|
CREATIONIST COMMENTS
Creation Science research rafting trip through the Grand Canyon
In this "Creationist Comments" section of the website watch for periodic reports and comments concerning the ongoing "culture war" which is waging between evolutionary thinking and the biblical Christian worldview. For up to date Pacific Northwest Creation presentations, conferences, seminars, debates and lectures click on the "CREATION CALENDAR" category in this site. 1 Peter 3:15
ARTICLE INDEX (click on topic to go to it): "CHILDREN AND DINOSAURS" "ANTI-CREATIONISTS LACK CRITICAL THINKING" "CORRELATION, UNIFORMITY & THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN AS A MEASURE OF LONG AGES" "WAS TYRANNOSAURUS REX A GIANT CHICKEN?" "HOW CAN ALL THOSE SCIENTISTS BE WRONG?" "PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR DEFENDS DARWINISM" "TOP 10 SCIENCE STORIES FOR 2006" "PRESUPPOSITIONAL EVOLUTION & THE VIRGIN DRAGON" "TRUTH & THE DOLPHIN WITH LEGS" "LUCY IS LOOSE!" "ASTRONOMY & CREATION" "UNIFORMITY IS A JOKE" "SECULAR PRESS DISCOVERS THE CREATION MUSEUM" CHILDREN AND DINOSAURS
November 6, 2007 Fact #1: According to the Barna Research Group, seven out of ten Christian teenagers plan to leave the church when they leave home. Fact #2: Children love dinosaurs. Are these two facts just random and unrelated or is there a way to show that they are somehow related? I believe that they are not only related, but that they are directly and closely related. I hope that the following discussion will help the reader to understand the logic that has led me to this conclusion. Children do love dinosaurs. When I say children I mean elementary school aged children especially. I know children love dinosaurs because there is a fervent demand for the small model dinosaurs that I hand out free to children. I have handed out hundreds of these toy dinosaurs to children at churches and at creation conferences and other creation science meetings that I have facilitated I know also that children love dinosaurs because of the great demand for dinosaur books, posters, toys, costumes, DVDs, movies, character memorabilia etc. If you were to search the internet under the category “books” for the topic “dinosaurs” on www.amazon.com or www.borders.com you would find that over 53,000 titles are available. A statistical sampling of the contents of those 53,000 titles will result in the conclusion that nearly all of these titles were written with atheistic presuppositions and within the atheistic worldview (naturalism). The atheistic presuppositions are as follows: 1. There is no God or God is irrelevant. 2. Everything came randomly from nothing. 3. All lifeforms evolved from common ancestors over billions of years. 4. Homology (the study of similar structures in lifeforms) proves evolution. It is important to understand that these are presuppositions and not scientifically proven facts. It is impossible to scientifically prove any of these statements and they must be believed by faith. These presuppositions are directly at odds with the statements concerning origins which we read in the Bible. Nevertheless, the atheistic presuppositions manifest themselves in nearly all of the dinosaur books currently in print. A typical statement which will be found at the beginning of any secular children’s book on dinosaurs will read, “Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, before there were any people.” It is my observation that most Christian parents and many Christian educators of children and of youth do not see any real connection between the worldview represented in these dinosaur books and the apostasy of the Christian youth which is documented by the Barna findings and demonstrated by the associated freefall of morals in our culture. Since this falling away and denunciation of faith by Christian youth and its connection to children’s love for dinosaurs is the basic premise that I am supporting in this discussion, I need to explain further. Here is how this connection works. When very young, children become interested in dinosaurs due to the excitement, the mystery, the size, the perceived ferociousness etc. of the dinosaurs. They ask their parents and their teachers for the popular books on dinosaurs which are so readily available and most adults are happy to comply. The parents believe they are making their kids happy and at the same time assisting in their scientific education. Most Christian parents probably never give a thought to the dangers of the atheistic worldview to which they are introducing their kids. These same atheistic books are the ones exclusively available in the school and public libraries as well. Many Christian educators of children and youth do not know how to answer the questions concerning the obvious differences in reality interpretation between naturalism and the history depicted by the Bible. If they do not know the correct biblical answers the educators will normally either not answer the questions or will defer to naturalistic explanations or concocted compromises to the true exegesis of God’s word. The vast majority of children go to public schools. Christianity has been removed from the public schools over the past 40 years or so and has been replaced with Secular Humanism which is based on the philosophy (arguably religion) of naturalism. As the kids progress through the schools they are constantly bombarded with the evolutionary concepts of naturalism. If the children are not brought up in a Christian home or never attend church they will know only the precepts of the anti-God philosophy which they have been taught. Christian kids will be in a similar boat as well unless they have been taught the biblical worldview constantly and consistently at home and/or at church. Christians teach their kids that they are to trust Jesus (Acts 14:23) and that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). And these are important truths that should be taught. But, if we accept the atheistic presuppositions concerning origins and thereby reject the clear and plain teachings of Genesis chapters 1-11 (as well as elsewhere in the Bible), we are telling the kids that Jesus was at the least ignorant of his creation and at the most an accomplished liar. Remember that Jesus, as well as all of the New Testament writers, believed that Genesis chapters 1-11 were historical narrative. Kids are not stupid and when they see the obvious hypocrisy shown by this common compromise thinking in Christian education circles, it is very easy for them to doubt their faith and/or accept the philosophy which has been consistently taught them in their schools and in the world culture. And this indoctrination all started with the dinosaur books of their early childhood! So, what can be done? Quite a lot can be done by each Christian educator availing himself or herself of the creation science information and by learning the biblical answers to the common question that kids (and adults) ask about the origins controversy. There are six questions often asked about dinosaurs, fossils and the Genesis flood, the biblical answers to which the Christian educator should commit to his or her memory. These questions are as follows: 1. How come we don’t find dinosaurs in the Bible? 2. What happened to the dinosaurs? 3. How old are dinosaur bones? 4. How did Noah fit all of the dinosaurs aboard the Ark? 5. Is there evidence showing dinosaurs lived with man? 6. What other evidence shows dinosaurs lived recently? Do you have the biblical answers to these six questions as supported by creation science? I’ll answer these questions next time right here on this website page. Together we can help take the dinosaurs away from the evolutionists and return them to God’s creation where they truly belong! Thanks for stopping by and may God greatly bless you. J.D. Mitchell Back to top "ANTI-CREATIONISTS LACK CRITICAL THINKING"
October 31, 2007 In the discussion of controversial matters most thinking people like to believe that they are open minded to the facts and logical in their conclusions. There are university courses in Critical Thinking Skills where students are taught such things as fairmindedness, intellectual humility, and intellectual integrity as they ponder tough life subjects and concepts. In my opinion, all thinkers should indeed develop and then improve their critical thinking skills. It is also my observation that in the evolution versus creation argument there are those on both sides who are lacking in this particular skill. But, as I follow the vehement anti-creationist arguments in the scientific literature and in the general secular media, I am astounded at the lack of critical thinking which is displayed therein. There are at least six popular distortion techniques which are commonly used by evolutionists that Christians must be keenly aware of if they are to be able to defend the faith (1Peter 3:15) and understand the truth regarding scientific evidence in the origins debate. The six distortion techniques follow below: 1. The BLIND APPEAL TO AUTHORITY Distortion Technique: This technique is usually the first technique used to discredit creation science and creation scientists. In this technique, the creation science position is dismissed with a wave of the hand by statements such as “no real scientist believes...”, or “all experts are in accord that...”. A look at history reveals that most major breakthroughs in science occurred because some researcher probed outside the prevailing opinion. A critical thinker will always agree with the statement that “truth is not determined by majority opinion.” Christians must never bow down to a “blind appeal to authority” tactic. 2. AD HOMINEM ATTACKS Distortion Technique: This technique is often used by anti-creationists against creation scientists and other creation science proponents. Ad hominem is Latin and means “to the man.” In other words, the attack used in this technique is in the form of personal attacks or insults which have nothing to do with the evidence. It is not surprising that this technique is so popular among anti-creationists since the evidence for evolution is so weak. And, the weaker the evidence is, the louder the personal attacks and insults usually are. Evolutionists will say, for example, that creationists believe in God, therefore they are biased and anything they say on the subject of origins cannot be trusted. It would be just as incorrect for a creationist to say evolutionists do not believe in God, therefore they are biased and anything they say on the subject of origins cannot be trusted. Everyone is biased and evolution scientists (most of whom rely on funding which requires agreement with naturalistic interpretations) are among the most highly biased. Both sides must rely on the quality and testability of the scientific evidence in order to determine a theory’s validity. As I have stated numerous times in other articles, with origins science the presuppositions must be known and understood. Do not let anyone confound you with ad hominem attacks or insults. 3. SELECTIVE USE OF EVIDENCE Distortion Technique: I have found that people will believe anything. This is because there are always ways to find or concoct evidence to support any position, no matter how ridiculous. If one uses critical thinking skills in an attempt to find truth, then all of the relevant evidence must be examined. For example, the largest gap between evolutionists and creationists in the study of the fossil record is as a result of the refusal by evolutionists to consider the possibility that the fossil record was caused by a world wide flood. Creationists must continually examine the evolutionary view since the vast majority of geology and paleontology is reported using that view. But, evolutionists never consider the biblical view. They are examining the evidence while refusing to consider all presuppositions and possibilities. Another example of this is exhibited in the study of homology. For more information on this topic, click on the “Homology Paper” tab on this website. Creationists must encourage detractors to always examine all of the evidence concerning any hypothesis or theory. 4. The STRAW MAN Distortion Technique: The entire creation vs. evolution debate is concerning the determination of the truth about the past. When someone distorts a position and then attacks the distorted position it is called “attacking a straw man.” Anti-creationists constantly set up a straw man attack by trying to make the controversy an issue of religion vs. science. Of course, they define creationism as religion and evolutionism as science at the outset. Another place where anti-creationists set up a straw man attack is concerning creation science and intelligent design biology in the public schools. The creationist detractors will state that creationists are trying to set up religion in the schools when the reality is that creationists simply want the truth about the shortcomings of naturalism taught in addition to the philosophy of naturalism. In most public schools and many Christian schools naturalism is taught as a fact (an untruth) rather than as a philosophy or religion as it truly is. The current state of public schools in the United States is that the religion of Christianity has been taken out and has been replaced with the religion of Secular Humanism which has naturalism as its foundation. This outcome was in large part the result of anti-Christians successfully using the straw man attack against the concept of separation of church and state 5. BEGGING THE QUESTION Distortion Technique: When someone “begs the question” it means that they ask a question to which they have already assumed an answer. Anti-creationists presuppose that there is no God (Atheism) or that God is irrelevant (Deism), that evolution is true, that homology proves evolution, that creation is a myth and that there has never been a world wide flood. In other words they presuppose that God never supernaturally intervenes into nature. By defining science to exclude God, evolutionists have begged the question by eliminating one possibility before even starting the debate. Therefore, there can be no possibility for honest debate on the issue or for any search for real truth. 6. The TESTABLE CONCLUSION Distortion Technique: When someone makes a statement which cannot be scientifically tested it is at most an interpretation or a statement of faith and not a statement of fact. All of our secular museums, our national monuments and our national parks provide us with interpretations of the earth’s past based on the naturalistic world view. Remember that they are interpretations not facts. All interpretations are based on presuppositions which may or may not be true. It is important to determine the presuppositions for interpretations and for interpretations presented as facts. Famous atheist astronomer Carl Sagan said, “The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.” He stated this as a fact, but this was really just his opinion which he had taken on faith. This statement is not science since it cannot be scientifically tested. We must ever be vigilant of statements presented as facts which are only interpretations or opinions of men. This vigilance is a mark of a person who uses developed critical thinking skills. In Christ, J.D. Mitchell Back to top July 25, 2007 "CORRELATION, UNIFORMITY & THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN AS A MEASURE OF LONG AGES"
Uniformitarians use correlation to tie together the sedimentary rock layers throughout the world to match their concept of millions of years. That is, they correlate sedimentary layers in one part of the world to those in another part of the world usually through index fossils and/or the mineral makeup of the layers. This concept of correlation is based on uniformity (“the present is the key to the past”) and has numerous problems with matching reality. For example, not all the layers are represented in all areas of the world. There are millions of years worth of expected layers missing in most locations where the layers are found. Secondly, the fossil record continues to provide more evidence each year that the Rock Record is not a record of billions of years. This is because the lifeforms found in the fossil record show abrupt appearance, no transitional forms, stasis and a tendency for expansion of their range of presence in the fossil record with each passing year of fossil discoveries. This range expansion manifests itself in what is often called “topsy-turvy” fossils by the creation scientist. The evolutionists have different names for the phenomenon, such as anomalous fossil sequence and they usually explain away the “improper” fossil sequence with what they call reworking. The examples of reworking are becoming more and more ubiquitous. Topsy-turvy fossils come in two basic categories. The first category includes those fossils that are initially found lower in the fossil record and assumed to be extinct. Later they work their way up in the record (with additional discoveries) so that the presumed locations of time segment boundaries in the column have to be modified or the supposed evolutionary relationships have to be revised. When the assumed extinct organism happens to work its way “up” to the point of living in the here and now, the organism is renamed as a “living fossil.” There are at least 500 identified living fossils extant today. You can see some of them by clicking on the Living Fossil photos section of this website. Living fossils strongly deteriorate the credibility of the philosophy behind the Geologic Column and organic evolution. But, topsy-turvy fossils are also found expanding from higher locations in the column to lower locations in the column. The overall reality is that there are no indications of evolution in the fossils and close to identical lifeforms are being found throughout the entire extent of the Rock Record with increasing frequency. As this occurs, evolutionary paleontologists are left only with the evolutionary presuppositions of homology to support their philosophical world view, and homology has a very wobbly foundation in truth itself (Click on “Homology Paper” on this website). This situation is exactly what the creation model with its worldwide Flood would predict and always has predicted. Life was formed initially according to its kinds with the ability for limited adaptation built in due to the information in its DNA. From this vantage point the fossil record is seen to be mainly evidence for a universal catastrophic flood. In June of this year (2007) my wife and I were able to participate in a dinosaur dig in the badlands of eastern Montana. What really struck me during this dig was the rapidity at which the terrain in this area was being eroded away. Yet the sedimentary layers in which we dug for dinosaur bones and other plant and animal fossils are so called Cretaceous age. That means that they are supposed to be 65 to 100 million years old according to the evolutionary theory and the uniformitarian Geologic Column. This just does not match reality! If these layers were really laid down over 65 million years ago, it looks obvious that they should have all totally eroded away long ago. Remember that the principle of uniformity is supposed to translate the rates of today. I wrote earlier about how uniformity is such a bad joke. (See the article in this “What’s New” section on this website.) It is interesting to note that many Uniformitarians have abandoned the concept of uniformity except with regard to its application to a world wide flood. By this I mean catastrophe is being accepted more and more by secular geologists, for example with regard to the Missoula Flood. Finally, let us think about the concept of correlation again for a moment. If the present is the key to the past then we would not expect correlation for geologic processes over long periods of time! For example, today all over the world different geologic processes are doing different things at different rates. Some places sediments are being laid down and other places sediments are being eroded away and are being carried away into the oceans. Today, no sediments can last long without portions of them being severely eroded. Today’s observable world geologic processes are not forming a geologically correlated record so far as I can see. If there is indeed correlation today in what is seen in the Rock Record, then that would indicate a single event not millions of events over millions of years. This matches the biblical creationist model of a one-year long world wide catastrophic flood not too long ago. Correlation logically makes no sense for millions or billions of years of geologic uniformity! In my opinion, the Geologic Column looks to be quickly crumbling away as a model for long ages. The Bible says in 2 Peter 3:3-6: “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.” J.D. Mitchell God Bless Back to Top April 14, 2007 WAS TYRANNOSAURUS REX A GIANT CHICKEN?"
The big news from the evolutionism camp this week is that evidence has been reported which supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This admitted tentative conclusion came as a result of some fairly sophisticated tests done on some T. rex soft tissue which had been found a couple of years ago inside a leg bone which is thought by evolutionists to be 68 million years old. When the soft tissue was discovered creation scientists pointed out the true importance of the finding as being evidence for the unlikelihood of the sample being 68 million years old. The conventional wisdom was (and still is) that it is highly unlikely that this soft material could last for 68,000 years let alone 68 million. Of course the underlying presuppositions of evolutionary paleontologists and biologists are what are driving all of the effort to point to common ancestral relationships instead of looking at the age of the sample of tissue. These presuppositions are, as I have expressed numerous times before, foundational and not subject to study by evolutionists under any situation; nor can they be detrimentally affected by any scientific evidence. The presuppositions are taken on faith and are as follows: 1. Evolution of life from common ancestor(s) is undeniable fact. 2. Millions of years of evolution is undeniable fact. 3. Homology proves evolution from common ancestors. It is logically clear that these presuppositions are unprovable and in addition much scientific evidence speaks against them. For example, the fossil record shows no evidence of transitional forms which would be a necessity for macroevolution to have ever happened as believed by evolutionary scientists. So, these new tests do seem to confirm that the tissue was indeed soft which gives support to the creation science position that the T. rex bones are more like 4500 years old rather than 68 million and that they were probably deposited as a result of the Genesis Flood. According to these recent studies the similarity of amino acid sequence of the protein in the T. rex soft bone tissue tested was 58% for the T. rex and the modern chicken and 51% for the T. rex and frogs and newts. However, this is put into better perspective by the fact that recent studies put the similarity between humans and frogs at 81%. Somewhere I read that humans are surprisingly closely related according to DNA testing to bananas as well. In my opinion these similarities point more toward a common designer than toward a common ancestor. The Great Designer could obviously choose to use similar design for similar functions in different organisms, in the same way that human engineers do in their creative efforts concerning inanimate things. The Bible tells us that birds were created on day 5 of the creation while animals and humans were created on day 6 (Genesis 1:20-26). Those Christians who believe that the Bible is indeed God’s Word know for certain that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. Thanks for visiting. J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to Top HOW CAN ALL THOSE SCIENTISTS BE WRONG?
There are literally thousands of scientists who reject the ideas of evolution and uniformitarian millions of years. In addition, many (perhaps a majority of) applied scientists such as engineers, physicians, dentists etc. have rejected these Godless evolutionary philosophies and instead accept the concepts of biblical creation. However, it is a fact that the majority of scientists who work in the natural sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Paleontology etc.) do seem to accept evolution as a fact and reject creation science as incorrect. Truth is not determined by majority vote, but many have asked the question which is the subject of this “What’s New” essay. That is, how can a majority of scientists be wrong regarding the origin of the universe and all of life? I believe there are numerous reasons for this way of thinking and I believe these reasons can be combined into just two basic categories as follows: CATEGORY 1: Many who believe in evolution are darkened in their understanding because of ignorance (see Ephesians 4:18). This is manifested in a number of ways. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution (and some are very vocal and strident about their evolutionary beliefs), they believe in evolution also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves. Scientific fields have become very specialized and a scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in “some other field,” even though it is not obviously seen in his own field. This is the “ivory tower” syndrome. For example, many scientists believe that the fossil record is great evidence for evolution because this is what they have heard in the halls of academia. But, if they had (or had taken) the time to research the fossil record (i.e. move down out of their ivory towers) they would soon see that the fossil record is of little support to evolutionary theory and of great benefit to the creationist model instead. I have found that most engineers are quite open to the creationist design argument because of their direct knowledge of the difficulty inherent in designing, making and maintaining anything in this universe (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Some scientists may assume that because of the technological advances in the applied sciences that somehow the presuppositions of evolutionary philosophy are therefore verified. This, of course, is not at all true. The applied sciences know nothing of organic or biological macroevolution. Since humanistic material “progress” seems to continue to be made in business and technology, some assume evolution is the force behind this “progress,” but there is no valid evidence for this. The ramifications of evolutionary thought are societal and not scientific and these societal ramifications are not good. CATEGORY 2: The god of this age (Satan) has blinded their minds (see 2 Corinthians 4:3). Scientists who reject the Bible and creation and accept evolution do so in large part because they have been taught to believe that evolution is science and creation is religion. They have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which must be kept separate at all costs. And this way of thinking forces many evolutionary fairy tales from the minds of Godless men to be accepted on blind faith. This faith is not based on truth but on the lies of Satan. Common sense instructs most people of the impossibility of “everything from nothing for no reason,” but that is exactly what must be believed if the Creator God of the universe and all that is in it, is rejected. When the apostle Paul was speaking to the Greeks on Mars Hill he was fortunate to experience partial success. In Acts 17:34 we read that, “A few became followers of Paul and believed.” That is also the situation that Christians face in the so-called “scientific” 21st century…only a few “Greeks” will believe the truth. In Matthew 22:14 Jesus said, “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” In Matthew 7:13, 14 Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.” The lesson here is that the Christian must not be influenced by these anti-biblical, anti-Christian, anti-God concepts of evolution and millions of years. Remember that the origin compromises which have been devised over the past 200 years by Christian theologians are all based on atheism or deism. You must “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8) May God Bless You! J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to Top "PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR DEFENDS DARWINISM"
Darwinian evolutionist Michael Ruse came to Portland on February 15, 2007 to speak at an event sponsored by the Institute for Science, Engineering and Public Policy. For $50 per ticket people were able to hear Dr. Ruse say such things as, "Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution." Ruse is currently regularly debating Intelligent Design proponent William A. Dembski. Ruse says, "The Evangelical Right has always hated evolution, Darwinism particularly, so there is no surprise that today it is pushing Creationism Lite, aka Intelligent Design Theory." I don't know if there are any studies about what "The Evangelical Right" is "pushing" regarding origins, but I do know that the group usually called "Biblical Creationists" certainly is not pushing the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM). If you visit the websites for the leading Biblical Creationist organizations (e.g. ICR and Answers in Genesis), you will discover that they consistently speak strongly against expecting any positive result from the IDM so far as resistance to the Anti-Christian cultural war. Creationists certainly present a strong design argument and have for many decades. But, creationists are just as happy to distance themselves from the IDM as the IDM is happy to distance itself from Creationism, the Bible and Christianity. I have found that the IDM has only one thing in common with Biblical Creationism and that is its argument against Darwinism. The IDM provides no insight regarding the ultimate truths of this universe. Only Biblical Christianity has accomplished that; and that by relying on God's General and Special revelations. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Oregonian regarding the Ruse lecture on February 14, 2007. In that letter I pointed out the inconsistency of locating the announcement of Ruse's lecture in the science section of the paper. My letter follows: RE: “Philosophy professor defends Darwinism” (Oregonian, February 14, 2007, p. A11) The Oregonian could not have intentionally devised a clearer statement of its anti-creationist and anti-Christian bias than was demonstrated by the placing of the notice of Michael Ruse’s lecture in the science section of its newspaper. Evolutionist Ruse himself has stated, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion.” [Ruse, Michael, 2000. How evolution became a religion. National Post, (Ontario, Canada), 13 May, sec. B. p.3]. So, by this action, the Oregonian continues to exhibit its presuppositional position that evolution, under any guise is science; and creation, no matter the evidence is religion. And, I speak from personal experience when I say that it is nearly impossible to get creation science articles or information into the religion section of the Oregonian let alone into the science section. J.D. Mitchell, P.E., MBS-BCA Institute for Creation Science Gresham, OR www.creationengineeringconcepts.org I have not yet received any reply from the Oregonian nor has my letter appeared. If I get some response, I'll post it here on this website. Until next time, J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "TOP 10 SCIENCE STORIES FOR 2006"
It's that time of year when the top 10 of everything is picked for the previous year by the secular media. The Oregonian newspaper accordingly selected their Top 10 Science Stories and printed them on December 27, 2006 under a byline by Richard L. Hill. The Oregonian's choices were: 1. "More Change On a Warming Planet" [Global Warming] 2. "Earthquakes Take a Heavy Toll" [Indonesia Quake] 3. "Pluto Demoted to 'Dwarf' Status" [Planet Pluto] 4. "Volcano Keeps Going and Going" [Mt. St. Helens] 5. "Capsule Returns With Comet Dust" [Stardust Spacecraft] 6. "Ancient Youngster Uncovered" [Newest Hominid] 7. "Oldest Bee Found in Amber" [OSU Fossil Bee] 8. "Face Transplant Patient Recovers" [Body Part Surgery] 9. "Ancestor of T. Rex Found in China" [Dinosaur Bones] 10. "Ancient Skeleton's Past Revealed" [Kennewick Man] It is my opinion that a certain amount of observational and experimental science was indeed described in each of the ten stories. But, the presuppositional uniformitarian bias of the newspaper and the reporters was also obvious in the stories as especially evidenced by the references to ancient time in articles 5., 6., 7., 9., and 10. With so much real science being done in the world it is interesting, but expected, that the paper would chose five articles where reference is made to unprovable "prehistoric" time/dates. At the very least it shows the committment that the Oregonian has to evolution and millions of years. Here are my comments from my biblical creationist perspective on each of these stories from the paper: 1. [Global Warming] I am certainly not trained as a climatologist or meteorologist, but as a semi-trained omniologist I am skeptical of the whole global warming hysteria. Aren't these the same people who were screaming "Ice Age" in the 1970's? The general public has good reason to be skeptical of secular science. This global warming subject looks to me to have as much global politics as it does global science. 2. [Earthquakes] Yep, every year we have earthquakes and every year people are killed by said earthquakes. Did you know that research by creation scientist Dr. Steven Austin indicates that the severity and number of quakes is currently declining? I found that to be very interesting. 3. [Pluto Demoted] Human scientists change their minds about what is true on a continuing and constant basis. God's Word, however, never changes. See Psalm 119:89, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:25. 4. [Volcano] This story is about real observational science. Mount St. Helens has provided mountains of evidence (excuse the pun) toward the support of the creationist world view. 5. [Comet Spacecraft] NASA does officially philosophically support evolution and millions of years. The Oregonian quote, "...where scientists are learning more about the solar system's creation 4.6 billion years ago," just exhibits more of the evolutionary bias of the paper. A proper scientific explanation of the real research being done would read more like, "where scientists are learning more about the make-up of comets." All of the talk about billions of years is plain metaphysical hypothesis, not real science. 6. [Another Australopithecus afarensis?] Again, this article is filled with evolutionary religion presented as fact. Many secular and all creationist scientists who have studied the bones called "Lucy" see them as an extinct ape, not a human ancestor. It always amazes me how the dates can be so accurately stated as, for example, "...a 3-year-old girl who died 3.3 million years ago in Ethiopia." This is all conjecture at best and evolutionary concoction at worst, but not true science! 7. [Oldest Bee] I would guess this story made the Oregonian's Top 10, in part, because it is about the work of a local (OSU) scientist. The encasement of bees in amber as a result of the Genesis Flood catastrophe makes much more sense than the "100 million years ago" presuppositions of the evolutionists. Of course there were bees at the time of the dinosaurs. I would expect that there always have been bees to pollinate the flowering plants ever since the creation some 6000 years ago. 8. [Face Transplant] This story provides insight into two aspects of our present society. First, our technology continues to advance at a fast rate just as it has ever since the end of the Middle Ages. Secondly, we see here an example of the continued devolving of secular evolutionary humanism into the modern medical culture. The face donor in this story was said to be a "brain-dead" woman, whatever that means. I think we will see an increase in the harvesting of body parts to a tremendous level over these last days. This will work hand-in-hand with the abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell "mad scientist" syndrome which again is building up steam throughout the world. The atrocities of the Nazis is now far enough in the past that the short lived repugnance toward this view and these mad scientist practices is quickly dissipating. Christians must never forget that we were created in God's image and think and vote in a manner consistent with that truth. 9. [T-Rex Ancestor] I took the time to read the entire source article (from the National Science Foundation) on this one. The subject of dinosaurs in particular and paleontology in general is based on a false foundation of presupposition. Don't get me wrong...I love the subject of dinosaurs. But, the problem is that the secular paleontological presuppostions of evolution, millions of years and homology mean that our money is being spent to further a false religion rather than to gain additional knowledge about our world and universe. The National Science Foundation is a federal agency with an annual budget of about $6 billion (your tax dollars) all of which must be spent on programs at universities and institutions which toe the evolutionary line in order to receive the funding. If you read the secular dinosaur literature carefully, as I have, you will see that the secular dinosaur scientists cannot support the presuppostions. In fact they for the most part don't even try. They just accept them on faith. But, the public is continually fed stories like this one which indicates that science has proven these presuppositions. This is not science! This is the promotion of a gigantic lie! 10. [Kennewick Man] Creation science has shown the world the many weaknesses and discrepancies of radiometric dating which render it virtually worthless as a scientific tool. But, the world continues to ignore this truth since to do so would have the consequence of undermining the faith in the evolutionary paradigm to which the world is committed. Kennewick Man cannot be 9300 years old since, according to God's Word, man was created only about 6000 years ago. Creation science (e.g. RATE Project) has discovered much evidence which supports the Young Earth scientific model. This article is about science excepting for the attempt to convince people that secular methods can accurately determine the age of things from the past which have been found buried in the ground. Thanks for visiting! J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "PRESUPPOSITIONAL EVOLUTION & THE VIRGIN DRAGON"
Recently (12-20-06) Associated Press writer Maria Cheng released a story entitled "Virgin Dragon Prepares to Give Birth." The story began as follows: "In an evolutionary twist, Flora the Komodo dragon has managed to become pregnant all on her own without any male help." [Emphasis mine] The story looks to be factual enough in the body, but the point of my comments here have to do with the third word into her story ("evolutionary") which I submit is totally presuppositional and not in any way supported by the facts presented in the article itself. This process of asexual reproduction, which seems to be occurring in this Komodo dragon at least, has been seen in other reptile species and in about 70 species altogether according to this article. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Science, "parthenogenesis is the development of an organism from an unfertilized egg. The eggs formed by the females contain the full (diploid) number of chromosomes and are genetically identical. Variation is consequently very limited in species that reproduce parthenogenetically." Reporter Cheng quotes three other reptile experts in addition to the one at the Chester Zoo in England where Flora resides. The typical reponse from these experts regarding this asexual reproduction is expressed in the quote, "It's baffling why a species starts doing this." I believe we can make these statements about the article, if we assume the facts of the article are correct: 1. Scientists are not sure if Komodo dragons have always had the ability to asexually reproduce. 2. Other reptiles and animals have been seen to use asexual reproduction. 3. No evidence was provided in this article that this is an example of macro evolution. 4. The writer of the article exposed her presuppositional evolutionary bias at the very beginning of the article, but did not present any evidence to support her bias in the body of the article. It is my observation that all of the molecules-to-man so-called evolutionary proofs are totally presuppositional and that there has been no observational or experimental evidence yet presented to validly support the hypothesis of evolution. This article is just another of the "just so" type of article which is so prevalent in the secular press. I believe the explanation for the asexual reproduction of the Komodo dragon can be best explained as a result of the ability being present genetically in the dragon kind from the Creation, rather than having evolved in some mysterious way over long periods of time. This article makes me wonder if some or all of the (extinct) dinosaurs had this ability. What do you think? J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "TRUTH & THE DOLPHIN WITH LEGS"
Since current evolutionary theory supposes that air-breathing sea mammals had ancestors which once were land mammals, there is a requirement by evolutionists to provide some sort of evidence to support this assumed course of evolution. The effort has been in the past concentrated most often on whales, but recently comes a story which was reported, "Dolphin's Extra Set of Fins Seen as Legs." Just how should this story and other similar stories be interpreted by the Bible believer? I have noticed that the secular press reports at least one of these what I call "evolutionary science" stories each and every week of every year. Over a ten year period this adds up to at least 520 reports. There is no wonder that so many people believe that evolution has been proven. I will discuss the details of the dolphin story shortly, but first a discussion of how a skeptic of evolution should evaluate these types of stories in general. Almost all news media reports make some effort to provide differing viewpoints for any story which could be considered controversial. This is especially obvious in political stories. When a report is provided concerning criminal activity, the reporter is careful to use words like "alleged" or accused" when describing the individuals or organizations involved until judicial action has been taken. Opinion articles are an exception of course, but news type articles do in general adhere to these facets of fair reporting. However, when it comes to these "evolution science" stories and millions of years, this is definitely not the case. There is never any opposing (creationist) viewpoint included and the story is written as though it represents some sort of absolute truth. There is no indication which I have noticed that there will be a change in the way the secular media will be reporting these stories in the future. Therefore, I would like to offer some (hopefully helpful) suggestions for how the believer and the evolution skeptic can best handle these stories, as follows: 1. Consider the source and understand the worldview presented by the secular media in general. Understand that the worldview represented will usually be one of secular humanism and that this is a worldview which has accepted the uniformitarian philosophy and molecules-to-man evolution. It is also one which defines evolution as science and creation as religion. 2. You must accordingly be ready to scientifically dismiss the story excepting for the statements of fact from the scientists involved. This is the only way for you to be able to understand exactly what science was really done, if any. Secular science reporters usually have an evolutionary axe to grind, and if they do not quote the actual data and the quotations about the actual science, the article is of no value for determining truth. In those cases you may need to wait until the science is formally reported perhaps in peer reviewed literature. 3. Notice how many times (in fact, underline or highlight) the article uses operative wording such as, "could have," "might have," "may have," "it is believed," "perhaps are," etc. These words are reminders of the truth of speculation which is involved in evolutionary theory. 4. Remember what true science is. True science is knowledge not speculation. The proper use of the scientific method requires observation, experimentation, repeatability and falsifiability. Ask yourself, is this article reporting about true scientific endeavors, or is it rather an attempt to sway or indoctrinate. If the "science" has not been corroborated at the time of the article remember that it may never be corroborated, as has been the case for the many "missing links" stories over the past 100 years. And, remember how difficult it is to falsify a theory concerning origins where actions of the past cannot be repeated. 5. Finally, ask yourself if the evidence presented actually tends to substantiate the conclusions presented. Of course, you will need to be aware of the presuppositions involved and you will need to recognize that if your presuppositions do not match those of the theorists or of the reporter that your conclusions most likely will not match either. Here is the dolphin story as released by the Associated Press on November 6, 2006: TOKYO - Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land. Fishermen captured the fourfinned dolphin alive off the coast of Wakayama state in western Japan on Oct. 28 and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, according to museum director Katsuki Hayashi. Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared. Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth. Though odd-shaped protrusions have been found near the tails of dolphins and whales captured in the past, researchers say this was the first time one had been found with well-developed, symmetrical fins, Hayashi said. The second set of fins - much smaller than the dolphin's front fins - are about the size of human hands and protrude from near the tail on the dolphin's underside. Hayashi said he could not tell from watching the dolphin swim in a museum tank whether it used its back fins to maneuver. A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself, said Seiji Osumi, an advisor at Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research. The dolphin will be kept at the Taji museum to undergo x-ray and DNA tests, Hayashi said. Let's take a look at this story using the five point guideline provided earlier: 1. IS THE WORLDVIEW ONE OF SECULAR HUMANISM? Of course it is since there is throughout the article the assumption of molecules-to-man evolution and millions of years. 2. WHAT IS IT THAT THE RESEARCHERS ACTUALLY SAID THEY DISCOVERED? This particular article provides no real quotations. All of the statements are provided as a part of the reporter's interpretations. If the reporter correctly interpreted the statements of fact, here is what was discovered: a. A bottleneck dolphin was captured that has an extra set of fins. b. Fishermen captured the fourfinned dolphin alive on Oct. 28, 2006 off the coast of Japan. c. The second set of fins are about the size of human hands. That's it, there are no other scientific factual observations or information presented in the article. 3. WHAT'S THE SPECULATIVE TEXT? In paragraph one we see "could be the remains of hind legs...," and "a discovery that may provide..." In paragraph three we read, "Scientists believe they later transitioned..." And in the last paragraph is written, "A freak mutation may have caused..." So there indeed are the usual speculative operatives that we would expect to find in an article like this. 4. WHAT IS THE TRUE SCIENCE? There is only the observation of finding a dolphin with an extra set of fins. The rest of the article speaks of unsubstantiated evolutionary speculations. 5. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATE THE CONCLUSIONS? Here we see that the implied and stated conclusions in the article are premature. If the dolphin has not been x-rayed, tested or dissected it would not be possible to make any scientific statements about the fins being "the remains of hind legs." All of the other conclusions are totally speculative as well and simply exhibit the evolutionary bias of those involved in the reporting of the story. As the researcher mentioned in the article, "a freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself..." and that could be close to the truth since the dolphin definitely has genetic information for fins or else it would not have any fins. (Remember all of the fruit fly mutation experiments where flies grew extra wings etc.) It is my opinion that the true science will show that the pre-existing dolphin DNA allowed for the extra fins, not that some unknown evolutionary force "caused the ancient trait to reassert itself." And, if the existing dolphin fins are not legs, it is not likely that the mutational extra fins will exhibit any structural parameters for legs either. Keep the faith and know the truth; for Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) God bless, J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "LUCY IS LOOSE!"
Another indicator of the effect that creation science is having on acceptance of evolutionary philosophies is the current all out efforts by evolutionists to sell and resell their religion to the general public as if it were fact. Natural history museums are upgrading their evolutionary exhibits and retraining their museum guides to contend with creationist questions. Humanists who scream "diversity" and "tolerance" at the tops of their lungs, continue to fight any mention of any alternative origins view to evolution in the public schools. The bones which are found scattered about the plains in Africa and elsewhere and then depicted as human ancestors are usually secreted away indefinitely for study by a select few. One of the most famous of these fossil bone collections has been named "Lucy" and was discovered in Ethiopia in 1974. Lucy (Australopithecus afarenis) which has been seen only twice by the public in Ethiopia is now surprisingly scheduled to travel the world. Even many secular experts describe Lucy as simply an extinct ape. But, Lucy (3 1/2 feet tall) will tour for six years in the United States (Oregonian 10-25-06) and will be touted as a hominid fossil predecessor to humans. One place Lucy evidently will not visit is the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. A Smithsonian spokesman says, "Not only is it not going to come to the [Smithsonian], it is our position that we don't think it should leave Ethiopia." Smithsonian scientists feel certain objects, such as Lucy, are too valuable to travel and should remain in their homes, he said (Associated Press 10-25-06). If this is not sour grapes, then it looks to this observer to be a reinforcement of the previously noted practice of keeping evolutionary "evidence" hidden away from general scutiny. Most evolutionists are surprised to find that polls show that at least 50% of the population still does not buy their fairy tale stories about evolution from a common ancestor, even after nearly 100 years of idea non-competition in the public schools and in the secular media. Their main response to these polls and to the truth of creation science has been and continues to be to simply, yell louder. As Dr. John Morris wrote in Back to Genesis No. 215, November 2006, "Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better." If Lucy makes it to a city convenient to my travels, I do plan to make an effort to see her. It will be very interesting to see, over the next decade, if true science will be able to balance the blaring hype which can be expected from the evolutionists as Lucy is loosed on the public. Could it be that this is the last gasp effort to win general public acceptance of evolution and millions of years? We will soon find out. God bless! J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "Astronomy & Creation"
Creation scientists have for years pointed to the recession of the moon, the rate of decrease in the strength of the earth's magnetic field, the great number of spiral galaxies, and the existence of comets as strong astronomical evidence for a young solar system and universe. Now, as the Hubble telescope and various space exploration programs probe deeper into space, evolutionary astronomers are being surprised by the discovery of mature stars and galaxies everywhere they look. The secular expectation would be that the far away galaxies should exhibit properties of young age. But, they do not and these discoveries cause severe problems for the theories of a 15-20 billion year old universe and for the Big Bang. In the Science News of October 8, 2005 we find an article entitled "Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation Theory is in Peril." The theme of the article is that as far back into the universe that astronomers look, stars and galaxies appear mature. This would support the concept of a mature creation, but not an evolved one. These discoveries added to problems with associated theories of star formation, galaxy formation and planet formation should cause evolutionists to pause in their disparaging criticism of creationist astronomers. All scientists soon learn that good scientific research always results in man's theories constantly changing. But, creation scientists also know that they have access to an Eyewitness whose Word can be relied upon to provide good hints regarding the real truths of the origin of the universe. We would all do well to keep these continuing evolutionary theory failures in mind as we ponder the beauty and glory of the heavens. God provided us with a tremendous General Revelation (all of nature) as well as a Special Revelation (His Word). In Psalm 19 He says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." (NIV) God Bless! J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "Uniformity Is A Joke!"
Without the doctrine of uniformity (i.e. "the present is the key to the past") Charles Darwin probably would not have gone ahead with his hypothesis for evolution through natural selection. In fact, as Darwin was traveling to the Galapagos Islands he first read Charles Lyell's geology book setting forth the uniformitarian philosophy. Today's evolutionary geologists and paleontologists openly subscribe to uniformitarianism so as to justify the millions of years which they need in order for evolution to have a theoretical chance of possibility. In my recent geology exploration trips I have noticed that the evolutionists have to talk out of both sides of their mouths regarding uniformity. For example, at the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument printed hand-outs state: "The idea of some sort of uniformity in nature through time is absolutely basic to the analysis of earth history. Modern geology sees the earth as evolutionary and having changed through an irreversible, or evolutionary chain of cumulative events. The only assumption that we make today is that principles of nature have been uniform through time. We hasten to stress that this uniformity is an assumption that we make about nature and so is a doctrine rather than a logically proven law." As I have studied the geology and paleontology of Central Oregon and The Grand Canyon, I see in those locations tremendous evidence of unusual catastrophe. At those locations one sees evidences of continental sized flood geology, gigantic tectonic events, tremendous volcanism and huge area lava flows. The current secular science geology interpretations at these locations, for the most part, agree that catastrophe is a valid explanation for what is seen. More and more secular interpretations talk of huge floods, volcanoes and earthquakes in the past. But, lacking from the secular interpretations is evidence that these catastrophic and catalclysmic events are like those of today or of human history. The present, therefore, is definitely not the key to the past! However, uniformity must still be adhered to so that the worldwide flood of the Bible can be rejected and so that millions of years can be accepted. These views are held to by some as tightly as any doctrine for any religion ever in existence. The faith of evolution surely is extreme. Yes, the doctrine of uniformity certainly is a very bad joke. J.D. Mitchell, P.E. Back to top "Secular Press Discovers The Creation Museum"
I was recently privileged to tour the nearly completed $25 million Answers in Genesis Creation Museum near the Cincinnati airport. The museum depicts the history of the universe using the "7 C's of History" from the Bible which are Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross and Consummation. In other words, it uses the Bible as a basis for interpreting the past as well as the future. On July 31, Associated Press reporter Dylan T. Loran released a story about the Creation Museum which begins: "Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the Earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve." The article goes on to quote Ken Ham and Mark Looy of Answers in Genesis as well as John Morris of ICR regarding the significance of the museum and its message. As with every secular article written about creationists or creation science the reporter felt obligated to also include a quote from an evolutionist detractor. Mr. Loran not unexpectedly misquotes or misinterprets the creationist basis in the article (more about this later), but overall the article can be seen by creationists as a tremendous promotion for the museum. The various news services that choose to pick up a story like this one evidently have the ability to use whichever headline they wish for the article. I was surprised to see that normally conservative Fox News.com chose a headline which was a total distortion of the article's content. AOL's headline for this article read "Museum Depicts Creationist History" and Comcast.net chose "Museum Tells Earth's History With Bible." I would say that both of these headlines are quite congruent with the article. However, the Fox headline read "'Creation Museum' Seeks to Disprove Evolution, Paleontology, Geology"...which is total nonsense. The evolution-creation dispute, of course, is not about science, paleontology or geology, but is about the interpretation of the various evidences which the scientific researchers in those fields have discovered. The dinosaurs and fossils depicted in the Creation Museum look just like those in the secular natural history museums, but the interpretation presented will be from a biblical worldview rather than an evolutionary worldview. We must always remember that just because secular scientists and others want to define evolution (which must be believed on faith) as science, and creation as religion...does not mean that we have to agree with them. Creationists rely on God determining truth rather than on man determining truth. Both evolution and creation models are indeed faith based but those with a biblical worldview see the paleontological, geological, biological and other science evidences as clearly supporting the position of a young earth and Noah's Flood exactly as described in the Bible. At any rate, I highly recommend the AiG Creation Museum to everyone, but especially to all Christians. Please place a visit on your list of things to see; sooner rather than later. In Christ, J.D. Mitchell Back to top "Do You Have Consistency in Your Worldview?"
|
 |
 |
Copyright (c)2006-2010 Creation Engineering Concepts & OurChurch.com
Web Hosting and Design by OurChurch.Com | Administrator |