Genesis vs Darwin The Blog

Evolution and Culture (Part One)

2009-03-16T15:29:00.009-04:00

Evolution is one of the most widely accepted beliefs in our school systems today. It permeates our textbooks and is hammered into our minds as fact in almost every science classroom across the nation. How many times have you opened a science book and the first thing you read is something to the effect of "about 4.5 billion years ago…" or "the universe has changed since its conception over 10 billion years ago"?

The theory is taught as a one-sided truth, leaving no room in the students’ mind for question or doubt. It all makes sense, doesn’t it? They are scientists, after all. They can't be biased, can they? They know what they’re talking about, don’t they? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time secular humanism was wrong.

The point of these next few posts is to reveal to the reader the unspoken truths and evidences that evolutionists refuse to reveal on a large scale. It will also expose some of the flaws in the theory of evolution and demonstrate how evidence can be used to support creation.

The theory of evolution is a problem not only for adults and college students, but also for children from their very first year of school. Part of the reason many students today believe in evolution is because they have been taught it as fact since they first walked through school doors. Innocent first graders will believe almost anything you tell them. So, without any other influence, of course they will believe in evolution. Especially when they open their textbooks and the first thing they read is: "Earth has changed much since its formation 4.5 billion years ago. Some life on earth has adapted to these changes." (First Grade Merrill Science, 1989 p. 46) Then again, in second grade, students are taught the theory as an "obvious fact," almost in an attempt to make anyone who believes differently look uneducated.

This tactic has become more widely used by evolutionists in the last decade. Whereas before you could find many public debates between evolutionists and creationists, most atheists today are content to stay locked in their houses and mock creationists from afar. This is what is becoming known as a sort of "New Atheism," being spearheaded by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and those like them. Through them, the call of atheism has turned into a war-cry. They have entered a phase of radical evangelism, calling not only for the institution of their own religion, but the eradication of all others.

This has led to a very negative climate, where any dissension from Darwinism is not permitted. While the Bible tells us that Christians will face persecution (Mark 13:13, Matthew 5:10–12), the amount, and frequency that Christians are persecuted in science is greater now than ever thanks to this "New Atheism." The fact is, the current climate is not neutral. Just turn on the news or the Discovery Channel to see this as fact. Many of you who have stood up for your faith may have experienced similar things.

To be continued in Part Two...

Happy Trails,
Sam.

Happy Darwin Day...?

2009-02-12T19:27:00.008-05:00

February 12, 2009. Today is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. But that isn't the reason countless atheists and evolutionists around the world are celebrating today. Today is much more important than just the man who helps abolish American slavery. Today is also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.

2009 is also the 150th anniversary of Darwin's famous book "On the Origin of Species," and the secular culture is not letting us forget! Countless evolutionary organizations are promoting this day in hopes of making this a memorable day of atheistic evangelism. Some people are even calling today "Christmas for atheists." But this evangelism it isn't just limited to today. Many groups are making this entire year a year of praise for Darwinian orthodoxy. Museums (such as the Smithsonian) are opening new exhibits, TV specials are being shown, magazines published, and there are even parades, all in praise of the man who, according to Richard Dawkins, made it possible to be an "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." The religious determination of secular humanism and Darwin-worship (even billboards of praise) this year will no doubt be intimidating to many people, but as Christians this year represents something other than the promotion of evolutionary dogma. This year shows a unique opportunity for Christians around the world to present the Gospel message, and with even more urgency in the face of atheism.

Despite the fervent promotion of "Darwin Day," there are still many organizations who are celebrating God's creation as recorded in Genesis today, while pointing out the flaws of Darwin's theory. Just to quickly name a few:

Answers in Genesis, for example, has an entire page set up on Darwin and his legacy (called 200 Lost Years), complete with numerous articles and links to other information. They have also devoted an entire issue of their popular Answers Magazine to Darwin.
The Institute for Creation Research also devoted their latest Acts and Facts magazine to Darwin's legacy.
Creation Ministries International has some recent articles on Darwin's birthday, as well as a high-quality documentary coming out soon.

As these articles and many more show, Christians have no reason to fear this year. We should not be discouraged by the militant fervor of some evolutionists, but rather should find courage and preach His word to the masses. Instead of making this a year of intellectual decay, let's make this a year of learning and growing spiritually by educating ourselves on the issues of the Creation/Evolution debate, and show the creation message "gently and respectfully" (1 Peter 3:15-16). You can do this in any number of ways, such as:

Keeping up to date on the latest issues in creationism. Some groups have weekly articles featuring the latest Creation/Evolution news (such as AiG's weekly News to Note articles).
Watching creation videos. These can be bought from almost any creationist organization. If you don't wish to purchase anything, there are also plenty of free video resources. AiG posts a new portion of one of their DVD's every week. Watching their talk "Origin of the Species: Was Darwin Right?" would be a great way to start educating yourself on Darwin's theory. CMI also has a "Creation Magazine Live!" feature. You could even borrow some videos from your local church!
Tell your pastor/youth leader to visit The Creation Letter Project and sign the letter. I even encourage you to sign the letter and get involved!
Find a group of people and friends and get involved! It could even be as simple as talking about current creation/evolution issues or even starting a mini Bible-study on Genesis and creation. Starting a small group is a great jumping-pad for actually talking to people about creationism vs. evolution. It is often easier to talk to someone when you have Godly friends to back you up.
And most importantly, read the Bible. While creationists often stress the first book of the Bible, Genesis isn't the only place that talks about creation. Jesus Himself referred to Noah, as well as Adam and Eve.

Often it can be easy to get caught-up with the scientific aspects of the creation/evolution debate. We have to remember, though, that while the creation message is certainly important, it is not the true message of the Bible. The true message of the Bible is that the God of the universe became a man and died on the cross, bearing our sins. He then rose three days later, conquering death once and for all. And He offers life to all of us, if only we will trust Him to take away our sins as our Savior. What an amazing God we have, that he would die for us. This is what we are always trying to accomplish when learning and talking about creation: to always give glory to God.

Happy Trails,
Sam.

ICC '08 Update #3 (Wednesday, August 6)

2008-08-07T23:29:00.001-04:00

Welcome readers to the final day of the ICC '08 coverage. It has been a long journey filled with late nights, quick food trips, and likely the most concentrated amount of creation science anywhere. This final ICC '08 coverage post will include more talk-overviews, more pictures, more interviews with great scientists, and once again... MORE! So without further adieu, let's jump headfirst into the Genesis vs Darwin Blog's last day covering the Sixth International Conference on Creationism!

Before we get to the session coverage, I would like to point out once again the diversity of creation organizations present at this conference. For instance, there were even two tables set up with creation materials in different languages. I have included a picture of some resources from one of the tables below.

The other non-English table at the conference was filled with mostly Spanish reseources

The first talk of the day was entitled "Significance of Highly Discordant Radioisotope Dates for Precambrian Amphibolites in Grand Canyon, USA" and was presented by Dr. Andrew Snelling. It outlined the area where they obtained samples and presented the obtained dates for rocks when different radiometric dating techniques were used. For instance, a rock was 405.1 ± 10 ma (ma = million years) using one technique, and 2574.2 ±73 ma using another dating technique. That's a difference of about 2169.1 ma depending upon what dating technique you use. Ironically, the evolutionary date of the formation is supposed to be 1740-1750 ma. What is the evolutionist to do when neither of the clearly untrustworthy dating techniques agree with their dates?

Yesterday, Andrew Snelling also gave two talks on radiohalos, their significance, and their evidence for the Flood. I was able to catch Dr. Snelling for a quick interview about his talks, as well as about a presentation he is giving tonight for the conference closing called "The Creation Model: Its Past, Its Present, and Its Necessary Future." (below, followed by a picture)

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")

Andrew Snelling showing the results of some testing

I was also able to catch the very end of another talk at the same time entitled (once again, excuse the long name) "Analysis of Barry Hall's Research of the E. coli ebg Operon: Understanding the Implications for Bacterial Adaption to Adverse Environments" by Dr. Georgia Purdom. I wish I had heard more of this talk, as she talked about things such as Barry Hall's widely publicized research, as well as bacteria and their genes in different environments, etc. (picture below)

Georgia Purdom talks about adaptive mutations

At 10:15 I attended a talk by Dr. John Whitmore called "Rapid and Early Post-Flood Mammalian Diversification Evidenced in the Green River Formation." In the talk, they argued that the Green River Formation is a post-Flood deposit, rather than a Flood deposit, and also stressed the point that creationists need to agree upon parameters with which to decide when sediments were deposited. (picture below)

(left) Dr. John Whitmore talking about the Green River Formation
(right) Dr. Kurt Wise (co-writer of paper) took over for the Q&A session after the talk

You may remember that in the last update I said that I had one more interview to share with you. Last night I got an interview with geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner after his talk entitled "The Roles of Tectonics and Rotational Dynamics in the Genesis Flood" (my favorite, and more informative talk of the conference). Below is the final interview of the Genesis vs Darwin Blog coverage of ICC '08! (below, followed by a picture)

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")

A wide view of Dr. Baumgardner during his talk and the crowd

The Sixth International Conference on Creationism has been an amazing experience. Hearing the latest in creation research presented by the top scientists in various fields, and even meeting many of these people that I have either heard of, seen videos of, or read books by, has truly been out-of-this-world. As Mark Looy (CCO and Co-Founder of Answers in Genesis) said to me in a conversation earlier about ICC, "It's almost like going to Disney Land [for a creationist]" but without, I might add, the fantasy!

So there you have it! The 2008 International Conference on Creationism, presented as only the GvD Blog can present it! Check out the various organizations and scientists mentioned in the updates, and get educated! If you want to see all of the interviews in one place, visit http://genesisvsdarwin.mypodcast.com. You can even download them to iTunes and your iPod from there! It would only be proper to end the ICC '08 coverage with a picture of yours truly being eaten by a ferocious dinosaur at the conference! (below)

Oh yeah, and check back soon for more posts on the GvD Blog!

Happy Trails,
GvD Sam

ICC '08 Update #2 (Tuesday, August 5)

2008-08-06T20:54:00.011-04:00

Welcome back to the GvD Blog coverage of the 2008 International Conference on Creationism! We are now on Day Two of ICC (Tuesday), and it has proved to be even better than the first day! Today's coverage has more information, more session coverage, more pictures, and more interviews!

As promised, the following are more pictures of the vendor tables, and the huge amount of creation information. (below)

Some of the vendors, The Creation Research Society has the blue table

A look at The Associates for Biblical Research table

The Creation Ministries International table

A long view of some of the vendor tables

The first session of Day Two of ICC '08 I attended was entitled "The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence" by Robert Carter. It was one of the most interesting talks I've attended yet! For those who don't know, the mitochondria (the cell's "powerhouse") has it's own set of DNA unique from the DNA in the nucleus. The mitochondrial DNA (commonly called mtDNA) is primarily passed from mother to child. MtDNA studies are commonly used by evolutionists and organizations like National Geographic to try and "prove" the "Out-of-Africa" model of evolution. As Carter pointed out, organizations like National Geographic commonly use only bits and pieces of the mtDNA from different people, then add on an evolutionary bias to the results. Essentially they could make any lineage they wanted only using little bits of mtDNA.

Instead of taking such an approach, Carter obtained about 2000 full-length mtDNA sequences. He then removed any sequences which had ever been called into question. He lined the remaining full 827 sequences up, and found that 83.9% of mtDNA is invariant throughout the samples. This will become important in a moment. He also found that of all the positions in the genome where it is variable, 43.8% are "private mutations" (only one individual had them). Lastly he found that 99% of all variation is found in almost no one.

If that seemed bit wordy or technical, the importance of the numbers is that there is almost no global variation in the mtDNA. This is a serious problem for evolution, as the mitochondria is under high selection pressure and mutations. If the mtDNA were millions of years old, there would be a wide range of differences in different people groups due to isolation. This research highly suggests a young age for mtDNA. What they eventually found out in their research that there are about 22 differences in the today's mtDNA from what the original woman Eve would have carried. This is easy to accomplish even in the about 150 generations since the flood. Sorry if I spent too much time on that talk, but I found it very interesting, especially now that many organizations are trying to push evolutionary ideas through mtDNA studies.

At 10:45 John Woodmorappe gave a talk entitled "Noah's Ark Design: Factoring Partial Composite Action." He talked about arguments commonly raised by skeptics about the design of the ark and whether is was truly seaworthy. I caught him at the last minute for a quick interview about his research (and what he really thinks about atheistic blogs and sites such as Talk.Origins).

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")

Next I attended a talk by Dr. John Whitmore called (excuse the long name) "Using Suites of Criteria to Recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood Strata in the Rock Record with Application to Wyoming (USA)." In essence, it was about trying to establish a relatively definitive area in the record where Flood deposits start and end. They established some criteria as to what would determine a Flood sediment. They showed a very interesting graph I wish I could get my hands on and post which had bars next to each criteria showing when (pre-Flood, Flood, post-Flood) these features would be most prevalent.

But I am overlooking two VERY important presenters today. Dr. Andrew Snelling presented two papers today on radiohalos in different types of rock, and their evidence of rapid burial and the Flood. Dr. John Baumgardner gave the closing lecture of the night (to a very large crowd) entitled "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Mechanism for the Flood" (perhaps the most eye-opening talk of the conference). Why am I overlooking them? Well, I am only doing so temporarily, and you will not be disappointed. I have interviews with each of these widely-published and popular scientists, each of which will be posted tomorrow for the the final GvD Blog Update from the 2008 International Conference on Creationism (though there will be an overview article on the conference later).

But don't worry, to satisfy your interview-needing appetite I have an interview with Kevin Anderson, who yesterday (Monday, August 4) gave a great talk entitled "A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria." In it, he briefly explains how a creationist should approach beneficial mutations, and more! (audio and picture below)

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")

Kevin Anderson (middle) talks with two men about various types of mutation

Thus concludes the second day of the GvD Blog coverage of the ICC '08. Tomorrow is the last day of the conference, and sure to have some excited talks! Come back tomorrow for more updates, session overviews, interviews, and more!

Happy Trails,
GvD Sam

ICC '08 Update #1 (Monday, August 4)

2008-08-04T22:30:00.018-04:00

For those readers who are used to the science-and-scripture-filled lines of the GvD Blog, you will have to excuse the following short story...

I wake up to the radio playing from a clock that reads "4:00." The nearly five hour quest to reach ICC 2008 has begun! With only a few hitches (i.e. getting lost and accidentally driving away from Pittsburgh, nearly getting run over by traffic, etc.) we arrive at the Raddison hotel.

We're already late for our first session, so instead of checking out our room, we immediately make our way down the hallway on the left to the ICC Registration tables. Before I can even put on my name tag, I (literally) bump into famed creation geologist Andrew Snelling. That's when it really hit me: "I'm finally here at ICC, I am among the top creationist minds in the world."

As we were already late to the opening session, we browsed around the huge bookstore and many vendor booths set up about the conference hall. (pictured below)

(left) The Institute for Creation Research's table
(right) The back of one of the vendor rooms

The Answers in Genesis table, filled to the brim with creation resources
(note: there are even more vendor tables, I may post more pictures tomorrow)

Then came the next session. The very clever vendors made their tables so interesting that I was five minutes late to even the next session! I walk into "The Tectonics of Venus and Creation" by Robert Hill and... confusion. That's when I learned you have to be to the talks on time!

Thus ends the great introduction of the ICC '08 Quest... now on to the coverage of the talks I attended!

"The Tectonics of Venus and Creation" by Robert Hill covered the known geology of Venus and attempted to answer some questions about resurfacing and plate activity. One example he gave involved the RATE Team's research into accelerated nuclear decay possibly bringing about the catastrophic plate tectonics (causing the flood on earth). He proposed that the heat caused by the decay could have brought about the plate resurfacing on Venus.

At 3:15 we went to "The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields" by Dr. Russ Humphreys, one of the most interesting talks I have heard yet. Rather than explain the whole talk in text and ruin the fun, why not let Dr. Humphreys himself explain it for you! I recently got an interview with Dr. Humphreys, a physicist, where he explained his talk, the history of his theory, and more! (below, followed by picture)

(note: audio may take a bit to load, depending on your connection speed)
(if audio takes too long to load, go to the direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")

Sam and Dr. Humphreys talking magnetic fields, galaxies, helium diffusion, etc.

Later that night we went to a very interesting session by Dr. Steve Austin called "Understanding the Mudrock Revolution." Many of us have been taught that sediment slowly builds up on the bottom of rivers. In his talk, Dr. Austin showed why that is not always true, and gave many indications seen in rocks which indicate they were formed quickly, such as evidence of cross lamination, rather than the slow planar lamination of layers. But rather than steal all his steam, it would be easier to let him explain it. I also got an interview with Dr. Steve Austin after his talk, as well as a picture of the crowd during his talk. (both below)

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")

The large crowd at Dr. Steve Austin's talk

That's all for Day One (or two if you count last night's opening talk as a whole day) of the 2008 International Conference on Creationism! Check back tomorrow for Day Two, sure to be just as amazing! Be on the look-out for more updates, more information, more pictures, more interviews, and... well... MORE!

Happy Trails,
GvD Sam

(note: this post was delayed due to problems with the audio software, lack of sufficient time, etc. Thus the Day Two post will be posted tomorrow.)

Creation Paper - The Fossil Record Supports Creation

2008-07-13T00:05:00.007-04:00

GvD Sam

The Fossil Record Supports Creation

Two scientists climb their way to the top of the dusty hill. They look over the rocky edge into the bottomless ravine known as the Grand Canyon opening below them. Their awestruck eyes pan the geologic majesty as the sun’s bright orange glow cascades across the stream dotted with rafts far below them. The scientist on the right (an evolutionist) comments: “Incredible, a little bit of water and a lot of time created this entire canyon!” The scientist on the left (a creationist) comments: “Amazing, a little bit of time and a lot of water carved this entire canyon system!” Though perhaps a simple example, it represents the central issue in the current culture war. Which interpretation is correct, and why can’t we all agree?

Whether evolutionist or creationist, we all live on the same earth. Whether atheist or Christian, we all have the same universe, the same sun, the same geologic layers, the same fossils, etc. In short, all scientists, from humanist to Bible-believing, have the same evidence (observational science) [Reference 1]. How, then, do we have such a wide range of views and ideas? The evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Fossils never have tags on them telling you how old they are when you dig them up. The fossils exist in the present, and the fossil interpretations are about the past (historical science). The presupposition with which one approaches the evidence will drastically affect the conclusions. For instance, if you begin with the presupposition that the world is billions of years old and look at the fossil record, you will get a very different picture than one who starts with the presupposition that the world is only thousands of years old. As Patterson said, “No fossil, rock layer, or dating method can ever prove that evolution did, or did not, happen. The same is true for creation” [Reference 2]. Fossils can’t prove either evolution or creation, as the fossils themselves are interpreted within that worldview. But while the evidence is the same for all scientists, do observations correlate better with one theory rather than the other?

Darwin admitted in his book On the Origin of Species that the fossil evidence collected thus far did not correspond to his idea of evolution, though he predicted that his theory would eventually be shown in the fossils [Reference 3, p. 74-75]. So the question is whether the fossil evidence collected since Darwin’s time shown any different? While Darwin could claim that the lack of fossil support was due to an inadequate fossil collection, scientists cannot make such a claim today, as there are hundreds of millions of fossils in museums worldwide [Reference 3, p. 77]. With this immense amount of evidence, the adequacy of correlation should be obvious towards either evolution or creation. The Bible states in the Book of Genesis that God created different kinds of animals which could reproduce within their variety, but not change outside of it. Thus, if the Biblical creation account is true, we would expect to find different kinds of creatures (and perhaps variations within these kinds), and not a “clear-cut” evolutionary lineage (for instance, dogs coming from non-dogs, humans from non-humans, etc.). If evolution is true, the fossil record should be overflowing with intermediate forms between different creatures. It should show a clear progression from one form to the next, and so on [Reference 4, p. 417]. Yet the fossil record is eerily absent of any proven transitional forms or even a smooth evolutionary progression [Reference 5].

One evolutionary “icon” used to convince people of evolution is known as the geologic column. It is a picture of different rock layers in the earth, along with some fossils found within those layers. However, few know that the geologic column, often touted in textbooks as proof of fossil evolution, does not even exist in its entirety anywhere on earth [Reference 2] [Reference 5]. Even many fossils once-touted as “transitional forms” have been disproven by recent findings. Such is the case with the famous Archaeopteryx fossils. Once touted as an undoubted evolutionary link, is now being recognized by creationists and evolutionists alike as being a true, perching bird, rather than a primitive reptile-bird intermediary [Reference 3, p. 148-164] [Reference 2, p. 126]. In fact, Archaeopteryx fossils have been found in geologic layers along with modern birds, thus it could not be an intermediate link [Reference 3, p. 164]. Many other supposed “transitional forms” have been, and are being, refuted as well, such as the famous “horse series” and the whale series [Reference 6] [Reference 7]. In short, the transitional fossils are lacking. We find in the fossil record, for instance, fully formed dinosaurs and fully formed birds, but no transitional forms to base the claim that they have evolved. This is exactly what we would expect if there is an Almighty God Who created different kinds of animals that could interbreed and diversify within their own kinds.

Another problem for evolution is the fact that the fossil record contains so many intricately detailed fossils, and even many soft-bodied organisms. Fossilization itself is a bit of a trick for uniformitarians, as fossils do not readily form in the present world. Since most organisms don’t live in extremely hot or cold environments, an organism needs to be covered quickly by sediment (an almost catastrophic process, as opposed to the slow and gradual processes of evolution) to avoid rotting, decomposing, and being destroyed by other predators and means [Reference 8]. Many evolutionists are surprised by the sheer vastness of the fossil record, as fossilization does not occur much today. Dr. Harold Levin comments, “In spite of the many factors that prevent fossilization, the fossil record is remarkably comprehensive,” [Reference 3, p. 84]. Especially hard to fossilize are soft parts, and soft-bodied organisms, such as plants, jellyfish, and worms. These can only experimentally form under a few known conditions. Yet, millions of these creatures, and even ones as miniscule as bacteria and embryos have been found fossilized [Reference 3, p. 78]. These observations do not correlate well with the current evolutionary conjecture, and many technical papers have been filled with attempted explanations. Starting with the Biblical account, however, we would expect to see such wide and intricate fossilization. A worldwide flood would quickly destroy and lay down geologic layers while burying and preserving organisms in mineral-rich sediment, while keeping them airtight and away from digging organisms [Reference 1]. It seems more likely that the geologic column was laid down by catastrophe, rather than uniform conditions. The Genesis Flood seems to better fit the data. Is there any other evidence, though, which may support the claim of rapid, worldwide geologic deposition?

Like the two scientists mentioned at the start of this paper, many structures and formations are talked about equally by creationists and evolutionists. For instance, evolutionists might postulate that the Grand Canyon was formed by a river slowly cutting into the rock for millions of years, while creationists might contend that it was largely created by the flood-resulting ice age and its melting glacier lakes giving way. While an entire paper could be written about such a topic, there are certain geologic “mysteries” for which the Bible gives a possible answer, and evolutionists have no real explanation; meaning that the global flood described in the Bible is the only explanation we have. One geologic “mystery” is the appearance of fossilized sea creatures high above sea level. For instance, marine fossils are found at the rim of the Grand Canyon, some 7,000-8,000 feet above sea level today. Fossil ammonites have even been found up to 29,029 feet above sea level in the Himalayas [Reference 9]. How did these creatures arrive there if not through a global flood which covered “all the high mountains” (Genesis 7:19-20)? Another geologic “mystery” is the existence of fossil graveyards. In the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon, billions of nautiloids were buried together quickly [Reference 10]. Many other examples abound of fossil graveyards around the world. The slow-and-gradual sedimentation contended by evolutionists is inadequate to explain the existence of billions of fossilized creatures across an area, as such an act would require catastrophically quick and wide deposition. This makes perfect sense in light of the Biblical Flood account. The Bible says the Flood quickly covered the entire earth, which would result in water quickly carrying and depositing sedimentation over vast areas. The third geologic “mystery” is the existence of “transcontinental rock layers.” Today, sediment is usually deposited in thin layers on the outskirts of continents and rivers. Yet, all over the world, there are thick rock layers that even go across continents. For instance, the famous English chalk beds can be traced all the way to the Middle East [Reference 11]. This continent-wide deposition (and fossils in those layers) suggests that the continents were once covered by water, as recorded in the Book of Genesis. There are other examples of geologic “mysteries” answered by the Genesis Flood, though these are some examples.

Traveling back to the question of fossils, we come face-to-face with the perplexing problem of “living fossils.” These are creatures (many of whom were once assumed to be extinct due to evolutionary timescales) who have changed little or virtually not at all from their known fossilized forms. A famous example is that of the coelacanth. Thought to have been extinct for over 65 million years, evolutionary scientists were amazed when, in 1938, this ancient fish washed ashore in Madagascar [Reference 2, p. 120]. Many other “living fossils” have been found, and there are myriad examples of living creatures who are virtually the same as their fossil counterparts. From an evolutionary worldview, we would not expect to find “living fossils” today, but this observation is completely compatible with the creation worldview. It suggests that many animals have stayed the same for long periods of time, rather than drastically changed. Evolution contends that, on average, mutations and other factors should be driving evolution in an organism nearly every generation. Yet there are hundreds of “living fossils” which have not changed in perhaps a billion generations [Reference 2, 121]. This makes sense in a Biblical worldview, as God made different kinds of animals, which would not “evolve.” Also, since the Flood account occurred only thousands of years ago (as opposed to the supposed uniformitarian formation of the fossils millions of years ago) it is not surprising that some animals thought to be extinct from fossils may still be living.

While many evolutionists have attempted to explain-away these problems, they still persist to this day. While we all have the same evidence, it is much more easily explained within the creation worldview. Many evolutionary predictions are also still left unproven. The predicted innumerable transitional forms are noticeably absent. In its place the fossil record has shown more problems for evolution, such as fossilized soft-bodied creatures. There are also many geologic features within the fossil record which can easily be explained through the creationist view, while there real explanation for the evolutionists. While we all have the same fossils, the evidence fits better in the creationist view rather than the evolutionary worldview. [Reference 12] [Reference 13].

Happy Trails,

GvD Sam

Works Cited

[1] Ham et al., The New Answers Book. USA: Master Books, 2006.

[2] Patterson, Roger. Evolution Exposed. Second Ed. United States of America: Answers in Genesis, 2007.

[3] Werner, Carl. Evolution: The Grand Experiment. First Edition. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf

Press, 2007.

[4] Miller, Kenneth and Levine, Joseph. Biology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice

Hall, 2006.

[5] Woodmorappe, John. "The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical

Journal 13 1999 77-82. 01 May 2008 .

[6] For a more in depth coverage of the fossil issue (including whale and horse evolution in particular) see

Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say No! by Duane Gish.

[7] Batten, Don. "A whale of a tale?." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8April 1994 2-3. 1 May

2008 .

[8] Van Bebber, Mark and, Taylor, Paul. "What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?."

ChristianAnswers.Net. ChristianAnswers.Net. 10 Apr 2008 .

[9] Snelling, Andrew. "High & Dry Sea Creatures." High & Dry Sea Creatures - Answers in Genesis.

07 Dec 2007. Answers in Genesis. 2 May 2008 .

[10] Snelling, Andrew. "The World’s a Graveyard." The World’s a Graveyard - Answers in Genesis.

12 Feb 2008. Answers in Genesis. 2 May 2008 .

[11] Snelling, Andrew. "Transcontinental Rock Layers." Transcontinental Rock Layers - Answers in

Genesis. 07 May 2008. Answers in Genesis. 07 May 2008 .

[12] For a large number of articles on fossils see: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils

[13] For a dissertation of the “human fossil record,” see Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow.

Creation Paper- Did Horses Really Evolve?

2008-07-01T01:04:00.011-04:00

GvD Christie

Did Horses Really Evolve?

There is a deep conflict between evolutionists and creationists. Scientists on both “sides” frequently debate the truth of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Darwin was made famous by his popularizing of evolution in his two most-popular books, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.

Although creationists are frequently portrayed as a powerless, obsessive minority, most of the great scientific minds of history have been Bible-believing Christians who believed that their faith made their scientific studies not just better, but possible. Such is the case with Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Francis Bacon, and many others who were all devout Christians. Creationists merely claim that the God of Christianity created the Earth, rather than the undirected, random processes of the Big Bang (or other evolutionary origin theories).

Evolution claims that horses, like everything else in this world, evolved over millions of years through chance processes from a common ancestor. On the other hand, creationists claim that animals were created in separate “kinds” (read the first chapter of Genesis). Creationists postulate that natural selection and mutation can produce varieties within these original kinds, but never turn an animal into a different kind (as evolution requires).

A common evolutionary propaganda idea is the "horse series." The famed horse series, allegedly showing the process of the evolution of the horse, has been proven wrong by new discoveries in science. Nevertheless, it is still presented as fact in many evolutionary resources. But first let's look more into the history of the horse fossils contained in the series.

In 1841, paleontologist Richard Owen found a fossil. He dubbed it Hyracotherium because of its similarity to the hyrax, or rock badger. Owen did not see any relation to the horse upon his first examination. Nevertheless, two scientists, O.C. Marsh and T.H. Huxley, decided to rename the discovery Eohippus after noting supposed evolutionary similarities to the modern horse (Sarfati, n.p.). Eohippus had the teeth of an omnivore, was about the size of a large dog, and had multiple toes – four in the front, three in the back.

And from that first discovery of Eohippus came the rest of the famed tree of horse evolution, frequently used as an excellent example and “proof” of the evolution. In this evolutionary tree, Mesohippus follows Eohippus, appearing suddenly about 15 million years later, with a “vestigial” fourth toe in the front legs. About 17 million years ago, the evolutionary model says, came Merychippus. It had evolved longer legs, better suited for running (like the modern horse) and had only three toes (Hunt, n.p.).

This “clear-cut tree,” as it is described in many textbooks, is now said to be more reminiscent of an indistinguishable bush, showing no progression of evolution. Nevertheless, this diagram even appears in the famous Smithsonian Museum – and yet there are numerous problems with it!

First of all, there are no “transitional” species between the three previously mentioned fossils. There is only sudden, abrupt change. If the evolutionary theory was true, one would expect to find multiple fossils showing the slow disappearance of toes and lengthening of legs. Even more problematic is the fact that there is no way for the evolutionist to describe how the change took place. Quite literally, all that is said is that these early horses “gave rise” to later horses (Hunt, n.p.), but there is no explanation of how this occurred.

Supposed “vestigial” organs are frequently cited as another example of evolution. Toes that were on previous horses and remain on later ones, but are “useless,” supposedly proves how horses changed. However, not all evolutionists agree with this view – in fact, the evolutionary zoologist S.R. Scadding has even said, “vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” (Sarfati, n.p.).

This is due to two main reasons. First, it often happens that a part of an animal is deemed vestigial, only later to have a use found; just because the use of an organ is unknown does not automatically mean it has no use. Secondly, vestigial organs, if anything, prove de-volution rather than evolution – vestigial organs would show a loss of information because the organ is no longer working, rather than the increase of information as required by evolution. (Batten, n.p.) In the case of the horse, especially, vestigial limbs cannot be proof. For instance, the splint bone, which was supposed to be vestigial (Hunt, n.p.), does indeed have a function: it protects the extremely important suspensory ligament and helps support the horse’s slender legs while galloping. (Sarfati, n.p.)

Even if fossil horses have different numbers of toes, or are different sizes, there is no reason to assert that there was an evolutionary sequence between them. Even today, there have been horses in the Southwestern part of the United States that have multiple toes similar to the fossilized Pliohippus. The genes for the multiple toes are still there, just usually hidden. (Sarfati, n.p.)

Today, there are many variations on the general horse “kind” – there is the massive Clydesdale, the well-known draft horse that pulls the Budweiser wagon; and there is the miniscule Miniature Horse, which can be as few as eighteen inches tall. (Sarfati, n.p.) Looking at these two side by side, it is true that they look very different – but nevertheless, each is still a horse. Just like the fossilized horses unearthed, some living horses are very small and some are very tall.

Despite the undisputed differences between these now extinct horses and the modern horses, it can easily be argued that the former are merely variations on today’s horse kind. The supposed vestigial organs of the horse, which were thought to prove its evolution, are not evidence for evolution, and further, horses have no useless organs. And yet, the evolution of the horse is still taught in schools today as truth! Whether you believe evolution occurred or not depends on your worldview and how you interpret the facts. However, the scientific evidence fits more easily in a Biblical worldview rather than an evolutionary worldview.

God Bless,

GvD Christie

Works Cited

-*- Batten, Dr. Don, and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. “’Vestigial’ Organs: What Do They Prove?” 10 April 2008.

-*- Hunt, Kathleen. “Horse Evolution.” TalkOrigins Jan. 4, 1995. 8 April 2008.

-*- Menton, David N., Ph.D. “The Human Tail, and other Tales of Evolution.” 1997. Missouri Association for Creation. 19 April 2008.

-*- Sarfati, Jonathan. “The non-evolution of the horse.” Creation Volume 21. June 1999 on Answers in Genesis. 8 April 2008.

Don’t worry, the hiatus is over!

2008-06-20T20:05:00.001-04:00

Though it seemed as long as a LOST mid-season break, and as absent as the TV writers' strike (excuse the television allusions), the GvD Blog is back!

We're sorry for the long hiatus, but now that summer is rolling around it's finally time for some new GvD Blog Posts. So to kick things off, we're going to be posting two creation research papers, one by an aspiring writer who will be helping with the upcoming Creation Club next year (more information to come)!

The first paper is entitled "Did Horses Really Evolve?" The paper goes over the "horse series" used in textbooks and museums across the country as alleged proof of evolution. It also goes over the concept of Biblical "created kinds" of animals and even touches upon the vestigial organ argument!

The second paper is entitled "The Fossil Record Supports Creation," and is written by yours-truly, GvD Sam. This paper highlights the origins controversy, and touches on such subjects as "transitional fossils," rock layers, Grand Canyon strata, soft-bodied fossils, and more! So yes, on one hand, it has been forever since the last update, but on the other hand, the upcoming posts will include more information and hopefully be even more interesting to you all.

In addition to these papers, some future posts in the works include information about next year's Young Earth Creation Club at County, as well as information about the popular Creation Museum and its content. But perhaps the most important upcoming posts include coverage of the 6^th International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh. For those of you who don't know, the "" and ICR-sponsored ICC is an annual conference which is occurring this August in Pittsburgh, PA. From August 3^rd to the 7^th creation scientists from around the world will present their latest peer-reviewed scientific papers, with non-technical public events in the evening. Some papers to be presented include:

The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence - overviews a team's testing of changes in mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is DNA carried in the mitochondria (the cell's "power house") which is primarily passed from mother to child. The team found that there is very little worldwide variation in the mitochondrial genome, which is very strange as mtDNA is the victim of high mutation rates. This suggests a young mitochondrial genome.
Radiohalos and Diamonds: Are Diamonds Really Forever? – in addition to the existence of C14 in diamonds (as found in the RATE project), another young-earth evidence has been found in diamonds. Dr. Andrew Snelling and Mark Armitage will present a paper which overviews their studies into the "dynamic process of radiohalo formation in diamonds," and show that it must have occurred in a very short time.

Many other papers will be presented (these are simply the ones I have found the most information on at this time). Now that I have either captured your interest or bored you with such scientific jargon, I will return to the point of my mentioning of it. I will be covering the conference and perhaps summarizing some talks and relating new information. I have not decided yet whether to post on each day's events or simply do a long summary post. Comment on this post (near the bottom) or email genesisvsdarwin@aim.com with your thoughts. I may also be receiving a press pass to the event (thankfully a blog IS a form of press), so who knows, maybe I'll have an interview or two with some scientists! I am excited about the event, and hopefully you all are too!

Feel free to join me in Pittsburgh this August 3^rd to the 7^th for the 6^th International Conference on Creationism! If you can't come, or would feel too overwhelmed, then stay tuned to the blog for updates and information; I will attempt to relay conference happenings from a layman's viewpoint.

Enough talking about what isn't happening until August; the next post will be the first of two papers sure to engage you in the geologic and fossiliferous debate!

Happy Trails,

GvD Sam.

The Horizon Problem - The Monopole Problem – GvD - Issue 2 - Big Bang vs Big God (Section Two)

2008-02-10T20:23:00.003-05:00

The Horizon Problem

Many people point out the "light travel-time problem" in the Creationist worldview, yet don't know that the Big Bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. This, perhaps more than anything, is the reason why the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB, see last issue for more information) is no help for the Big Bang theorist. To get set up, let's have a quick review of the CMB. The CMB is an extremely uniform microwave radiation at about 2.7 Kelvin that is present everywhere in the known universe.

Assuming the Big Bang, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different throughout the universe early in its existence due to the Big Bang's initial conditions. But how would these areas come to temperature equilibrium as we see in the CMB today? Well, areas that were in close contact would come to the same temperature relatively quickly. More distant regions of space would come to temperature equilibrium through radiation transfer (light). Light would carry the energy from warmer regions of space to the colder ones until each reached equilibrium, thus creating the observed CMB. So what is the problem?

Even given the Big Bang time scale of billions and billions of years, there has not been enough time for light to traverse the vast reaches of space from one edge of the universe to the other and exchange heat. Yet, everywhere we look in the cosmos, we see the incredibly uniform CMB temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. While the Big Bang's time scale allows for light from the distant galaxies to earth, it does not allow for the light from distant galaxies to travel from one edge of the visible universe to the other and exchange heat. Therefore the CMB could not be the same temperature everywhere. Yet, it is. Below is a commonly used simple illustration of the problem.

Frame 1) Points A and B would be at very different temperatures near the beginning of the Big Bang.
Frame 2) In the present, both points A and B have the same temperature, though not enough time has elapsed for them to have exchanged light.

This is essentially a light travel-time problem. It is a temperature problem, but due to light travel-time. There has not been enough time, even in the Big Bang model, for light to travel the entire distance of the universe to make the CMB uniform. Thus, Big Bangers shouldn't use the "distant starlight problem" in an effort to discredit Scripture when their own assertion has the same problem. Both the Big Bang and Creation theories need light to get somewhere faster than it can as measured by today's standards. But does either side have an explanation? This will be discussed later.

The Monopole Problem

Another big problem for the Big Bang is the Monopole Problem. But what are monopoles? Well, in physics, there are particles that have only a positive or negative charge (ex. electrons are only negative, protons are only positive). In that same way, magnets have north and south poles, which are called magnetic monopoles.
At hot enough temperatures (such as in the Big Bang), physics says magnetic monopoles should be created. Yet, not one monopole has been found. Following this observation, it suggests that the universe was never as hot as the Big Bang model asserts. The Big Bang model desperately needs to explain how light can traverse such distances in such a short time, as well as explain an apparent lack of monopoles. Does it offer such an explanation, or simply another set of assumptions? This will be discussed in the next post.

Scientific Problems Galore - The Flatness Problem GvD – Issue 2 - Big Bang vs Big God (Section Two)

2008-01-20T17:35:00.001-05:00

Introduction to Section Two

In the last section we discussed why the Big Bang is not a good model without getting very scientifically technical. In this section, we will discuss many of the scientific problems with the Big Bang model. After that, we will discuss some "problems" with the creation theory as well. Then we will delve into some points of interest in the current astronomy field (i.e. where the moon came from). So let's get started!

Scientific Problems Galore

The Flatness Problem

This problem has to do with two major opposite forces at work in the universe, expansion and gravity. As the universe expands, it wants to move everything away from itself, while gravity wants to pull everything back together. These two forces are very precisely in tune with one another. This would mean that right when the Big Bang happened, gravity and expansion would have to be almost identical (almost exactly 1:1), even though physics permits any range of differences, from extreme gravity to extreme expansion.
This is, once again, an arbitrary assumption. There is no reason for the two forces to be in balance in the Big Bang. It is simply assumed, and is an inexplicable problem. If the universe sprang forth from a random fluctuation in a singularity, we would not expect two forces that could be infinitely different from eachother to come out to almost 1:1.

Blog Format Change

2008-01-19T19:49:00.001-05:00

Yes, it is true! The GvD Blog's format has changed!

Though not much of a change, I thought I would just let readers know that the page has been cleaned up, and now only retains 1-2 posts at a time on the main page. Previous posts have not been deleted, and can be accessed by using the white box named "Blog Archive" in the lower right-hand corner of this page.

I just wanted to let you know that previous posts are not deleted. Thanks!

Happy Trails,

Sam.

Forward by the Editor - GvD Issue 2: Big Bang vs Big God (Section Two)

2008-01-12T23:45:00.001-05:00

Forward by the Editor

Let's review. In the last section of the GvD Issue 2 we talked about how the Big Bang is not a good scientific model, even by secular reasoning. It is not simple, it does not make specific and accurate predictions, and it includes many arbitrary assumptions in order to make it function with the observations. And we haven't even begun to talk about the scientific problems with the model!

But wait... are there any scientific problems with the Big Bang model? Or is everyone fighting the theory just a bunch of ignorant pseudo-scientific church-goers? You may be surprised at the number of problems even scientifically with the theory. Some of these problems Big-Bangers have tried to solve. But even so, are these "solutions" understandable, logical conclusions; or even more evidence that the Big Bang model should be discarded?

Also, keep in mind the example about the geocentric model and how the Greeks got it to function in the last section. If you don't remember, go back and read it. It will be very helpful in this second section, especially the arbitrary epicycles. It will help us see in this section whether these "solutions" are logical, or arbitrary.

If I could make a crashing sound with text here, I would. By the end of this issue, that crashing sound will be the Big Bang model crashing into the facts. I know I say it every time, but I hope you enjoy this newsletter!

Happy Trails,
Sam

GvD Blog – ‘Heroes’ of Evolution?

2007-12-04T22:58:00.001-05:00

I recently sat down to watch one of the newest episode of the NBC series 'Heroes' and was reminded yet again how evolutionized our culture is today.

About 10 minutes into the episode 'Lizards,' a teacher, while talking about creatures with an ability to regenerate limbs, talks about how this is possible "thanks to millions of years of combined mutation…." Then when the main character asks him a further question, he states "I guess the next step for us is phasing out the extra parts. We're not using the appendix anymore, or grinding bone with our wisdom teeth, we don't even really need a pinky toe for balance. It's all just junk in our DNA."

If you didn't know, he's referring to the all-to-commonly cited "vestigial," or "useless," organs. Vestigial organs are commonly defined as useless "left-overs" from our evolutionary past. They're written in our textbooks, taught to us in class, and told to us in primetime shows. But do vestigial organs really exist? And is there really "junk" in our DNA? Well to keep this post short, as this is a blog post and not the full-fledged newsletter, the answer is no. But don't worry, I will go one step further than that. Over the next few lines, you will find why the vestigial argument of "useless" organs really is useless.

To set the stage, it would be useful to note that the list of vestigial organs has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999 [Reference 2]. The media, some museums (such as the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History), and even textbooks seem to be continually "out of date" in the information being taught. They commonly cite examples of "evidences" and experiments which have been proven false, and are no longer accepted by any credible scientist as what actually happened. Such is evident with such experiments as the Miller-Urey Experiment. Scientists know the experiment is false, and they do not even accept the proposed atmosphere of the earth in the experiment, but it is kept in the textbooks as proof for evolution nonetheless. It is very frustrating when so often textbooks don't even keep up with their OWN worldview and what it teaches. Such is true with the vestigial argument.

Not a single informed scientist still believes the appendix is useless. Without getting too technical, it actually performs an important immunological function in the body. For the more technical definition:

"The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content." [Reference 2]

The same is true of the wisdom teeth. Once thought to be a useless left-over from when we were apes with bigger jaws, scientists now understand that there are much better ways to explain the wisdom teeth and their purpose. These reasons do not include any evolutionary ancestry, but diet and dental care. As Reference 3 states:

"These reasons include a change from a coarse abrasive diet to a soft western diet, lack of proper dental care, and genetic factors possibly including mutations. Common past dental practice was a tendency to routinely remove wisdom teeth. Recent empirical research has concluded that this practice is unwise." [Reference 3]

And the same is for every other example of "evolutionary vestiges." The list has been shrinking down, showing without a doubt that humans are created in the image of God, rather than a distorted, mutant mistake of an uncreated universe. Even still, some people still try to use the examples above and others (tail bone, pinky toe are some other examples) in order to indoctrinate our culture. For a larger listing of vestigial organs and how to refute them, visit: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp.

Back to the show, after the teacher's answer, she asks him about if people have "evolved" a new set of code. But that is a completely different subject for another time. For a more in-depth, technical overview of the topic, go the link above and Reference 2 below. Another topic that may be covered soon is embryonic development and the idea that when a fetus is developing, it goes through its evolutionary lineage. Even lately in the news there have been articles telling about the idea that the appendix might have many other uses.

Until next post,

Happy Trails,

Sam

References:

Cutting out a useless vestigial argument [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/vestigial.asp]
Do any vestigial structures exist in humans? [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Vestigial.pdf]
Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution? [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/wisdomteeth.asp]

GvD Blog – The Enlightened Post

2007-10-11T20:25:00.001-04:00

Sadly for most of us, the school year is underway. Our minds have been forced out of hibernation and back into backpacks and lockers stuffed with homework.

Many of us are already taking classes such as World History or US History. Lately in these classes, as well as in English, we have been learning a lot about the so-called "Enlightenment" and its effects on society. From this stems the point of this post…

This week we learned that Enlightenment thinkers (like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon) taught that true science required the defeat of religion. Okay, no surprise there. As the Enlightenment thinkers were almost entirely ardent atheists and humanists, it is no surprise that they strongly disliked religion.

While learning about the "Enlightenment," I have found that many people have the wrong idea about what happened and its implications on religion. Many people have the idea that Enlightenment thinkers disproved religion in favor of reason and science. This is not the case at all.

I was VERY surprised to learn, though, that scientists like Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Francis Bacon showed that you could believe in natural laws and observation rather than God and religion. I must admit, when I first heard my history and English teachers say this, I was a bit puzzled. Perhaps they, as well as some of you, are unaware that these scientists were devout Christians. These scientists did not prove that you could believe in natural laws rather than God, but rather that natural laws came directly from God. For these men, natural laws were proof that God existed, proof of order in the universe.

Some of you may be skeptical that these men were devout Christians.

Many of us have heard of the "Galileo Controversy" in which the church officially censored his teaching of the heliocentric model. The church as an entirety, though, was not against his views, as many of us have simply assumed from this censorship. In fact, many church officials regarded his view well. Even through all of this, he still believed the Bible and that it supported his views. For more information on the "Galileo Controversy" see: The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing the "scientific method" and helping to found the Royal Society of London. How could he be a devout Christian? Let's read a quote from Bacon:

"There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power"

He was a devout believer in the Bible. He believed that the scientific method is the observation and study of God's world and the natural laws He uses to govern it.

Surely Sir Isaac Newton, being one of the greatest scientific minds to ever live, should know better than to believe in God. Perhaps you will be surprised by the astonishing fact that he wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. His belief that science leads to a greater understanding of God shaped his entire life. In his book Principia, he wrote:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God"… or "Universal Ruler". … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect."
Principia, Book III; cited in Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42.

So did Sir Isaac Newton prove that God is not necessary? No, in fact exactly the opposite; he believed that investigation and natural laws helped in the understanding of how God upholds the universe. In fact, Newton was strongly against atheism:

"Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors"
A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton by Sir David Brewster; cited in Newton's Philosophy of Nature, p. 65, Ref. 2.

Even today, we find manuscripts proving over and over Newton's religious fervor. In fact it appears from his writing that he was especially interested in the book of Daniel in the Bible (see Papers reveal Newton's religious side, USA Today). For more information on Sir Isaac Newton and his belief in the Creator God, see Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).

So was Voltaire right when he taught that science required the defeat of religion? Perhaps he needs to read-up on his history, as virtually every branch of science was started by a devout Christian (i.e. Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, etc). Also, the overwhelming majority of sixteenth and seventeenth century scientific leaders were Christians who believed it science's duty to comprehend the Bible. Through my searching, the best list of Christian (creation) scientists is located here: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest.

We shall end this post with a statement from the USA Today article mentioned above:

'The Newton papers, Ben-Menahem said, also complicate the idea that science is diametrically opposed to religion. "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world," she said.'
Papers reveal Newton's religious side, USA Today

Until the next post and the next newsletter issue,

Happy Trails,

Sam

Genesis vs Darwin Blog Post 1

2007-09-20T22:33:00.001-04:00

This is the first post of the Genesis vs Darwin Blog. As some people may know, there is also a Genesis vs Darwin Email Newsletter. Due to the amount of time required to produce such a large newsletter, though, some people may fall out of interest with the Creation/Evolution debate in-between issues. This blog will hopefully provide at least some help regarding this time issue. This is an annually updated blog that will include new information, research, and thoughts in-between the Genesis vs Darwin Email Newsletter.

Note: The Genesis vs Darwin Email newsletter may sometimes be referred to as the GvD Newsletter or even the GvDN, and the blog may be referred to as the GvD Blog or the GvDB.

If you are wondering, the newest issue of the GvD Newsletter will be coming out soon, finishing the topic of astronomy for the time being. This first GvD Blog post is just a Genesis vs Darwin informational post, so it will not have any Creation/Evolution information. So to end this first GvD Blog post, here is a quote I found from C.S. Lewis. While it may be a bit long, it is none-the-less a powerful quote, in my opinion:

"Looking for God – or Heaven – by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in very play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth….

If there were an idiot who thought plays existed on their own, without an author (not to mention actors, producer, manager, stagehands and what not), our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays and never found Shakespeare in them….

My point is that, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to a play than as one object in the universe is related to another.

If God created the universe, He created space-time, which is to the universe as the metre is to a poem or the key is to music. To look for Him as one item within the framework which He Himself invented is nonsensical.

If God… exists, mere movement in space will never bring you any nearer to Him or any farther from Him than you are at this very moment. You can neither reach Him nor avoid Him by travelling to Alpha Centauri or even to other galaxies. A fish is no more, and no less, in sea after it has swum a thousand miles than it was when it set out."

--C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, "The Seeing Eye" pp. 167-168.

More GvD Blog posts will be posted annually. Until then,

Happy Trails,

GvD Sam

Adding the Genesis vs Darwin Blog RSS Feed to Your Computer

If you want to stay updated with this blog, there are many ways to get automatic updates of new posts on your computer. Most new web browsers have to ability to obtain an RSS Feed, which is needed in order for the computer to know which website to access to update the blog. If you have such a web browser, tell it to add a feed, then copy the below URL into the RSS Feed Website area:

http://genesisvsdarwin.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

There are also other ways to have this blog automatically updated on your computer. My personal favorite is for those of you using Windows Vista. As most of you know, Windows Vista contains a Side Bar (usually on the right side of the screen) which contains "Gadgets" which can be added. If you haven't done so already, click the "+" button above the sidebar and double-click on the "Feed Headlines" Gadget. A small box should appear on your Side Bar.

Next, go to http://genesisvsdarwin.blogspot.com/ (if you are not there already). Near the top-right, in-between the "Home" and "Print" button there is the RSS Feed button. Click on it and it will send you to the RSS Feed page for the blog. Near the bottom of the text box, it will ask you if you want to add this feed. Click yes. Next, go to your Feed Headlines Gadget, and right click near the bottom and click "Options." Under "Display this feed:" click and choose "Genesis vs Darwin Blog." Voila, now you will have the automatically updated Genesis vs Darwin Blog right on your Desktop.