Archive of Back to Genesis Articles
.jpg)
.jpg)
Rocks and fossils do not come with labels informing us of their age. They must be understood in light of their geologic context, and interpreted within a worldview. Unfortunately, my evolutionary colleagues are often so dominated by uniformitarian brainwashing they can't objectively understand young-Earth evidence. Nevertheless, some of the evidence is clear and open for all to see.
One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet into the air.
A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock. For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone, nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source.
Evidently a tectonic event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner "dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock. Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away, leaving only a vertical pipe.
The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and erosion provides the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up.
In the presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.
[body_edit] =>Rocks and fossils do not come with labels informing us of their age. They must be understood in light of their geologic context, and interpreted within a worldview. Unfortunately, my evolutionary colleagues are often so dominated by uniformitarian brainwashing they can't objectively understand young-Earth evidence. Nevertheless, some of the evidence is clear and open for all to see.
One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet into the air.
A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock. For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone, nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source.
Evidently a tectonic event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner "dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock. Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away, leaving only a vertical pipe.
The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and erosion provides the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up.
In the presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => where-can-we-see-young-earth-evidence [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Endnotes
- http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/amber/
- See also Yeoman, B. April 2006. Schweitzer's dangerous discovery. Discover, p. 37.
* Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. 2006. Amber: A Window to the Recent Past. Acts & Facts. 35 (7).
[body_edit] =>Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.
Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.
The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.
There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.
The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.
To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.
Endnotes
- http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/amber/
- See also Yeoman, B. April 2006. Schweitzer's dangerous discovery. Discover, p. 37.
* Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. 2006. Amber: A Window to the Recent Past. Acts & Facts. 35 (7).
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => amber-window-recent-past [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Frank Sherwin, D.Sc. (Hon.) ) -->
"Astrobiology" is a curious science. Like its predecessor "exobiology" it is, as George Gaylord Simpson once quipped, "a science without a subject." We know about astrophysics and astrochemistry, but where is the biology in astronomy? So far, it's only in the imaginations of evolutionists, who think the recipe for life is as simple as "just add water."
Today, astrobiology is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that is (as long as the NASA money flows) attracting a great deal of vibrant research into many interesting questions: What is life? What are the conditions for life? How can we detect it? But it is still a science without its prime subject. Nevertheless, there is motivational power in a suggestive name like astrobiology.
Another phrase motivates much of NASA's astrobiology quest: "follow the water." Since life as we know it depends on liquid water, it seems that watery environments are the best places to look. Doubters that water is essential for life usually do more armchair speculation than lab work. Most realists understand water's incomparable qualities.
"Follow the water" explains the excitement any time scientists find evidence for water at some planet or moon, such as last November's announcement that Saturn's moon Enceladus might have liquid under its erupting south pole. Due to its chemical properties, water can only exist under narrow conditions of temperature and pressure. For many years, scientists assumed this meant that only the surfaces of terrestrial planets within a star's habitable zone, where water could exist as a liquid, could host life. Inferences for watery environments under the ice of moons far outside the habitable zone opened up new vistas for imagination.
Another finding bolstering astrobiological hopes was the ubiquity of life in extreme environments. "Extremophiles" have been found around deep sea vents, under Antarctic ice and in boiling-hot springs. These discoveries, however, beg the question of how these hardy life forms originated.
The "follow the water" motto suffers from a logical flaw: water is necessary, but not sufficient for life. It is no more logical than assuming that if iron is found on a planet, skyscrapers can't be far behind. The key to life is the way its ingredients are organized, not just the materials used.
Though life is notoriously difficult to define, Benton Clark of the University of Colorado captured this essence in his definition of life in an article in Astrobiology Magazine: "life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism."
This suggests a different motto than "follow the water." If taken seriously, it might turn astrobiology in a completely different direction: one that takes seriously intelligence as a cause, and views design detection as the most fruitful approach. It might even lead a scientist to start with John 1:1-3 as a foundation for research. Instead of "follow the water," try "follow the instructions."
* David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
[body_edit] =>"Astrobiology" is a curious science. Like its predecessor "exobiology" it is, as George Gaylord Simpson once quipped, "a science without a subject." We know about astrophysics and astrochemistry, but where is the biology in astronomy? So far, it's only in the imaginations of evolutionists, who think the recipe for life is as simple as "just add water."
Today, astrobiology is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that is (as long as the NASA money flows) attracting a great deal of vibrant research into many interesting questions: What is life? What are the conditions for life? How can we detect it? But it is still a science without its prime subject. Nevertheless, there is motivational power in a suggestive name like astrobiology.
Another phrase motivates much of NASA's astrobiology quest: "follow the water." Since life as we know it depends on liquid water, it seems that watery environments are the best places to look. Doubters that water is essential for life usually do more armchair speculation than lab work. Most realists understand water's incomparable qualities.
"Follow the water" explains the excitement any time scientists find evidence for water at some planet or moon, such as last November's announcement that Saturn's moon Enceladus might have liquid under its erupting south pole. Due to its chemical properties, water can only exist under narrow conditions of temperature and pressure. For many years, scientists assumed this meant that only the surfaces of terrestrial planets within a star's habitable zone, where water could exist as a liquid, could host life. Inferences for watery environments under the ice of moons far outside the habitable zone opened up new vistas for imagination.
Another finding bolstering astrobiological hopes was the ubiquity of life in extreme environments. "Extremophiles" have been found around deep sea vents, under Antarctic ice and in boiling-hot springs. These discoveries, however, beg the question of how these hardy life forms originated.
The "follow the water" motto suffers from a logical flaw: water is necessary, but not sufficient for life. It is no more logical than assuming that if iron is found on a planet, skyscrapers can't be far behind. The key to life is the way its ingredients are organized, not just the materials used.
Though life is notoriously difficult to define, Benton Clark of the University of Colorado captured this essence in his definition of life in an article in Astrobiology Magazine: "life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism."
This suggests a different motto than "follow the water." If taken seriously, it might turn astrobiology in a completely different direction: one that takes seriously intelligence as a cause, and views design detection as the most fruitful approach. It might even lead a scientist to start with John 1:1-3 as a foundation for research. Instead of "follow the water," try "follow the instructions."
* David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => astrobiology-follow- [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => David F. Coppedge ) -->
.jpg)
(3) ICR is NOT a church renewal or correctional ministry
Many churches today surely need to return to sound doctrine and practice with respect to Biblical creation. I strongly believe in the local church—have served as teacher and deacon in three of them and pulpit speaker in hundreds. My wife and I even started a church (now thriving with a fine new sanctuary) that began with two families and several college students(meeting in our basement). But "straightening-out" churches is not our basic purpose at ICR.
(4) ICR is NOT a children's or youth ministry
We have great concern for children and young people, but again reaching them is not our main goal. My wife sponsored and taught Child Evangelism classes for many years, and we have seen many children come to Christ. As far as college youth are concerned, I have served as faculty advisor to Christian student organizations in 5 secular universities (in one, over 50 were saved in one year!).
(5) ICR is NOT an evangelistic ministry
Evangelism is vitally important, but is essentially an indirect result of the ICR mission. We are thankful when people are saved through one of our ICR books or seminars, but this is not our main purpose as an organization.
(6) ICR is NOT a missionary agency
Although a few churches have placed ICR on their missionary budget, and the outreach of our ICR books, seminars, radio, etc., has extended into six continents, this is not our main purpose.
(7) ICR is NOT a political organization
Although we would love to see creationism taught in all schools, we have never sponsored legislation to accomplish this. From the Biblical perspective, all education should be under the home, not the government, but we do not try to attain such an ideal with political pressure.
The Distinctive Purpose of ICR
There is nothing wrong with the above activities; all of them are very important, but ICR's main purpose (note Isaiah 51:1-2) is not evangelism or missions, not books or politics, not church growth or youth ministries.
Our primary ministry is education! Especially higher education, including relevant research at the graduate level. This purpose may seem mundane and relatively unimportant to some Christians. Evangelism, missions, political power, personal relationships—all may seem to be more glamorous and worthy of support. But that is not the way God sees it!
God's first commandment on the created earth was what has been called the dominion mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) and this has never been withdrawn or diluted. It was repeated and extended to the survivors of the global deluge (Genesis 9:1-7). This first divine mandate requires what we now would call scientific research and then the transmission of the accumulating information about God's creation to all succeeding generations (that is, by education!). Since this was His first priority, it surely warrants our obedience and support even today.
A second worldwide divine mandate is the "Great Commission," which could also be called the Missionary Mandate—calling for teaching about God's redemptive work. It was not given to all mankind (as was the first mandate) but only to believing Christians.
As in the dominion mandate, education again is emphasized. Jesus said that we should be "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). The new mandate thus not only commands preaching the gospel and baptizing believers but teaching everything taught by Christ!
This includes everything in His creation, "for all things were made by Him" and He is now "upholding all things" (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:3). As Creator, He had issued the primeval dominion mandate and this later mandate now implies teaching all things learned under the first mandate, in addition to teaching about His work of redeeming all things.
All true education therefore should be carried out in the context of both creation and redemption, Christ being the Author of both mandates.
Because of its key importance in God's plan for His creation, Satan has sought very successfully to gain control of education—especially higher education. His system of evolution is the key weapon in his control of education and he bitterly opposes all who presume to teach against that system. ICR was founded with this very issue in mind.
The ICR Graduate School therefore has the primary mission of providing true education, in its creation/redemption framework instead of the evolutionary humanistic system which permeates all secular colleges and universities and has led even most evangelical colleges to compromise with it.
Ideally, ICR (or some other Christian educational institution or consortium) should provide such creation-oriented education at all levels in all fields. This may seem impossible, however, as long as Satan is "the god of this world" (II Corinthians 4:4). Nevertheless, the two mandates need to be implemented by means of at least one great creationist university (the very term implies "universal" coverage), which could serve as a model for others (and perhaps even as a foundation and model for the education system in a future millennium!).
ICR is not that needed central university of research and education, but we have made a start in the ICR Graduate School with its students and science faculty (full-time and adjunct). Our four science M.S. programs would be the key component in any such future university, or consortium of Christian colleges. There are now a significant number of colleges that have become committed to literal Biblical creationism, but none as yet offer graduate science programs except ICR.
Thus, as I envision it at least, ICR has four chief functions at present:
- Providing M.S. creationist training in the key sciences related to origins and earth history. Evolution dominates every field today, but those in all other fields do this on the basis that "science" has "proved" evolution (an utterly false concept!). This notion must be corrected.
- Training science teachers for other Christian schools, including elementary and secondary schools.
- Winning the "sciences" to Christ. That is, we are developing model curricula which teach the actual facts of biology, geology, etc., in a Biblical creationist framework. Also, ICR-sponsored research (e.g., RATE) is resolving supposed scientific problems in creationism.
- Developing extension ministries (books, seminars, radio, etc.) which can reach many others in all walks of life with the essentials of scientific creationism. In addition, no Graduate School is ever financed solely by tuitions, and ICR does not solicit or accept government grants, but these adjunct ministries also help win supporters. Our primary financial support must come from such concerned Christian men and women.
God has blessed ICR with a marvelous worldwide impact since we started on a shoestring in 1970. No doubt we can improve in many ways and we need your prayers, but we must never forget why we began and where we are going.
Finally, all this should be carried out in the light of eternity and God's ultimate purpose for us in His magnificent, infinite, and eternal creation.
*Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Some of our constituents have raised questions about ICR's specific mission, so this may be a good time to state it clearly.
Reasons for Founding ICR
Initially, ICR was a division of Christian Heritage College, which had been founded in 1970 as a unique Christian liberal arts college and eventually a university firmly committed in all programs to a specifically creationist (meaning literal six-day creation and global flood) worldview.
As CHC co-founder, I had argued for this approach as the result of my 28 years of teaching experience in five large secular universities, plus speaking on many other campuses as a result of the impact of our book, The Genesis Flood (published in 1961). All secular colleges had been structured completely around evolutionary humanism, and all evangelical colleges seemed to have accepted the evolutionary geological ages.
However, the accrediting association would not allow us to offer graduate degrees in science, so we had to do this through making ICR a separate institution. M.S. degrees are almost universally required for science teachers even in Christian schools, and these had to be obtained (before ICR, that is) from secular universities. So the ICR Graduate School was formed in 1980 and has been offering M.S. degrees in four key science areas dealing with origins since 1981. Over a dozen other Christian liberal arts colleges have also started teaching literal Biblical creationism in science, but ICR is still alone in offering graduate programs in science. ICR is now fully accredited through TRACS, a nationally approved accrediting agency.
What ICR's Purpose Is NOT
Because ICR has become internationally known largely because of its books, seminars, etc., I must first emphasize that these are all vital extension ministries, but not ICR's main purpose.
(1) ICR is NOT a publishing business
We cannot measure our success by book sales. I have written some 60 books myself, so I surely appreciate the importance of publishing substantive books on creation. But that is only an extension aspect of our basic mission.
(2) ICR is NOT a seminar ministry
Although I have participated in many seminars—even before CHC or ICR were formed—and these have been of significant influence in stimulating global awareness of the issue, this also is merely an extension of ICR's fundamental purpose.
(3) ICR is NOT a church renewal or correctional ministry
Many churches today surely need to return to sound doctrine and practice with respect to Biblical creation. I strongly believe in the local church—have served as teacher and deacon in three of them and pulpit speaker in hundreds. My wife and I even started a church (now thriving with a fine new sanctuary) that began with two families and several college students(meeting in our basement). But "straightening-out" churches is not our basic purpose at ICR.
(4) ICR is NOT a children's or youth ministry
We have great concern for children and young people, but again reaching them is not our main goal. My wife sponsored and taught Child Evangelism classes for many years, and we have seen many children come to Christ. As far as college youth are concerned, I have served as faculty advisor to Christian student organizations in 5 secular universities (in one, over 50 were saved in one year!).
(5) ICR is NOT an evangelistic ministry
Evangelism is vitally important, but is essentially an indirect result of the ICR mission. We are thankful when people are saved through one of our ICR books or seminars, but this is not our main purpose as an organization.
(6) ICR is NOT a missionary agency
Although a few churches have placed ICR on their missionary budget, and the outreach of our ICR books, seminars, radio, etc., has extended into six continents, this is not our main purpose.
(7) ICR is NOT a political organization
Although we would love to see creationism taught in all schools, we have never sponsored legislation to accomplish this. From the Biblical perspective, all education should be under the home, not the government, but we do not try to attain such an ideal with political pressure.
The Distinctive Purpose of ICR
There is nothing wrong with the above activities; all of them are very important, but ICR's main purpose (note Isaiah 51:1-2) is not evangelism or missions, not books or politics, not church growth or youth ministries.
Our primary ministry is education! Especially higher education, including relevant research at the graduate level. This purpose may seem mundane and relatively unimportant to some Christians. Evangelism, missions, political power, personal relationships—all may seem to be more glamorous and worthy of support. But that is not the way God sees it!
God's first commandment on the created earth was what has been called the dominion mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) and this has never been withdrawn or diluted. It was repeated and extended to the survivors of the global deluge (Genesis 9:1-7). This first divine mandate requires what we now would call scientific research and then the transmission of the accumulating information about God's creation to all succeeding generations (that is, by education!). Since this was His first priority, it surely warrants our obedience and support even today.
A second worldwide divine mandate is the "Great Commission," which could also be called the Missionary Mandate—calling for teaching about God's redemptive work. It was not given to all mankind (as was the first mandate) but only to believing Christians.
As in the dominion mandate, education again is emphasized. Jesus said that we should be "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). The new mandate thus not only commands preaching the gospel and baptizing believers but teaching everything taught by Christ!
This includes everything in His creation, "for all things were made by Him" and He is now "upholding all things" (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:3). As Creator, He had issued the primeval dominion mandate and this later mandate now implies teaching all things learned under the first mandate, in addition to teaching about His work of redeeming all things.
All true education therefore should be carried out in the context of both creation and redemption, Christ being the Author of both mandates.
Because of its key importance in God's plan for His creation, Satan has sought very successfully to gain control of education—especially higher education. His system of evolution is the key weapon in his control of education and he bitterly opposes all who presume to teach against that system. ICR was founded with this very issue in mind.
The ICR Graduate School therefore has the primary mission of providing true education, in its creation/redemption framework instead of the evolutionary humanistic system which permeates all secular colleges and universities and has led even most evangelical colleges to compromise with it.
Ideally, ICR (or some other Christian educational institution or consortium) should provide such creation-oriented education at all levels in all fields. This may seem impossible, however, as long as Satan is "the god of this world" (II Corinthians 4:4). Nevertheless, the two mandates need to be implemented by means of at least one great creationist university (the very term implies "universal" coverage), which could serve as a model for others (and perhaps even as a foundation and model for the education system in a future millennium!).
ICR is not that needed central university of research and education, but we have made a start in the ICR Graduate School with its students and science faculty (full-time and adjunct). Our four science M.S. programs would be the key component in any such future university, or consortium of Christian colleges. There are now a significant number of colleges that have become committed to literal Biblical creationism, but none as yet offer graduate science programs except ICR.
Thus, as I envision it at least, ICR has four chief functions at present:
- Providing M.S. creationist training in the key sciences related to origins and earth history. Evolution dominates every field today, but those in all other fields do this on the basis that "science" has "proved" evolution (an utterly false concept!). This notion must be corrected.
- Training science teachers for other Christian schools, including elementary and secondary schools.
- Winning the "sciences" to Christ. That is, we are developing model curricula which teach the actual facts of biology, geology, etc., in a Biblical creationist framework. Also, ICR-sponsored research (e.g., RATE) is resolving supposed scientific problems in creationism.
- Developing extension ministries (books, seminars, radio, etc.) which can reach many others in all walks of life with the essentials of scientific creationism. In addition, no Graduate School is ever financed solely by tuitions, and ICR does not solicit or accept government grants, but these adjunct ministries also help win supporters. Our primary financial support must come from such concerned Christian men and women.
God has blessed ICR with a marvelous worldwide impact since we started on a shoestring in 1970. No doubt we can improve in many ways and we need your prayers, but we must never forget why we began and where we are going.
Finally, all this should be carried out in the light of eternity and God's ultimate purpose for us in His magnificent, infinite, and eternal creation.
*Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-197.pdf [publishURL] => icr-its-origin-goal [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
I could wish it were still accepted as the standard.But it is definitely not perfect. There are a number of points where its translation could have been better…at least in my judgment.2
But did not God say that He would preserve all His pure words, and do so forever? If so, many would ask, where is it? Where can we read these perfectly preserved words?
Well, God has clearly answered this good question! "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). This great affirmation is surely one of the key verses of the Bible…right at the middle of its longest chapter, that amazing psalm of 176 verses, with its 176 affirmations extolling the Holy Scriptures.
God is undoubtedly keeping all His pure words intact in heaven. Just possibly the original manuscripts…long vanished from the earth…are being kept in the Ark of God's Covenant, like the original tables of the law were kept while the Ark was in the wilderness tabernacle (Hebrews 9:4).
That Ark, incidentally also has…like the autographs…seemingly vanished from the earth. When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Solomon's Temple, he carried all its treasures away to Babylon, (II Chronicles 36:18), but these evidently did not include its most valuable treasure, the Ark of the Covenant.
I believe that the Ark of God's Covenant (like Elijah) was taken by angels directly to heaven for safekeeping, wherein perhaps the divine originals…if not the earthly transcriptions…could be kept "for ever settled in heaven." When one is a "naïve literalist" like myself, he cannot help but note that John actually saw in the heavenly temple "the ark of His testament" (Revelation 11:19), so perhaps it is really there.
In any case, God's Word is there in heaven preserved in its entirety somewhere. Even though textual scholars may not yet have been able to reproduce all the original autographs word perfect, they have been able to come very close by analyzing the thousands of hand copies left by the copyists here on Earth. Conservative scholars have made a strong case that the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Greek Textus Receptus (or something very similar) are so close to the originals that we can use any literal translation based on them (such as the King James) with confidence that it is essentially the actual written Word of God, while yet allowing the possibility here and there of occasional copyist errors or inadequate translations…which can often be resolved and corrected by further study.
The Scriptures also promise that, in the future, God will "turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent" (Zephaniah 3:9). Whether this "pure language" will be Hebrew or the language of Adam or something else (English?), we don't know.
Whatever it is, we shall surely at that time have available the "forever settled" Word of God in that language, so that all who are there in that wonderful coming age can then indeed "call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent."
Endnotes
[body_edit] =>
- Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word, (A.V. Publications Corp., 2003),
pp. 206-224.- For example, the KJV translates the Hebrew male in Genesis 1:28 as "replenish" instead of its normal meaning "fill," thus allowing compromisers to accept pre-Adamites, the geological ages, and even evolution. There are a number of such unfortunate word choices, but these are rare.
There is a wonderful promise found in one of David's psalms, as follows:
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Psalm 12:6-7).
These pure words of God were conveyed to men through David and Moses and Paul and the other authors of the books of the Bible. But that was a long time ago, and the original manuscripts are apparently long gone, so just how did the Lord intend to preserve those words from that generation forever?
Furthermore, He frequently issued serious warnings against changing any of these words. For example, Moses wrote:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Many years later, in the Proverbs God inserted a further warning:
Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (Proverbs 30:5-6).
At the very end of the Bible, of course, is found the extremely grave warning through Christ's beloved disciple John:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
God was indeed dead serious when He assured David (and all of us!) that He would preserve His pure words forever! Remember also that the Lord Jesus Himself said:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).
And He also insisted that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
We believe our Bible comprises these divine words as they have come down to us. However the problem is that none of these original prophetic writings (the so-called "autographs") are still available, and no one can really verify that any of the handwritten copies we now have are exactly as originally written.
The transmission through many centuries of the books of the Bible is a fascinating saga of God's providential care of His words. The Old Testament writings were given first in Hebrew, then meticulously copied and re-copied by many scribes, finally to be edited into their present form by the Masoretes, all before the invention of the printing press.
The New Testament books were first written in the so-called Koine Greek. These also, originally written by Paul, Peter, and other apostles, were soon being copied and circulated all over the Christian world. It was not surprising that many variations (usually…but not always…very minor) crept into these copies. Also, both Old and New Testament books began to be translated and circulated in other languages…Latin, Syrian, Coptic, etc.…and these also had variations. All in all, however, the vast majority were really intended to be faithful copies and/or translations of the originals. Since there are several thousand of these hand-copied manuscripts of all or parts of the Bible still extant, various textual scholars have been able to reproduce with considerable accuracy the original text of both the Hebrew and Greek portions of the Bible. There are still, however, a fair number of variations even in these different collations. Furthermore, the Bible now has also been translated into thousands of different modern languages.
So how do we know which one…if any…contains the exact words which God promised to preserve?
As far as our English language is concerned, it did not even exist as such at the times the Bible books were being written. However, the Bible or portions of it were available in the many pre-English languages in use in England very soon after the Roman conquest. The development of modern English gradually took place from these earlier tongues and by the time of our familiar King James Authorized Translation (1611), it was very much like today's English.
In fact, it is interesting to note that the so-called Bishop's Bible, which preceded the King James and was widely used for many years before the latter, contained language much more like today's English than did the later King James itself.1 The "learned men" selected by King James to produce the Authorized Version, were specifically instructed to produce a version which would not only be literally accurate but would also "sing" with poetic prose which would be easier to memorize and have a more powerful spiritual impact. That they were notably successful in these efforts has been proved by almost four centuries of widespread acceptance and use throughout the English-speaking world.
But all translations, including even the King James are imperfect. None of these scholars were quite like the "holy men of God" who were supernaturally endowed in various ways to write the original autographs and who therefore "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:21). At least the Bible nowhere says they would be so endowed and careful evaluation of each modern translation surely confirms that they are all less than perfect.
I have some forty or so translations myself and profit by studying them, but am personally satisfied that the old King James is still the most reliable and most nearly literally accurate, as well as the most beautiful and spiritually powerful.
I could wish it were still accepted as the standard.But it is definitely not perfect. There are a number of points where its translation could have been better…at least in my judgment.2
But did not God say that He would preserve all His pure words, and do so forever? If so, many would ask, where is it? Where can we read these perfectly preserved words?
Well, God has clearly answered this good question! "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). This great affirmation is surely one of the key verses of the Bible…right at the middle of its longest chapter, that amazing psalm of 176 verses, with its 176 affirmations extolling the Holy Scriptures.
God is undoubtedly keeping all His pure words intact in heaven. Just possibly the original manuscripts…long vanished from the earth…are being kept in the Ark of God's Covenant, like the original tables of the law were kept while the Ark was in the wilderness tabernacle (Hebrews 9:4).
That Ark, incidentally also has…like the autographs…seemingly vanished from the earth. When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Solomon's Temple, he carried all its treasures away to Babylon, (II Chronicles 36:18), but these evidently did not include its most valuable treasure, the Ark of the Covenant.
I believe that the Ark of God's Covenant (like Elijah) was taken by angels directly to heaven for safekeeping, wherein perhaps the divine originals…if not the earthly transcriptions…could be kept "for ever settled in heaven." When one is a "naïve literalist" like myself, he cannot help but note that John actually saw in the heavenly temple "the ark of His testament" (Revelation 11:19), so perhaps it is really there.
In any case, God's Word is there in heaven preserved in its entirety somewhere. Even though textual scholars may not yet have been able to reproduce all the original autographs word perfect, they have been able to come very close by analyzing the thousands of hand copies left by the copyists here on Earth. Conservative scholars have made a strong case that the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Greek Textus Receptus (or something very similar) are so close to the originals that we can use any literal translation based on them (such as the King James) with confidence that it is essentially the actual written Word of God, while yet allowing the possibility here and there of occasional copyist errors or inadequate translations…which can often be resolved and corrected by further study.
The Scriptures also promise that, in the future, God will "turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent" (Zephaniah 3:9). Whether this "pure language" will be Hebrew or the language of Adam or something else (English?), we don't know.
Whatever it is, we shall surely at that time have available the "forever settled" Word of God in that language, so that all who are there in that wonderful coming age can then indeed "call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent."
Endnotes
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg//btg-196.pdf [publishURL] => preserving-words-god [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
- Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word, (A.V. Publications Corp., 2003),
pp. 206-224.- For example, the KJV translates the Hebrew male in Genesis 1:28 as "replenish" instead of its normal meaning "fill," thus allowing compromisers to accept pre-Adamites, the geological ages, and even evolution. There are a number of such unfortunate word choices, but these are rare.
[body_edit] => "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" II Cor. 12:7.
The doctrine of evolution tends to magnify the competitive aspects of nature and to minimize the cooperative aspects. "Nature red in tooth and claw" is indeed the theme of many evolutionary books. However, the living world around us has many examples of cooperative or symbiotic behavior at many different levels. We need look no further than our own bodies for some of the most marvelous instances of cooperative activity in all of creation. The processes of breathing, digestion, muscular contraction and coordination, nutrient transport, and their direction by the neural and endocrine systems, have shown an amazing sophistication of cooperation through molecular biologic research. The discovery of such intricate cooperation at the cellular level should not surprise Christians, as the Bible speaks of the human body as being a symbol of the great congregation of God's people, or the "body of Christ."
Cancer upsets this normal state of harmonious, cooperative cellular function. For childhood growth and adult maintenance to occur, cells must divide constantly in the human body. However, cancer cells are characterized by their uncontrolled growth—they do not respond to signals to stop the division process, but instead continue on and on. In the body, cancer cells invade and kill their neighbor cells. They may cannibalize each other. They often outgrow their own blood supply, thus killing even themselves. In artificial cell culture, cancer cells will show this trait in a slightly different way, for they will grow until they pile up and suffocate each other. Normal cells in culture, on the other hand, will grow on the bottom of the bottle until they form a continuous single cell layer. Then, sensing the presence of a neighbor, they will chemically signal each other to quit replicating. Normal human cells will respect boundaries and not harm their neighbors, whereas cancer cells will aggressively invade, suffocate, and destroy their neighbors.1
Biochemical research shows other ways in which cancer cells are "bad neighbors." For example, some cancers produce abnormal or excessive signalling chemicals (hormones or cytokines) which upset the normal chemical balance of the body. Cells of advanced cancers have altered metabolic pathways, making them voracious and inefficient users of nutrient molecules. Thus, they are chemical as well as physical competitors with normal cells.2,3 Of course, the eventual outcome of all this disordered and violent cellular behavior is death for the body, unless the cancer cells can be controlled or eliminated.
So, what is the cause of cancer? This is a question that has haunted physicians for thousands of years. Galen, the ancient Roman, noted the crablike appearance of cancerous tumors (Latin, cancer = crab) and thought that they were caused by an excess of black bile, according to the humoral disease theory of Hippocrates. The true answer began to emerge in the 1800s when the cellular nature of tumors was seen with the microscope, but it has only been in the last 20 years that a more complete answer has emerged. The discovery of "oncogenes" in the 1980s, followed by the "tumor suppressor genes" and "DNA repair genes" in the 1990s, has given us a clear picture of why cancer cells reproduce without restraint.
To summarize this research, whole banks of genes have been discovered that control the cell's replicative machinery. Certain genes, when activated, cause cell division to occur—these are the "oncogenes," and there appear to be about 60-70 different ones in the human genome. The oncogenes are held in check by the "tumor suppressor genes," which shut down the replicative process. It has been shown that most cancers arise through a multistep process—multiple mutations may cause continuous activation of some oncogenes and may inactivate some of the the tumor suppressor genes. While genetic analysis does show certain large-scale trends, most cancers are highly heterogeneous in their mutational profile—no single set of mutations seems to characterize most cancers. However, there is no doubt that the key word in cancer causation is "mutations," which lead to the uncontrolled growth. A mutant cancer cell may be fairly compared to a damaged car in which the accelerator is stuck "on," and the brakes have failed, resulting in a dangerous loss of control.4
In addition to these replication-controlling gene banks, important mutation-correcting mechanisms are also being identified. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that without these mechanisms, we would all die of cancer in childhood.
An important textbook of medical physiology gives an interesting perspective on these mechanisms and (perhaps unwittingly) testifies to the marvelous grace of God in creating and sustaining these cellular processes:
But, what is it that causes the altered genes (of cancer cells)? When one realizes that many trillions of new cells are formed each year in the human being, this question should probably be better asked in the following form: Why is it that we do not develop literally millions or billions of mutant cancerous cells? The answer is the incredible precision with which DNA chromosomal strands are replicated in each cell before mitosis takes place and also because the "proofreading" process cuts and repairs any abnormal DNA strand before the mitotic process is allowed to proceed. Yet, despite all these precautions, probably one newly formed cell in every few million still has significant mutant characteristics.5
The incredible precision of the DNA replication process has also been referred to as "replication fidelity" by secular scientists. Fidelity is the Latin word for "faithfulness." Great is His faithfulness, indeed!
On the other hand, increasing efforts are being made to interpret all of biology through the Darwinian lens, and cancer biology is no exception. In fact, the whole process of cancerous cellular change has been viewed as a special case of Darwinian evolution.6
In many other important ways cancer cells have degenerative features. They show no gain of information, but generally show a loss or disorder of functions. This is only another example of the peculiar insistence of evolutionists of perceiving advancement where there is only variation.
Conversely, is there a creationist lens through which to view cancer biology? One may be suggested, as was previously hinted. This new knowledge may be used to extend the natural theology of the Apostle Paul, expressed through his analogy of the "body of Christ," from the macroscopic level down to the microscopic. Indeed, this may be a more accurate view of final reality, as there are to the anatomist only several thousand macroscopically visible parts of the body. The Bible tells us that the host of the redeemed will be "a great multitude, which no man could number" (Revelation 7:9). Carrying this analogy to the cellular world of our bodies produces a graphic picture of the vast gulf between good and evil.
One needs only a slight acquaintance with the panorama of history to be dismayed by the continual succession of violence, thievery, and other forms of lawless behavior displayed by sinful humanity. The most degenerate human societies sink to ritual murder, cannibalism, and torture. These human behaviors, which have plagued the world almost from its beginning, are remarkably similar to the physiologic behaviors displayed by cancer cells. On the other hand, the Bible foretells a time when violence will be suppressed and peace will be the norm for the whole human community. "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). World peace has been sought in vain by many philosophers and utopian architects. It is ironic that each of us carries with us a daily parable, acted out at the cellular level, of the peaceful virtues that will be the future norm of the City of God. Metaphorically, the expression of those peaceful virtues in our body cells leads to a state of health. When those "virtues" are lost in a clone of cells, we have cancer. This is not to claim that cancer is always a moral problem, or that cancer suffering necessarily results from sin. Nor are individual cells capable of moral choice in their behavior. However, these phenomena create a vivid object lesson for us, as do many other aspects of God's creation.
To conclude, the tragedy of cancer is the result of ongoing genetic deterioration in our body cells, and as such is a manifestation of the Edenic curse of decay and death. However, a close look at cancer biology can give us a deeper appreciation of the vast wisdom and goodness of God, and of the unutterable vileness of sin.
References
1 Personal observations of histologic tumor tissue sections, and of HELA cancer cells and normal human fibroblasts in culture.
2 Robbins and Kumar. Basic Pathology, 4th ed., Saunders Co., 1987, p. 201.
3 Guyton, A. Textbook of Medical Physiology, 8th ed., Saunders, 1991, p. 34.
4 Weinberg, R. "Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor Genes," in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1994; 44:166.
5 Guyton, op. cit. p. 34.
6 Mitelman, F. "Chromosomes, Genes, and Cancer", in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1994; 44:133.
* Dedicated to Andrew Morris, Karen Demick, and the many other saints, who have been called to endure cancer's thorn in the flesh.
** Dr. Demick is a pathologist in Nebraska.
[typeID] => 1
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => cancer-curse
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => David Demick, M.D.
)
-->
