Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware, and he believes the current battles between “science” and “religion” on the theories of origins are avoidable. He writes, in the article The Miracle of Evolution,
If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.(1) Here is one creationist’s attempt to unite the current teachings of evolution with the teachings of the Bible. But is it really this simple? Barr continues.
The question for science is whether the neo-Darwinian account of evolution is sufficient to explain all instances of biological complexity. Many scientists are supremely confident that it is, which is strange, given that so little is known about the steps by which some complex structures actually evolved.(1)
In a similar vein, Eric Hovind writes, scientifically speaking, “Evolutionist proponents of the big bang theory claim that planets and stars formed when bits of matter and gas were compressed spontaneously. But this violates Boyle’s law of gas established in the seventeenth century, which states that gases cannot be compressed without some intervening mechanism. So what is the evolutionists’ intervening mechanism? Nothing. It happened all by itself; it was a miracle. They likewise believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection. This is not science, however, and must also fall within the realm of miracle. In fact, evolutionists hold on to many more miracles (or assumptions) in their religion of evolutionism.”(2)
It is yet another example of secular scientists relying on miracles, “As is common in evolutionary literature, Brunet and Arendt do not ask whether hard parts (skeleton) evolved, but only how they evolved. According to the “rules of science,” questioning naturalism is forbidden. By limiting one’s explanatory toolkit to unguided natural processes, however, difficulties arise. There’s nothing like an appeal to miracles to get around a difficulty. As Finagle advised, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.”(3)
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite “language” composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. It’s hard for us to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes’ worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!(4)
“The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn’t come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it. So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.) (5)
Yet you will never hear these facts in evolutionary circles, nor in secular atheist college classrooms. But the absolute truth is that neither the study of Science, nor specifically the study of Biology, is incompatible with belief in Creation. They will in fact inevitably lead directly back to God.
America, just 50 years ago, was known to have the greatest educational system in the world. Perhaps the greatest in all of history. No rational person would say the same today. What happened?
A mere 50 years, a tiny drop in the ocean of time has passed, and we now have one of the least successful, least effective, most profligately wasteful educational systems in the world. As stated by educational expert Arne Duncan, “At no level – early childhood, K-12, higher ed – are we even in the top 10 internationally. And that should scare us. It is scary and it does not bode well for the future.” (1)
What happened? Well, of course, many things have happened. Atheism happened. Scientism happened. Working moms happened. Multiculturalism happened. Abortion happened. Substance abuse happened. Indoctrination happened. But how did we get from fidelity, to foolishness in education?
Without any attempt to inject politics, “At the state and federal level, the United States spends more than $620 billion dollars on K-12 education each year,” Trump said on Sept. 8, 2016. “That’s an average of about $12,296 dollars for every student enrolled in our elementary and secondary public schools.”(2) Even the liberal-leaning site Politifact admits this is true. We once had the best schools, but now all we are left with is the most expensive schools in history.
Perhaps no single factor can be isolated upon which to cast all the blame. But we can be certain that the cause is NOT a lack of teachers, nor a lack of funding. These simplistic, knee jerk responses have been tried ad nauseam for decades, with massive, seemingly perpetual increases in funding. And the results? Massive, seemingly perpetual losses in educational outcomes for students.
Education, first and foremost, must pass on truth. Educational techniques are important but not essential. Many different teaching styles can be successful. Class sizes and budgets are, in the end, far less important than educational content. Style, in the end, is vastly less important than substance. No educational system that denies ultimate truths can, in the end, be successful.
Our public educational systems, and most of our original colleges and universities, were founded on a belief in the Bible and a desire to pass on the teachings and beliefs contained therein. Then came the scientific revolution, and the sexual revolution. And from the top down, educational systems have come to represent atheism as the new norm, and eventually to ridicule all things associated with the Bible and Christianity. Oddly enough, as that process has occurred, all the measures of educational excellence have simultaneously declined.
Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)
What is the source or reason for this indoctrination? There have been amazing advances in the scientific fields that have captured the imagination of teachers, students, and school boards alike. So much so that they have nearly all fallen prey to the fad of scientism. And in the process, students have come to expect the “magic” of science to solve all their problems, without room for faith, logic, mind, will, or even perseverence.
Austin L Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(4)
Jason Barney adds, “Scientism is a problem because the field of education is not a hard science, but a branch of moral philosophy, scientia mōrālis. Every philosophy of education necessarily relies on a previously established account of what it means to be human. But scientism screens out such foundational questions about man, the good life, and ultimate purpose, in an attempt to be more precise—or precise in a different way—than the subject matter admits of (cf. Aristotle, EN I.3, 1094b12-15). In so doing, it does not actually attain a neutral, “objective” viewpoint; instead, half-baked philosophies and unexamined assumptions rush back in, as seven demons take the place of the one that was exorcised. Scientism promises us firmer knowledge, not swayed to and fro by the winds of history and the waves of philosophy, but in reality it delivers only ignorance of how we are recycling old ideas by recasting them into new, scientific-looking forms.”(5) Wow! What a succinct and cogent realization! If only our educators could see and understand this!
As I wrote in “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth“, teaching is a high calling, and that high calling involves always instilling truth, not lies. It also involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging, and political correctness.Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute. Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than evaluating the issues themselves, or seeking out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda.
The solution to “what is wrong with schools in America” is not funding, or class size. It is not methods, or media. It is not even school choice or neighborhoods. All of these may have positive or negative impacts and should be addressed. But the solution to America’s educational dilemma is admitting that:
For decades we have taught the lie of scientism.
For decades we have promoted godlessness and atheism.
For decades we have allowed concern with populist topics like sexism and racism to overshadow all other concerns, including education itself!
If we could just find and teach the truths of literature, history, and science in their proper context, in the eternal light of God and the Bible, all these other educational concerns will vanish. If we return to teaching Truth, the minds of our next generation will be the best educated in all of history.
Do you believe the Bible, or do you believe “science”? More importantly, is there any rational or logical reason you must choose between the two?
If one were to listen to the media hype, the Hollywood explanations, prime time TV, or many liberal college professors, one might assume there are just two choices in cosmology. A person can either can believe “science” or one can have “faith” in the Bible story. But is this even remotely true? Is it even sensible to place science and faith in different camps? Or is this entire scenario a false dichotomy?
Many of my previous posts have already discussed the evolutionary side of this issue very thoroughly, and I believe we have more than adequately proven that belief in evolution is neither logical, nor scientific. Belief in evolution is clearly a faith based choice. If you read my earlier blogs, “Astonishing Ice Age facts“, or “The Data in the Strata“, or “A Totally Modern View on Evolution” you will understand that belief in Evolution is not a scientific choice or preference, but rather a philosophical one. There are vastly more scientific facts and principles supporting Creation, than those supporting the Big Bang or Evolution.
Perhaps belief in Evolution stems from a prideful desire to elevate man to the point of understanding all of the Universe and Creation. Perhaps, as noted in the earlier blog “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth?” it is just generational indoctrination. Or maybe it originates in the illogical belief that avoiding belief in God as our Creator will somehow avoid the consequences of our sins, failures and rebellion. Regardless, as the tagline of this blog has stated from the beginning, “It takes a lot of FAITH to believe in evolution.”
The evidence (outlined in 80 or so blogs over the last year) clearly shows that belief in Evolution is a faith based choice. But what of the other side? Is belief in Creation merely a “Scientific cop out”? Do proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and so-called “creation scientists” abandon scientific processes and base their beliefs totally on religious principles? Not so, according to the following quote from Casey Luskin originally posted at OpposingViews.com. Speaking of ID (Intelligent Design), he writes;
“One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. Nothing critics can say—whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities, or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents—will change the fact that intelligent design is not a “faith-based” argument. Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes.”(1)
Luskin further explains, “The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. As noted, ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”(2)
Luskin “gets it”. Most secular atheists don’t. There is absolutely NO logical reason to separate science vs faith on issues of cosmology, or any issues related to where humanity or the universe originated. However, if one were to objectively discuss which cosmology has more scientific support, I believe firmly that Creation science would win the argument. Still, the point remains, there is no reason to “choose” one or the other. Science, unimpeded and freely practiced, is not in opposition to Scripture!
As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters.“Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct.
In essence, as written by Stephen C. Meyer, “Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences. ID thus is based upon the claim that there are “telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.”(3)
You have a mind. You have an intellect. (Both of which are, by the way, strong arguments for ID.) You get to choose whether you believe secular stories about a universe that magically appeared from nothing and life that created itself, or to believe in an Almighty Creator God. But you cannot use as your crutch any statement that you don’t believe in Creation because it is not scientific. Not if you want to be intellectually honest.
Scientifically speaking… someone lied to you. When they told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth“… they lied. They probably even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. (Also a lie.) But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution. Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..
The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see my prior blog post “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” (www.discovery.org/a/7271). As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See my prior blog post “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature. Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
The geological strata do not support gradual evolution. Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.) Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous.”
The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution. There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Some estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2) Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
There is no evidence of current evolution. The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and these too are largely missing!
Evolution cannot explain the origin of life. The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes, as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth!
No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for lifeto occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)
So, all things considered, the most plausible SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…
You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…
You can’t have… Well, you get it. Secular science has good geological evidence that an Ice age occurred. There are telltale signs all over the northernmost landscapes that suggest massive erosive patterns from huge ice sheets and glaciers. But while most secular geologists have absolutely no idea how or why these occurred, geologist Tim Clarey, Ph. D. believes he has the answers in his article “Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age.”
An ice age requires massive, enormous, unprecedented, ridiculous, astronomically unbelievable amounts of snow. Estimates require at least 4,000 inches of snow a year just to keep up with melting snow at the leading edge! That’s not even considering how much is needed to create the massive fields of ice to begin with!
As Written by Michael Oard, “melting in a dry, cool Ice Age climate (50°F, or 10°C, average summer temperature) near the edge of the ice sheet is about 400 inches (10 m) of ice a year. One inch of ice corresponds to an average of 10 inches of powder snow. So for Minneapolis this would represent 4,000 inches (100 m) of powder snow a year, which is about 100 times their annual average. So, even during a relatively cool summer, the amount of snowfall required is tremendous.”(1)
Such massive amounts of snow require constantly replenished moisture in the atmosphere. The only possible source of such abundant moisture is you guessed it, WARM OCEANS. Why is this important?
For decades secular atheist scientist have told us they understand the ice ages. They claim to know when they occurred, and they claim to know what caused them. But if you ask any secular scientist how they explain the astronomically vast amounts of moisture that would have been required to create the glaciers… you can hear the crickets. They have no idea. Most do not even address the topic!
Traditional ice age explanations involve only periods of extended cold. The theories postulate that there might have been extended decades or centuries of cold because of sun spots, or wobbles in the earth’s orbit, or changes in the axis. Scott Elias writes,
“Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles.”(2)
Or as written by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek, “Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).”(3)
Note that there is still no mention of moisture, just cold. But at least the plebeian Wikipedia is honest, stating, “The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.” (4)
So who, exactly, does have a plausible explanation for both the COLD air and the WARM oceans? Well, it turns out that creation science may have the explanation. Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about ice ages, and he states that an ice age would require much warmer oceans than we have today and much cooler summers then we have today. And what could cause such conditions? According to Tim Clarey, Ph.D. “the answer is the rapid subduction involved in catastrophic plate tectonics.”(5)
But what is catastrophic plate tectonics? It involves rapid movement of continental plates, and subduction of these massive plates over and under one another (as might have occurred when Pangaea broke up and plates moved rapidly toward their current positions.) At such times, it is likely, almost guaranteed, that large areas of the earth’s molten core on which the plates rested would have been exposed to the oceans, and unbelievably massive quantities of ocean water would have been vaporized into steam and then converted into water vapor, and subsequently rain or snow. Thus providing PLENTY of warm water and cold atmospheric conditions… just right for an Ice Age!
At that same time, the same plate subductions would have created hundreds or thousands of volcanoes. Those volcanoes were ejecting millions and millions of tons of aerosolized gases, chemicals, and ash high into the atmosphere and blocking the sun (probably for many years) leading to atmospheric cooling. So it is extremely likely that if there was a global flood caused by plate tectonics and subduction, it would probably have been followed soon after by an ice age!
So to summarize, catastrophic plate tectonics (rapid movement of the large continental plates from ancient Pangaea toward their modern locations) wold have caused:
1.) Exposure of huge areas of magma under the oceans, vaporizing vast quantities of ocean water.
2.) Massive persistent rains for weeks or months while the continents moved and “mountains bowed down” (continental plates subducted and immersed).
3.) Expulsion of billions of tons of ash and sulfur into the stratosphere through volcanic venting, with subsequent rapid cooling of the earth.
4.) And finally an Ice age as the warm oceans continued their rapid evaporation, but the Northern and Southern hemispheres experienced severe cooling from volcanic shielding.
So the best, most plausible explanation for the ice age seems to be catastrophic plate tectonics. This means that in order to provide both warm oceans, and cooler atmospheres, we can look to the Biblical account of the flood. It turns out that massive amounts of water in the atmosphere were also required for a global flood, as written in Genesis 7:19, “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.“(6) But it was not enough to just have “lots of water” in order for the top of the mountains to be covered. It almost certainly required the mountains themselves to bow down! And this, too, involves catastrophic plate tectonics.
Psalm 104:6-9 reads, “6You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”
Job 9:5 reads, “He who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger”.
Those who believe the “Uniformitarian” assumptions assure us (with absolutely NO evidence) that Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years in the past. They say the rate of continental drift we see today is the rate that has been present for millions of years. But if you read my prior blog “The Uniformitarians” you will see that such blatant over-reach is common on the part of secular geologists. And you will see that they routinely fail to actually apply Uniformitarian principles, only applying these assumptions when it is convenient for them and for their secular agenda. (See prior posts for proofs including the Himalayas, the moon, the ocean floor sediment, and more.)
As I wrote there, “The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied.”
So, as with much of science, the secular atheistic interpretations about the Ice Ages may be in conflict with the Bible, but the actual scientific facts are not. If you want to understand the Ice Ages, your best bet is understanding the events surrounding the Flood. For a very good discussion see the site at Answers in Genesis “The Mystery of the Ice Age“.(7)
We all know Christianity is under attack. Secular atheism has taken over the colleges, the prep schools, the media, the entertainment industry, and much of society. We have been passive for so long, and have lost so many battles, ceded so much ground that there is now an epidemic of mental health problems and all of society is suffering under the weight of sin and hopelessness. Drug abuse and addiction are rampant. The family is under siege. But all is not lost.
At the center of all this confusion and suffering, I absolutely believe, lies the scientifically unpalatable and discredited theory of evolution. As stated by University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, “Evolution is the greatest killer of belief that has ever happened on this planet because it showed that some of the best evidence for God, which was the design of animals and plants that so wonderfully matched their environment could be the result of this naturalistic, blind materialistic process of natural selection.” Of course I vehemently dispute his assertion that natural selection could intentionally or accidentally design anything. (Please see prior posts on “Natural Selection” and “Branch or Vine”.) But I absolutely cannot disagree with his statement that belief in evolution kills belief in God.
What we believe about our origins has a profound affect on what we believe about ourselves. I am confident that evolution will someday be exposed as the greatest lie in the history of science. Take a few minutes to view my blogs on “A totally Modern View on Evolution”, and “BIG GOD, small god: Why Cosmology Matters”. Or look at “The Data in the Strata” on my blog. You will find that none of the supposed scientific foundations of evolution are valid. You will find proof exposing many of the fraudulent efforts of secular atheists to promote evolution. And you will find there is no real scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Like most of you, I was taught in our secular schools that Creation was a myth, and that science had all the answers. Although I found this teaching upsetting to my core faith, I had no idea how to respond. Atheistic scientists and educators told us they had all the answers, and the Bible, we were told, was just a fairy tale. As a physician and a scientist, one who has studied this social phenomenon for decades, I am absolutely certain that the opposite is true. There is absolutely NO evidence that evolution or Natural Selection has created any of the immense variety of life on our planet. Yet Public schools and Universities continue to teach the lie.
I would love to see the truth of the Bible brought forward in a way that offers a path to faith, hope, love, and most importantly salvation. My blogs at Evolutioncreation.net and Debunking-evolution.com offer the reader many scientific proofs of the absurdity of evolution, and the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang.
In Pinellas County we have hundreds of churches serving a population of a million persons. It is the most densely populated county in all of Florida. Because of this we have a unique opportunity to serve, and to shine brightly for Christ in these dark days, and we can do so together. If the Body of Christ can unite in service to humanity here, we can show Truth to a doubting and confused world! But how can we act together?
We can come together in 2 major ways. First pastors and ministers who are not themselves scientists, should look within their congregations for believers who are skilled and knowledgeable in the fields of science to help them, and to explain scientific principles. WE CAN NO LONGER CEDE THE INTERPRETATION OF SCIENCE TO THE ATHEISTS. Pastors and leaders should become familiar with the latest findings by reading books like “In Six Days” and “Refuting Evolution“. They should go to good websites like http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test, or read my blogs listed above. And they should visit sites that support Bible history like the Ark Encounter, the Creation Museum, and The Museum of the Bible to find out how science supports the Bible.
Second, it would be entirely possible for Bible believing pastors, Christians, and scientists in Pinellas county tobegina world class Creation museum and Bible history museum right here, serving not only the millions of people in the Bay Area, but also the ten million more who visit the Bay area on vacation every year. And in the process, by teaming up with other Christian ministries like the Museum of the Bible, we could offer hope and salvation to a generation that is lost and suffering without Christ.
I work as an ER physician in Largo, and I live right here in Pinellas county. If you have caught a glimpse of the vision that I believe God has for us, please reply to this blog with a message, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. And please ask all your friends and fellow ministers to join the cause. Truth saves lives. Truth saves souls. May God bless you as you spread the Truth.
A Berkeley site developed to promote belief in evolution has some interesting comments on recent human evolution. They suggest that evolution is now occurring at an accelerated rate, and that humans are evolving at a much more rapid pace than in past millennia. An article from Berkeley on “Understanding Evolution” offers some hypotheses about techniques investigating possible adaptations to the human genome…
When Henry Harpending of the University of Utah and his colleagues applied this technique to the genomes of people who trace their ancestry to different geographic regions (Europe, Africa, China, and Japan), what they found surprised them — lots of evidence for favorable mutations! Natural selection seems to have acted on these mutants in many different areas of our genome. In fact, the team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years. Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we’ve experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread.(1)
Note the words “seems to have acted“, and “seem to have taken place“. It is refreshingly honest of the authors to admit the weakness of their position. Also note that the vast majority have arisen within a timetable compatible with the Bible “in the last 10,000 years”! In fact they even say that they have occurred since the Ice Age, which Creation scientists argue very convincingly, occurred soon after the flood!
Also note that in spite of 10,000 supposed mutations, in approximately the last 10,000 years, people still people look, act, walk, eat, and talk like people. We cannot dig up skeletons or look at mummies from thousands of years ago and see any evidence of these supposed mutations. In fact, for the last several thousand years of recorded history, during this time of “accelerated human evolution” nothing about human appearance or capabilities appears to have really changed.
The authors go on to say, “These results are intriguing (and controversial — they’ve already generated much discussion within the scientific community), but they do have limitations. The technique that the researchers used (looking for genomic evidence of past hitchhiking events) is reliable, but it is not particularly good at detecting very old or very recent episodes of selection.” (2)
Now note further, that the evolutionists themselves admit that the results they depend on are controversial, and have substantial limitations. Yet you will not see evidence of that uncertainty or controversy in the writings of most secular scientists, or hear it in their voices as they lecture on the supposed scientific certainty of evolution!
Nevertheless many scientists are finally admitting that research does NOT support the belief that humanity is constantly improving, getting larger or smarter or more robust. “If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe … you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,’ said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. ‘Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed?” Some scientists believe humans are becoming less brainy and more neurotic; others see signs of growing intelligence and decreasing robustness, while some, like Jones, see evidence of us having reached a standstill. All base their arguments on the same tenets of natural selection.(3)
From this we learn two things. First, these scientists who believe in evolution admit that the evidence support the sudden appearance of the modern human race (from whence they have no idea). Second, that using the exact same evidence, they come up with many different theories or explanations. Third, phrases like “you cannot predict” and “who knows” absolutely reek of conjecture, not scientific certainty! Yet they teach gullible college freshmen that they “know” evolution is a fact and creation is nonsense!
The real fact is that mere guesses and conjectures about past events that occurred many thousands of years ago are not “science”. Claiming scientific credibility is not just an overstatement, it is a complete fabrication! Wherever you look into the details at the forefront of “evolutionary science” you will find observations and conclusions that are based not on science, but on the secular atheist world view!
For more proof that evolution is NOT scientific, please see my last blog “Branch or Vine”, and Jan. 14th blog, “A totally Modern View on Evolution.”