the naturalistic evolutionist, not the fundamentalist!
Results released on November 28, 1991, of a national opinion survey by Gallup Poll, support this position. The pollsters found that 41 percent of all Americans consider themselves "born again," or "evangelical Christians," "up from 33 percent in 1986. Doesn't sound like a "fringe" group" to me.
When asked about their views on origins, 47 percent of the respondents replied that they believed in a special, recent creation of man by God (up from 44 percent in 1982), while another 40 percent held to a God-directed form of evolution (up from 38 percent in 1982). Only nine percent held to a strictly naturalistic brand of evolution.
The problem lies in the fact that almost all university professors espouse this minority view. Typically out of touch with mainstream America (and perhaps reality), university professors include a high percentage of Marxists, New-Age advocates, and atheists. And yet, mainstream America unthinkingly pays large sums of money in tuition to have their young people brainwashed by this radical, fringe element.
Thankfully, the radical professors don't do a very good job at brainwashing. A typical response by academicians to polls such as this, would be, "What are we doing wrong? How can we teach evolution better? Most students are wise enough to reject ideas such as humans descending from animals by chance, that humans are capable of producing a utopian earth, etc. When I was on the faculty of a major university, many, many students came to me telling of brainwashing and intimidation attempts by their professors, and found intellectual satisfaction in more reasonable beliefs.
But their real problem is that evolution is an illogical theory. Logical people know we didn't come from animals; most children simply will not believe it. One has to go to school a long time before the brainwashing really sinks in.
In a country where the majority rules and government should reflect the perspective of the people, how can we begin to change things? Jesus called us to influence society for the better, and it could be that He wants some to become involved in politics. At the very least, each Christian should faithfully vote for those candidates who stand for Biblical values in family and society.
It frequently has been shown that less than 25 percent of Christians ever vote, while other activist groups, such as the homosexuals, vote at over a 90-percent rate. No wonder they have such influence.
If just half of America's Christians knowledgeably voted, then, within a decade, nearly every elected official would be at least sympathetic to the Christian position.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-americans-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The Institute for Creation Research is a multi-faceted organization. ICR conducts meetings for university students as well as pre-schoolers. We do scientific research and speak in churches. Our goal is to produce material on every subject at every level. But perhaps the aspect that thrills us most is to see Christians come back to a belief in all of God's Word, have their questions answered, and get the monkey of evolution off their backs.
I can think of many reasons why a Christian should be a Bible-believing creationist and not try to include any form of evolution in his thinking. In this short space, let me briefly mention several of them:
First, evolution is bad science. Anyone familiar with ICR and its materials is aware that the scientific evidence does not support evolution. Evolution is a non-testable concept, non-falsifiable, and therefore not even a proper scientific theory. It violates the basic laws of science and probability. There is no hint in the fossil record that any basic category of plant or animal has ever changed into any other. It ascribes incredibly complex life forms to pure chance.
Furthermore, evolution has evil fruits. The failed concepts of racism, fascism, Marxism, imperialism, etc., are all founded on evolutionary principles, as are the extant concepts of Freudianism, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, drug use, etc.
One's self-concept is tied up in his view of origins. It makes a big difference if we were created in the image of God, to bring Him glory and do His bidding versus being the chance by-product of primeval slime.
One's entire world view is likewise at stake. Are we here as God's stewards of life and the earth, with the ministry of pointing mankind back to Him, or are we the mere products of nature, with only personal satisfaction, survival, and reproduction mattering?
The Christian should also recognize that evolution is bad Scripture. Belief in long-age evolution requires twisting of Scriptural references in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:20-22, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 11:3, II Peter 3:3-6, etc.
Because it doesn't match with Scripture, evolution is bad theology. If evolution is true, then death preceded sin and cannot be its penalty, and therefore Christ's death did not pay that penalty. One's view of God is distorted when viewed through evolutionary glasses. The concept of billions of years of evolutionary meandering and extinction is inconsistent with God's omnipotence, omniscience, purposiveness, loving nature, and even His grace.
Lastly, one's personal relationship to God is related to origins. The Bible teaches us to worship God for His creative majesty (Revelation 4:11, etc.). I would have a difficult time in prayer if I didn't believe in creation and wasn't able to praise Him as Creator. Our life's work should be to fulfill God's purpose in creation, for we were created as beings on whom He could shower His love and grace, and respond to Him in reciprocal love and obedient service.
Let us not neglect to acknowledge Him as Creator, Author of Scripture, and King of our lives and thoughts.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The Institute for Creation Research is a multi-faceted organization. ICR conducts meetings for university students as well as pre-schoolers. We do scientific research and speak in churches. Our goal is to produce material on every subject at every level. But perhaps the aspect that thrills us most is to see Christians come back to a belief in all of God's Word, have their questions answered, and get the monkey of evolution off their backs.
I can think of many reasons why a Christian should be a Bible-believing creationist and not try to include any form of evolution in his thinking. In this short space, let me briefly mention several of them:
First, evolution is bad science. Anyone familiar with ICR and its materials is aware that the scientific evidence does not support evolution. Evolution is a non-testable concept, non-falsifiable, and therefore not even a proper scientific theory. It violates the basic laws of science and probability. There is no hint in the fossil record that any basic category of plant or animal has ever changed into any other. It ascribes incredibly complex life forms to pure chance.
Furthermore, evolution has evil fruits. The failed concepts of racism, fascism, Marxism, imperialism, etc., are all founded on evolutionary principles, as are the extant concepts of Freudianism, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, drug use, etc.
One's self-concept is tied up in his view of origins. It makes a big difference if we were created in the image of God, to bring Him glory and do His bidding versus being the chance by-product of primeval slime.
One's entire world view is likewise at stake. Are we here as God's stewards of life and the earth, with the ministry of pointing mankind back to Him, or are we the mere products of nature, with only personal satisfaction, survival, and reproduction mattering?
The Christian should also recognize that evolution is bad Scripture. Belief in long-age evolution requires twisting of Scriptural references in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:20-22, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 11:3, II Peter 3:3-6, etc.
Because it doesn't match with Scripture, evolution is bad theology. If evolution is true, then death preceded sin and cannot be its penalty, and therefore Christ's death did not pay that penalty. One's view of God is distorted when viewed through evolutionary glasses. The concept of billions of years of evolutionary meandering and extinction is inconsistent with God's omnipotence, omniscience, purposiveness, loving nature, and even His grace.
Lastly, one's personal relationship to God is related to origins. The Bible teaches us to worship God for His creative majesty (Revelation 4:11, etc.). I would have a difficult time in prayer if I didn't believe in creation and wasn't able to praise Him as Creator. Our life's work should be to fulfill God's purpose in creation, for we were created as beings on whom He could shower His love and grace, and respond to Him in reciprocal love and obedient service.
Let us not neglect to acknowledge Him as Creator, Author of Scripture, and King of our lives and thoughts.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => why-should-christian-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
While nearly all geology professors on the university level accept the concept of the ancient age for the earth, I hold the young-earth position, and do so without compromise, for several reasons:
First, I am absolutely certain that Scripture specifically teaches the young-earth doctrine. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must mean something; the word “day" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc., can only be interpreted legitimately as a literal day; death entered the world only after Adam sinned; the flood of Noah's day deposited the rock and fossil record worldwide; Christ alluded to a recent creation; etc. A Bible believer must believe all of Scripture.
Second, I am equally certain, after lengthy study of and research in the facts, theories, and methods of geology, a reasonable familiarity with the data and methods of radiometric decay, etc., that there is no geological or physical evidence that demands an old earth. There are many interpretations of certain geologic data which propose an old earth, but there is always another, usually better, interpretation of the same data which points to a young earth. The scientific evidence is actually somewhat generic with respect to age; it can be interpreted both ways. I am convinced that the better scientific interpretation is of a young earth. There are problems yet to be solved, but the bulk of the evidence points to a young earth, and no scientific facts are incompatible with that view. Conversely, I am aware of much scientific evidence which is seemingly incompatible with the old-earth view.
Next, the old earth is an integral component of evolutionary ideas, which I regard as patently false. Even evolutionists agree that evolution is unlikely. Only as one shrouds it in the mist of time does it take on the aura of respectability. Vast time is necessary for an evolutionary model to be convincing, and I feel it is for this reason that such emphasis is placed on establishing this extreme view of the past.
Lastly, the old earth concept is a requisite of evolutionism, which is an unmitigated evil. The disgusting and failed systems of fascism, racism, Marxism, social Darwinism, imperialism, etc., etc., have all been based squarely on evolution and the application of an evolutionary world view to society. Likewise, the modern ills of promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, humanism, new-age pantheism, etc., etc., flower from the same evil root. It is, in essence, the anti-Biblical, anti-theistic world view.
There can be no justification for a Christian adopting the old-earth concept. Most Christians who do hold it, do so because they have been taught nothing else, and are usually relieved when they discover the evidence referred to above. To those Christian leaders who hold and perhaps teach the old-earth concept knowledgeably, I would urge them to abandon their compromise of Scripture, to eschew the evils of a failed scientific theory, and join in the battle for truth!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>While nearly all geology professors on the university level accept the concept of the ancient age for the earth, I hold the young-earth position, and do so without compromise, for several reasons:
First, I am absolutely certain that Scripture specifically teaches the young-earth doctrine. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must mean something; the word “day" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc., can only be interpreted legitimately as a literal day; death entered the world only after Adam sinned; the flood of Noah's day deposited the rock and fossil record worldwide; Christ alluded to a recent creation; etc. A Bible believer must believe all of Scripture.
Second, I am equally certain, after lengthy study of and research in the facts, theories, and methods of geology, a reasonable familiarity with the data and methods of radiometric decay, etc., that there is no geological or physical evidence that demands an old earth. There are many interpretations of certain geologic data which propose an old earth, but there is always another, usually better, interpretation of the same data which points to a young earth. The scientific evidence is actually somewhat generic with respect to age; it can be interpreted both ways. I am convinced that the better scientific interpretation is of a young earth. There are problems yet to be solved, but the bulk of the evidence points to a young earth, and no scientific facts are incompatible with that view. Conversely, I am aware of much scientific evidence which is seemingly incompatible with the old-earth view.
Next, the old earth is an integral component of evolutionary ideas, which I regard as patently false. Even evolutionists agree that evolution is unlikely. Only as one shrouds it in the mist of time does it take on the aura of respectability. Vast time is necessary for an evolutionary model to be convincing, and I feel it is for this reason that such emphasis is placed on establishing this extreme view of the past.
Lastly, the old earth concept is a requisite of evolutionism, which is an unmitigated evil. The disgusting and failed systems of fascism, racism, Marxism, social Darwinism, imperialism, etc., etc., have all been based squarely on evolution and the application of an evolutionary world view to society. Likewise, the modern ills of promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, humanism, new-age pantheism, etc., etc., flower from the same evil root. It is, in essence, the anti-Biblical, anti-theistic world view.
There can be no justification for a Christian adopting the old-earth concept. Most Christians who do hold it, do so because they have been taught nothing else, and are usually relieved when they discover the evidence referred to above. To those Christian leaders who hold and perhaps teach the old-earth concept knowledgeably, I would urge them to abandon their compromise of Scripture, to eschew the evils of a failed scientific theory, and join in the battle for truth!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => how-can-geology-professor-believe-that-earth-young [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
In Christ's day, the prevailing philosophy on origins included evolution and long ages of earth history. Their view, of course, was not Darwinian evolution, but it held that the earth and the universe, acting on itself by the forces of nature (which were given names by some) had organized itself into its present state, and was responsible for all of life. The same was true for the philosophy of Moses' day, as he prepared the book of Genesis.
Genesis stands in opposition to such a view, insisting that a transcendent God, external to the universe had called the universe and all it contains into existence from nothing. Genesis further reveals the steps God took during a six-day period to bring this about, and reveals that those days were only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.
When God stepped into the space/time universe which He had created He stepped into a world dominated by those who denied His creative acts, and whose intellectual descendants still refuse to honor Him as Creator. And so, as we try to form our own beliefs about creation, it would behoove us to discern His views on creation and to believe likewise. When we examine His teachings, we will find that Jesus was not only the Creator, He was also a "creationist." Let us briefly look at some of the passages which reveal this: No natural process was responsible for creation—rather, God, Himself, created: ". . .from the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19).
The cosmos had a definite beginning. Matter is not eternal: "...such as was not since the beginning of the world (Greek kosmos) to this time" (Matthew 24:21).
The world had been "founded." Not just coalesced from interstellar dust. ". . .for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).
Even the sun was of God's doing: ". ..He maketh His sun to rise" (Matthew 5:45).
As to plants and animals, each created "kind" was of a different sort: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles" (Matthew 7:16)? Furthermore, God had made provision for even the birds (see Genesis 1:30): "Behold the fowls of the air: . . .your heavenly Father feedeth them" (Matthew 6:26).
The Sabbath was a day of rest in commemoration of the completed creation: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Men and women were created at the start, not 4,000,000,000 years after the start: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), and the union of Adam and Eve forms the basis of our doctrine of marriage: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6).
The two supposedly contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are fully compatible: "Have ye not read that He. . .made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27], and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh?" [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew 19:5).
These and other teachings of Christ, when coupled with the total lack of any reference to evolution or long ages, give us complete confidence that our Lord, the Creator, accepted the Genesis account of creation in its most literal sense. Dare we believe otherwise?
[body_edit] =>In Christ's day, the prevailing philosophy on origins included evolution and long ages of earth history. Their view, of course, was not Darwinian evolution, but it held that the earth and the universe, acting on itself by the forces of nature (which were given names by some) had organized itself into its present state, and was responsible for all of life. The same was true for the philosophy of Moses' day, as he prepared the book of Genesis.
Genesis stands in opposition to such a view, insisting that a transcendent God, external to the universe had called the universe and all it contains into existence from nothing. Genesis further reveals the steps God took during a six-day period to bring this about, and reveals that those days were only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.
When God stepped into the space/time universe which He had created He stepped into a world dominated by those who denied His creative acts, and whose intellectual descendants still refuse to honor Him as Creator. And so, as we try to form our own beliefs about creation, it would behoove us to discern His views on creation and to believe likewise. When we examine His teachings, we will find that Jesus was not only the Creator, He was also a "creationist." Let us briefly look at some of the passages which reveal this: No natural process was responsible for creation—rather, God, Himself, created: ". . .from the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19).
The cosmos had a definite beginning. Matter is not eternal: "...such as was not since the beginning of the world (Greek kosmos) to this time" (Matthew 24:21).
The world had been "founded." Not just coalesced from interstellar dust. ". . .for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).
Even the sun was of God's doing: ". ..He maketh His sun to rise" (Matthew 5:45).
As to plants and animals, each created "kind" was of a different sort: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles" (Matthew 7:16)? Furthermore, God had made provision for even the birds (see Genesis 1:30): "Behold the fowls of the air: . . .your heavenly Father feedeth them" (Matthew 6:26).
The Sabbath was a day of rest in commemoration of the completed creation: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Men and women were created at the start, not 4,000,000,000 years after the start: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), and the union of Adam and Eve forms the basis of our doctrine of marriage: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6).
The two supposedly contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are fully compatible: "Have ye not read that He. . .made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27], and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh?" [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew 19:5).
These and other teachings of Christ, when coupled with the total lack of any reference to evolution or long ages, give us complete confidence that our Lord, the Creator, accepted the Genesis account of creation in its most literal sense. Dare we believe otherwise?
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-jesus-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Kenneth Ham ) -->
The decade of the 1990's holds great promise for the spread of Christianity in previously closed countries. The dramatic call from Eastern Europe for Bibles and other Christian literature, as well as requests for training under Christian leaders, has many missionary-minded organizations rapidly working to fill that need. Thoughtful persons are recognizing that the walls and curtains which have so recently been torn down, may rise once again to shroud great portions of the globe.
Similar calls are echoing from the Far East, from Africa, and from South America. Darkness has had its day, and souls are clamoring for light. The window of opportunity for the Gospel, although perhaps created by a lust for Western materialism and a desire in some sectors for peace, must be traversed by a thoughtful, well planned effort. Should the message of creation play a role in such an evangelistic effort?
During my recent lecture tour in Moscow, I spoke almost exclusively to college students, professors, and scientists. Local Christian leaders, who sponsored my lectures, had targeted the "intelligentsia" as being nearly unreachable by other evangelistic efforts, yet who become very influential, if and when converted. My lectures were predominately of scientific content, but the spiritual implications were included. I had brought gospel tracts in Russian, translated from one used with effectiveness on American campuses, but the Christian leaders discouraged their distribution. How can a person who has been convinced by science that naturalistic evolution accounts for all of reality, and who "knows" there is no God, and has only heard a ridiculous caricature of the superstitious beliefs of the uneducated, possibly be affected when they hear, "God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life"? A lecture on the inability of chance processes to produce life forced them to consider the possibility of God. Then, and only then, could a salvation message communicate. And, as it turned out, each of my lectures was followed by intense interest in both creation science and the nature of the Creator.
Missionaries and Christian leaders from many lands have testified that evolution is the chief roadblock to the acceptance of the Christian Gospel. Most of the world's religious systems, including the atheism of the eastern bloc, the pantheism of Asia, the animism of tribal cultures, and the polytheism of the ancients, are all basically evolutionary systems, ascribing to natural causes, the effects we see around us. Those "educated out of" such systems naturally gravitate to scientific evolutionism, and away from God.
Conversely, many missionaries have found that when they teach the early chapters of Genesis, including the doctrines of creation and Adam's subsequent fall into sin, before the doctrine of salvation from sin by the work of the Creator on the cross, that the response is much greater. Many cultures have traditions which are faded memories of the events of Genesis, yet their descendants have no knowledge of Christ, and this focal point of reference opens their hearts to the fulfillment of their traditions.
Indeed, creationism must be a part of any modern missionary effort. And why not? It is part of the true Gospel of Christ, called "the everlasting gospel," by John, the evangelist (Revelation 14:6,7). Without it, nothing else makes sense!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The decade of the 1990's holds great promise for the spread of Christianity in previously closed countries. The dramatic call from Eastern Europe for Bibles and other Christian literature, as well as requests for training under Christian leaders, has many missionary-minded organizations rapidly working to fill that need. Thoughtful persons are recognizing that the walls and curtains which have so recently been torn down, may rise once again to shroud great portions of the globe.
Similar calls are echoing from the Far East, from Africa, and from South America. Darkness has had its day, and souls are clamoring for light. The window of opportunity for the Gospel, although perhaps created by a lust for Western materialism and a desire in some sectors for peace, must be traversed by a thoughtful, well planned effort. Should the message of creation play a role in such an evangelistic effort?
During my recent lecture tour in Moscow, I spoke almost exclusively to college students, professors, and scientists. Local Christian leaders, who sponsored my lectures, had targeted the "intelligentsia" as being nearly unreachable by other evangelistic efforts, yet who become very influential, if and when converted. My lectures were predominately of scientific content, but the spiritual implications were included. I had brought gospel tracts in Russian, translated from one used with effectiveness on American campuses, but the Christian leaders discouraged their distribution. How can a person who has been convinced by science that naturalistic evolution accounts for all of reality, and who "knows" there is no God, and has only heard a ridiculous caricature of the superstitious beliefs of the uneducated, possibly be affected when they hear, "God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life"? A lecture on the inability of chance processes to produce life forced them to consider the possibility of God. Then, and only then, could a salvation message communicate. And, as it turned out, each of my lectures was followed by intense interest in both creation science and the nature of the Creator.
Missionaries and Christian leaders from many lands have testified that evolution is the chief roadblock to the acceptance of the Christian Gospel. Most of the world's religious systems, including the atheism of the eastern bloc, the pantheism of Asia, the animism of tribal cultures, and the polytheism of the ancients, are all basically evolutionary systems, ascribing to natural causes, the effects we see around us. Those "educated out of" such systems naturally gravitate to scientific evolutionism, and away from God.
Conversely, many missionaries have found that when they teach the early chapters of Genesis, including the doctrines of creation and Adam's subsequent fall into sin, before the doctrine of salvation from sin by the work of the Creator on the cross, that the response is much greater. Many cultures have traditions which are faded memories of the events of Genesis, yet their descendants have no knowledge of Christ, and this focal point of reference opens their hearts to the fulfillment of their traditions.
Indeed, creationism must be a part of any modern missionary effort. And why not? It is part of the true Gospel of Christ, called "the everlasting gospel," by John, the evangelist (Revelation 14:6,7). Without it, nothing else makes sense!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => creationism-missionary-effort [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
During the Christmas season, we focus on the blessed fact that Jesus left His home in Heaven to come to earth as a Babe born in a lowly stable into a human family of modest means. But only an extensive treatment of the Christmas story in evangelical circles deals with the Babe's previous lofty position in Heaven and the redemptive goal of His mission on earth. Even then, much is ignored or omitted.
As is true for much of the New Testament, the Christmas story makes little sense without an understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. In fact, the message of Creation is The Big Picture—the work of Jesus Christ from eternity past to eternity future, with its central focus on Christ's death and resurrection—and it includes the Christmas story.
We must first recognize that the Babe, whose birthday we celebrate on Christmas day, was none other than the omnipotent Creator of all things. Paul, writing of the "Father's...dear Son" (Colossians 1:12,13) reveals that "by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by Him, and for Him" (v. 16). Similarly, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3).
In order to fully understand the nature of the Christ child, we must back up and appreciate the flow of history. Scripture clearly reveals that while each Person of the Trinity participated in Creation—God the Son played the primary role. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation, as well as to set the penalty for breaking the rules. Since God's primary attribute is His absolute holiness, He justly established the penalty for sin to be death (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23, etc.). When mankind chose to rebel against Him, the Holy Creator pronounced the just death penalty on all of Creation. Indeed, sin distorts everything, such that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain" (Romans 8:22).
But this death penalty was also an act of God's grace, because by establishing a penalty for sin, it became possible for the Creator Himself to step into creation, become a Man without sin, Who did not deserve to die, Who then could die as a sacrificial substitute for sinful man, and redeem fallen creation under the guidelines He had established (Colossians 1:14, 20). Only the Creator could be the Redeemer, and He could redeem creation only by taking on the form of a man, experiencing all aspects of life. Therefore, He can even now identify with all problems of life which we encounter—from the womb, to the stable, to the garden, to the cross. Furthermore, the Creator's resurrection from the dead established victory over death and provides us eternal life, with our sins forgiven.
Finally, the Babe in the manger is the King of kings! Only the Creator is able to take the universe's throne and reign in majesty. "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: For Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
As we enjoy the warmth of this Christmas season, let us recognize and indeed revel in the complete Good News—Jesus Christ, the Babe in the Manger is the Sovereign Creator, the Holy Judge, the Sinless Sacrifice, the Victorious Conqueror, the King of kings and Lord of lords!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
During the Christmas season, we focus on the blessed fact that Jesus left His home in Heaven to come to earth as a Babe born in a lowly stable into a human family of modest means. But only an extensive treatment of the Christmas story in evangelical circles deals with the Babe's previous lofty position in Heaven and the redemptive goal of His mission on earth. Even then, much is ignored or omitted.
As is true for much of the New Testament, the Christmas story makes little sense without an understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. In fact, the message of Creation is The Big Picture—the work of Jesus Christ from eternity past to eternity future, with its central focus on Christ's death and resurrection—and it includes the Christmas story.
We must first recognize that the Babe, whose birthday we celebrate on Christmas day, was none other than the omnipotent Creator of all things. Paul, writing of the "Father's...dear Son" (Colossians 1:12,13) reveals that "by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by Him, and for Him" (v. 16). Similarly, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3).
In order to fully understand the nature of the Christ child, we must back up and appreciate the flow of history. Scripture clearly reveals that while each Person of the Trinity participated in Creation—God the Son played the primary role. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation, as well as to set the penalty for breaking the rules. Since God's primary attribute is His absolute holiness, He justly established the penalty for sin to be death (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23, etc.). When mankind chose to rebel against Him, the Holy Creator pronounced the just death penalty on all of Creation. Indeed, sin distorts everything, such that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain" (Romans 8:22).
But this death penalty was also an act of God's grace, because by establishing a penalty for sin, it became possible for the Creator Himself to step into creation, become a Man without sin, Who did not deserve to die, Who then could die as a sacrificial substitute for sinful man, and redeem fallen creation under the guidelines He had established (Colossians 1:14, 20). Only the Creator could be the Redeemer, and He could redeem creation only by taking on the form of a man, experiencing all aspects of life. Therefore, He can even now identify with all problems of life which we encounter—from the womb, to the stable, to the garden, to the cross. Furthermore, the Creator's resurrection from the dead established victory over death and provides us eternal life, with our sins forgiven.
Finally, the Babe in the manger is the King of kings! Only the Creator is able to take the universe's throne and reign in majesty. "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: For Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
As we enjoy the warmth of this Christmas season, let us recognize and indeed revel in the complete Good News—Jesus Christ, the Babe in the Manger is the Sovereign Creator, the Holy Judge, the Sinless Sacrifice, the Victorious Conqueror, the King of kings and Lord of lords!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => who-was-babe-manger
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
In the past few weeks, I was able to read Frank Peretti's best-selling Christian novel, This Present Darkness. The supposed fictional account of an entire town, including a local college, most of the churches, and many of the businesses being taken over by a shadowy, New-Age group, struck a familiar chord with me.
The story weaves many threads together, pitting praying Christians against the demonically controlled "Universal Consciousness Society" and its front organization, the "Omni Corporation.'' Before good triumphs over evil, however, we see that those committed to "world peace" through Eastern mysticism will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, including harassment, smear campaigns, larceny, violence—even murder. Demon-possessed civic and governmental leaders are in total control at every level, who change laws, alter records, confiscate, and imprison to reach their ends.
"What's the connection?" you are asking. First of all, let me say that until ICR became embroiled in its difficulties with the California State Department of Education and its Superintendent over the right to teach science from a creationist perspective in its graduate school, none of us had ever been involved in lawsuits or political bureaucracies before, to more than a nominal degree. But what an eye opener! It now seems to us that those in political power have excessive, if not near-total, control over anything they desire. We have found ourselves in an adversarial relationship not of our making.
Second, perhaps due to the popularity of the creation message these days, but also to a bitter hatred of Christianity, it seems that many individuals and powerful organizations have aligned themselves in a united front to destroy ICR. Those specifically involved include most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups (you could name most of them) as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education. Their goal is total control of education—total mind control. Already, many laws, policies, and programs are in place whose effects will be more pronounced in the days ahead. Evidently they feel powerful enough to move against ICR, perhaps feeling that if ICR falls, Christian education as a whole will be severely weakened.
These same groups are moving against Christian groups on a number of fronts: tax status, credentials, counseling, use permits, hiring of homosexuals, new-age teaching in public schools, banning Christmas scenes in public, etc., etc. Our religious freedoms are being stripped away, and already our influence in the community, as salt and light, is limited.
In the novel, the ruling officials were bound together in covert Satan worship. Although I haven’t run into widespread occultism in governmental circles yet, there is a dominant anti-Christian flavor to much of what is going on—an effort to totally secularize society. It is becoming more and more obvious that the battle must be fought primarily on a spiritual level.
The Christians "won" in the novel. In our case, the battle has been joined. If ever you prayed for ICR and the truth of God's creation of this world, now is the time.
[body_edit] =>In the past few weeks, I was able to read Frank Peretti's best-selling Christian novel, This Present Darkness. The supposed fictional account of an entire town, including a local college, most of the churches, and many of the businesses being taken over by a shadowy, New-Age group, struck a familiar chord with me.
The story weaves many threads together, pitting praying Christians against the demonically controlled "Universal Consciousness Society" and its front organization, the "Omni Corporation.'' Before good triumphs over evil, however, we see that those committed to "world peace" through Eastern mysticism will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, including harassment, smear campaigns, larceny, violence—even murder. Demon-possessed civic and governmental leaders are in total control at every level, who change laws, alter records, confiscate, and imprison to reach their ends.
"What's the connection?" you are asking. First of all, let me say that until ICR became embroiled in its difficulties with the California State Department of Education and its Superintendent over the right to teach science from a creationist perspective in its graduate school, none of us had ever been involved in lawsuits or political bureaucracies before, to more than a nominal degree. But what an eye opener! It now seems to us that those in political power have excessive, if not near-total, control over anything they desire. We have found ourselves in an adversarial relationship not of our making.
Second, perhaps due to the popularity of the creation message these days, but also to a bitter hatred of Christianity, it seems that many individuals and powerful organizations have aligned themselves in a united front to destroy ICR. Those specifically involved include most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups (you could name most of them) as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education. Their goal is total control of education—total mind control. Already, many laws, policies, and programs are in place whose effects will be more pronounced in the days ahead. Evidently they feel powerful enough to move against ICR, perhaps feeling that if ICR falls, Christian education as a whole will be severely weakened.
These same groups are moving against Christian groups on a number of fronts: tax status, credentials, counseling, use permits, hiring of homosexuals, new-age teaching in public schools, banning Christmas scenes in public, etc., etc. Our religious freedoms are being stripped away, and already our influence in the community, as salt and light, is limited.
In the novel, the ruling officials were bound together in covert Satan worship. Although I haven’t run into widespread occultism in governmental circles yet, there is a dominant anti-Christian flavor to much of what is going on—an effort to totally secularize society. It is becoming more and more obvious that the battle must be fought primarily on a spiritual level.
The Christians "won" in the novel. In our case, the battle has been joined. If ever you prayed for ICR and the truth of God's creation of this world, now is the time.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => there-conspiracy-against-creationism [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
I wonder how many Christian parents and teachers are aware of the subtle way in which young minds, and in many cases older minds, are being programmed away from truth and Christian values. For example, what would you say if I pointed out that one of the finest video productions on whales, "Voyage of the Mimi," now being used in fourth-grade classrooms throughout the nation, is, in reality,an evolutionary propaganda?
The first three segments tell the beautiful story of whales and their habitat, and the children have a wonderful time observing and talking about these great mammoths of the sea. We could praise this fine production for children if it weren't for the last segment that tries to answer the question: Where did the whales come from? At this point, an expert (from the Smithsonian Museum) in the study of whales shows a fourth grader how the whale's "blow hole" evolved from the nostrils of a small dog to this monstrous beauty of the sea, where it wound up on top of his head.
It seems that no cost was spared in the producers' lavish efforts to program fourth-grade minds in this outlandish and unscientific idea of the whales' supposed evolution. Few children could come away from this fabrication without being thoroughly convinced that a dog-like creature was the whale's ancestor. The reader should keep in mind that it is not science that the parent and teacher must fear, it is the manipulation of the child's mind through semi-truths and outright fabrications labeled as science that give us reason to fear.
While the "Voyage of the Mimi" draws obvious conclusions about evolution, there are other programs that also claim to teach scientific truth, of which parents and teachers must take note. One of these programs is called Project Wild, endorsed by such New Agers as singer John Denver, which claims to develop environmental literacy. Instead, however, in it we find the most subtle training imaginable in humanism and New-Age philosophy. Project Wild teaches the child "what to think," rather than "how to think" about the environment. Once again, this is done in a most subtle and convincing manner and is not always easily detected.
For example, who would say that mammals and other organisms are not vital to our ecological well-being? Or who would say that we should not be considerate of our pet's comfort, as well as that of wild animals on Planet Earth? This truth is extended out in Project Wild to blind the reader, and makes him more vulnerable to thinking about himself as an animal, rather than a very special creation of God. This is precisely the essence of New Age philosophy.
In Project Wild, man and animal are equal entities in the environment. Anthropomorphism goes on throughout the curriculum, and, by any standard, there is no pedagogical reason for this approach to environmental awareness. What we see in the Project is the antithesis of science as it relates to critical thinking in regards to environmental awareness. Parents and Christian teachers would do well to inform themselves of the new and ever more subtle attempts at capturing the minds of children, as well as ways to combat them. Commitment to the creationist world view is the place to start.
[body_edit] =>I wonder how many Christian parents and teachers are aware of the subtle way in which young minds, and in many cases older minds, are being programmed away from truth and Christian values. For example, what would you say if I pointed out that one of the finest video productions on whales, "Voyage of the Mimi," now being used in fourth-grade classrooms throughout the nation, is, in reality,an evolutionary propaganda?
The first three segments tell the beautiful story of whales and their habitat, and the children have a wonderful time observing and talking about these great mammoths of the sea. We could praise this fine production for children if it weren't for the last segment that tries to answer the question: Where did the whales come from? At this point, an expert (from the Smithsonian Museum) in the study of whales shows a fourth grader how the whale's "blow hole" evolved from the nostrils of a small dog to this monstrous beauty of the sea, where it wound up on top of his head.
It seems that no cost was spared in the producers' lavish efforts to program fourth-grade minds in this outlandish and unscientific idea of the whales' supposed evolution. Few children could come away from this fabrication without being thoroughly convinced that a dog-like creature was the whale's ancestor. The reader should keep in mind that it is not science that the parent and teacher must fear, it is the manipulation of the child's mind through semi-truths and outright fabrications labeled as science that give us reason to fear.
While the "Voyage of the Mimi" draws obvious conclusions about evolution, there are other programs that also claim to teach scientific truth, of which parents and teachers must take note. One of these programs is called Project Wild, endorsed by such New Agers as singer John Denver, which claims to develop environmental literacy. Instead, however, in it we find the most subtle training imaginable in humanism and New-Age philosophy. Project Wild teaches the child "what to think," rather than "how to think" about the environment. Once again, this is done in a most subtle and convincing manner and is not always easily detected.
For example, who would say that mammals and other organisms are not vital to our ecological well-being? Or who would say that we should not be considerate of our pet's comfort, as well as that of wild animals on Planet Earth? This truth is extended out in Project Wild to blind the reader, and makes him more vulnerable to thinking about himself as an animal, rather than a very special creation of God. This is precisely the essence of New Age philosophy.
In Project Wild, man and animal are equal entities in the environment. Anthropomorphism goes on throughout the curriculum, and, by any standard, there is no pedagogical reason for this approach to environmental awareness. What we see in the Project is the antithesis of science as it relates to critical thinking in regards to environmental awareness. Parents and Christian teachers would do well to inform themselves of the new and ever more subtle attempts at capturing the minds of children, as well as ways to combat them. Commitment to the creationist world view is the place to start.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => evolution-new-age-your-childs-education [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Richard Bliss, Ph.D. ) -->
Throughout the years, questions have been raised regarding the Christian faith, which have caused many to stumble, or even abandon the faith altogether. Some seem rather simple, while others are difficult. But if the Christian faith is the true faith, there must be answers, and there are, if one is willing to study and believe.
It does no good to ignore the questions, or to insist that some questions are unaskable, exhibiting a "lack of faith." If young people can't ask and receive honest, satisfying answers in their Christian homes or churches, they will probably assume there are no answers, and deny the validity of Christianity. Remember, many, if not most of the leading humanists, atheists, and anti-Christians come from Christian homes. A few such plaguing questions, with (very) brief answers, follow. (I recommend the ICR book, The Bible Has the Answer as one excellent source of more complete answers.)
1) Evidence for a Creator God? The design and order of the universe, in particular living systems, demands an intelligent Designer. To deny the obvious signature of God in His creation is to be "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
2) Where did God come from? The Bible reveals God as self-existent. This is a basic assumption of Christianity, but all the facts of nature support the validity of this assumption.
3) Where did Cain get his wife? Adam and Eve had "sons and daughters" (Genesis 5). Such unions were a genetic problem by the time of Moses, but were not a problem so soon after Creation.
4) Human color differences? Genetic studies have shown that all humans have the same color, although some have more of the skin-coloring agent than others.
5) Where did the races come from? All humans are descended from Noah's family. Isolation of language groups following the dispersion at the Tower of Babel caused certain characteristics to be expressed which best fit the local environment.
6) What about the dinosaurs? The Bible reveals that land animals were created on Day Six of Creation Week. There is much evidence that humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time.
7) Carbon–14? The Carbon–14 dating method is applicable only for the most recent 3000 years or so, good for dating human archaeological remains.
8) Is the earth billions of years old? Other radiometric dating schemes are thought by some to show that the earth is old, but in reality do not prove the earth is old. They merely assume it, and then work within that and other questionable assumptions. All the real facts fit the concept of a young earth.
9) Is there evidence for Noah's Flood? The global, mountain-covering flood described in the Bible laid down most of the world's fossil bearing (things that died in the Flood judgment) sedimentary (water-deposited) rock. To deny the Flood is to be willingly ignorant" (II Peter 3:6).
10) Isn't Creation a side issue? Most of Christian doctrine is based on Genesis, especially the definition of, and punishment for sin, and man's desperate need for a Savior to die in substitutionary payment for that sin. The Genesis account of creation is vital to the Christian faith.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Throughout the years, questions have been raised regarding the Christian faith, which have caused many to stumble, or even abandon the faith altogether. Some seem rather simple, while others are difficult. But if the Christian faith is the true faith, there must be answers, and there are, if one is willing to study and believe.
It does no good to ignore the questions, or to insist that some questions are unaskable, exhibiting a "lack of faith." If young people can't ask and receive honest, satisfying answers in their Christian homes or churches, they will probably assume there are no answers, and deny the validity of Christianity. Remember, many, if not most of the leading humanists, atheists, and anti-Christians come from Christian homes. A few such plaguing questions, with (very) brief answers, follow. (I recommend the ICR book, The Bible Has the Answer as one excellent source of more complete answers.)
1) Evidence for a Creator God? The design and order of the universe, in particular living systems, demands an intelligent Designer. To deny the obvious signature of God in His creation is to be "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
2) Where did God come from? The Bible reveals God as self-existent. This is a basic assumption of Christianity, but all the facts of nature support the validity of this assumption.
3) Where did Cain get his wife? Adam and Eve had "sons and daughters" (Genesis 5). Such unions were a genetic problem by the time of Moses, but were not a problem so soon after Creation.
4) Human color differences? Genetic studies have shown that all humans have the same color, although some have more of the skin-coloring agent than others.
5) Where did the races come from? All humans are descended from Noah's family. Isolation of language groups following the dispersion at the Tower of Babel caused certain characteristics to be expressed which best fit the local environment.
6) What about the dinosaurs? The Bible reveals that land animals were created on Day Six of Creation Week. There is much evidence that humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time.
7) Carbon–14? The Carbon–14 dating method is applicable only for the most recent 3000 years or so, good for dating human archaeological remains.
8) Is the earth billions of years old? Other radiometric dating schemes are thought by some to show that the earth is old, but in reality do not prove the earth is old. They merely assume it, and then work within that and other questionable assumptions. All the real facts fit the concept of a young earth.
9) Is there evidence for Noah's Flood? The global, mountain-covering flood described in the Bible laid down most of the world's fossil bearing (things that died in the Flood judgment) sedimentary (water-deposited) rock. To deny the Flood is to be willingly ignorant" (II Peter 3:6).
10) Isn't Creation a side issue? Most of Christian doctrine is based on Genesis, especially the definition of, and punishment for sin, and man's desperate need for a Savior to die in substitutionary payment for that sin. The Genesis account of creation is vital to the Christian faith.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-difficult-questions-have-answers [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Picture this scene: A young, pregnant girl is taken into the counseling room at an abortion clinic. Understandably frightened, confused, and vulnerable, she only knows she didn't mean to get pregnant, and wishes she wasn't. She also knows that an abortion would put an end to her pregnancy. But this is a baby we're talking about!
"How far along are you, Sweetie?" the counselor asks.
"Oh, about two months," she answers, to which the counselor replies: "You remember what you learned in your 10th grade biology class—how that the developing embryo goes through various stages during its growth? It goes through a fish stage, where it has 'gill slits' just like a fish. At other times it has a yolk sac like a bird, and a tail like a monkey. At two months it is probably going through its fish stage; it is not fully human yet. Don't think of it as a baby, but as a fish." On display are drawings pointing out the various stages of development of human, fish, monkey, etc., embryos with the similarities pointed out, and, sure enough, they do look remarkably the same convinced by this evidence, our young friend decides to go ahead and have the abortion. After all, it's okay to kill a fish.
It might interest you to know that the above story is true. Not only is it true, it's probably commonplace. This line of reasoning called the biogenetic law, and known by the catch phrase "ontogeny recipitulates phylogeny," is many times given as the supposed scientific justification for abortion. It was originated in 1866 by Hitler's mentor, Ernest Haeckel, who produced the series of comparative drawings used in both biology textbooks and abortion clinics.
It might also interest you to know that the whole concept has been discredited for decades. As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.
But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth. Similarly, the embryonic human "tail" is in reality the developing coccyx, or "tail bone," a vitally important, fully human feature, while the so-called yolk sac is not a source of nourishment as in a bird egg, but is the source of the embryo's first blood cells. Everything about the human embryo is totally unique and human.
It doesn't make sense that abortionists could use such bad science to justify their deeds. But then, a lot about abortion doesn't make sense.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Picture this scene: A young, pregnant girl is taken into the counseling room at an abortion clinic. Understandably frightened, confused, and vulnerable, she only knows she didn't mean to get pregnant, and wishes she wasn't. She also knows that an abortion would put an end to her pregnancy. But this is a baby we're talking about!
"How far along are you, Sweetie?" the counselor asks.
"Oh, about two months," she answers, to which the counselor replies: "You remember what you learned in your 10th grade biology class—how that the developing embryo goes through various stages during its growth? It goes through a fish stage, where it has 'gill slits' just like a fish. At other times it has a yolk sac like a bird, and a tail like a monkey. At two months it is probably going through its fish stage; it is not fully human yet. Don't think of it as a baby, but as a fish." On display are drawings pointing out the various stages of development of human, fish, monkey, etc., embryos with the similarities pointed out, and, sure enough, they do look remarkably the same convinced by this evidence, our young friend decides to go ahead and have the abortion. After all, it's okay to kill a fish.
It might interest you to know that the above story is true. Not only is it true, it's probably commonplace. This line of reasoning called the biogenetic law, and known by the catch phrase "ontogeny recipitulates phylogeny," is many times given as the supposed scientific justification for abortion. It was originated in 1866 by Hitler's mentor, Ernest Haeckel, who produced the series of comparative drawings used in both biology textbooks and abortion clinics.
It might also interest you to know that the whole concept has been discredited for decades. As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.
But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth. Similarly, the embryonic human "tail" is in reality the developing coccyx, or "tail bone," a vitally important, fully human feature, while the so-called yolk sac is not a source of nourishment as in a bird egg, but is the source of the embryo's first blood cells. Everything about the human embryo is totally unique and human.
It doesn't make sense that abortionists could use such bad science to justify their deeds. But then, a lot about abortion doesn't make sense.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => does-human-embryo-go-through-animal-stages [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
When God wrote the Biblical record, He chose not to give all the scientific and historical details. The best we can do is to hold tightly to the specifics it does give, and interpret the scientific facts within that framework. The Christian creationist must be committed to truth, and hold lightly those pet theories and opinions not spelled out in Scripture, striving to fine-tune his understanding through careful scientific research.
Case in point: Recent news reports have noted that a few explorers claim to have identified a "boat-shaped rock formation" in the foothills of Mt. Ararat as the remains of Noah's Ark. Readers who have followed the search for the Ark are aware that most researchers have concluded that the remains, if still in existence at all, are most likely on the nearby glacier-covered volcanic peak where several hundred people over the last 150 years claim to have seen a rectangular, barge-shaped object partially covered by rock, ice, and snow.
But recently, these few individuals have concluded that this rock formation is the Ark. Supporting their claims are very questionable research methods, but it is worth noting that very serious scientific study (including my own field and lab study, and corroborated by Dr. John Baumgardner's core-drilling investigation during the summer of 1988) discovered nothing that does not have a simple geologic explanation. As much as I wish it were the Ark, there is no evidence that it is, and we should not be overly encouraged by these unwarranted claims. Research continues, with at least one expedition planned for this summer on Mt.Ararat.
Actually, we can learn a lot from this episode. Science is not (or should not be, anyway) done in the media. Saying something often enough, and loudly enough, doesn't make it so. Creationists at times forget this fact.
But it seems to me that our evolutionary counterparts purposefully abuse science in this way. How else can the fact that a viewpoint which claims to explain the entire universe, yet which has so little objective scientific evidence to support it, which runs counter to basic scientific law, which is statistically impossible, and which is an affront to logic and intuition, hold such sway in American life? It is no wonder that big-name evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, and Carl Sagan, who command incredibly large lecture fees, refuse to debate creationists on the scientific evidence. They know their bias might be exposed. Only as the evolutionary religion is told in the name of science and received without question can it continue. And that is what evolutionist’s bank on!
Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard. Although we have a Book, which we accept on faith, that faith is not a mindless, groundless faith, for it is based on sound evidences given in the context of scientific and historical truth. We do have a mandate to transmit the truths of Scripture to the next generation, but it is also true that the Bible is not specific on every issue. It does not specify the exact location (or even the present existence) of Noah's Ark. We must do our science carefully and honestly, reporting our conclusions properly and cautiously, and correcting them when warranted, all the while identifying our presuppositional bias, even though evolutionists seldom do the same.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>When God wrote the Biblical record, He chose not to give all the scientific and historical details. The best we can do is to hold tightly to the specifics it does give, and interpret the scientific facts within that framework. The Christian creationist must be committed to truth, and hold lightly those pet theories and opinions not spelled out in Scripture, striving to fine-tune his understanding through careful scientific research.
Case in point: Recent news reports have noted that a few explorers claim to have identified a "boat-shaped rock formation" in the foothills of Mt. Ararat as the remains of Noah's Ark. Readers who have followed the search for the Ark are aware that most researchers have concluded that the remains, if still in existence at all, are most likely on the nearby glacier-covered volcanic peak where several hundred people over the last 150 years claim to have seen a rectangular, barge-shaped object partially covered by rock, ice, and snow.
But recently, these few individuals have concluded that this rock formation is the Ark. Supporting their claims are very questionable research methods, but it is worth noting that very serious scientific study (including my own field and lab study, and corroborated by Dr. John Baumgardner's core-drilling investigation during the summer of 1988) discovered nothing that does not have a simple geologic explanation. As much as I wish it were the Ark, there is no evidence that it is, and we should not be overly encouraged by these unwarranted claims. Research continues, with at least one expedition planned for this summer on Mt.Ararat.
Actually, we can learn a lot from this episode. Science is not (or should not be, anyway) done in the media. Saying something often enough, and loudly enough, doesn't make it so. Creationists at times forget this fact.
But it seems to me that our evolutionary counterparts purposefully abuse science in this way. How else can the fact that a viewpoint which claims to explain the entire universe, yet which has so little objective scientific evidence to support it, which runs counter to basic scientific law, which is statistically impossible, and which is an affront to logic and intuition, hold such sway in American life? It is no wonder that big-name evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, and Carl Sagan, who command incredibly large lecture fees, refuse to debate creationists on the scientific evidence. They know their bias might be exposed. Only as the evolutionary religion is told in the name of science and received without question can it continue. And that is what evolutionist’s bank on!
Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard. Although we have a Book, which we accept on faith, that faith is not a mindless, groundless faith, for it is based on sound evidences given in the context of scientific and historical truth. We do have a mandate to transmit the truths of Scripture to the next generation, but it is also true that the Bible is not specific on every issue. It does not specify the exact location (or even the present existence) of Noah's Ark. We must do our science carefully and honestly, reporting our conclusions properly and cautiously, and correcting them when warranted, all the while identifying our presuppositional bias, even though evolutionists seldom do the same.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => has-noahs-ark-been-discovered [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
The biggest problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from non-life. Even the simplest single-celled organism is unthinkably complex, with scores of highly-sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate that even a protein molecule, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids, could never arise by chance. And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life from non-life is impossible without intelligent design. Actually, any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignoring of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.
Another huge problem for evolutionists lies in the nature of the fossil record, i.e., the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no in-between forms have ever been discovered. Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual, "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that in-between forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.
The evidence for creation is so strong; it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists, who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
The biggest problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from non-life. Even the simplest single-celled organism is unthinkably complex, with scores of highly-sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate that even a protein molecule, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids, could never arise by chance. And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life from non-life is impossible without intelligent design. Actually, any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignoring of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.
Another huge problem for evolutionists lies in the nature of the fossil record, i.e., the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no in-between forms have ever been discovered. Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual, "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that in-between forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.
The evidence for creation is so strong; it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists, who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => there-evidence-against-evolution
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
After a recent, televised, creation/evolution debate with a well-known evolutionist, a scientist who has written several particularly venomous articles against Christianity in the journal, American Atheist, I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently? Having asked this same question to a number of such persons, I was not surprised by his reply.
He had grown up in a very religious Christian home and church, and throughout his teen years had accepted Scripture in its entirety and had intended to become a minister. Yet, he did not get answers to a number of questions. All it took was one course in evolution at a nearby formerly Christian college to cause him to abandon Christianity and adopt atheism, not only as his own view, but also as his life's message.
His testimony is far from unique. A surprising number of this country's leading atheists, humanists, and evolutionists are from evangelical Christian homes, but almost none were ever taught how to defend their faith in a confrontational environment, nor were they taught how to think along Biblical lines.
Our ICR books and messages have shown that creationism is foundational to all Christian doctrine and living. Neither Christianity as a whole nor individual Christians can remain strong against frontal attacks without a firm belief in supernatural creation. Until we understand that Jesus Christ is the Creator, we can never fully grasp the significance of His work of redemption. Unless we understand that He created the world in a sinless state, and that this state was lost by the rebellion of Adam, we can never understand our need for a Savior.
How did we get into such a situation? With few exceptions, today's public high schools and state universities are confrontational to the creationist student. I have counseled with students and wept with heartbroken parents over this issue. The creationist perspective is simply not tolerated by many teachers or professors, who take it upon themselves to ridicule Christianity and belittle and intimidate creationist students. When I was on the faculty of a major university, my outspoken creationist testimony was strongly resented, and a number of efforts were made to silence me.
The problem extends to Christian schools, as well. Recently, a creationist science professor at Baylor University (Southern Baptist) was warned by the faculty and by a national atheistic organization never to identify himself with creationism again on that campus. Many professors at Wheaton College, Calvin College, and other schools with strong Biblical roots, are now among the most outspoken critics and bitter opponents of a return to creationist thinking.
Perhaps the greatest responsibility, however, is reserved for evangelical churches and homes. Many pastors have: been trained in theistic evolution (sometimes even in leading evangelical seminaries) or else taught to ignore "controversial issues." Likewise, parents have neglected to get good reading material into the hands of their children, and have not monitored their input from TV, schools, etc.
Today we can expect at best only tolerance of the Christian worldview in the public schools. Our only hope is to return, in our own churches, schools, seminaries, and hearts, to the infallible Word of God, especially its foundational principles in the early chapters of Genesis.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>After a recent, televised, creation/evolution debate with a well-known evolutionist, a scientist who has written several particularly venomous articles against Christianity in the journal, American Atheist, I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently? Having asked this same question to a number of such persons, I was not surprised by his reply.
He had grown up in a very religious Christian home and church, and throughout his teen years had accepted Scripture in its entirety and had intended to become a minister. Yet, he did not get answers to a number of questions. All it took was one course in evolution at a nearby formerly Christian college to cause him to abandon Christianity and adopt atheism, not only as his own view, but also as his life's message.
His testimony is far from unique. A surprising number of this country's leading atheists, humanists, and evolutionists are from evangelical Christian homes, but almost none were ever taught how to defend their faith in a confrontational environment, nor were they taught how to think along Biblical lines.
Our ICR books and messages have shown that creationism is foundational to all Christian doctrine and living. Neither Christianity as a whole nor individual Christians can remain strong against frontal attacks without a firm belief in supernatural creation. Until we understand that Jesus Christ is the Creator, we can never fully grasp the significance of His work of redemption. Unless we understand that He created the world in a sinless state, and that this state was lost by the rebellion of Adam, we can never understand our need for a Savior.
How did we get into such a situation? With few exceptions, today's public high schools and state universities are confrontational to the creationist student. I have counseled with students and wept with heartbroken parents over this issue. The creationist perspective is simply not tolerated by many teachers or professors, who take it upon themselves to ridicule Christianity and belittle and intimidate creationist students. When I was on the faculty of a major university, my outspoken creationist testimony was strongly resented, and a number of efforts were made to silence me.
The problem extends to Christian schools, as well. Recently, a creationist science professor at Baylor University (Southern Baptist) was warned by the faculty and by a national atheistic organization never to identify himself with creationism again on that campus. Many professors at Wheaton College, Calvin College, and other schools with strong Biblical roots, are now among the most outspoken critics and bitter opponents of a return to creationist thinking.
Perhaps the greatest responsibility, however, is reserved for evangelical churches and homes. Many pastors have: been trained in theistic evolution (sometimes even in leading evangelical seminaries) or else taught to ignore "controversial issues." Likewise, parents have neglected to get good reading material into the hands of their children, and have not monitored their input from TV, schools, etc.
Today we can expect at best only tolerance of the Christian worldview in the public schools. Our only hope is to return, in our own churches, schools, seminaries, and hearts, to the infallible Word of God, especially its foundational principles in the early chapters of Genesis.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => where-do-anti-creationists-come-from [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Not too long ago, a scientist who claims to believe the Bible and calls himself a creationist, came to ICR to confront us with our error of teaching a recent creation. He held to a 5-billion year-old earth, a view, which we feel, is fraught with many logical fallacies, not the least of which is the insistence that the Flood of Noah was merely a local flood.
Here is the issue: All advocates of the old earth insist that "proof" of such ages lies in the rocks and fossils of the earth's crust. They claim these were laid down by either slow and gradual processes, or by occasional rapid processes of local extent. The fact that many of these rock layers are of continental extent forces them to postulate migrating shorelines, widely meandering rivers, unthinkably large deltas, etc. Furthermore, the rock units in most cases were laid down by catastrophic events, but these events, they say, were rare, occurring every million years or so.
But if the flood actually happened the way the Bible seems to describe it (i.e., a year-long, mountain-covering, world-restructuring event), it would have laid down many layers of mud full of dead things (i.e., now rocks and fossils) covering immense areas, having been deposited under catastrophic conditions. A proper interpretation of the rocks and fossils speaks of a global, dynamic, watery catastrophe: the Biblical Deluge.
Only denial of Biblical teaching could lead one to misinterpret the rocks and fossils to support long ages. If the flood happened the way the Bible says it happened, then it laid down the rocks and fossils, and there is no remaining evidence for an old earth, or evolution, for that matter.
Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He certainly could have written much more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted over 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. Consider these few quotes of the many: "the face of the earth (i.e., planet)" (6:1); "end of all flesh . . .the earth is filled with violence . . .I will destroy them with the earth" (6:13); "destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die" (6:17); etc., etc.
Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah's Flood (9:11, 15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah's Flood. If Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival for he had many years' warning (6:3).
Perhaps more convincing is the fact that Jesus Christ based His teaching of coming judgment on all mankind on the fact that Noah's Flood judged all mankind (Matthew 24:36-39, Luke 17:26, 27). A local flood implies a partial judgment. Likewise, Peter based his prophecy that the existing planet: will "melt with fervent heat" (II Peter 3:10) and an entire"new heavens" and a "new earth" will be recreated (3:13) on the historical fact of the global flood of Noah's day (3:6). All things considered, few doctrines are taught as clearly in Scripture as that of the global flood.
The Christian need not distort the clear teachings of the Word of God. My testimony as a geologist is this: I know no fact of geology that cannot be interpreted by the Biblical worldview in a way at least as satisfying as (usually better than) the evolutionary, slow-and-gradual worldview.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Not too long ago, a scientist who claims to believe the Bible and calls himself a creationist, came to ICR to confront us with our error of teaching a recent creation. He held to a 5-billion year-old earth, a view, which we feel, is fraught with many logical fallacies, not the least of which is the insistence that the Flood of Noah was merely a local flood.
Here is the issue: All advocates of the old earth insist that "proof" of such ages lies in the rocks and fossils of the earth's crust. They claim these were laid down by either slow and gradual processes, or by occasional rapid processes of local extent. The fact that many of these rock layers are of continental extent forces them to postulate migrating shorelines, widely meandering rivers, unthinkably large deltas, etc. Furthermore, the rock units in most cases were laid down by catastrophic events, but these events, they say, were rare, occurring every million years or so.
But if the flood actually happened the way the Bible seems to describe it (i.e., a year-long, mountain-covering, world-restructuring event), it would have laid down many layers of mud full of dead things (i.e., now rocks and fossils) covering immense areas, having been deposited under catastrophic conditions. A proper interpretation of the rocks and fossils speaks of a global, dynamic, watery catastrophe: the Biblical Deluge.
Only denial of Biblical teaching could lead one to misinterpret the rocks and fossils to support long ages. If the flood happened the way the Bible says it happened, then it laid down the rocks and fossils, and there is no remaining evidence for an old earth, or evolution, for that matter.
Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He certainly could have written much more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted over 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. Consider these few quotes of the many: "the face of the earth (i.e., planet)" (6:1); "end of all flesh . . .the earth is filled with violence . . .I will destroy them with the earth" (6:13); "destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die" (6:17); etc., etc.
Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah's Flood (9:11, 15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah's Flood. If Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival for he had many years' warning (6:3).
Perhaps more convincing is the fact that Jesus Christ based His teaching of coming judgment on all mankind on the fact that Noah's Flood judged all mankind (Matthew 24:36-39, Luke 17:26, 27). A local flood implies a partial judgment. Likewise, Peter based his prophecy that the existing planet: will "melt with fervent heat" (II Peter 3:10) and an entire"new heavens" and a "new earth" will be recreated (3:13) on the historical fact of the global flood of Noah's day (3:6). All things considered, few doctrines are taught as clearly in Scripture as that of the global flood.
The Christian need not distort the clear teachings of the Word of God. My testimony as a geologist is this: I know no fact of geology that cannot be interpreted by the Biblical worldview in a way at least as satisfying as (usually better than) the evolutionary, slow-and-gradual worldview.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-noahs-flood-cover-whole-earth [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for"God hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah's family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah's family, the creation model postulates a "racially mixed" population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn't. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by "a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes" (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for"God hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah's family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah's family, the creation model postulates a "racially mixed" population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn't. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by "a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes" (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => where-did-races-come-from
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
The other night at bedtime, after we had read a Bible story and prayed, my oldest daughter, Chara, aged 8, fired a series of questions at me which came from her innermost being. "How do I know if creation is true? In fact, how do I know if there really is God I've never seen Him. The girl next doors' teacher believes in evolution. How am I supposed to know?" Appreciating her questioning spirit, I promised to do a set of creation "experiments" with her that weekend, and her excitement grew as the weekend approached.
When the time came, I presented her with a series of four grocery sacks, each to be examined in turn. I explained that God no longer creates as He did during creation week (Gen. 2:1-4, Ex. 10:1 1, etc.), but that if He has created we ought to be able to tell it by observing the things He has made. By way of analogy we discussed how to tell if a person had "made" (i.e., created) something. She determined that a human "created" object would be designed, it would have some purpose, and it would require some intelligence to make it.
The first sack contained a series of rocks, several from the driveway, and a piece of polished marble, a rounded turquoise, a stone arrowhead, and a concrete brick (i.e., man-made "rock"). She methodically examined each one, correctly identifying those with design, purpose (even though she didn't always know the specific purpose, she knew it must be there), and underlying intelligence. The next sack was a similar array of wood, several pieces quite rough, a twig, a tongue depressor, a wooden button, and a carving. Again, she could easily discern the evidence for "creation."
Next she examined a stack of paper. One page was blank; one had random blobs of paint on it, neither showing human intelligence. A page of scribbling was correctly identified as of human origin, for although it was a mess, it was not something that could "just happen." Next were a page from a magazine and some of my own sloppy artwork. Then came a note from me expressing my love and support for her in her quest. She was getting the point. There is a difference between things that are purposefully made and things that just happen.
Next, I showed her pictures of animals and plants from a biology book, and explained how each living thing is made up of many complex cells, which were also shown. At a smaller scale, I explained the DNA code, which was both pictured and sketched, which contains more information and design than is in all the books in San Diego put together. All of that information must be read and followed for each cell to continue living. She recognized that such marvelous design could only come about if designed by someone very intelligent-more intelligent than any of today's scientists.
The last sack contained several more driveway rocks (granite, with no fossils), several rocks with fossils in them, a dried sea horse and sand dollar and a flower. Her questions were answered, all living things are the handiworks of a creator, and even nonliving rocks accomplish a wonderful purpose, for without them there would be no place to live.
There may be other questions or times of doubt ahead for her, but I am sure she will never forget the conclusions she reached that day. No amount of "education" will convince her that order can naturally come from disorder.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The other night at bedtime, after we had read a Bible story and prayed, my oldest daughter, Chara, aged 8, fired a series of questions at me which came from her innermost being. "How do I know if creation is true? In fact, how do I know if there really is God I've never seen Him. The girl next doors' teacher believes in evolution. How am I supposed to know?" Appreciating her questioning spirit, I promised to do a set of creation "experiments" with her that weekend, and her excitement grew as the weekend approached.
When the time came, I presented her with a series of four grocery sacks, each to be examined in turn. I explained that God no longer creates as He did during creation week (Gen. 2:1-4, Ex. 10:1 1, etc.), but that if He has created we ought to be able to tell it by observing the things He has made. By way of analogy we discussed how to tell if a person had "made" (i.e., created) something. She determined that a human "created" object would be designed, it would have some purpose, and it would require some intelligence to make it.
The first sack contained a series of rocks, several from the driveway, and a piece of polished marble, a rounded turquoise, a stone arrowhead, and a concrete brick (i.e., man-made "rock"). She methodically examined each one, correctly identifying those with design, purpose (even though she didn't always know the specific purpose, she knew it must be there), and underlying intelligence. The next sack was a similar array of wood, several pieces quite rough, a twig, a tongue depressor, a wooden button, and a carving. Again, she could easily discern the evidence for "creation."
Next she examined a stack of paper. One page was blank; one had random blobs of paint on it, neither showing human intelligence. A page of scribbling was correctly identified as of human origin, for although it was a mess, it was not something that could "just happen." Next were a page from a magazine and some of my own sloppy artwork. Then came a note from me expressing my love and support for her in her quest. She was getting the point. There is a difference between things that are purposefully made and things that just happen.
Next, I showed her pictures of animals and plants from a biology book, and explained how each living thing is made up of many complex cells, which were also shown. At a smaller scale, I explained the DNA code, which was both pictured and sketched, which contains more information and design than is in all the books in San Diego put together. All of that information must be read and followed for each cell to continue living. She recognized that such marvelous design could only come about if designed by someone very intelligent-more intelligent than any of today's scientists.
The last sack contained several more driveway rocks (granite, with no fossils), several rocks with fossils in them, a dried sea horse and sand dollar and a flower. Her questions were answered, all living things are the handiworks of a creator, and even nonliving rocks accomplish a wonderful purpose, for without them there would be no place to live.
There may be other questions or times of doubt ahead for her, but I am sure she will never forget the conclusions she reached that day. No amount of "education" will convince her that order can naturally come from disorder.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => how-do-i-know-there-really-god [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
