The Cosmos Erected Out of Harmonies

American Minute from William J. Federer

An attack of smallpox when he was four-years-old left him with crippled hands and poor eyesight. Overcoming those handicaps, he studied Copernicus' works and at age 23 became a professor of astronomy. His name was Johannes Kepler, born DECEMBER 27, 1571.

His laws of planetary motion, known as Kepler's Laws, helped Newton formulate the theory of gravity.

In his work, "The Harmonies of the World," book five, Kepler stated: "O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!...The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer."

In comparing celestial orbits of the planets with polyphonic harmonies in music, Kepler wrote: "Holy Father, keep us safe in the concord of our love for one another, that we may be one just as Thou art with Thy Son, Our Lord, and with the Holy Ghost, and just as through the sweetest bonds of harmonies Thou hast made all Thy works one,"

Kepler continued: "and that from the bringing of Thy people into concord, the body of Thy Church may be built up in the Earth, as Thou didst erect the heavens themselves out of harmonies."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

Evolution Theory Is Not Scientific

Calvin Smith has a good piece at Creation Ministries International on whether evolution theory measures up to the definition of "science" as defined by evolutionists themselves.

So is evolution "scientific?"

Smith made a short list of the elements of criteria laid out by the pro-evolution National Science Education Standards (NSES):

1-Observational data

2-Accurate predictions

3-Logical

4-Open to criticism

5-Accurate information

6-No presuppositions

Sounds reasonable, right? So how does evolution theory measure up?

Smith cites vociferous evolutionist Richard Dawkins to indict evolution theory in the area of observational data:

After being chided recently by a creationist on a UK TV program about his comment; ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening’, Dawkins attempted to parry with a prepared comment:

‘The refusal to believe in anything you can’t see yourself is absurd. Think about it, I never saw Napoleon with my own eyes, but that doesn’t mean Napoleon didn’t exist.’

And Bible believers everywhere said, Amen! However, I’d reckon atheists were figuratively banging their heads against their TV sets because of Dawkins ‘letting the cat out of the bag’. The existence of Napoleon or Jesus Christ can only be known through historical records, not operational science. So the scientific method cannot be invoked.

Once again the world’s most vocal champion of evolution and the outgoing Oxford University Chair for the Public Understanding of Science has revealed that evolution hasn’t been observed! So according to the NSES, (‘ … all scientific ideas depend on experimental and observational confirmation … ’) evolution fails their first criteria as being scientific.

But apostles of the religion of evolution can make "accurate prediction" and thus fulfill criteria #2, right? Well, not really.

The fossil record has never panned out as Charles Darwin hoped it would. Smith cites a recent National Geographic article which admits:

‘Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.'

Wow. That's a lot to build a sound theory upon, isn't it? One frame out of 1,000? Uh huh.

Speculation about vestigial organs has proven to be all wet, too. Hmm. Maybe evolution can't make the predictions we thought.

But hey, at least it meets criteria #3 and is perfectly logical, right? Well....

Imagine you open your front door and see a robot walking on two legs along the street carrying a package on its shoulder. The package is marked with an address, that the robot has followed and arrived at.

Glancing at your neighbour you say ‘Who do you think made the robot?’ To which he says ‘I don’t think anyone made it, I think it made itself!’ With even a lay person’s knowledge of basic engineering, would this be a logical conclusion?

Okay, but evolution theory and evolutionists meet #4, being totally open to criticism. After all, they have all the facts on their side. They have nothing to fear. This issue was settled a long time ago, so criticisms are no problem, right? Well...

The newly released documentary Expelled blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.

The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who resigned within a couple of days after suggesting that creationism and ID should be discussed in classrooms.

Hmmm. Okay, so evolution theory has miserably failed four out of the six criteria, so far. But it can still pull in the big win with the last two, right? After all, what we know and teach about evolution relies on completely accurate information, right? At the risk of sounding repetitive, "Well...."

Those that have been around the creation/evolution debate are usually familiar with hoaxes like Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor (the Piltdown Bird!), Nebraska man and the Staged photos of peppered moths, all fraudulent ‘evidences’ used to promote the theory of evolution.

One such fraud refuses to die it seems. I was shocked days ago when flipping through my daughter’s science text book to find Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings! I knew these had still been used in textbooks up to a short while ago but couldn’t believe my eyes to see it used in 2008 science curricula. This false ‘evidence’ was created in the 1860’s

Alright, but hey: at least it isn't full of presuppositions like creation science and intelligent design theory is. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllll...

In order to be truly neutral (hold no presuppositions) regarding the theory of origins, one would have to be open to the view that life could have arisen completely naturalistically, while simultaneously accepting that it may have been intelligently designed. You would then conduct investigations to see which hypothesis is better supported. But many evolutionists are atheists or were taught by atheists. By definition an atheist is;

A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.13
So how can an atheist be unbiased or hold no presuppositions when their world view pre-supposes ‘no-God’?

Smith also cites this admission of bias from evolutionist Richard Lewontin:

‘It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Author Aldous Huxley, grandson of "Darwin's bulldog" T.H. Huxley, admitted the license of Godlessness was central to his acceptance of this worldview:

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’

Smith's article also mentions a very interesting 1983 quote from the Official Journal-American Humanist Association

‘I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism …

Notice that this humanist at least had the intellectual integrity to admit that humanism is a faith, a religion?

Well, it looks like evolution theory fares no better than creation science or intelligent design in these six criteria put forth by the NSES.

So if both evolution theory and creation science can now start on a level playing field of consideration, the next step is to examine the theories and contentions of both and see how well they fit the evidence.

Interestingly, evolution does pitifully here, too. I won't take time to go into the details (which can be found easily across the internet) and make this post any longer, but the elementary implications alone are enough to doom evolution theory before it gets off the launch pad.

There are a great number of hinge-pins required to make materialism/naturalism/evolution a workable theory. They include a universe that sprang from absolutely nothing (in violation of scientific principles) with no cause (in violation of scientific principles), and required stars and other planetary bodies to form (in violation of scientific principles), and life to spring from lifeless matter (in violation of scientific principles).

And since evolutionists make an a priori insistence that there cannot be supernatural intervention or causation, they are left with events which must happen without supernatural help...yet are impossible according to the laws of nature.

Creation, on the other hand, assumes an infinite, all-powerful creator who spoke a universe into being, and had it completely ordered and fully functional--including human life--in six days.

The science of such a feat definitely inspires curiosity and wonder. Yet if one can believe Genesis 1:1, then every other truth-claim in the Bible is very easy to accept.

To put it simply, the claims of creation science are entirely possible within its own framework.

The claims of evolution, however, are impossible within its own framework.

Evolution comes up woefully short in the "scientific" department.

Creation Museum Celebrates with Christmas Display

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Aaron J. Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Dec. 15 2008 08:34 AM EST

The controversial Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., has brought out its special Christmas display, which will run until Jan. 4.

The centerpiece of the museum’s “Bethlehem’s Blessings” presentation is a live outdoor nativity scene featuring human actors in each of the Christmas story roles, as well as sheep, donkeys, and camels, which all come from the museum’s own petting zoo.

Visitors to the museum grounds will also be treated to hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and special events and activities for children. Special Christmas exhibits inside the museum include the Planetarium presentation, “The Bethlehem Star.”

“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together, and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December,” expressed Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy in an announcement.

The $27-million museum itself has been the center of a number of controversies, mostly involving its literal interpretation of the Bible. Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the 60,000-square foot museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

Earlier this month, hundreds of complaints led the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum.

“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” reported the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham.

Despite whatever disagreements there may be, the staff at the Creation Museum are hoping to share the story of Christmas during the holiday season.

“Christmas is about hope and faith and love, and the fulfillment of God’s plan for humanity,” said Looy. “The created world is God’s backdrop for this amazing story of redemption and relationship.”

Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.

On the Web:

www.CreationMuseum.org

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Evolution Disciples Force Break in Cooperation Between Zoo, Creation Museum

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Dec. 03 2008 09:24 AM EST

A high volume of complaints have forced the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, Ky., after running for less than three days.

The two institutions had come together to offer a special ticket package that gave visitors the opportunity to drop in on both at a discounted rate while promoting one another at the same time.

According to the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, however, the zoo received hundreds of complaints, many of which were opposed to the faith and ideas that the museum presents.

“It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said, expressing disappointment in the zoo’s decision but also understanding of its perspective.

“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” he added.

The Creation Museum, which cost $27 million to build, is a 60,000-square foot facility that opened last year in May and revived the creation/evolution debate among Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, anti-creationism evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists.

Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

Critics, however, both non-Christians and Christians who are against a literal interpretation of the Bible on life origins, have protested and spoke out against the anti-evolution display, worried that their children will be affected. The controversy garnered the new exhibit a large amount of media coverage.

“Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents,” Ham said regarding the latest controversy, “and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise.”

Despite the zoo’s decision, Ham said his museum would continue promoting the “excellent zoo” on its website and in printed material that is passed out inside of the museum.

“We are committed to promoting regional tourism,” he explained.

Furthermore, the museum will still provide $9 off of the ticket prices (the amount of the discount under the original agreement) from Dec. 2 to Dec. 11, with the exception of Saturday, Dec. 6. "Get the Museum/Zoo Discount Anyway," the museum website says.

Beginning on Dec. 12, the museum will have up its special Christmas display, which includes a live outdoor nativity scene and a special lighted “Road to Bethlehem” trail. Visitors to the museum grounds will also be met with hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and events and activities for children. Inside the museum, there will be special Christmas exhibits including the Planetarium presentation “The Bethlehem Star.”

“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together,” says Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy, “and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December.”

Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.

On the Web: http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

In the Casino of Life, Evolutionists are Big Losers

An animated clip humorously showing the improbability of a single-celled organism forming by chance - well beyond the limits of what science considers possible - 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power - the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by a mind-blowing 340 million zeros. The only logical conclusion is that an intelligence was involved in the formation of life - the atheists realize this which is why they're in full-fledged panic mode and why the hostility towards I.D. is so incredibly intense. Footage from the blockbuster documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - available now on DVD!

Louis Pasteur and Creation

American Minute from William J. Federer

He developed vaccines for rabies and anthrax, revolutionized medicine with his germ theory of disease, and laid the foundation for the control of tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria and tetanus. While Dean of the Faculty of Sciences at Lille University in France, he developed the process of "Pasteurization" of milk. This was Louis Pasteur, who died SEPTEMBER 28, 1895.

President Eisenhower wrote January 8, 1954: "Pasteurization of milk has prevented countless epidemics and saved thousands of lives."

President Johnson stated April 7, 1966: "Years ago Louis Pasteur said, 'I hold the unconquerable belief that science and peace will triumph over ignorance and war; that nations will come together not to destroy, but to construct; and that the future belongs to those who accomplish most for humanity.'"

President George H.W. Bush stated February 13, 1989: "You know, Louis Pasteur once said: 'Chance favors only the prepared mind.'...For America to be prepared for the future, our children must be educated."

Dr. Louis Pasteur wrote: "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator...There is something in the depths of our souls which tells us that the world may be more than a mere combination of events."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

Berlinski Answers the New Atheists

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

David Berlinski, mathematician and philosopher, skeptic and iconoclast, in his latest book The Devil's Delusion provides a counterpoint to the several New Atheists authors that have published works in the past few years, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens most notably. Berlinski, a secular Jew, has no quarrel with scientific pursuits but is skeptical of the claim by many scientists that they can answer, with authority, essentially scientifically unanswerable questions. He is impatient with the ever-increasing pomposity and boasting of popular representatives of the scientific community ( a few of whom are actually scientists) who seem to have answers for most everything from “the god gene” to multiple universes to origins of life with little more than a committed antagonism to religion to buttress their claims.

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

"According to Daniel Dennett, Berlinski exudes a 'rich comic patina of smug miseducation'; Richard Dawkins implies that he may be wicked to the core; and blogger-ringleader P.Z. Myers has called him a 'pompous pimple' and a 'supercilious snot.'" (quoted from Wikipedia)

Readers who have followed the many posts on Dakota Voice about science, creation and the perfection of the universe might find such comments reason enough to read The Devil's Delusion and see what provokes such ire from writers who have contributed little to scientific understanding yet assert their beliefs with the certainty of religious zealots.

Scientists: Our Solar System is Pretty Special

The materialist/naturalist/evolutionist believes that the universe came into being through a random, spontaneous event, and that all that we see today came to be this way through billions of years filled with random, uncontrolled happenings.

Somehow, in this modern faerie tale, this highly complex universe just happened to end up in this high state of complexity.

In other words, all the matter that suddenly sprang into existence from absolutely nothing managed to, over billions of years, start to organize itself into more dense forms of matter (in defiance of the laws of the universe), until stars eventually formed (in defiance of the laws of the universe).

Planets also just happened to form (in defiance of the laws of the universe).

Conditions on earth just happened to end up in a state where the formation of life was at least possible.

Life just happened to form from a random set of elements and circumstances (in defiance of the laws of the universe).

Life also managed to (in defiance of the laws of the universe) organize itself into higher forms until eventually humans came along who were able to understand this incredible modern faerie tale, er, wonder of random events that just happened to work out favorable to humans.

Materialistic scientists have until recently examined our solar system, seen nothing remarkable (just another random set of things that happened to come out in a positive, ordered system), and surmised the rest of the galaxy and universe must just be filled with other beneficial and ordered systems that just happened to work out that way.

But now, according to Science Daily, researchers at Northwestern University have gone and messed up the comfort of that modern faerie tale...and probably all the milk and cookies that came with it.

It seems this ordinary, mundane, seen-one-you've-seen-'em-all solar system in which humans live isn't so ordinary.

You see, unlike ages past, we can now gather data about other solar systems across the cosmos...and that data is telling us our home solar system is pretty special.

Scientists found that if conditions weren't just right, planets could end up plunging into their local sun, or spinning off into the cold of outer space.

The researchers ran more than a hundred simulations, and the results show that the average planetary system's origin was full of violence and drama but that the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be "just right."

"But we now know that these other planetary systems don't look like the solar system at all," said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist and professor of physics and astronomy in Northwestern's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. He is senior author of the Science paper.

Since matter doesn't normally organize itself into higher forms, even the formation of a star and accompanying planets is a stretch. But assuming that is spontaneously possible, scientists have found that actually getting a stable--and thus habitable--solar system is a long shot indeed.

Of course, an intelligent designer (say, like the one in the Bible) could explain this unusual and perhaps unique state of order in our solar system.

But then, believing in an intelligent designer would be a stretch, wouldn't it?

Creation: The Evidence of Physics

From the fantastic DVD 'The Case for a Creator'


Part 1:


Part 2:

Light a Candle to See the Sun

American Minute from William J. Federer

The father of the American space program died JUNE 16, 1977.

He developed the V-2 rocket for Germany before emigrating to the US, where in 1958, he launched America's first satellite. He was director of NASA and the U.S. guided missile program. His name was Wernher von Braun.

Founder of the National Space Institute, Wernher von Braun stated: "The laws of nature that enable us to fly to the Moon also enable us to destroy our home planet with the atom bomb. Science itself does not address the question whether we should use the power at our disposal for good or for evil. The guidelines of what we ought to do are furnished in the moral law of God."

Wernher von Braun continued: "It is no longer enough that we pray that God may be with us on our side. We must learn to pray that we may be on God's side."

To the California State Board of Education, September 14, 1972, Wernher von Braun wrote: "Some...challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we light a candle to see the sun?"

In American Weekly, February 10, 1963, Wernher von Braun wrote: "It is difficult for me to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe...Viewing the awesome reaches of space...should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

God of Wonders

During the Truth Project lesson yesterday on "Labor," we examined the fact that work is not a "four letter word." That God himself worked (i.e. the creation week) and he created us to labor.

While work is often less enjoyable than it was meant to be because of the curse of sin, the fact remains that we were "created to create."

To illustrate the nobility of labor, Dr. Del Tackett showed a video featuring God's creative handiwork, set to the song "God of Wonders" by Third Day.

This video isn't the same one shown in the Truth Project (that one was even more awe-inspiring), but this one is pretty good.



I have appreciated the beauty and wonder of God's creation for many years, and I've also enjoyed this song for some time. Yet when I saw the two combined in a presentation highlighting God's genius and majesty yesterday, I was overwhelmed.

I hope you enjoy this video even half as much as I did the one I saw yesterday.

Notes on 'Science: What is True?'

Lesson 5 of the Truth Project is on "Science: What is True." It is a two-part lesson, the first of which I attended last week, and finished up the second part today.

The first part of lesson 5 opens with an examination of God's truth revealed in His creation.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

In other words, the very universe around us (it's majesty, it's complexity, it's obvious design) testifies to the reality and truth of God, so that even if humans claim no one told them about God, they are nevertheless without excuse, because creation itself has testified to them.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. - Romans 1:21-23, 25

Do we see this today? Some have exchanged the worship of God as the ultimate source, the ultimate truth, for the worship of the cosmos (remember Carl Sagan?) and man's reason as the ultimate beginning and end.

Speaking of Carl Sagan, the Truth Project showed a clip of Sagan in an earlier lesson from Sagan's PBS series "Cosmos" stating that "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be." Dr. Del Tackett, the host of the Truth Project, asks the question, "If the universe has 'always been,' then shouldn't entropy have rendered it dead by now?"

This lesson also asks the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Why is anything in motion rather than everything still?" and "Why is there order rather than chaos?" and "Why is there life rather than deadness?" and "Why is there music?"

The lesson also reveals how evolutionists and materialists can come up with their fantastic theories to explain a universe without cause, when otherwise we would look at their claims and instantly recognize them for the foolishness they are: time. Quoting George Wald from "The origin of life" in Scientific American:

...Time is the hero of the plot...what we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Give so much time, the impossible becomes possible.

In other words, most of the claims of materialists don't make sense, but if we throw in the key ingredient (billions of years of TIME), then in our minds the impossible somehow becomes possible. After all, millions or billions of years is beyond our human comprehension.

Also examined are some basic assumptions articulated by Sagan in Cosmos:

I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos

We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both.

We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.

We will see in the course of lesson 5 that assumption 2a is a lie (materialists will not pursue the truth if it leads to God), and assumption 3 is a lie (the vast majority of evolution and materialism is speculation that is being marketed as fact).

Also examined is how the line between science and philosophy has become blurred in the past century. Science attempts to understand the "particulars" of the universe (how it works, etc.) while philosophy is concerned with the "universals" or the big "why" of things. Science has gone beyond the investigation of how things work, to attempting to answer the philosophical "why" of the universe. And in doing so, it has lost it's way, and a great deal of it's credibility.

Evolutionists love to claim that Christians are opposed to "science" (they are NOT, they are simply opposed to science that tries to answer the big "why" based on speculation). Yet scientist Johannes Kepler, a creationist, said

The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God.

Some say evolution is no longer a theory but is established FACT. This means it has become recognized as a scientific LAW. Yet while science normally requires repeatable testing, observation and verification, evolution has somehow been given a free pass from these requirements. We have never observed evolution occurring, we have no recorded evidence that it occurred, and we have no tests that can make it occur. Yet we call it "fact."

Lesson 5 also points out that evolutionists have not only moved science from the particulars to the universals, they have moved from the objective to the religious in their attitudes. Do you see anything "religious," dogmatic, or judgmental in this statement from Richard Dawkins:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

I wonder if Dawkins realized that in making the value judgment implicit in the term "wicked" that he was dangerously close to showing his hand, and revealing that evolution is a religion to him?

Tackett points out another important truth about the creation/evolution debate. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, creationists do not deny the evidence, they do not deny the fossil record or anything that science has showed us. Yet they reach a different conclusion. Tackett uses the analogy of a football game where one set of fans clearly sees a touchdown, where another set of fans clearly sees an "incomplete." Only one is true, yet both are convinced of a different reality. Is bias and presupposition a factor? Evolutionists will never admit to bias or presupposition, but it is every bit as present as it is for the creationist.

Tackett also highlights the tremendous discipline it takes for the evolutionist to keep on believing in random progression, especially in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Consider this quote from Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." In other words, no matter how much this looks like it was designed, keep telling yourself it evolved randomly.

Even Darwin had these unpleasant intrusions from reality: "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" Remember what Romans 1 said above?

Part 2 of the lesson today examined a biological function a simple as blood clotting, and how it is evidence of design. What did organisms do until the function of blood clotting "evolved?" One tiny injury to the organism and it would bleed to death. What a wonder that any organisms survived long enough to "evolve" blood clotting. The odds are so high, it'd almost be considered a miracle...but that would assume a supernatural agent, which we must not even consider!

In fact, Crick essentially said so himself:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.

What a refreshing, if incomplete, admission of honesty!

Darwin also laid out the test of veracity for his own theory:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

In fact, many scientists have become convinced that the gradual, successive changes posited by Darwin are in fact impossible. So they have come up with the theory of "directed panspermia" which finds that living cells are so complex that even the billions of theoretical years the earth has existed would not be enough time to evolve that kind of function and complexity, so the first living cell on earth must have been transported to earth from some other planet outside our solar system. (Haven't I said before that evolution is "science fiction?")

Scientists who are hopelessly devoted (enslaved?) to their religion of evolution face some tough choices when they are smacked in the face with the reality that the universe is far too complex to have come into existence without design. They are so desperate that they will come up with more and more outlandish theories in order to escape facing the one conclusion that is utterly unacceptable: that there is a Creator to which they are accountable.

Consider this statement from George Wald in Scientific American:

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternate belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

The lesson examines irreducible complexity. This is where one part of an organism has no purpose or function without other parts, so there is no "evolutionary need" for the development of one part until others involved in the process develop, but they too have no need to exist without the others--so many parts would have had to spontaneously evolve at the same time and coincidentally work together to perform some useful function. Quite a stretch?

For an example, consider the simple mousetrap. Do any of it's parts (the piece of wood, the spring, the trigger, the locking arm, the locking ring) serve any useful function without all the others? The simple mousetrap would perform no useful function without all the parts in the exact correct configuration.

Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box examines this unworkable problem for evolutionists and compares it to Darwin's own test of veracity for his theory of evolution:

To Darwin, the cell was a "black box"--its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory as "absolutely broken down."

Another of Darwin's veracity tests is examined:

...[T]he number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

That was 150 years ago. We have seen much more of the geologic column that had been discovered in Darwin's time. So have we found those myriad transitional forms which prove evolution? Uh, no.

Even Stephen Jay Gould admits that, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils."

Scientists have also come up with a new theory to explain evolution since Darwin's theory obviously doesn't cut the mustard: punctuated equilibrium. This theory basically posits that there was sudden, immediate change in organisms, that organisms remained stable for many years, and would suddenly evolve into new species, remain stable for many more generations, then suddenly evolve again.

I wonder what theoretically triggers such sudden changes. And I wonder how it happens that out of the alleged millions of years there has been life on earth, how it happened that two biologically compatible organisms, capable of complimentary reproduction, happened to exist at the same time to be able to reproduce and carry forward such spontaneous changes? But when you're dealing with sci-fi, I guess anything is possible in the movies...and in evolution.

Why are evolution scientists so willing to come up with wild theories that just don't hold up under the very laws of nature they claim to worship? I believe that it is because evolution is a form of worship. A worship of the universe, or a worship of man's reason. And the motivation to hold onto that belief is not generated by scientific integrity, but by a religious and philosophical faith.

I believe the following revealing statement from Richard G. Bozarth in American Atheist demonstrates that evolution is a religiously dogmatic position:

Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

The theory of evolution is a religious, worldview-attack on Christianity.

Evolution is not science, but a philosophy, a religion--a religion that holds the universe or man's reason as deity.

The Truth Project also quotes S. Lovtrup:

I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?

I couldn't agree more.

Cellular Design--What Darwin Never Knew

Darwinism is a 19th century theory that was developed when the cell was thought to be nothing more than a tiny glob of gelatinous material. We now know just how complex, specialized, intricate and finely controlled cells really are. It is easy for evolutionists to speak of homologies such as the similarity of bony structures of a bird's wing compared to the forelimb of a mammal, but the molecular and biochemical workings of an organism are completely inexplicable by supposed evolutionary mechanisms. This is why Michael Behe calls the cell "Darwin's Black Box."

Within a typical cell there are organelles that are analogous to our organs (such as heart, liver, kidney, etc.). Each of these organelles has a very specialized function from production of proteins, energy production and transfer, elimination of wastes, communication with surrounding cells and on and on. There is a meshwork of microtubules that transport material in and out and around the cell that acts like trolley tracks. There are specialized protein structures that move along these tracks carrying other components, thus acting as trolley cars to make sure that all the organelles have the material that each needs to function efficiently and waste products are carried away. This latter process is seen in the video as the protein literally “walks” along a track carrying a large structure behind.

I get frustrated when evolutionists dictate the terms of the conversation and speak of similarities between different species as evidence of common ancestry. Could it just as well be evidence of a common designer? And what of the radical differences between the different phyla (e.g., worms, insects, clams, vertebrates, etc.)? If similarities represent evidence of common ancestry, does dissimilarity therefore give evidence uncommon ancestry? Or maybe a very clever Designer who created many different kinds of life with many different variations on each theme?

Are Creationists Anti-Science?

Though I'm not sure it's accomplishing much, I've been having an ongoing discussion with several evolutionists over the past couple of days concerning my post yesterday on "Creationism and Peer Review."

While my post yesterday deals primarily with the intellectual bigotry of the dominant scientific community (which believes religiously in evolution), and the circular logic evolutionists often use for rejecting creationist arguments(refuse to give peer review approval of a creationist theory that is sound within its own worldview, then say lack of peer-reviewed material is proof that creationist arguments lack quality), there are some other issues in the realm of science and scientific interpretation which are more at the center of the impasse in this debate.

Today, Answers in Genesis features a piece on the common accusation that creationists reject science.

This issue is at or close to the heart of the difference between creationists and evolutionists today.

Contrary to the charge, creationists do not reject science, not in the least. Instead, they reject naturalism, which is a philosophy that has incorrectly become synonymous with "science" in modern language.

Science is the examination of the universe with intent to uncover how it is made up and how it operates.

Naturalism and materialism are doctrines or belief systems which posit that everything in the universe came about through natural processes with no supernatural influence or intervention. There is no room in this philosophy for God's creative work or influence over the universe.

Science simply examines the facts, where naturalism posits theological and philosophical conclusions about those facts. While they are related, one should not be confused for the other.

It is even harder for disciples of evolution to be objective than it is for the typical creationist, so I know that what I've just said and what Answers in Genesis has to say is of the highest order of blasphemy to them.

But for those of you with an open mind to consider all sides of the issue, I would recommend reading the "Do Creationists Reject Science?" piece. It'll shed a lot of light on why most evolutionists are speaking a different language.

Creationism and Peer Review

Creation Ministries International has an article which addresses the frequent criticism of creation science that most of it doesn't go through "peer review."

Andrew Kulikovsky examines the purpose of peer review, and why it is so difficult to gain peer-reviewed acceptance of creationist--especially young-earth creationist--research.

He points out that peer review can result in a better study and paper through the feedback provided. Sometimes peer review can point out flawed assumptions or weak arguments, providing an opportunity to better present them or abandon them, if necessary.

He also said that the term "peer reviewed" has evolved (excuse the pun) into another way of saying "quality," which also implies that if it isn't peer reviewed, then it's worthless and shouldn't be considered--an assumption that may be true much of the time, but cannot be reasonably assumed to be the rule.

As an example, Kulikovsky points out that German physician J. R Mayer first formulated the First Law of Thermodynamics in 1842, but it was rejected. He also points out a mea culpa in Nature magazine:

‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.’

Kulikovsky also points out that peer review, while a good practice and measure, is not infallible, does not guarantee quality or correctness, does not prevent fraud, and is rarely objective--which should be one of the greatest attributes of true science.

But creation science cannot get a fair, objective "shake" in the evolutionist-dominated field of science in the modern world. Most scientist and adherents to the religion of evolution start from the assumption that there is no God, that completely naturalistic processes brought the universe to the state in which it exists today, and that there is no and can be no supernatural influence on the universe.

Consider this example: Several people live inside a house, but they've never been outside it, and there are no windows. Some occupants believe there is nothing outside the house, that the house is "all there is, all there ever was, all there ever will be." But others in the house contend that there is a whole other world outside the house, a place where light might come from something other than light bulbs, water might sometimes fall from the sky, and air might circulate without the means of fans or vents. These other people who believe in this external world hold up an earpiece and claim they get information about this outside world through this device. The occupants who believe there is nothing outside the house will sometimes pick up an earpiece, but they never go so far as to put it up to their ear; instead they claim the earpiece says nothing, and there is no proof that anything exists outside the house; after all, they've seen nothing come into the house from outside to "prove it." Meanwhile, unbeknownst to this group of skeptics, a whole world full of life and events is going on outside, and they remain incapable of even considering it.

Is such a scenario any different than someone who stubbornly insists there is nothing outside the natural universe, there is no supernatural force in existence, and they refuse to give the Bible and the ideas of creation scientists an honest, objective hearing to evaluate the merits of their contention?

But back to the subject of peer review, evolutionists posit that when "peer review" consists of other young-earth creationists, that this isn't valid peer review, that the work of young-earth creationists must pass muster with "old-earth" peer reviewers.

Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted.

So we have a double-standard. You can't have your work "authenticated" by others who share your worldview. But we who don't share your worldview won't even give your work serious consideration because we already assume that anything you say is impossible. Meanwhile, all of us who believe in evolution will be busy peer-reviewing each other's work. Nice how that works out for the evolutionist.

The author points out that scientists who offer evidence contradictory to the myth of man-made global warming face the same intellectual bigotry. So this closed-mindedness is not confined only to creation science.

After examining the bias and ideological shortcomings of the peer review process, he concludes with an explanation of why you seldom see peer reviewed papers on creation science:

It is for these reasons that creationist scientists generally do not bother submitting papers that directly support a creationist interpretation of the natural world. Any such papers would be dismissed out of hand as being unworthy simply on the basis that they advocate a creationist interpretation. The quality of the research, the soundness of the arguments presented, and the validity of the logical conclusions would not even be considered. Thus, creationist scientists have created their own peer-reviewed journals and forums, such as the Journal of Creation, Creation Research Society Quarterly and the International Conference on Creationism.

Modern "science" is no longer the pursuit of truth where ever it leads, but is instead an exercise in peer pressure, group-think and herd instinct. If the "in" paradigm says "this," then no legitimate scientist can propose "that."

It is not a matter of evidence, scientific method, or openness to truth; it is an adaptation of a specific worldview (in this case, secularism/materialism/naturalism) that can tolerate no challenges to that philosophy.

Ironically, evolutionists and creationists accept the same scientific discoveries and evidence, examine the same evidence, yet reach different conclusions. Why? There are certainly presuppositions on both sides which determine the direction in which each will look for answers.

But wouldn't it be surprising if it turned out that, objectively, there might be more evidence to support the contentions of creation scientists than those of materialists and naturalists? I will even go so far as to say that the basic tenets of materialism and naturalism are impossible according to the very laws of nature that evolutionists hold in such high regard. In other words, some of the faith tenets held by evolutionists actually contradict other of their faith tenets.

Until adherents to evolution learn to approach other theories, other ideas such as those offered by creation scientists with an open mind, they will be holding their minds closed and captive to a certain set of preconceptions. They will be deliberately limiting their range and scope of scientific discovery.

Ironic, isn't it?

The Gospel Depends on the Accuracy of Genesis

Answers with Ken Ham

The doctrines upon which the Gospel of Jesus Christ rests (God's design for humanity and the universe, the origin of evil, the origin of sin, man's fallen state, etc.) depend on the accuracy of the book of Genesis. If Genesis is unreliable, so is the Gospel.

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com

Why All the Violence in Schools?

Answers with Ken Ham

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com

Why is There Suffering in the World?

Answers with Ken Ham

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com

How Could a Loving, Intelligent God Create a World of Suffering?

Answers with Ken Ham

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com

Language Barriers to Communicating Truth

Answers with Ken Ham

Many Americans no longer speak the "Christian" language, so don't understand concepts like sin and other Biblical doctrines.

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com