Interesting article by a Ph.D young earth creationist

If you are interested in reading an article of the scientific methodology of a Ph.D scientist who believes the earth is thousands of years old, you can download the PDF HERE.

Kurt P. Wise is Professor of Science and Theology and Director of the Center for Theology and Science at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University and previously served as Assistant Professor of Science and Director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee. Dr. Wise is the author of Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe (Broadman & Holman, 2002).

"What should we preach about Creation?" by John Piper

John Piper, in my opinion, is one of the greatest authors/pastors of the 20th (and hopefully 21st!) century. And though I agree with him on most things, I don't agree on everything. But my disagreements aren't anything for me to divide over, and I rarely hear him expressing them anyway. However, in a RECENT BLOG, Dr. Piper answers the question, "What should we teach about Creation?" And though I can give a hearty "amen!" to the vast majority of what Piper says on any subject, I have to express some disagreements on this one.

What i'll be responding to is the audio transcript found in the blog, as linked above. However, you can watch/download the AUDIO or VIDEO if you like.

How far should we go in teaching creationism in the church? How important or unimportant is it?

I assume the "-ism" on the end of creation has an agenda in terms of the age of the earth or the age of man or whatever.

Let me just say a few general things.

1) We should teach without any qualification that God created the universe and everything in it. It wasn't always here. It didn't spontaneously emerge from a big bang alone, however God did it. God did it. That's clear, and everybody who believes the Word should preach that.

2) Secondly, I think we should preach that he made it good. There was no sin in it, when he first made it.

3) Thirdly, I think we should preach that he created Adam and Eve directly, that he made them of the dust of the ground, and he took out of man a woman. I think we should teach that. I know there are people who don't, who think it's all imagery for evolution or whatever.

And we should teach that man had his beginning not millions of years ago but within the scope of the biblical genealogies. Those genealogies are tight at about 6,000 years and loose at maybe 10 or 15,000. So I think we should honor those genealogies and not say that you can play fast and loose with the origin of man.

That's not the age of the earth issue there. That's the origin of what is a human being, when did that human being come into existence. I think we should say he came into existence by God's direct action and that it wasn't millions of years ago. That was within the scope of these genealogies.

Now, when it comes to the more controversial issues of how to construe Genesis 1-2 about how God did it and how long it took him to do it, there I'm totally sympathetic with a pastor who is going to lay his view down, having studied it, and is going to say to his people, "Here is my understanding of those chapters. These six days can't be anything other than six literal days, and so that's how long God took to do it. And this universe is about 10 or 15,000 years old. Though it looks old, that's the way God made it. He made it to look old," or something like that.

Here is where the wheels start to fall off the truck. "The evidence says X, but i'm going to just believe Y." I am very unsympathetic to such a view. As those who claim to believe the truth, as Christians, we should never advocate or support any position that holds to "faith" in opposition to the evidence. That is not what biblical faith is:

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
(Hebrews 11:1)

Is biblical faith blind? Of course not. Biblical faith can only work in compliance with "assurance." And what is our assurance based on? The past. For instance, everyone wakes up in the morning and gets out of the bed with the assurance that we will not float to the ceiling. Instead, we expect that our feet will hit the floor based on the norm of past experience. Thus, we have a sense of assurance based on our past experience.

Biblical faith has always been in compliance with the evidence. The resurrection would never have been proclaimed if there were no evidence. Their faith in the future resurrection was based on the fact of Christ's resurrection. Their faith was firmly planted in solid ground. To advocate faith in opposition to the evidence would have been to expect the Jews to believe in the resurrection when, in fact, Christ never died and was walking around in their midst. I can't see "believe Genesis in spite of the evidence" being any different. In other words, "believe the earth is young, even though all evidence proves that it is old."

Or he might take another view that these days are ages.

Its hard for me to describe a disagreement as "sympathetic." But Piper seems to be suggesting this because he hasn't come to a strong conclusion on this matter. That is understandable, as I am sympathetic to post-millenialism, even though i'm a bit more convinced that a-millenialism makes more sense. However, I say that only in being indecisive on the issue.

But what is interesting to me is that Piper is quite decisive on other Creation issues. For instance, he is certain that man's origin is only thousands, not millions of years old. And he bases this on what? Biblical exegesis. However, I find it odd that Piper would be so sure about this, but not on the origin of the universe? To me, its far easier to say, "Yeah, looks like creation only took 6 days!" as opposed to, "after spending a lot of time sifting through the genealogies in Genesis, I finally calculated that there are only 6-15 thousand years worth."

But what if you are convinced of the "scientific evidence" for human evolution? Consider the parallel:

1. "Though it looks old, that's the way God made it. He made it to look old."

2. "Though it looks like humans evolved from apelike ancestors millions of years ago, that's the way God made it. He made it look that way."

In other words, you could believe that the evidence clearly proves an old earth and human evolution, but you could discard that evidence and just believe what the Bible teaches.

Or he might take Sailhamer's view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what's going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.

Admittedly, I have not read Sailhamer's book on this topic, but i'm a bit familiar with it. However, I have to question whether Piper is holding this view for exegetical reasons, or "scientific" reasons? In other words, does Piper exegete the text in already being convinced that the universe is old? Or would Piper hold his position, even if (just pretend for a moment) the majority of scientists were convinced that the universe is young?

In verse 1, "In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth," he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he's preparing the land. He's not bringing new things into existence; he's preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it's all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.

I realize that Piper is just summarizing his view and not necessarily presenting the evidence. But I can't even pretend to read Genesis 1 in this way. Perhaps this is a result of not looking into Sailhamer's view, but I can't help but conclude that he is trying to make the text "fit in" with the old earth view.

So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible.

By why stop there? In other words, "do whatever you want with the text to make it fit with an old earth, but when you get to the origin of man, make sure you start doing good biblical exegesis."

That's where I am, and I think every pastor should go ahead and say what he believes. But how do you define who gets on your eldership, for example? Who gets a teaching office in your church? I'm inclined to not draw that too narrowly.

One wonders how far Piper would be willing to go. Would Piper allow an elder who is a theistic evolutionist?

But I could be wrong about that, you know. I'm 63 years old, and I've never preached through Genesis yet. And I'd like to! I'm going to finish John, and then maybe the next thing I'll turn to, if the elders let me stay around that long, would be Genesis.

We need to give our people help in this.

I must commend Piper for his humility. But it just doesn't register in my mind as to how a theologically competent scholar like Dr. Piper could remain undecided on what Genesis teaches. However, if you remain convinced that evolutionists are the beholders of truth in the area of the age of the earth (and then neglect them with biological evolution for some reason), then I suppose I can understand how one might wrestle with this. For me, I just don't see the need to wrestle. The Bible is our worldview, and as such, we view the world through that lens. And so the question is, why does that worldview lens crack when we get to the issue of the age of the earth?

Radio discussion on the age of the universe

Is the Universe thousands or billions of years old? To the naturalistic materialist, the answer to this question is obvious. To the Bible believer, it may be a bit more controversial. Though I don't write on this topic too often, it is a subject that I am very passionate about. In fact, the issue of the age of the earth is what got me interested in apologetics in the first place. Anyway, the most important thing I like to first focus on when it comes to the age of the earth is what the Bible says. And that is what I focus on when I hear radio discussions like this. I ask, "Who is importing their ideas into the Bible and who is deriving their ideas from the Bible?"

Both of the participants in this discussion, Hugh Ross and Jason Lisle, are Ph.D astrophysicists, which always makes these issues more exciting. And this is especially true when their area of expertise is the focus of the discussion. I hope you all will listen to this short discussion and come to your own conclusions on the matter.

LISTEN HERE

(ht: Apologetics 315)

An interesting question by Cornelius Hunter

I really enjoy reading the thoughts of Cornelius Hunter, as he is really good at taking off the iron mask of evolutionary presuppositions when encountering evidence. In his RECENT POST, he poses a very interesting question for the naturalistic materialist on the limits of science. Since scientific methodology is not necessarily my area of expertise, i'm writing this blog for curiosity's sake. So, if you hold to naturalistic materialism, i'd like you to read and answer the following:

Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn't work.

Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic. For instance, imagine that human consciousness and will amount to more than mere atoms in motion. Perhaps, for example, there is a soul that transcends the material world. Then science's attempts to explain our thinking will rule out the right answer if science is constrained to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism would be wrong, and the question is: how should we handle such cases if they are encountered?

I can only think of four possible answers to this question, so this amounts to a simple multiple choice option:

A. Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic.

B. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science, constrained to methodological naturalism, will lead to the wrong answer. Don't worry, it is fine if science is sometimes incorrect.

C. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science should back away from the problem at hand. Science should only address phenomenon that are fully naturalistic.

D. Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism.

Big Surprise: Evolutionists decline debate challenge

According to a recent Creation Ministries International ARTICLE:

The 2010 Global Atheist Convention will be held in Melbourne, Australia, at the prestigious Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, over the weekend of March 12–14, 2010.

Titled “The Rise of Atheism”, it is being billed as the “biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history”. The more than twenty presenters include some of the “cream” of the world’s most prominent and vocal atheists. These include the notorious “ethicist” Professor Peter Singer who has made it plain that some animals have greater “rights” than human infants, who can even be killed after birth in certain circumstances.

Also, the fanatically anti-creationist biology professor PZ Myers, who runs a well-known “science blog”—and of course self-styled “devil’s chaplain” and Darwinism promoter extraordinaire Dr Richard Dawkins will be there in full force. As will a whole array of representatives of various rationalist, humanist, skeptic and freethinker groups.

As would be expected by men like Richard Dawkins, the debate invitation was rejected. Though most of the documentation is spelled out in the above CMI article, I thought the RESPONSE from PZ Myers was most noteworthy.

Though I believe a public debate such as this one would be extremely beneficial to open-minded individuals who are capable of intellectually discerning debate tricks from good arguments, the fact that the debate was refused gives me even more confidence in my position. And this seems to be the case all over the map. That is, one side is always willing to publicly expose themselves and one side isn't.

Oh yeah, I get it. Why would anyone want to waste their time debating something like Creationism?

"I really can't see Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist taking seriously or bothering to debate about alien abductions even though millions believe it to be true. There are just no credible studies on this as there are no credible scientific studies that support creationism."

Right. So you can turn down the challenge to debate such a silly idea, but you'll spent countless thousands of dollars holding seminars (think about how much airfare this costs!), publishing books and magazines, appearing on radio and TV; all to expose a silly idea. But no, we cannot and will not publicly debate those whom we devote this much time and money on.

The day when evolutionists stop spending so much time and money focusing on Creationism and ID is the day when I stop expecting them to debate.

Dr. Terry Mortenson defends biblical creationism on public radio

In this interview, Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis defends why he believes Genesis should be taken as straight-forward history up against several others who believe in theistic evolution (one of which is apparently not a theist at all). Though each person didn't have much time to develop their ideas, I thought the contrast between the positions was very clear.

The interview begins at about 7:45 into the program. You can listen to it HERE, where there is also the option to download.

(ht: Ken Ham)

Censorship by Evolutionists or Coincidence?

Darwin’s Dilemma: Evolutionary Elite Choose Censorship over Scientific Debate

by Casey Luskin

When a conservative group, the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), recently contracted to premiere a new documentary titled “Darwin’s Dilemma” at the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center, they couldn’t imagine the brouhaha that would ensue.

As soon as word of the screening went public, the Darwinian thought police started complaining about a government-supported science center renting its facilities to a group showing a film that challenges Darwinian evolution.

Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus”?

To give some background on the controversy, the fossil record shows that about 530 million years ago, nearly all major animal groups (called “phyla”) abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the “Cambrian explosion,” this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin’s time.

There are two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion, or what has been called “Darwin’s dilemma”:

A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution.

B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject.

Succumbing to pressure from Darwinian elites, the California Science Center chose option B.

The AFA had contracted with the Science Center, a department of the California state government, to show “Darwin’s Dilemma” on Sept. 25th at the center’s IMAX Theatre. The film explores the eponymous problem of how the Cambrian explosion challenges Darwinian theory and features scientists arguing that the best explanation is intelligent design (ID).

Apparently this was too much for the California Science Center, which abruptly cancelled the AFA’s contract just a couple weeks before the screening. The center claims it cancelled the event “because of issues related to the contract” but refuses to identify the issues.

Contract “issues” always make a nice pretext for censorship, but a little digging into history uncovers what likely took place.

The California Science Center is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, which has a long history of opposing academic freedom for ID.

In 2004, a pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific article authored by Stephen Meyer was published in a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal. Once the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) realized it had published a pro-ID paper, it repudiated Meyer’s article, alleging the paper “does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

Of course the BSW cited no factual errors in the paper; they just didn’t like Meyer’s conclusions.

Then in 2005, a critical New York Times story inspired anti-ID censors to pressure the Smithsonian to cancel the screening of a pro-ID film, “The Privileged Planet.”

To its credit, the Smithsonian honored its contract to show the film but publicly disclaimed the event, stating “the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution.” Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer said the institution objected to the documentary’s “philosophical conclusion.”

(Of course, when the Smithsonian featured Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” documentary in 1997, it volunteered no objections to the film’s bold opening statement that “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”)

The story picks up in 2006, when a congressional staff investigation found that "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ted] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution.”

The persecuted scientist was Smithsonian research biologist Richard Sternberg, who experienced retaliation for overseeing the publication of Meyer’s paper.

The Smithsonian Institution seems willing to go to great lengths to oppose ID and send the message that scientists who sympathize with ID will face consequences, but how does this relate to the current debacle with the California Science Center?

For one, Drs. Sternberg and Meyer are featured in the “Darwin’s Dilemma” documentary advocating ID. And second, Smithsonian spokesman Randal Kremer has reappeared, stating that he “spoke” with the California Science Center after becoming “concerned by the inference … there was a showing of the film at a Smithsonian branch.”

Though Kremer officially denies it, all appearances indicate pressure was applied from on high at the Smithsonian, and the California Science Center caved in and cancelled the event. Once we move past the customary pretexts, this is an open and shut case of censorship and the banning of free speech that dissents from evolution.

Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints.

Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?

That is the real question posed by Darwin’s dilemma. Let’s hope the California Science Center reverses its decision to cancel the contracted screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma” and chooses freedom of speech over evolutionary dogmatism.

REFERENCE

(ht: Evolution News and Views)

How not to debate Richard Dawkins

Even though Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Intelligent Design advocates or Creationists, every once in a while he will appear on a major media outlet, as he does with Bill O'Reilly:



This is not how you should debate Richard Dawkins, or an atheist for that matter. Its a shame that the few times Dawkins opens himself up enough for a public challenge, its from the worst advocates of the other side. Maybe this is why Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is so silly. Or maybe its because he doesn't read their works and refuses to interact with them? Either way, Dawkins pulls the wool over his eyes and plugs his ears when it comes to acknowledging the other side.

Already Gone?

In a recent Answersingenesis.org Article, the following was discussed:

Nearly two-thirds of students will one day walk away from the church. You’ve read these well documented statistics from Ken Ham and Britt Beemer in the book Already Gone. But what can Christians really do?

For many, the answer is just as scary as the numbers: let youth ask questions. Children and adults alike are seeking answers to the issues confronting them. Is there really a God? Can dinosaurs be explained by the Bible? Why should the Bible be believed? Hasn’t science shown the earth to be billions of years old?

Answering those questions, however, is essential to engaging the culture. And Answers in Genesis wants to help.
As a part of the redesign and expansion of the Answers Outreach web presence (previously Events), we are excited to announce the launch of our new DareToAsk.org website for our youth “Q&A Live” presentations. The site itself is designed with young adults and youth in mind, which is why the look is edgy and relevant. But it’s not just about looks.

You’ll also find video answers to some of the common questions all of us have asked. There are links to free resources and even a free DVD download.

Beyond that, you’ll also hear why singer Mark Hall (Casting Crowns) and actor Kirk Cameron (Fireproof) believe AiG’s “Q&A Live” sessions are so important in reaching young people with the message of biblical authority. And that same message can come to your church.

I checked out the Daretoask.org Website and found it to be pretty impressive. The videos are extremely professional and contain some of the most commonly asked questions about creation, evolution, and the age of the earth by some experts in those fields.

I have the same hopes that ministries like Answers in Genesis have in being equipped with answers to the questions of our day. And I pray that more will jump on board with this rather than contributing to some very unfortunate statistics.

Richard Dawkins Interviewed at The Royal Ontario Museum

Go HERE to watch the interview.

I have a few comments about this interview. First, notice all of the assumptions and passing comments that are made, such as, "Oh, this is the cousin of that over there." Imagine how a creationist would be criticized for making the same sort of passing remarks and assumptions if he were doing so in a creation museum. Evolutionists would not have it!

A few other observations about the interview:

"They don't look at the evidence. If they did look at the evidence, they would be persuaded."

Who is "they?" Perhaps the vast majority of those who deny evolution? The same people who have a high school or college education? The same people that wouldn't have passed their tests if they didn't "look at the evidence?" It would be like someone passing a test on the Civil War without having any prior knowledge about the event. Surely Dawkins isn't going to argue that no evolution-denier has ever not looked at the evidence?

"I'm interested in persuading those who are perfectly capable of understanding and looking at the evidence and haven't gotten around to doing so. And why should they?"

If this is the case, then why not deal with our arguments from our best resources? Why pretend that his most educated critics do not exist?

"How sad that children should be brought up in ignorance of this amazing fact of our existence and how it came to be."

Who's children? Sure, you might find some fundy, independent Baptists living in the woods somewhere, who homeschool their children and tell them that dinosaurs never existed. But i'd be willing to bet that these make up a very small percentage of evolution-deniers. For the rest of us, we go to public schools that teach evolution as a fact, and our parents take us to museums. So who exactly is Dawkins referring to here? If he's referring to informed Creationists, we actually encourage children to learn about evolution. Can Dawkins or any evolutionist show me just one Creationist or Intelligent Design organization that condones bringing up our children in ignorance?

"I jokingly refer to myself as Darwin's Tyrannosaur...I [have] these yappy Terriers snapping at your heels refusing to look at the evidence and much worse, browbeating and brainwashing children into not looking at the evidence too. Its so sad and such a waste of time."

More evidence that Dawkins is living in a dreamworld. Again, who is "refusing to look at the evidence?" Can Dawkins prove any evidence that this is the case?

I think Dawkins just can't understand how we can deny evolution. And because of this, he creates a false reality where all his informed critics are simply an illusion. Perhaps the following syllogism will illustrate:

I. Anyone who looks at the evidence for evolution will be convinced.

II. There are people who look at the evidence, but aren't convinced.

III. Therefore, evolution-deniers don't exist.

Richard Dawkins continuing to keep is eyes closed.

In this interview, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and the recent best-seller The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution, continues to close his eyes to reality and persuade others to do the same.

"These people need to put up an argument of their own, rather than just badmouthing the people who are criticizing them. Let's hear their argument."

This reminds me of a child holding his ears screaming, "La la la la! I can't hear anything," when their parents are telling them to clean up their room. Later on, when they are asked why they didn't clean their room, they say, "Unless you tell me to clean up my room, i'm not going to know that i'm supposed to do it."

If this is the reality that Dawkins wants to present to his readers, as if ID'ers and Creationists haven't presented arguments "of their own," and instead are only "badmouthing," then Dawkins is living in a dream world. Dawkins is either completely oblivious or intentionally deceptive. I'm going to vote for the latter.

Its unfortunate that Dawkins has made a career out of atheism and evolution, but refuses to give a fair representation of his critics. Perhaps in Dawkins' ethical system he doesn't think its a problem to spend a lifetime arguing against his critics and then pretending they don't exist; but then again, i'm a Christian who thinks that men are made in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect.

"As you know, respectable theologians and bishops and vicars and people all believe in evolution anyway, so no religious person should have no quarrel with this, unless they are the truly ridiculous kind religious person who believes that the world is only 6,000 years old."

First off, they don't "all believe" in evolution. But even if they did, who cares? With the exception of Catholics, JW's, and Mormons, who are under obligation to believe whatever their organization tells them, theists generally don't reject or accept evolution solely based on what their leaders tell them. Some people actually think for themselves. But Dawkins doesn't want his readers to know that.

"There's no informed opposition. The opposition is all entirely from ignorant people who know nothing about it."

This is the epitome of ignorance. Are all evolution-deniers people who know nothing about it? Really? This is truly absurd and Dawkins should be ashamed of himself for presenting such a fabrication of reality.

"All living creatures are cousins of each other. That is a fact."

Gravity is a fact, Mr. Dawkins. It is something that we can measure or detect through repeatable experiments. This is contrary to the claim that my distant cousin is a banana tree.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net

Don't let them hear!!

According to RichardDawkins.net, Kirk Cameron has gone too far.

On Thursday November 19, 2009, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (the banana guy) will be distributing 50,000 copies of Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species' at universities across America to students for free.


BUT THERE'S A CATCH!!

Each copy will have a 50 page intro about how evolution has never been proven and how Darwin helped inspire the Holocaust.

If this outrages you, then you're not alone. There's something we can do though. We can amass as many of these books as possible, remove the 50 page intro, and then donate perfectly good copies of 'Origin of Species' to schools, libraries, and Goodwill. We can actually make this into something positive.

If you are in college, then you are in a good position to help. Check your campus on November 19th, and if you see a group distributing copies of the book, then get as many as you can. Get a copy for yourself, ask if you can have extra copies for your friends, ask your friends to go ask for copies, and ask other people you see carrying the book if you can have their copy.

This is a shameful thing that Kirk Cameron and the Banana Guy are doing by altering another person's book in order to push their agenda. But we can help to restore the book to how it was intended and keep young minds from being brainwashed by misinformation.

Now, I can't say that this is the way I would want to get the message out, but why are evolutionists going to waste their time doing this? Does anyone else see the obvious here: that evolutionists just don't want the public to hear the other side? If anything, the creationists are allowing more from the other side, since Origin of Species, last time I checked, was much longer than 50 pages.

Shouldn't the evolutionists be excited that evolutionary literature is being passed out? Don't they want people to know about evolution? If Creationism is so silly, then won't this be obvious to the students who read Origin of Species after a measly 50 pages of Creationism?

When's the last time you saw an evolutionist passing out literature displaying both sides of the issue? One side has an open mind, and the other doesn't. Seems pretty clear to me who that is.

If you want to join in the suppression of independent, free thinking, then go HERE.

Richard Dawkins presents, "The Greatest Show on Earth."

If you believe in Creation, think that evolution is false (and especially if you believe the earth is young), then according to Richard Dawkins', you are an educational disgrace. Why did Dawkins write such a book? Well, he feels that so many of us who don't believe that microbes evolved into biologists are uniformed and need to be educated on the evidences for evolution.

This is due to the fact that 40 percent or more of us don't believe in Evolution. This makes us an educational disgrace. The problem is, haven't we already been given the evidence for evolution? Did this 40 percent not go to public schools, get college degrees, and watch the Discovery channel? Is there some big mystery that we don't know about? Is Dawkins going to present evidence that I didn't hear about in my college biology classes? If so, then why isn't the most powerful evidence taught in our schools? This just isn't adding up.

I plan on reading this book only because I know it will be picked up by the masses. Yes, I expect Dawkins to present his arguments, but I do not expect Dawkins to spend any amount of time dealing with the best arguments and sources coming from the Creationist and Intelligent Design camp. Just like The God Delusion, I don't expect that Dawkins' target audience will be those who will actually look into what he says and what the other side has to offer. Nope. Probably will be more shallow argumentation that pretends as if Creationists and ID'ers have no response. Truly sad.

Ultimate Proof audio presentation

Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis presents the "Ultimate Proof of Creation."

LISTEN HERE

Ruse explains why the "New Atheists are a bloody disaster"

For many of you, the name of Michael Ruse means nothing. For for some of you, in particular those who keep up with the controversies pertaining to the Creation/Intelligent design/Evolution issue, the name is quite familiar. But for those of you who don't know too much of Ruse, it would be an understatement to say that he is no friend to Creation or Intelligent Design. However, it was very interesting to see Ruse disagreeing with the so-called "New Atheists." One such line really struck me:

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

I couldn't agree more. After reading The God Delusion (Review coming soon!), I found the manner in which Dawkins dealt with the various theistic proofs to be extremely poor and at best, elementary. And anyone who has actually read works by respected philosophers, theologians and scientists who advocate the theistic position should have the same sentiments towards Dawkins.

At any rate, if you are interested in any of these issues, I think you'll enjoy Ruse's piece.

(ht: Hip and Thigh)

A little bit of Romans 1 publicly displayed

This video displays the mockery of God by an atheist group outside the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum:



Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis has some insightful things to say about this experience HERE.

Ben Stein on Dennis Prager

A short, but very insightful discussion on Ben Stein's new film, Expelled can be found here.

I'm going to see the film in a few hours. I'm definitely excited. I want to post a review hopefully tonight, but i'm going to first try to post a video response to one of my Bahai friends regarding Calvinism. We'll see how time allows!

No Intelligence allowed

I have been waiting a long time for something like this to come out. I never expected this to actually happen, and it still may not. But the truth needs to be heard and Ben Stein's documentary will do exactly that: in theaters across the country. Watch this video. If you aren't familiar with the Intelligent Design controversy, then prepare for a shock.



Although I am not as directly involved with the creation/evolution issue as I once was, I am still passionate about the subject. Hopefully i'll be posting a review once I see the film.

40,000 footprints

Its not too often that I write something related to the Creation/Evolution issue unless it is theological. But this really caught my attention. It talks about the "dating" of human footprints to 40,000 years. "Oh, but these aren't human footprints because they are too old." Can anyone say "circular reasoning"? Did anyone else read the article and find themselves scratching their scabby little head?