Archive of Creation Q&A Articles
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
[body_edit] =>
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => whats-missing-link
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
In the minds of many, creation thinking is marginalized to a "fundamentalist" few. But let's look again.
Listed below are quotes from several great men who cared much about creation. In their writings they not only supported creation, but extended our knowledge of creation. They used creation to teach truth, glorify the Creator, and confront wrong thinking. (This list contains, by the way, some of my favorite creation Scriptures. It could be extended considerably.)
Moses: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2).
David: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork" (Psalm 19:1).
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth" (Psalm 33:6).
Solomon: "The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens" (Proverbs 3:19).
Isaiah: "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of His understanding" (Isaiah 40:28).
"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; Yea, I have made him" (Isaiah 43:7).
Jeremiah: "Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee" (Jeremiah 32:17).
Nehemiah: "Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee" (Nehemiah 9:6).
John: "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
Paul: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17).
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
Peter: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6).
Four and Twenty Elders: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
Angel: "Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7).
* Dr. Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>In the minds of many, creation thinking is marginalized to a "fundamentalist" few. But let's look again.
Listed below are quotes from several great men who cared much about creation. In their writings they not only supported creation, but extended our knowledge of creation. They used creation to teach truth, glorify the Creator, and confront wrong thinking. (This list contains, by the way, some of my favorite creation Scriptures. It could be extended considerably.)
Moses: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2).
David: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork" (Psalm 19:1).
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth" (Psalm 33:6).
Solomon: "The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens" (Proverbs 3:19).
Isaiah: "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of His understanding" (Isaiah 40:28).
"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; Yea, I have made him" (Isaiah 43:7).
Jeremiah: "Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee" (Jeremiah 32:17).
Nehemiah: "Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee" (Nehemiah 9:6).
John: "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
Paul: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17).
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
Peter: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6).
Four and Twenty Elders: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
Angel: "Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7).
* Dr. Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
My years at ICR have been punctuated by numerous creation/evolution debates, but actually my first such debate came as a sophomore in high school. When the issue came up, I was selected to "debate" the class evolutionist.
My opponent began her presentation by defining evolution as simply "change over time." She documented many examples of change in non-living things as well as plants and animals. Even people change over time. We are, on average, taller than our ancestors just a few generations ago. As a population certainly we age. No one could dispute that these changes have occurred, thus she had "proven" that evolution had occurred.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. You simply must define terms carefully. Evolution in the meaningful sense implies big changes, like a fish turning into a person. Has this happened? Do the small changes we observe over time add up to the big changes needed by evolution? Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor then a person? These truly big changes must have occurred if evolution really accounts for all of life.
It's instructive to try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.
Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on.
Step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution, as a concept of everything, is worse than non-science, it is nonsense. The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination. Surely some things simply cannot be.
When a vote was taken as to who won the debate, I came out on top 32-1. The lone vote for evolution was an exchange student from Marxist China, and even he admitted I had the better arguments. He just didn't dare vote against the party line.
Maybe that's the key. It takes a prior, gut-level commitment to evolution to continue to favor it in spite of the weight of evidence to the contrary.
[body_edit] =>
My years at ICR have been punctuated by numerous creation/evolution debates, but actually my first such debate came as a sophomore in high school. When the issue came up, I was selected to "debate" the class evolutionist.
My opponent began her presentation by defining evolution as simply "change over time." She documented many examples of change in non-living things as well as plants and animals. Even people change over time. We are, on average, taller than our ancestors just a few generations ago. As a population certainly we age. No one could dispute that these changes have occurred, thus she had "proven" that evolution had occurred.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. You simply must define terms carefully. Evolution in the meaningful sense implies big changes, like a fish turning into a person. Has this happened? Do the small changes we observe over time add up to the big changes needed by evolution? Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor then a person? These truly big changes must have occurred if evolution really accounts for all of life.
It's instructive to try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.
Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on.
Step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution, as a concept of everything, is worse than non-science, it is nonsense. The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination. Surely some things simply cannot be.
When a vote was taken as to who won the debate, I came out on top 32-1. The lone vote for evolution was an exchange student from Marxist China, and even he admitted I had the better arguments. He just didn't dare vote against the party line.
Maybe that's the key. It takes a prior, gut-level commitment to evolution to continue to favor it in spite of the weight of evidence to the contrary.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => can-small-we-see-add-up-big-changes-needed-for-evo
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
"And the light shineth in darkness; and
the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5)
Common folklore holds that petrification takes "millions and millions of years." Even though every knowledgeable scientist knows differently, this misconception continues. The great ages concept forms the backdrop for the entire evolution worldview, thus there's no desire to lessen the hold "millions and millions of years" has on the lay public. But petrification can and does happen rapidly. At least this argument can and should be removed from evolution's arsenal.
Petrification is that subset of fossilization in which the organic material is encapsulated or replaced by silica. In wood it can best be accomplished by injection of hot, silica-rich water into the wood. The silica fills in the voids left by decaying cells, or, most often, surrounds each cell with an impervious shell, halting all organic activity or decay.
Wood can be petrified in a laboratory in a very short period of time using high pressure injection. Likewise in nature many examples can be given of recent or living objects rapidly petrifying in the presence of silica and hot water. In Yellowstone National Park, hot waters percolating through volcanic ash dissolve the silica contained therein. Trees growing near the bubbling sources naturally draw the waters into their trunks. As the silica penetrates into the pores, organic activity is interrupted, and the tree eventually dies by petrification.
Many, many examples could also be given of human structures, mine timbers, bridge supports, etc., being petrified since their time of emplacement. It obviously doesn't take a long time; it takes the right conditions.
Recently, at a seminar in the state of Washington, I was given a "petrified fence post" pictured above. Subsequent analysis showed that it was definitely petrified wood, had a nail imprint and marks of a strand of barbed wire. It was found along an old fence line probably dating from the late 1800s in an area of central Washington dominated by a thick blanket of volcanic ash. All that remained of the post was a stub four inches long, three inches wide and two inches thick. It was obviously a "worked" piece of wood, for the clearly visible tree rings had been truncated. The log from which it had come was probably two feet or so in diameter, judging from the curvature of the rings.
Does it prove anything? No, not really, but maybe this report will encourage some reader to realize that these long age/evolutionary stories of "millions and millions of years" he's heard over and over again are really just myths. The Biblical truth of creation/flood/young Earth might just be right after all.
[body_edit] =>
"And the light shineth in darkness; and
the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5)
Common folklore holds that petrification takes "millions and millions of years." Even though every knowledgeable scientist knows differently, this misconception continues. The great ages concept forms the backdrop for the entire evolution worldview, thus there's no desire to lessen the hold "millions and millions of years" has on the lay public. But petrification can and does happen rapidly. At least this argument can and should be removed from evolution's arsenal.
Petrification is that subset of fossilization in which the organic material is encapsulated or replaced by silica. In wood it can best be accomplished by injection of hot, silica-rich water into the wood. The silica fills in the voids left by decaying cells, or, most often, surrounds each cell with an impervious shell, halting all organic activity or decay.
Wood can be petrified in a laboratory in a very short period of time using high pressure injection. Likewise in nature many examples can be given of recent or living objects rapidly petrifying in the presence of silica and hot water. In Yellowstone National Park, hot waters percolating through volcanic ash dissolve the silica contained therein. Trees growing near the bubbling sources naturally draw the waters into their trunks. As the silica penetrates into the pores, organic activity is interrupted, and the tree eventually dies by petrification.
Many, many examples could also be given of human structures, mine timbers, bridge supports, etc., being petrified since their time of emplacement. It obviously doesn't take a long time; it takes the right conditions.
Recently, at a seminar in the state of Washington, I was given a "petrified fence post" pictured above. Subsequent analysis showed that it was definitely petrified wood, had a nail imprint and marks of a strand of barbed wire. It was found along an old fence line probably dating from the late 1800s in an area of central Washington dominated by a thick blanket of volcanic ash. All that remained of the post was a stub four inches long, three inches wide and two inches thick. It was obviously a "worked" piece of wood, for the clearly visible tree rings had been truncated. The log from which it had come was probably two feet or so in diameter, judging from the curvature of the rings.
Does it prove anything? No, not really, but maybe this report will encourage some reader to realize that these long age/evolutionary stories of "millions and millions of years" he's heard over and over again are really just myths. The Biblical truth of creation/flood/young Earth might just be right after all.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => are-human-artifacts-ever-petrified
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
Within each separate lineage there is some variety, but separateness is the rule. There is no evidence for common ancestry. The "branches" and the "trunk" are non-existent. Rather than a continuous out-folding of new and ever more complex life, we see complexity at the start which continues into the present with some extinction along the way.
No new basic types since the start? How could anything be more embarrassing to evolution theory? The fossil record stands as stark confirmation of creation, not evolution. The only question which remains is when will this demonstrably false piece of propaganda be removed from our textbooks?
[body_edit] =>"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." (I Corinthians 3:19)You see it in every textbook dealing with evolution. There it is, a "tree" implying that life began as a single organism (which itself developed from non-living chemicals). And over time, through completely natural processes such as mutations and natural selection, it branched into the wide variety of life we see in the modern world and in the fossil record. The tree appeared in Darwin's book Origin of Species, as the only illustration. All of life has come from that common ancestor through "descent with modification" over hundreds of millions of years, until now there is a multitude of life forms, all related to one another with the common ancestor at the root of the tree. But does the evidence support this idea, or is it simply a statement of evolutionary dogma?
The evidential support for the branching tree of life certainly cannot be found in the fossil record. Experts readily admit that the fossils record a different history, but textbook writers often ignore the facts, presenting the tree as if it were a non-controversial fact. Thus students are brainwashed into believing it, and indeed that the entire evolutionary worldview has a strong root.
Rather than starting as one form (or a few) and branching into many, all knowledgeable scientists know that the fossil evidence demonstrates a sudden appearance of life in the lowest (i.e., the oldest) layer of strata containing multi-cellular fossils. Termed the "Cambrian Explosion," this layer contains well-preserved fossils of nearly every phyla (basic body type) which ever lived, from hard-shelled clams, to soft-bodied jellyfish, to now-extinct trilobites—even vertebrate fish. Extensive Cambrian layers are underlain by equally extensive and undisturbed pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock, just right for fossil preservation, but which contain only occasionally single-celled organisms, but no ancestors for any of the abundant array of complex marine creatures in the Cambrian! Some are extinct, but essentially nothing has developed ever since the start. Thus, the evolutionary tree is turned upside down.
Within each separate lineage there is some variety, but separateness is the rule. There is no evidence for common ancestry. The "branches" and the "trunk" are non-existent. Rather than a continuous out-folding of new and ever more complex life, we see complexity at the start which continues into the present with some extinction along the way.
No new basic types since the start? How could anything be more embarrassing to evolution theory? The fossil record stands as stark confirmation of creation, not evolution. The only question which remains is when will this demonstrably false piece of propaganda be removed from our textbooks?
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => what-grows-evolutions-tree [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Skeptics ridicule many portions of Scripture and let's face it—some of them are difficult to believe. Certainly one that has received a major dose of such ridicule deals with Jonah and the whale (or great fish). How could a whale or fish swallow a man whole? How could a man survive in such an environment for any length of time? As always, there are answers to the questions if we are willing to study and believe.
First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).
What kind of animal swallowed Jonah? In the passage above, the Greek word translated "whale" actually means a huge fish or sea monster. In the passage in Jonah (1:17; 2:1,10), the Hebrew word was the normal word for "fish," but here the word is modified by the word great. Our modern taxonomic system places whales among the mammals, sharks, among the fish and plesiosaurs among the reptiles, but, the Bible uses a different system. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." (I Corinthians 15:39).
Evidently any living thing other than the creeping things (Psalm 104:25) in the seas is placed in the category of "fishes". In addition, there are several species of whale and of sharks alive today with gullets large enough to swallow a man whole. Among extinct animals like the plesiosaurs, the same could be said, and perhaps this was a heretofore unknown fish of large size. The point is, the story is not impossible. However, most importantly, the Bible says that "the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:17). Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.
Could a man survive in a fish’s belly? The Hebrew idiom "three days and three nights" has been clearly shown both from Scripture and other sources to mean a period of time beginning on one day and ending on the day after the one following. It doesn't necessarily mean three full days and nights.
Furthermore, there have been several reported cases of modern sailors or other individuals swallowed by such an animal, only to be recovered many hours later.
But again, this story involves the miraculous. It may be that Jonah actually died and was resurrected by God. This is implied in his description of his experience especially Jonah 2:2. Of course, resurrection is "impossible" but it clearly happened on several occasions in Scripture requiring miraculous input. To deny the possibility of miracles, especially those miracles specifically mentioned in Scripture, is to deny the existence of God, and this is not an option for a Christian.
The point is nothing about the story is totally impossible: There are "fish" large enough to swallow a man; men have been known to survive inside a "fish"; the Bible says it really happened; Christ said Jonah’s experience was an analogy of His own death and resurrection; and God is alive and capable of this feat.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
Skeptics ridicule many portions of Scripture and let's face it—some of them are difficult to believe. Certainly one that has received a major dose of such ridicule deals with Jonah and the whale (or great fish). How could a whale or fish swallow a man whole? How could a man survive in such an environment for any length of time? As always, there are answers to the questions if we are willing to study and believe.
First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).
What kind of animal swallowed Jonah? In the passage above, the Greek word translated "whale" actually means a huge fish or sea monster. In the passage in Jonah (1:17; 2:1,10), the Hebrew word was the normal word for "fish," but here the word is modified by the word great. Our modern taxonomic system places whales among the mammals, sharks, among the fish and plesiosaurs among the reptiles, but, the Bible uses a different system. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." ( I Corinthians 15:39).
Evidently any living thing other than the creeping things (Psalm 104:25) in the seas is placed in the category of "fishes". In addition, there are several species of whale and of sharks alive today with gullets large enough to swallow a man whole. Among extinct animals like the plesiosaurs, the same could be said, and perhaps this was a heretofore unknown fish of large size. The point is, the story is not impossible. However, most importantly, the Bible says that "the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:17). Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.
Could a man survive in a fish’s belly? The Hebrew idiom "three days and three nights" has been clearly shown both from Scripture and other sources to mean a period of time beginning on one day and ending on the day after the one following. It doesn't necessarily mean three full days and nights.
Furthermore, there have been several reported cases of modern sailors or other individuals swallowed by such an animal, only to be recovered many hours later.
But again, this story involves the miraculous. It may be that Jonah actually died and was resurrected by God. This is implied in his description of his experience especially Jonah 2:2. Of course, resurrection is "impossible" but it clearly happened on several occasions in Scripture requiring miraculous input. To deny the possibility of miracles, especially those miracles specifically mentioned in Scripture, is to deny the existence of God, and this is not an option for a Christian.
The point is nothing about the story is totally impossible: There are "fish" large enough to swallow a man; men have been known to survive inside a "fish"; the Bible says it really happened; Christ said Jonah’s experience was an analogy of His own death and resurrection; and God is alive and capable of this feat.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => did-jonah-really-get-swallowed-by-whale
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
One of the most interesting passages in Genesis is that found in Genesis 10:25, where it mentions an individual named Peleg, and says, "in his days was the earth divided."
The word translated "divided" is used only a few times in the Old Testament, including a parallel passage in I Chronicles 1:19. Interestingly, the name Peleg is quite similar to the Hebrew word "divided" (Palag).
There have been many treatments of the verse. One suggests that "divided" implies "surveyed" as in divided into grids. Could the early post-Flood inhabitants have explored and mapped the new earth, so radically different from the pre-Flood earth? There are ancient maps and traditions of far-away continents.
Another deals with the possibility of continental separation. Geologists have marshaled much evidence that the continents were once together.
But while continental separation is well supported, it is still unproven, and very likely unprovable. Many competing concepts have been proposed in the geologic literature, and serious difficulties remain, the weightiest of which is the lack of a sufficient mechanism to move the continents. In fact, the most viable concepts are coming from young-earth creationists, employing the overall Flood scenario as the mechanism and timing for the separation. At least the destruction of the earth's surface at the time of the Flood has the potential to move continents!
But any scheme of rapid separation would itself cause havoc on the earth. If the Atlantic Ocean opened up rapidly, the destructive tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes would make life impossible on earth.
For this reason, I am convinced that Genesis 10:25 should not be understood to imply that "In the days of Peleg the Atlantic Ocean opened up." This would have caused devastation comparable to Noah's Flood, and the Bible has no mention of it. If the continents separated, they did so during Noah's Flood.
The traditional interpretation relates Peleg's day to the division of language/family groups at the Tower of Babel. Comparing the lineage of Shem, which includes Peleg, to the lineage of Ham, which includes Nimrod, leader of the rebellion at Babel, we find it likely that Peleg was born soon after the dispersion (assuming the genealogies are complete). Thus it would have been reasonable for his father Eber to name a son in commemoration of this miraculous event.
One "separator" did occur sometime after the dispersion. The Ice Age, which followed the Flood, would have caused sea level to be an estimated 600 feet lower than today, since such a great volume of water was trapped as ice on the continents. Such a lowering of today's seas would reconnect the continents once again. The connected continents would have aided in both animal and human migration following both the Flood and the dispersion, as commanded by God (Genesis 8:17; 11:4,8,9). Then the ending of the Ice Age and the melting of the ice sheets would cause sea level to rise, covering the land bridges and "dividing" the continents after migration had occurred.
Perhaps this is what happened "in the days of Peleg."
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>One of the most interesting passages in Genesis is that found in Genesis 10:25, where it mentions an individual named Peleg, and says, "in his days was the earth divided."
The word translated "divided" is used only a few times in the Old Testament, including a parallel passage in I Chronicles 1:19. Interestingly, the name Peleg is quite similar to the Hebrew word "divided" (Palag).
There have been many treatments of the verse. One suggests that "divided" implies "surveyed" as in divided into grids. Could the early post-Flood inhabitants have explored and mapped the new earth, so radically different from the pre-Flood earth? There are ancient maps and traditions of far-away continents.
Another deals with the possibility of continental separation. Geologists have marshaled much evidence that the continents were once together.
But while continental separation is well supported, it is still unproven, and very likely unprovable. Many competing concepts have been proposed in the geologic literature, and serious difficulties remain, the weightiest of which is the lack of a sufficient mechanism to move the continents. In fact, the most viable concepts are coming from young-earth creationists, employing the overall Flood scenario as the mechanism and timing for the separation. At least the destruction of the earth's surface at the time of the Flood has the potential to move continents!
But any scheme of rapid separation would itself cause havoc on the earth. If the Atlantic Ocean opened up rapidly, the destructive tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes would make life impossible on earth.
For this reason, I am convinced that Genesis 10:25 should not be understood to imply that "In the days of Peleg the Atlantic Ocean opened up." This would have caused devastation comparable to Noah's Flood, and the Bible has no mention of it. If the continents separated, they did so during Noah's Flood.
The traditional interpretation relates Peleg's day to the division of language/family groups at the Tower of Babel. Comparing the lineage of Shem, which includes Peleg, to the lineage of Ham, which includes Nimrod, leader of the rebellion at Babel, we find it likely that Peleg was born soon after the dispersion (assuming the genealogies are complete). Thus it would have been reasonable for his father Eber to name a son in commemoration of this miraculous event.
One "separator" did occur sometime after the dispersion. The Ice Age, which followed the Flood, would have caused sea level to be an estimated 600 feet lower than today, since such a great volume of water was trapped as ice on the continents. Such a lowering of today's seas would reconnect the continents once again. The connected continents would have aided in both animal and human migration following both the Flood and the dispersion, as commanded by God (Genesis 8:17; 11:4,8,9). Then the ending of the Ice Age and the melting of the ice sheets would cause sea level to rise, covering the land bridges and "dividing" the continents after migration had occurred.
Perhaps this is what happened "in the days of Peleg."
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => what-happened-days-peleg [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The blockbuster movie, "Jurassic Park," has captured the nation's fancy this summer, backed by an extensive media campaign. Central to the movie is the idea that mosquitoes, living in the Jurassic period (some 155 to 200 million years ago according to the evolutionist) were entombed in amber (fossilized tree resin) after having bitten dinosaurs. The dinosaur-blood DNA was so well preserved that scientists could clone living dinosaurs!
Is this a possible scenario? It must first be recognized that cloning successes have been realized only within living species. The best results reported are when the nucleus is removed from a female's egg cell, and the nucleus (which contains the DNA) from another type of cell of a different individual of the same species is substituted. On occasion, the embryo grows, following normal development, but frequently the offspring is badly malformed. Among the requirements for success is that the egg and the substituted DNA be from the same species, and that the growth must occur within an egg cell.
Advances in this field have been spectacular, and much research is still going on. Breakthroughs are perhaps forthcoming which will produce more significant results, but as of yet, cloning of large animals remains science fiction.
The next question to be addressed, Is it possible for DNA to be preserved for a long period of time? Some recent discoveries do hint of this. Fossilized leaves and trees have been found which contain remnants of DNA, and tiny remnants of DNA from insects trapped in amber have been extracted, but the entire DNA sequence has never been observed in fossils.
Recent laboratory studies (Nature, vol. 352, 1 August 1991, p. 381) have shown that DNA will break down all by itself. Without the repair mechanism of a living cell, it self-destructs at a rapid rate. Under even the most favorable conditions, it could not remain beyond 10,000 years or so (at least this is what true scientific observations show, as opposed to scientific speculations or science fiction).
The last question: How old are these fossils, and how old is the "dinosaur blood?" The fossil leaves, trees, and insects are thought to be millions of years old, and pose a dilemma for science. The preservation of DNA for so long goes against the observed and measured DNA-breakdown rate. And dinosaurs? All scientists whose articles I have read have agreed that the idea of dinosaur DNA remaining intact in a complete-enough state for cloning will always remain a fairy tale. No advances in technology are likely ever to bridge that gap.
The creation/flood/young-earth model involves a different set of parameters. In this model, the fossils aren't so old, and were rapidly buried—conditions optimum for preservation. Even post-flood fossils aren't so old, but complete DNA molecules would still be extremely unlikely.
So, in order to clone dinosaurs, we need perfectly preserved and complete dinosaur DNA (which we don't have), and a living mother dinosaur to provide the living egg cell (which we also don't have and aren't going to have). The point is, don't lose any sleep over cloned dinosaurs!
You might be more concerned with the scientific community. How long will they continue to allow Hollywood to use fairytale just to promote evolution?
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
The blockbuster movie, "Jurassic Park," has captured the nation's fancy this summer, backed by an extensive media campaign. Central to the movie is the idea that mosquitoes, living in the Jurassic period (some 155 to 200 million years ago according to the evolutionist) were entombed in amber (fossilized tree resin) after having bitten dinosaurs. The dinosaur-blood DNA was so well preserved that scientists could clone living dinosaurs!
Is this a possible scenario? It must first be recognized that cloning successes have been realized only within living species. The best results reported are when the nucleus is removed from a female's egg cell, and the nucleus (which contains the DNA) from another type of cell of a different individual of the same species is substituted. On occasion, the embryo grows, following normal development, but frequently the offspring is badly malformed. Among the requirements for success is that the egg and the substituted DNA be from the same species, and that the growth must occur within an egg cell.
Advances in this field have been spectacular, and much research is still going on. Breakthroughs are perhaps forthcoming which will produce more significant results, but as of yet, cloning of large animals remains science fiction.
The next question to be addressed, Is it possible for DNA to be preserved for a long period of time? Some recent discoveries do hint of this. Fossilized leaves and trees have been found which contain remnants of DNA, and tiny remnants of DNA from insects trapped in amber have been extracted, but the entire DNA sequence has never been observed in fossils.
Recent laboratory studies (Nature, vol. 352, 1 August 1991, p. 381) have shown that DNA will break down all by itself. Without the repair mechanism of a living cell, it self-destructs at a rapid rate. Under even the most favorable conditions, it could not remain beyond 10,000 years or so (at least this is what true scientific observations show, as opposed to scientific speculations or science fiction).
The last question: How old are these fossils, and how old is the "dinosaur blood?" The fossil leaves, trees, and insects are thought to be millions of years old, and pose a dilemma for science. The preservation of DNA for so long goes against the observed and measured DNA-breakdown rate. And dinosaurs? All scientists whose articles I have read have agreed that the idea of dinosaur DNA remaining intact in a complete-enough state for cloning will always remain a fairy tale. No advances in technology are likely ever to bridge that gap.
The creation/flood/young-earth model involves a different set of parameters. In this model, the fossils aren't so old, and were rapidly buried—conditions optimum for preservation. Even post-flood fossils aren't so old, but complete DNA molecules would still be extremely unlikely.
So, in order to clone dinosaurs, we need perfectly preserved and complete dinosaur DNA (which we don't have), and a living mother dinosaur to provide the living egg cell (which we also don't have and aren't going to have). The point is, don't lose any sleep over cloned dinosaurs!
You might be more concerned with the scientific community. How long will they continue to allow Hollywood to use fairytale just to promote evolution?
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => could-dinosaurs-be-cloned [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Each year ICR sponsors a tour called "Grand Canyon Adventure." After an opening seminar in Phoenix and "mini-lectures" on the Canyon rim, a number of us joined a regularly scheduled nature walk and lecture along the rim, led by a very nice young ranger. The story he told about the formation of the Canyon was predictable, with a few minor variations. But we had already given lectures on this subject, explaining the weaknesses in the traditional "story."
To the group's amazement, the ranger did not seem to understand even what he was saying! He said that radiometric dating can be used to date the limestone layers; that off-shore deposits can be uplifted out of water over millions of years with no erosion and that the fossils in the Canyon show a clear progression of evolution from bottom to top. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand the weaknesses in his story, nor did the rest of the crowd of tourists standing around.
From time to time he asked for a response, and someone would attempt to parrot back what they had been taught in class or learned from tourist brochures or PBS specials. Especially one young boy, around 10 years of age. Obviously bright and interested in science, his misconceptions understandably were significant, but all those around complimented and encouraged him for being able to rephrase what he had been told. If a ranger, scientist, teacher, documentary, or newspaper tells it, it must be true. Memorize and repeat!
I remember a prior Grand Canyon trip—this time on a hiking trail. One of the participants was an older lady who, in her younger years, had been a ranger at Grand Canyon. She had been taught the "story" and how to teach it. She knew how to wave her arms and talk of millions and billions of years. She revealed that she and the other ranger/story-tellers viewed their public lectures as entertainment. Tourists come to the Canyon fully expecting to be entertained and awed with talk of vast time, and slow processes, and big words they don't understand—all part of the wonder of national parks. The rangers may not know or believe the story, but people expect it.
But this dear lady, a ranger at the time, through the witness of some Christian friends, had come to know the Lord as her personal Savior one night on the rim. Nobody talked about the Canyon, or creation, or her job, but the next morning when she went out to "tell the story," somehow she knew it wasn't true. The words simply wouldn't come. Within a few weeks she had resigned from the Park Service and ever since had been searching for answers. How precious to see her 30-year-old questions answered, satisfying both mind and spirit.
The story rangers tell today has changed somewhat. They take seminars in how to deflect difficult questions from creationists and Christians. And lately the story includes the evils of "man" and the "deification" of nature. The "story" still contains bad science, but uses the opportunity to teach borderline pantheism—another story rangers are taught and which people expect to hear.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Each year ICR sponsors a tour called "Grand Canyon Adventure." After an opening seminar in Phoenix and "mini-lectures" on the Canyon rim, a number of us joined a regularly scheduled nature walk and lecture along the rim, led by a very nice young ranger. The story he told about the formation of the Canyon was predictable, with a few minor variations. But we had already given lectures on this subject, explaining the weaknesses in the traditional "story."
To the group's amazement, the ranger did not seem to understand even what he was saying! He said that radiometric dating can be used to date the limestone layers; that off-shore deposits can be uplifted out of water over millions of years with no erosion and that the fossils in the Canyon show a clear progression of evolution from bottom to top. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand the weaknesses in his story, nor did the rest of the crowd of tourists standing around.
From time to time he asked for a response, and someone would attempt to parrot back what they had been taught in class or learned from tourist brochures or PBS specials. Especially one young boy, around 10 years of age. Obviously bright and interested in science, his misconceptions understandably were significant, but all those around complimented and encouraged him for being able to rephrase what he had been told. If a ranger, scientist, teacher, documentary, or newspaper tells it, it must be true. Memorize and repeat!
I remember a prior Grand Canyon trip—this time on a hiking trail. One of the participants was an older lady who, in her younger years, had been a ranger at Grand Canyon. She had been taught the "story" and how to teach it. She knew how to wave her arms and talk of millions and billions of years. She revealed that she and the other ranger/story-tellers viewed their public lectures as entertainment. Tourists come to the Canyon fully expecting to be entertained and awed with talk of vast time, and slow processes, and big words they don't understand—all part of the wonder of national parks. The rangers may not know or believe the story, but people expect it.
But this dear lady, a ranger at the time, through the witness of some Christian friends, had come to know the Lord as her personal Savior one night on the rim. Nobody talked about the Canyon, or creation, or her job, but the next morning when she went out to "tell the story," somehow she knew it wasn't true. The words simply wouldn't come. Within a few weeks she had resigned from the Park Service and ever since had been searching for answers. How precious to see her 30-year-old questions answered, satisfying both mind and spirit.
The story rangers tell today has changed somewhat. They take seminars in how to deflect difficult questions from creationists and Christians. And lately the story includes the evils of "man" and the "deification" of nature. The "story" still contains bad science, but uses the opportunity to teach borderline pantheism—another story rangers are taught and which people expect to hear.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-park-rangers-tell-credible-story [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories.
On Day Five (Genesis 1:20-23) God created marine life and flying animals, but animals such as the plesiosaur and flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs. However, the Bible does mention "great whales" (v. 21) literally "great sea monsters" or "great dragons." Such terms bring up images of beasts reminiscent of modern re-constructions of dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles.
Day Six saw land animals created (vs. 24-31). Since dinosaurs were land creatures of a variety of sizes and habits, they would be included among the various "kinds" of "living creatures": the "cattle" or domesticated animals; the "creeping things" or small animals; and the "beasts of the earth", the large animals. They were of necessity air-breathing and land-dwelling.
At first, everything was "very good" (v. 31), but soon sin entered, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3) and, eventually, Noah's Flood (Genesis 6-9). Noah was told to take on board the Ark two of each kind of created animal "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (7:22), including, no doubt, dinosaurs.
Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.
In fact, "dragon legends" are best understood as the faded and/or embellished memories of real human encounters with dragons. Sober historians from Herodotus to Marco Polo to Alexander the Great and many others appear to be relating such encounters, and their descriptions of these beasts sound like dinosaurs. Likewise, American-indian stories of the "thunderbird" sound like a giant flying reptile, and some of their cave drawings resemble dinosaurs.
The barest possibility exists that some land dinosaurs could still be alive, as reported by certain rain-forest inhabitants, but more likely they are all extinct.
There is much we don't know about dinosaurs, but the evidence fits the Biblical model well. Evolutionists, however, have difficulty explaining away dragon legends, cave drawings, and even modern "sightings." Furthermore, they can't explain either their demise or their evolution. The "just-so" stories they tell are inferior to a reconstruction of the past based on the Bible.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories.
On Day Five (Genesis 1:20-23) God created marine life and flying animals, but animals such as the plesiosaur and flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs. However, the Bible does mention "great whales" (v. 21) literally "great sea monsters" or "great dragons." Such terms bring up images of beasts reminiscent of modern re-constructions of dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles.
Day Six saw land animals created (vs. 24-31). Since dinosaurs were land creatures of a variety of sizes and habits, they would be included among the various "kinds" of "living creatures": the "cattle" or domesticated animals; the "creeping things" or small animals; and the "beasts of the earth", the large animals. They were of necessity air-breathing and land-dwelling.
At first, everything was "very good" (v. 31), but soon sin entered, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3) and, eventually, Noah's Flood (Genesis 6-9). Noah was told to take on board the Ark two of each kind of created animal "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (7:22), including, no doubt, dinosaurs.
Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.
In fact, "dragon legends" are best understood as the faded and/or embellished memories of real human encounters with dragons. Sober historians from Herodotus to Marco Polo to Alexander the Great and many others appear to be relating such encounters, and their descriptions of these beasts sound like dinosaurs. Likewise, American-indian stories of the "thunderbird" sound like a giant flying reptile, and some of their cave drawings resemble dinosaurs.
The barest possibility exists that some land dinosaurs could still be alive, as reported by certain rain-forest inhabitants, but more likely they are all extinct.
There is much we don't know about dinosaurs, but the evidence fits the Biblical model well. Evolutionists, however, have difficulty explaining away dragon legends, cave drawings, and even modern "sightings." Furthermore, they can't explain either their demise or their evolution. The "just-so" stories they tell are inferior to a reconstruction of the past based on the Bible.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-dinosaurs-survive-flood [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
We often state that Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture, and without a good foundation the rest won't make much sense. Unfortunately, Christians are typically poorly taught in these concepts, and thus have difficulty in formulating and implementing the Biblical world view as it relates to society as well as doctrines built on creation.
But how about scientific research? Can we do better science and understand the past better by going "Back to Genesis"? Before answering, let me point out several truisms regarding science. First, we can never have all the pertinent data. The data we do have exist in the present, and are studied in the present via the scientific method. When dealing with creation and/or evolution, we are attempting to reconstruct past events by interpreting evidence, which exists in the present, the results of past events, which were not observed and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the interpretation of any set of facts relies, to a great extent, on one's view of the past held before studying the present data. And finally, proving any view of the past is quite impossible. We can, however, compare competing views.
If one holds to a naturalistic worldview, that person will interpret all data within that scheme. Data alone cannot force a change of perspective. But if one holds that the supernatural events given in Scripture really occurred, (i.e., Creation, Fall, Flood, miracles, etc.) then the present data will be interpreted within that model.
The Flood of Noah's day, if it happened the way the Bible says, would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils). In order to fully understand the rocks and fossils, we must first recognize this.
When we do, we will be able to make "predications" about the geologic data. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.
And that's exactly what we do see. In fact, almost all geologists have adopted a much more catastrophic stance in recent years, proposing interpretations as turbidities, basal conglomerates, etc. Individual beds are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale, not local, like modern deposits. Erosion in the past, producing large river valleys, peneplains, and incised meanders was quite different from modern erosion, which accomplishes comparatively little. Almost all mountain chains and volcanic episodes occurred more recently than the major depositional episodes.
We can't prove Noah's Flood scientifically, but we can show that the evidence, properly interpreted, points to a global, catastrophic event like Noah's Flood. The evidence is compatible with Biblical history. It is exactly as it should be, if the Bible is true.
By going "Back to Genesis," we can make sense of the geologic evidence. Conversely, if one denies the Flood as history, the evidence is difficult to interpret. The Biblical framework works in science, and strengthens our faith in God and His Word.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>We often state that Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture, and without a good foundation the rest won't make much sense. Unfortunately, Christians are typically poorly taught in these concepts, and thus have difficulty in formulating and implementing the Biblical world view as it relates to society as well as doctrines built on creation.
But how about scientific research? Can we do better science and understand the past better by going "Back to Genesis"? Before answering, let me point out several truisms regarding science. First, we can never have all the pertinent data. The data we do have exist in the present, and are studied in the present via the scientific method. When dealing with creation and/or evolution, we are attempting to reconstruct past events by interpreting evidence, which exists in the present, the results of past events, which were not observed and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the interpretation of any set of facts relies, to a great extent, on one's view of the past held before studying the present data. And finally, proving any view of the past is quite impossible. We can, however, compare competing views.
If one holds to a naturalistic worldview, that person will interpret all data within that scheme. Data alone cannot force a change of perspective. But if one holds that the supernatural events given in Scripture really occurred, (i.e., Creation, Fall, Flood, miracles, etc.) then the present data will be interpreted within that model.
The Flood of Noah's day, if it happened the way the Bible says, would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils). In order to fully understand the rocks and fossils, we must first recognize this.
When we do, we will be able to make "predications" about the geologic data. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.
And that's exactly what we do see. In fact, almost all geologists have adopted a much more catastrophic stance in recent years, proposing interpretations as turbidities, basal conglomerates, etc. Individual beds are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale, not local, like modern deposits. Erosion in the past, producing large river valleys, peneplains, and incised meanders was quite different from modern erosion, which accomplishes comparatively little. Almost all mountain chains and volcanic episodes occurred more recently than the major depositional episodes.
We can't prove Noah's Flood scientifically, but we can show that the evidence, properly interpreted, points to a global, catastrophic event like Noah's Flood. The evidence is compatible with Biblical history. It is exactly as it should be, if the Bible is true.
By going "Back to Genesis," we can make sense of the geologic evidence. Conversely, if one denies the Flood as history, the evidence is difficult to interpret. The Biblical framework works in science, and strengthens our faith in God and His Word.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => can-science-go-back-genesis [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Whether or not they approve of it, almost everyone in America knows of the search for the remains of Noah's Ark. Many books have been printed on the subject, several movies have been produced, and uncounted lectures have been given. It would be hard not to know that hundreds of people have claimed to have seen the remains over the years and dozens of expeditions have gone in search of it.
Some think the Ark will never be found, that God would not allow it because people might worship it or that such obvious evidence would eliminate the need for faith. Others think the Ark has already been found, although in my opinion, they are mistaken. Still others, including myself, think the search should continue, following every lead.
Regardless of the chances of finding the Ark, we can speculate on the results of a successful search—the discovery and documentation of the Ark of Noah in such a way that anyone with an open mind would have to deal with it. In my opinion, the potential good far outweighs the potential bad, in several areas:
Archaeological: Noah's Flood, as described in Scripture, would have totally destroyed the surface of the planet. No civilization could survive except perhaps in the form of rare artifacts. Noah's Ark thus constitutes the one remaining link to the pre-Flood world.
Biblical: No event in Scripture is doubted as much as the Flood. To find it so clearly demonstrated by a discovery would silence the detractors and increase the faith of many.
Scientific: Evolution inevitably, although to varying degrees, rests on the assumption of uniformity, that "the present is the key to the past." Its basic tenet is that there has never been any episode of earth history dramatically different from episodes possible today, and that by studying the present, we can come to important conclusions about the past. There is no room in this view for a mountain-covering, global flood. To find the Ark at a high elevation would destroy the very concept of uniformity, the basic assumption upon which evolution rests. It would probably ring the death knell of evolutionism.
Theological: Noah's Flood was itself a judgment on sin—that of the pre-Flood civilization. God could not (and cannot) allow sin to go unpunished. Noah's Ark was the means by which the few believers were "saved," i.e., Noah and his family. By calling attention to the past judgment on sin and the past Ark of safety, many minds would be focused on the coming judgment on sin and on our present-day Ark of Safety, Jesus Christ.
God has always used evidence to remove roadblocks to faith. Christ didn't ask His disciples to believe in the resurrection just because He had told them it would happen. He appeared unto them to remove their doubts.
The faith that God requires is not faith in the Ark story or even blind faith in creation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. He has provided ample evidence for these great historic events, so that our faith is a reasonable one. The faith necessary for salvation is faith that His death paid the penalty for our sins.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
Whether or not they approve of it, almost everyone in America knows of the search for the remains of Noah's Ark. Many books have been printed on the subject, several movies have been produced, and uncounted lectures have been given. It would be hard not to know that hundreds of people have claimed to have seen the remains over the years and dozens of expeditions have gone in search of it.
Some think the Ark will never be found, that God would not allow it because people might worship it or that such obvious evidence would eliminate the need for faith. Others think the Ark has already been found, although in my opinion, they are mistaken. Still others, including myself, think the search should continue, following every lead.
Regardless of the chances of finding the Ark, we can speculate on the results of a successful search—the discovery and documentation of the Ark of Noah in such a way that anyone with an open mind would have to deal with it. In my opinion, the potential good far outweighs the potential bad, in several areas:
Archaeological: Noah's Flood, as described in Scripture, would have totally destroyed the surface of the planet. No civilization could survive except perhaps in the form of rare artifacts. Noah's Ark thus constitutes the one remaining link to the pre-Flood world.
Biblical: No event in Scripture is doubted as much as the Flood. To find it so clearly demonstrated by a discovery would silence the detractors and increase the faith of many.
Scientific: Evolution inevitably, although to varying degrees, rests on the assumption of uniformity, that "the present is the key to the past." Its basic tenet is that there has never been any episode of earth history dramatically different from episodes possible today, and that by studying the present, we can come to important conclusions about the past. There is no room in this view for a mountain-covering, global flood. To find the Ark at a high elevation would destroy the very concept of uniformity, the basic assumption upon which evolution rests. It would probably ring the death knell of evolutionism.
Theological: Noah's Flood was itself a judgment on sin—that of the pre-Flood civilization. God could not (and cannot) allow sin to go unpunished. Noah's Ark was the means by which the few believers were "saved," i.e., Noah and his family. By calling attention to the past judgment on sin and the past Ark of safety, many minds would be focused on the coming judgment on sin and on our present-day Ark of Safety, Jesus Christ.
God has always used evidence to remove roadblocks to faith. Christ didn't ask His disciples to believe in the resurrection just because He had told them it would happen. He appeared unto them to remove their doubts.
The faith that God requires is not faith in the Ark story or even blind faith in creation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. He has provided ample evidence for these great historic events, so that our faith is a reasonable one. The faith necessary for salvation is faith that His death paid the penalty for our sins.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => would-discovery-noahs-ark-do-any-good
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
When I was in Moscow a couple of years ago, I lectured to a large group of biology teachers and museum curators at the Museum of Biology in Moscow. After my talk, which was enthusiastically received by all present (except the two Ph.D.'s from the nearby Museum of Evolution), I was given a tour of the museum. Hundreds of school students visit each day, in addition to others of the public. Thus the exhibits were geared to convince students that there is no doubt about evolution—a vital point in Communist education.
One exhibit (in the Darwin Room) was especially effective. As gruesome as it seems, newborn babies, in jars of formaldehyde, were displayed, all of whom exhibited some abnormality which seemed to be a "throwback" to animal ancestry.
One baby had several pairs of nipples in a "nipple line," showing relationship to a dog or pig. Another baby was covered with hair, and was called a "monkey baby." Still another had a "tail." There is no doubt, they believe—humans descended from animals.
This was not my first exposure to such evidences. I had been forced to seek out an answer when all three points were brought out in a debate against a biology professor in Long Beach, California.
As it turns out, evolutionists who know something about these problems don't consider them to be an argument for evolution. Instead, these abnormalities represent fetal development problems, and have nothing at all to do with ancestry. Even more serious abnormalities do occur in a host of expressions, which bear no resemblance at all to any possible ancestor.
You see, almost every cell in the developing fetus (and in the adult body) contains the complete genetic code. Thus each cell possesses, in principle, the information necessary to grow into muscle, bone, teeth, blood, nerve, or organ.
Normal development requires an amazing sequence of events. Growth of each component must occur at the proper time and to the proper extent. Throughout the growth, a variety of proteins are secreted which trigger the growth. The lack of the protein trigger, or the improper amount, or faulty timing will produce abnormal development. The marvelous DNA code oversees and governs this development in a healthy environment.
But if the environment undergoes some sort of shock, this intricate sequence could be interrupted. Examples of this shock might be due to malnutrition, or be drug induced, or temperature related, or even due to physical impact.
The most important thing to remember is that the damaged information which produced these developmental abnormalities is not usually present in the reproductive cells, and thus is not passed on to offspring. A person born with multiple nipples can grow to maturity and have children, and their children would have no greater likelihood of having multiple nipples than any other child has. Since the expressed trait is not inherited, it obviously was not inherited from one's ancestors, whether animal or not.
Why, then, is this used as evidence for evolution? Beats me! I guess there's just nothing better to use.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
When I was in Moscow a couple of years ago, I lectured to a large group of biology teachers and museum curators at the Museum of Biology in Moscow. After my talk, which was enthusiastically received by all present (except the two Ph.D.'s from the nearby Museum of Evolution), I was given a tour of the museum. Hundreds of school students visit each day, in addition to others of the public. Thus the exhibits were geared to convince students that there is no doubt about evolution—a vital point in Communist education.
One exhibit (in the Darwin Room) was especially effective. As gruesome as it seems, newborn babies, in jars of formaldehyde, were displayed, all of whom exhibited some abnormality which seemed to be a "throwback" to animal ancestry.
One baby had several pairs of nipples in a "nipple line," showing relationship to a dog or pig. Another baby was covered with hair, and was called a "monkey baby." Still another had a "tail." There is no doubt, they believe—humans descended from animals.
This was not my first exposure to such evidences. I had been forced to seek out an answer when all three points were brought out in a debate against a biology professor in Long Beach, California.
As it turns out, evolutionists who know something about these problems don't consider them to be an argument for evolution. Instead, these abnormalities represent fetal development problems, and have nothing at all to do with ancestry. Even more serious abnormalities do occur in a host of expressions, which bear no resemblance at all to any possible ancestor.
You see, almost every cell in the developing fetus (and in the adult body) contains the complete genetic code. Thus each cell possesses, in principle, the information necessary to grow into muscle, bone, teeth, blood, nerve, or organ.
Normal development requires an amazing sequence of events. Growth of each component must occur at the proper time and to the proper extent. Throughout the growth, a variety of proteins are secreted which trigger the growth. The lack of the protein trigger, or the improper amount, or faulty timing will produce abnormal development. The marvelous DNA code oversees and governs this development in a healthy environment.
But if the environment undergoes some sort of shock, this intricate sequence could be interrupted. Examples of this shock might be due to malnutrition, or be drug induced, or temperature related, or even due to physical impact.
The most important thing to remember is that the damaged information which produced these developmental abnormalities is not usually present in the reproductive cells, and thus is not passed on to offspring. A person born with multiple nipples can grow to maturity and have children, and their children would have no greater likelihood of having multiple nipples than any other child has. Since the expressed trait is not inherited, it obviously was not inherited from one's ancestors, whether animal or not.
Why, then, is this used as evidence for evolution? Beats me! I guess there's just nothing better to use.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => why-do-some-babies-show-animal-characteristics [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
In general, Muslims accept both the Old Testament and the Gospels, but feel that in the translation of the Bible over the centuries many errors crept in. Thus a new revelation from God to Mohammed, in about 600 A.D. was required to set the record straight. Doctrines such as the deity of Christ and salvation by His atoning death on the cross were rejected. The views on creation and the flood are substantially the same, although interpretations of the Koranic teachings are as widely varied, even among committed Muslims, as they are among evangelical Christians.
The Koran, if one interprets it literally, teaches a six-day creation. Adam and Eve were created in innocent perfection and placed in a beautiful garden. Here Satan tempted them to rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit, thus incurring God's wrath and judgment, and expulsion from the Garden.
The wicked pre-flood civilization is described at length. Eventually, Noah is told to build the Ark; and from its passengers the entire world has been repopulated. The description of the flood closely resembles the Biblical description, with vast rainfall, eruptions, and earthquakes. As to the age of the earth, again a straightforward reading implies a creation of all things a few thousand years ago—no room for billions of years of evolution.
If creation is the foundation, the foundation is in place for a truly theistic world view, and Muslims do have such a view. Unfortunately, the Islamic view of salvation is quite different. The penalty for sin in Islam is death, and it is recognized that everyone sins. The individual must pray for forgiveness, but has no assurance of heaven in the afterlife, and must work hard to earn God's favor. Obviously, Islam has not built truly on the foundation of creation.
But there is also a serious flaw in the foundation—that of the nature of the fall into sin. While Adam and Eve received judgment for their sin, there is no hint in the Koran of the curse on all creation, as described in Genesis 3. To a Muslim, creation fell "Out of balance" at the fall, but didn't come under the "bondage of corruption" spoken of in Romans 8:21. Infants carry no inherited sin nature, although they each do eventually choose to sin. Thus, since an individual's choice of sin brings judgment, so an individual's choice of repentance and good works can bring restoration. There is no other payment for sin as in Christianity, where "Christ died for our sins" (I Corinthians 15:3).
At a recent conference in Istanbul, I mentioned that Darwin's stated reason for accepting evolution by natural processes was the existence of pain and suffering, extinction and death in the world. He concluded there must not be a supernatural Creator, and thus only natural processes were at work.
A conversation with several of the Muslim scientists—all of them firm Muslim believers—revealed that they each had problems with this issue. Perhaps this is the main key to Muslim evangelism, focusing their attention on God's just response to sin (as applied both to creation and to individuals), away from a works-oriented salvation, and, instead, on the finished work of the Creator on the cross.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
In general, Muslims accept both the Old Testament and the Gospels, but feel that in the translation of the Bible over the centuries many errors crept in. Thus a new revelation from God to Mohammed, in about 600 A.D. was required to set the record straight. Doctrines such as the deity of Christ and salvation by His atoning death on the cross were rejected. The views on creation and the flood are substantially the same, although interpretations of the Koranic teachings are as widely varied, even among committed Muslims, as they are among evangelical Christians.
The Koran, if one interprets it literally, teaches a six-day creation. Adam and Eve were created in innocent perfection and placed in a beautiful garden. Here Satan tempted them to rebel against God by eating the forbidden fruit, thus incurring God's wrath and judgment, and expulsion from the Garden.
The wicked pre-flood civilization is described at length. Eventually, Noah is told to build the Ark; and from its passengers the entire world has been repopulated. The description of the flood closely resembles the Biblical description, with vast rainfall, eruptions, and earthquakes. As to the age of the earth, again a straightforward reading implies a creation of all things a few thousand years ago—no room for billions of years of evolution.
If creation is the foundation, the foundation is in place for a truly theistic world view, and Muslims do have such a view. Unfortunately, the Islamic view of salvation is quite different. The penalty for sin in Islam is death, and it is recognized that everyone sins. The individual must pray for forgiveness, but has no assurance of heaven in the afterlife, and must work hard to earn God's favor. Obviously, Islam has not built truly on the foundation of creation.
But there is also a serious flaw in the foundation—that of the nature of the fall into sin. While Adam and Eve received judgment for their sin, there is no hint in the Koran of the curse on all creation, as described in Genesis 3. To a Muslim, creation fell "Out of balance" at the fall, but didn't come under the "bondage of corruption" spoken of in Romans 8:21. Infants carry no inherited sin nature, although they each do eventually choose to sin. Thus, since an individual's choice of sin brings judgment, so an individual's choice of repentance and good works can bring restoration. There is no other payment for sin as in Christianity, where "Christ died for our sins" (I Corinthians 15:3).
At a recent conference in Istanbul, I mentioned that Darwin's stated reason for accepting evolution by natural processes was the existence of pain and suffering, extinction and death in the world. He concluded there must not be a supernatural Creator, and thus only natural processes were at work.
A conversation with several of the Muslim scientists—all of them firm Muslim believers—revealed that they each had problems with this issue. Perhaps this is the main key to Muslim evangelism, focusing their attention on God's just response to sin (as applied both to creation and to individuals), away from a works-oriented salvation, and, instead, on the finished work of the Creator on the cross.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-muslims-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
American newspapers have been filled lately with news of the revitalized SETI project (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). After decades of unfruitful searching, NASA has now instituted an extremely well-funded effort, using some of the best radio telescopes in the world, all in hopes of intercepting a message from intelligent life out there."
On Monday, October 12, 1992, a day symbolically selected to correspond to the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the Americas; the telescopes and computers began monitoring billions of channels for any signal reflecting an intelligent source. The ten-year project will cost $100 million tax dollars.
Does this project have a chance of success? And is it a worthy scientific project, with worthy scientific goals? Is it a good use of money? Experts disagree on all these points.
Many scientists have now concluded that the laws of science and conditions on Earth preclude the possibility of life evolving naturalistically here on earth. In fact, probability calculations can show that the chances of life forming even once anywhere in the universe are vanishingly small, even given a whole universe of habitable planets in 20 billion years.
Yet how can these ideas be reconciled with those of Astronomer Carl Sagan and others, who glibly state there are probably billions of advanced civilizations in the universe. Clearly advocates are not speaking from a careful study of the probability of life forming by natural processes. This is a religious quest, not scientific.
But the issue doesn't just end with a waste of money on a quixotic quest. NASA has now designated $300,000, together with $700,000 from the National Science Foundation, to develop a SETI-based science-and-math curriculum for elementary and middle school grades. To do so, they have gathered a team of curriculum-writing scientists and educators, and have funded them for three years.
The existence of extraterrestrials will be implicitly assumed, and math-and-science projects will be designed around that theme. While increased interest among students in math and science is surely a worthwhile goal, this effort consists of nothing more than another example of state-mandated, government-funded indoctrination of students in the rationalistic mind set.
But what is the scientific basis for the assumption of extraterrestrial existence? Nothing at all. This religious view may masquerade as science and be promulgated in science classrooms, but it is not science. Students deserve better.
Students could have better, if curriculums acknowledged the presuppositional nature of all issues that deal with their unobserved past or the far away regions of space. We have very limited knowledge of these subjects, but there are two basic ways of interpreting the known data (i.e., the creation and evolutionary world views), and students would develop better critical-thinking skills in an open, non-dogmatic consideration of these issues. Indoctrination in a poorly supported way of thinking will not help.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>American newspapers have been filled lately with news of the revitalized SETI project (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). After decades of unfruitful searching, NASA has now instituted an extremely well-funded effort, using some of the best radio telescopes in the world, all in hopes of intercepting a message from intelligent life out there."
On Monday, October 12, 1992, a day symbolically selected to correspond to the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the Americas; the telescopes and computers began monitoring billions of channels for any signal reflecting an intelligent source. The ten-year project will cost $100 million tax dollars.
Does this project have a chance of success? And is it a worthy scientific project, with worthy scientific goals? Is it a good use of money? Experts disagree on all these points.
Many scientists have now concluded that the laws of science and conditions on Earth preclude the possibility of life evolving naturalistically here on earth. In fact, probability calculations can show that the chances of life forming even once anywhere in the universe are vanishingly small, even given a whole universe of habitable planets in 20 billion years.
Yet how can these ideas be reconciled with those of Astronomer Carl Sagan and others, who glibly state there are probably billions of advanced civilizations in the universe. Clearly advocates are not speaking from a careful study of the probability of life forming by natural processes. This is a religious quest, not scientific.
But the issue doesn't just end with a waste of money on a quixotic quest. NASA has now designated $300,000, together with $700,000 from the National Science Foundation, to develop a SETI-based science-and-math curriculum for elementary and middle school grades. To do so, they have gathered a team of curriculum-writing scientists and educators, and have funded them for three years.
The existence of extraterrestrials will be implicitly assumed, and math-and-science projects will be designed around that theme. While increased interest among students in math and science is surely a worthwhile goal, this effort consists of nothing more than another example of state-mandated, government-funded indoctrination of students in the rationalistic mind set.
But what is the scientific basis for the assumption of extraterrestrial existence? Nothing at all. This religious view may masquerade as science and be promulgated in science classrooms, but it is not science. Students deserve better.
Students could have better, if curriculums acknowledged the presuppositional nature of all issues that deal with their unobserved past or the far away regions of space. We have very limited knowledge of these subjects, but there are two basic ways of interpreting the known data (i.e., the creation and evolutionary world views), and students would develop better critical-thinking skills in an open, non-dogmatic consideration of these issues. Indoctrination in a poorly supported way of thinking will not help.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => does-seti-have-chance-it-science [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
A lot of talk is swirling around these days about traditional values. Just what are they? To most people, encouragement of the strong, nuclear family, fiscal responsibility, respect for law and order as balanced by freedom, good education without a political agenda, reasoned patriotism, respect for human life, religious freedom, and a few others would make the list of traditional values. But what do these concepts have in common? Does belief in creation belong on this list?
Traditional values are not simply "the ideals upon which America was founded," although when America was founded, each item in the above list was prominently present. And they are not just "the way we used to do things," although America used to do things this way. Nor are they merely balanced by a new list of non-traditional values, even though such a new list exists and seems to be winning almost every confrontation with the traditional values.
To define the underlying philosophy behind traditional values would no doubt prove illusive, but it seems to me, to believe in traditional values is to believe in the existence of an absolute standard. While there is individual freedom within certain parameters, some things are definitely wrong and some things are definitely right, and these truths don't change. For example, a heterosexual marriage, lasting for life, with a loving, nurturing relationship between members is definitely right. Premarital chastity and marital fidelity are right, while promiscuity is definitely wrong. A relationship based on sodomy is wrong. A sodomite couple adopting children is wrong. It is wrong to encourage sexual encounters among children; wrong to pass out condoms in junior high school.
Likewise, it is wrong for the government overly to tax away the fruit of a worker's labor. Similarly, it is wrong to let criminals go unpunished, just as it is wrong to propose a society without the restraint of law.
Those who hold to traditional values believe in the sanctity of human life; abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and genocide are definitely wrong. It is wrong to force anyone to worship in a certain fashion, just as it is wrong to force someone not to worship. Some things are right; others are wrong.
It does't take too much to recognize the basis for these rights and wrongs. They all stem from the concept that there is a Creator God who designed people, the family, government, and society to operate in a certain fashion. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation and the wisdom to write them down in a Book, so people would know what they were. To teach about this Creator, His creation, and His guidelines for His creation is not only a traditional value, it is the basis for all traditional values. America was founded by leaders who understood these principles and designed her constitution and laws to reflect them. Little wonder why those proposing the abandonment of traditional values all believe in evolution!
With an election coming up in America, one needs to observe which candidates or referendums reflect traditional values, based on a creationist way of thinking.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>A lot of talk is swirling around these days about traditional values. Just what are they? To most people, encouragement of the strong, nuclear family, fiscal responsibility, respect for law and order as balanced by freedom, good education without a political agenda, reasoned patriotism, respect for human life, religious freedom, and a few others would make the list of traditional values. But what do these concepts have in common? Does belief in creation belong on this list?
Traditional values are not simply "the ideals upon which America was founded," although when America was founded, each item in the above list was prominently present. And they are not just "the way we used to do things," although America used to do things this way. Nor are they merely balanced by a new list of non-traditional values, even though such a new list exists and seems to be winning almost every confrontation with the traditional values.
To define the underlying philosophy behind traditional values would no doubt prove illusive, but it seems to me, to believe in traditional values is to believe in the existence of an absolute standard. While there is individual freedom within certain parameters, some things are definitely wrong and some things are definitely right, and these truths don't change. For example, a heterosexual marriage, lasting for life, with a loving, nurturing relationship between members is definitely right. Premarital chastity and marital fidelity are right, while promiscuity is definitely wrong. A relationship based on sodomy is wrong. A sodomite couple adopting children is wrong. It is wrong to encourage sexual encounters among children; wrong to pass out condoms in junior high school.
Likewise, it is wrong for the government overly to tax away the fruit of a worker's labor. Similarly, it is wrong to let criminals go unpunished, just as it is wrong to propose a society without the restraint of law.
Those who hold to traditional values believe in the sanctity of human life; abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and genocide are definitely wrong. It is wrong to force anyone to worship in a certain fashion, just as it is wrong to force someone not to worship. Some things are right; others are wrong.
It does't take too much to recognize the basis for these rights and wrongs. They all stem from the concept that there is a Creator God who designed people, the family, government, and society to operate in a certain fashion. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation and the wisdom to write them down in a Book, so people would know what they were. To teach about this Creator, His creation, and His guidelines for His creation is not only a traditional value, it is the basis for all traditional values. America was founded by leaders who understood these principles and designed her constitution and laws to reflect them. Little wonder why those proposing the abandonment of traditional values all believe in evolution!
With an election coming up in America, one needs to observe which candidates or referendums reflect traditional values, based on a creationist way of thinking.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => creation-one-traditional-values [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Recently I was called for jury duty. The one trial for which I was selected seems trivial enough (except for those involved), but it contained certain intricacies.
It involved a cab driver who picked up two late-night, stranded motorists. All three had been drinking. Before it was over, there had been a nasty fight and the motorists claimed the cabby stole their money. All involved—the fares, the cabby, the police, the dispatcher, etc., had a different story, and all were convincing. As the jury, we had the difficult job of sorting it all out, of reconstructing the past, unobserved by any of us, as best we could from partial and conflicting evidence. We didn't have direct access to the past, only the evidence which existed in the present and the stories of those who had witnessed portions of the past events. Not an easy task!
When attempting to answer the origins' question, scientists are in a similar situation. Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. Creationists and evolutionists agree precisely when dealing with these issues, (i.e., with science). All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. How then can there be such disagreement about the past?
This present/past issue is the crux of the creation/evolution controversy. No scientist had direct access to the past—all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present, observing the processes, which operate in the present. Science is limited to the present. It is not illegitimate for a—scientist to attempt to reconstruct the past—to try to answer the question, "What happened in the past to make the present get to be this way?" But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations.
As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking—schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct.
Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were "manufactured" by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category. And on and on.
These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don't have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better—the one most likely correct.
But creationists have another advantage. Even though we can't "study the past," we can study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Recently I was called for jury duty. The one trial for which I was selected seems trivial enough (except for those involved), but it contained certain intricacies.
It involved a cab driver who picked up two late-night, stranded motorists. All three had been drinking. Before it was over, there had been a nasty fight and the motorists claimed the cabby stole their money. All involved—the fares, the cabby, the police, the dispatcher, etc., had a different story, and all were convincing. As the jury, we had the difficult job of sorting it all out, of reconstructing the past, unobserved by any of us, as best we could from partial and conflicting evidence. We didn't have direct access to the past, only the evidence which existed in the present and the stories of those who had witnessed portions of the past events. Not an easy task!
When attempting to answer the origins' question, scientists are in a similar situation. Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. Creationists and evolutionists agree precisely when dealing with these issues, (i.e., with science). All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. How then can there be such disagreement about the past?
This present/past issue is the crux of the creation/evolution controversy. No scientist had direct access to the past—all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present, observing the processes, which operate in the present. Science is limited to the present. It is not illegitimate for a—scientist to attempt to reconstruct the past—to try to answer the question, "What happened in the past to make the present get to be this way?" But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations.
As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking—schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct.
Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were "manufactured" by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category. And on and on.
These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don't have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better—the one most likely correct.
But creationists have another advantage. Even though we can't "study the past," we can study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => can-scientists-study-past [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
No doubt you've noticed the recent flurry of newspaper articles and TV interviews which have been proclaiming that the Big Bang theory had finally been proved. An observation by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite had verified a basic prediction of the Big Bang, so astronomers claimed. In fact, this discovery was so stupendous, "It was like looking at God, if you're religious," one said.
Within a week of the pronouncement, I happened to be at a major observatory, and discussed the find with a resident astronomer. He, too, was bubbling with excitement as he spoke. The Big Bang was now a fact, not merely a theory, I was told.
Upon further questioning, he admitted that the Big Bang concept had been at death's door, despite the fact that students have always been taught it, without reservation. This discovery had "saved" the Big Bang.
This astronomer admitted that many recent discoveries had seriously weakened the Big Bang theory. You see, the theory predicts some 15 or so billion years ago, all the matter and all the energy in the entire universe was packed into a single "cosmic egg," a super-dense electron-sized particle. An instability arose, and it exploded (i.e., in a big bang), producing an even distribution of matter and energy in all directions.
This was "proven" by the discovery, in 1964, of a very low-level background radiation the leftover "whisper" of the Big Bang. In all directions, the background radiation was measured at 2.7° Kelvin (equivalent to -270.5° Celsius!) with no variation—perfectly smooth.
But recent observations of the universe have revealed a very "lumpy" universe, with huge clusters of millions of galaxies and immense voids—not at all as expected from theory or the smooth background radiation. This led astronomers to propose that there must have been irregularities in the original "bang" to account for the present "lumpy" universe.
So now you know why astronomers were ecstatic when the COBE satellite measured small fluctuations in the background radiation, for now the Big Bang—everybody's favorite story—had been fully "proved."
But wait! It must be recognized that the variation has not been verified yet by others. No one has yet carefully examined the data. Most telling, the variation was extremely slight—only 30 millionths of a degree. At a lecture this week, one of the designers of the satellite told Dr. Gish that the COBE was not capable of measuring such a small variation. Others have said it is impossible for anything to be perfectly smooth, and even with these variations, the background radiation is smooth! And given the large-scale "lumpiness" or non-homogeneity of the universe, these small variations hardly seem related.
The astronomer I talked to said he was "quite religious, in a way." He knew there must be a God, since there were many things in astronomy he couldn't understand. But now he knew that God either must either be the Big Bang or have caused the Big Bang.
No, the Big Bang hasn't been "saved." At best, its death has been postponed for a few years. Worse, astronomers now have an excuse to continue in their "willful ignorance" (II Peter 3:3) and unbelief.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
No doubt you've noticed the recent flurry of newspaper articles and TV interviews which have been proclaiming that the Big Bang theory had finally been proved. An observation by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite had verified a basic prediction of the Big Bang, so astronomers claimed. In fact, this discovery was so stupendous, "It was like looking at God, if you're religious," one said.
Within a week of the pronouncement, I happened to be at a major observatory, and discussed the find with a resident astronomer. He, too, was bubbling with excitement as he spoke. The Big Bang was now a fact, not merely a theory, I was told.
Upon further questioning, he admitted that the Big Bang concept had been at death's door, despite the fact that students have always been taught it, without reservation. This discovery had "saved" the Big Bang.
This astronomer admitted that many recent discoveries had seriously weakened the Big Bang theory. You see, the theory predicts some 15 or so billion years ago, all the matter and all the energy in the entire universe was packed into a single "cosmic egg," a super-dense electron-sized particle. An instability arose, and it exploded (i.e., in a big bang), producing an even distribution of matter and energy in all directions.
This was "proven" by the discovery, in 1964, of a very low-level background radiation the leftover "whisper" of the Big Bang. In all directions, the background radiation was measured at 2.7° Kelvin (equivalent to -270.5° Celsius!) with no variation—perfectly smooth.
But recent observations of the universe have revealed a very "lumpy" universe, with huge clusters of millions of galaxies and immense voids—not at all as expected from theory or the smooth background radiation. This led astronomers to propose that there must have been irregularities in the original "bang" to account for the present "lumpy" universe.
So now you know why astronomers were ecstatic when the COBE satellite measured small fluctuations in the background radiation, for now the Big Bang—everybody's favorite story—had been fully "proved."
But wait! It must be recognized that the variation has not been verified yet by others. No one has yet carefully examined the data. Most telling, the variation was extremely slight—only 30 millionths of a degree. At a lecture this week, one of the designers of the satellite told Dr. Gish that the COBE was not capable of measuring such a small variation. Others have said it is impossible for anything to be perfectly smooth, and even with these variations, the background radiation is smooth! And given the large-scale "lumpiness" or non-homogeneity of the universe, these small variations hardly seem related.
The astronomer I talked to said he was "quite religious, in a way." He knew there must be a God, since there were many things in astronomy he couldn't understand. But now he knew that God either must either be the Big Bang or have caused the Big Bang.
No, the Big Bang hasn't been "saved." At best, its death has been postponed for a few years. Worse, astronomers now have an excuse to continue in their "willful ignorance" (II Peter 3:3) and unbelief.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => has-big-bang-been-saved [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The following excerpts are from letters received in recent weeks by ICR President Henry Morris. I believe these testimonies will encourage our supporters as they do us. These are typical of many received daily, both in the mail and at our seminars and other meetings.
"As I read the Acts & Facts, I marvel at the amount of work being done by such a small staff. I know of no sound gospel work being done in the states that even remotely compares with the work you are doing for our Lord and His Name in these last days."
From Mexico
"I studied The Genesis Flood at Biola College in 1964, and later read it to our children while they were in third and fifth grade. Now they excel in math and science and we believe we owe much to you for their success."
Missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators
"Let me express to you the enrichment and blessing Days of Praise has been to me! The challenging and thought-provoking patterns of content with which they are filled are spiritually invigorating."
Pennsylvania
"I devour each of the newsletters you send, order books from you to better educate myself and my family, and donate to your ministry financially whenever possible.... I thank you from the bottom of my heart, Dr. Morris, for the ministry of ICR."
Illinois
"I have been praising God for the past year for helping me to discover Dr. Morris' books. I studied geology in college and was spiritually crippled by the 'fact' of evolution for more than 20 years.... I read What is Creation Science ? the way a man dying of thirst drinks water. I can't tell you what this has done for my faith."
A Geologist
"I went about 15 years as an unbelieving 'Christian' looking and seeking and hoping for a god, but . . . my mind, knowledge, and intellect just wouldn't allow me to do so. I was challenged to face the issue of my unbelief and . . . was given a small list of books to begin my quest, . . . including your book Scientific Creationism which I am reading for my third time. I was left dumfounded.... Now for the first time in my life—I believed!"
Colorado
"For the last 2-1/2 years I have been sharing the gospel with my Mormon friend. She happens to be majoring in civil engineering (at Virginia Tech). I mentioned that one of the foremost creationist scientists used to be head of her department, a guy named Morris. Guess whose name is on her hydraulics textbook! . . . (She) called me to see where to get your book on Job.... Believe it or not, it was the theology in the book, and not any evidence, that was a major influence on her. . . . On New Year's Eve, shortly after midnight, after another two hours of long distance, she received Christ into her life!"
From Ohio
"I was an avid atheist, a dedicated evolutionist and materialist just before the days which brought me into acquaintance with the ICR good news. This is, indeed, purely the work of the Savior, Jesus, that brought me from the darkest world to the brilliant world with Jesus.... My spiritual father (is) Dr. Henry Morris.... Presently I have begun writing an article on creation versus evolution to be presented on my campus .... Sooner or later, I'm embarking on the business of translating one of Dr. Morris books into my tongue, Amharic."
From the University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The following excerpts are from letters received in recent weeks by ICR President Henry Morris. I believe these testimonies will encourage our supporters as they do us. These are typical of many received daily, both in the mail and at our seminars and other meetings.
"As I read the Acts & Facts, I marvel at the amount of work being done by such a small staff. I know of no sound gospel work being done in the states that even remotely compares with the work you are doing for our Lord and His Name in these last days."
From Mexico
"I studied The Genesis Flood at Biola College in 1964, and later read it to our children while they were in third and fifth grade. Now they excel in math and science and we believe we owe much to you for their success."
Missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators
"Let me express to you the enrichment and blessing Days of Praise has been to me! The challenging and thought-provoking patterns of content with which they are filled are spiritually invigorating."
Pennsylvania
"I devour each of the newsletters you send, order books from you to better educate myself and my family, and donate to your ministry financially whenever possible.... I thank you from the bottom of my heart, Dr. Morris, for the ministry of ICR."
Illinois
"I have been praising God for the past year for helping me to discover Dr. Morris' books. I studied geology in college and was spiritually crippled by the 'fact' of evolution for more than 20 years.... I read What is Creation Science ? the way a man dying of thirst drinks water. I can't tell you what this has done for my faith."
A Geologist
"I went about 15 years as an unbelieving 'Christian' looking and seeking and hoping for a god, but . . . my mind, knowledge, and intellect just wouldn't allow me to do so. I was challenged to face the issue of my unbelief and . . . was given a small list of books to begin my quest, . . . including your book Scientific Creationism which I am reading for my third time. I was left dumfounded.... Now for the first time in my life—I believed!"
Colorado
"For the last 2-1/2 years I have been sharing the gospel with my Mormon friend. She happens to be majoring in civil engineering (at Virginia Tech). I mentioned that one of the foremost creationist scientists used to be head of her department, a guy named Morris. Guess whose name is on her hydraulics textbook! . . . (She) called me to see where to get your book on Job.... Believe it or not, it was the theology in the book, and not any evidence, that was a major influence on her. . . . On New Year's Eve, shortly after midnight, after another two hours of long distance, she received Christ into her life!"
From Ohio
"I was an avid atheist, a dedicated evolutionist and materialist just before the days which brought me into acquaintance with the ICR good news. This is, indeed, purely the work of the Savior, Jesus, that brought me from the darkest world to the brilliant world with Jesus.... My spiritual father (is) Dr. Henry Morris.... Presently I have begun writing an article on creation versus evolution to be presented on my campus .... Sooner or later, I'm embarking on the business of translating one of Dr. Morris books into my tongue, Amharic."
From the University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => testimonies-letters-president [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
We've all heard it—the constant haranguing from educators and the media that only the lunatic "fundamentalist" fringe in America still believes in creation. To hear them talk, one would think that evolution has not only been proven, but that all thinking persons have accepted it.
Readers of these pages hopefully are aware that these sweeping pronouncements are not so. In reality, the fringe element in American society is the naturalistic evolutionist, not the fundamentalist!
Results released on November 28, 1991, of a national opinion survey by Gallup Poll, support this position. The pollsters found that 41 percent of all Americans consider themselves "born again," or "evangelical Christians," "up from 33 percent in 1986. Doesn't sound like a "fringe" group" to me.
When asked about their views on origins, 47 percent of the respondents replied that they believed in a special, recent creation of man by God (up from 44 percent in 1982), while another 40 percent held to a God-directed form of evolution (up from 38 percent in 1982). Only nine percent held to a strictly naturalistic brand of evolution.
The problem lies in the fact that almost all university professors espouse this minority view. Typically out of touch with mainstream America (and perhaps reality), university professors include a high percentage of Marxists, New-Age advocates, and atheists. And yet, mainstream America unthinkingly pays large sums of money in tuition to have their young people brainwashed by this radical, fringe element.
Thankfully, the radical professors don't do a very good job at brainwashing. A typical response by academicians to polls such as this, would be, "What are we doing wrong? How can we teach evolution better? Most students are wise enough to reject ideas such as humans descending from animals by chance, that humans are capable of producing a utopian earth, etc. When I was on the faculty of a major university, many, many students came to me telling of brainwashing and intimidation attempts by their professors, and found intellectual satisfaction in more reasonable beliefs.
But their real problem is that evolution is an illogical theory. Logical people know we didn't come from animals; most children simply will not believe it. One has to go to school a long time before the brainwashing really sinks in.
In a country where the majority rules and government should reflect the perspective of the people, how can we begin to change things? Jesus called us to influence society for the better, and it could be that He wants some to become involved in politics. At the very least, each Christian should faithfully vote for those candidates who stand for Biblical values in family and society.
It frequently has been shown that less than 25 percent of Christians ever vote, while other activist groups, such as the homosexuals, vote at over a 90-percent rate. No wonder they have such influence.
If just half of America's Christians knowledgeably voted, then, within a decade, nearly every elected official would be at least sympathetic to the Christian position.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>We've all heard it—the constant haranguing from educators and the media that only the lunatic "fundamentalist" fringe in America still believes in creation. To hear them talk, one would think that evolution has not only been proven, but that all thinking persons have accepted it.
Readers of these pages hopefully are aware that these sweeping pronouncements are not so. In reality, the fringe element in American society is the naturalistic evolutionist, not the fundamentalist!
Results released on November 28, 1991, of a national opinion survey by Gallup Poll, support this position. The pollsters found that 41 percent of all Americans consider themselves "born again," or "evangelical Christians," "up from 33 percent in 1986. Doesn't sound like a "fringe" group" to me.
When asked about their views on origins, 47 percent of the respondents replied that they believed in a special, recent creation of man by God (up from 44 percent in 1982), while another 40 percent held to a God-directed form of evolution (up from 38 percent in 1982). Only nine percent held to a strictly naturalistic brand of evolution.
The problem lies in the fact that almost all university professors espouse this minority view. Typically out of touch with mainstream America (and perhaps reality), university professors include a high percentage of Marxists, New-Age advocates, and atheists. And yet, mainstream America unthinkingly pays large sums of money in tuition to have their young people brainwashed by this radical, fringe element.
Thankfully, the radical professors don't do a very good job at brainwashing. A typical response by academicians to polls such as this, would be, "What are we doing wrong? How can we teach evolution better? Most students are wise enough to reject ideas such as humans descending from animals by chance, that humans are capable of producing a utopian earth, etc. When I was on the faculty of a major university, many, many students came to me telling of brainwashing and intimidation attempts by their professors, and found intellectual satisfaction in more reasonable beliefs.
But their real problem is that evolution is an illogical theory. Logical people know we didn't come from animals; most children simply will not believe it. One has to go to school a long time before the brainwashing really sinks in.
In a country where the majority rules and government should reflect the perspective of the people, how can we begin to change things? Jesus called us to influence society for the better, and it could be that He wants some to become involved in politics. At the very least, each Christian should faithfully vote for those candidates who stand for Biblical values in family and society.
It frequently has been shown that less than 25 percent of Christians ever vote, while other activist groups, such as the homosexuals, vote at over a 90-percent rate. No wonder they have such influence.
If just half of America's Christians knowledgeably voted, then, within a decade, nearly every elected official would be at least sympathetic to the Christian position.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-americans-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The Institute for Creation Research is a multi-faceted organization. ICR conducts meetings for university students as well as pre-schoolers. We do scientific research and speak in churches. Our goal is to produce material on every subject at every level. But perhaps the aspect that thrills us most is to see Christians come back to a belief in all of God's Word, have their questions answered, and get the monkey of evolution off their backs.
I can think of many reasons why a Christian should be a Bible-believing creationist and not try to include any form of evolution in his thinking. In this short space, let me briefly mention several of them:
First, evolution is bad science. Anyone familiar with ICR and its materials is aware that the scientific evidence does not support evolution. Evolution is a non-testable concept, non-falsifiable, and therefore not even a proper scientific theory. It violates the basic laws of science and probability. There is no hint in the fossil record that any basic category of plant or animal has ever changed into any other. It ascribes incredibly complex life forms to pure chance.
Furthermore, evolution has evil fruits. The failed concepts of racism, fascism, Marxism, imperialism, etc., are all founded on evolutionary principles, as are the extant concepts of Freudianism, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, drug use, etc.
One's self-concept is tied up in his view of origins. It makes a big difference if we were created in the image of God, to bring Him glory and do His bidding versus being the chance by-product of primeval slime.
One's entire world view is likewise at stake. Are we here as God's stewards of life and the earth, with the ministry of pointing mankind back to Him, or are we the mere products of nature, with only personal satisfaction, survival, and reproduction mattering?
The Christian should also recognize that evolution is bad Scripture. Belief in long-age evolution requires twisting of Scriptural references in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:20-22, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 11:3, II Peter 3:3-6, etc.
Because it doesn't match with Scripture, evolution is bad theology. If evolution is true, then death preceded sin and cannot be its penalty, and therefore Christ's death did not pay that penalty. One's view of God is distorted when viewed through evolutionary glasses. The concept of billions of years of evolutionary meandering and extinction is inconsistent with God's omnipotence, omniscience, purposiveness, loving nature, and even His grace.
Lastly, one's personal relationship to God is related to origins. The Bible teaches us to worship God for His creative majesty (Revelation 4:11, etc.). I would have a difficult time in prayer if I didn't believe in creation and wasn't able to praise Him as Creator. Our life's work should be to fulfill God's purpose in creation, for we were created as beings on whom He could shower His love and grace, and respond to Him in reciprocal love and obedient service.
Let us not neglect to acknowledge Him as Creator, Author of Scripture, and King of our lives and thoughts.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The Institute for Creation Research is a multi-faceted organization. ICR conducts meetings for university students as well as pre-schoolers. We do scientific research and speak in churches. Our goal is to produce material on every subject at every level. But perhaps the aspect that thrills us most is to see Christians come back to a belief in all of God's Word, have their questions answered, and get the monkey of evolution off their backs.
I can think of many reasons why a Christian should be a Bible-believing creationist and not try to include any form of evolution in his thinking. In this short space, let me briefly mention several of them:
First, evolution is bad science. Anyone familiar with ICR and its materials is aware that the scientific evidence does not support evolution. Evolution is a non-testable concept, non-falsifiable, and therefore not even a proper scientific theory. It violates the basic laws of science and probability. There is no hint in the fossil record that any basic category of plant or animal has ever changed into any other. It ascribes incredibly complex life forms to pure chance.
Furthermore, evolution has evil fruits. The failed concepts of racism, fascism, Marxism, imperialism, etc., are all founded on evolutionary principles, as are the extant concepts of Freudianism, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, drug use, etc.
One's self-concept is tied up in his view of origins. It makes a big difference if we were created in the image of God, to bring Him glory and do His bidding versus being the chance by-product of primeval slime.
One's entire world view is likewise at stake. Are we here as God's stewards of life and the earth, with the ministry of pointing mankind back to Him, or are we the mere products of nature, with only personal satisfaction, survival, and reproduction mattering?
The Christian should also recognize that evolution is bad Scripture. Belief in long-age evolution requires twisting of Scriptural references in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:20-22, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 11:3, II Peter 3:3-6, etc.
Because it doesn't match with Scripture, evolution is bad theology. If evolution is true, then death preceded sin and cannot be its penalty, and therefore Christ's death did not pay that penalty. One's view of God is distorted when viewed through evolutionary glasses. The concept of billions of years of evolutionary meandering and extinction is inconsistent with God's omnipotence, omniscience, purposiveness, loving nature, and even His grace.
Lastly, one's personal relationship to God is related to origins. The Bible teaches us to worship God for His creative majesty (Revelation 4:11, etc.). I would have a difficult time in prayer if I didn't believe in creation and wasn't able to praise Him as Creator. Our life's work should be to fulfill God's purpose in creation, for we were created as beings on whom He could shower His love and grace, and respond to Him in reciprocal love and obedient service.
Let us not neglect to acknowledge Him as Creator, Author of Scripture, and King of our lives and thoughts.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => why-should-christian-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
While nearly all geology professors on the university level accept the concept of the ancient age for the earth, I hold the young-earth position, and do so without compromise, for several reasons:
First, I am absolutely certain that Scripture specifically teaches the young-earth doctrine. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must mean something; the word “day" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc., can only be interpreted legitimately as a literal day; death entered the world only after Adam sinned; the flood of Noah's day deposited the rock and fossil record worldwide; Christ alluded to a recent creation; etc. A Bible believer must believe all of Scripture.
Second, I am equally certain, after lengthy study of and research in the facts, theories, and methods of geology, a reasonable familiarity with the data and methods of radiometric decay, etc., that there is no geological or physical evidence that demands an old earth. There are many interpretations of certain geologic data which propose an old earth, but there is always another, usually better, interpretation of the same data which points to a young earth. The scientific evidence is actually somewhat generic with respect to age; it can be interpreted both ways. I am convinced that the better scientific interpretation is of a young earth. There are problems yet to be solved, but the bulk of the evidence points to a young earth, and no scientific facts are incompatible with that view. Conversely, I am aware of much scientific evidence which is seemingly incompatible with the old-earth view.
Next, the old earth is an integral component of evolutionary ideas, which I regard as patently false. Even evolutionists agree that evolution is unlikely. Only as one shrouds it in the mist of time does it take on the aura of respectability. Vast time is necessary for an evolutionary model to be convincing, and I feel it is for this reason that such emphasis is placed on establishing this extreme view of the past.
Lastly, the old earth concept is a requisite of evolutionism, which is an unmitigated evil. The disgusting and failed systems of fascism, racism, Marxism, social Darwinism, imperialism, etc., etc., have all been based squarely on evolution and the application of an evolutionary world view to society. Likewise, the modern ills of promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, humanism, new-age pantheism, etc., etc., flower from the same evil root. It is, in essence, the anti-Biblical, anti-theistic world view.
There can be no justification for a Christian adopting the old-earth concept. Most Christians who do hold it, do so because they have been taught nothing else, and are usually relieved when they discover the evidence referred to above. To those Christian leaders who hold and perhaps teach the old-earth concept knowledgeably, I would urge them to abandon their compromise of Scripture, to eschew the evils of a failed scientific theory, and join in the battle for truth!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>While nearly all geology professors on the university level accept the concept of the ancient age for the earth, I hold the young-earth position, and do so without compromise, for several reasons:
First, I am absolutely certain that Scripture specifically teaches the young-earth doctrine. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must mean something; the word “day" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc., can only be interpreted legitimately as a literal day; death entered the world only after Adam sinned; the flood of Noah's day deposited the rock and fossil record worldwide; Christ alluded to a recent creation; etc. A Bible believer must believe all of Scripture.
Second, I am equally certain, after lengthy study of and research in the facts, theories, and methods of geology, a reasonable familiarity with the data and methods of radiometric decay, etc., that there is no geological or physical evidence that demands an old earth. There are many interpretations of certain geologic data which propose an old earth, but there is always another, usually better, interpretation of the same data which points to a young earth. The scientific evidence is actually somewhat generic with respect to age; it can be interpreted both ways. I am convinced that the better scientific interpretation is of a young earth. There are problems yet to be solved, but the bulk of the evidence points to a young earth, and no scientific facts are incompatible with that view. Conversely, I am aware of much scientific evidence which is seemingly incompatible with the old-earth view.
Next, the old earth is an integral component of evolutionary ideas, which I regard as patently false. Even evolutionists agree that evolution is unlikely. Only as one shrouds it in the mist of time does it take on the aura of respectability. Vast time is necessary for an evolutionary model to be convincing, and I feel it is for this reason that such emphasis is placed on establishing this extreme view of the past.
Lastly, the old earth concept is a requisite of evolutionism, which is an unmitigated evil. The disgusting and failed systems of fascism, racism, Marxism, social Darwinism, imperialism, etc., etc., have all been based squarely on evolution and the application of an evolutionary world view to society. Likewise, the modern ills of promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, humanism, new-age pantheism, etc., etc., flower from the same evil root. It is, in essence, the anti-Biblical, anti-theistic world view.
There can be no justification for a Christian adopting the old-earth concept. Most Christians who do hold it, do so because they have been taught nothing else, and are usually relieved when they discover the evidence referred to above. To those Christian leaders who hold and perhaps teach the old-earth concept knowledgeably, I would urge them to abandon their compromise of Scripture, to eschew the evils of a failed scientific theory, and join in the battle for truth!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => how-can-geology-professor-believe-that-earth-young [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
In Christ's day, the prevailing philosophy on origins included evolution and long ages of earth history. Their view, of course, was not Darwinian evolution, but it held that the earth and the universe, acting on itself by the forces of nature (which were given names by some) had organized itself into its present state, and was responsible for all of life. The same was true for the philosophy of Moses' day, as he prepared the book of Genesis.
Genesis stands in opposition to such a view, insisting that a transcendent God, external to the universe had called the universe and all it contains into existence from nothing. Genesis further reveals the steps God took during a six-day period to bring this about, and reveals that those days were only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.
When God stepped into the space/time universe which He had created He stepped into a world dominated by those who denied His creative acts, and whose intellectual descendants still refuse to honor Him as Creator. And so, as we try to form our own beliefs about creation, it would behoove us to discern His views on creation and to believe likewise. When we examine His teachings, we will find that Jesus was not only the Creator, He was also a "creationist." Let us briefly look at some of the passages which reveal this: No natural process was responsible for creation—rather, God, Himself, created: ". . .from the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19).
The cosmos had a definite beginning. Matter is not eternal: "...such as was not since the beginning of the world (Greek kosmos) to this time" (Matthew 24:21).
The world had been "founded." Not just coalesced from interstellar dust. ". . .for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).
Even the sun was of God's doing: ". ..He maketh His sun to rise" (Matthew 5:45).
As to plants and animals, each created "kind" was of a different sort: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles" (Matthew 7:16)? Furthermore, God had made provision for even the birds (see Genesis 1:30): "Behold the fowls of the air: . . .your heavenly Father feedeth them" (Matthew 6:26).
The Sabbath was a day of rest in commemoration of the completed creation: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Men and women were created at the start, not 4,000,000,000 years after the start: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), and the union of Adam and Eve forms the basis of our doctrine of marriage: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6).
The two supposedly contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are fully compatible: "Have ye not read that He. . .made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27], and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh?" [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew 19:5).
These and other teachings of Christ, when coupled with the total lack of any reference to evolution or long ages, give us complete confidence that our Lord, the Creator, accepted the Genesis account of creation in its most literal sense. Dare we believe otherwise?
[body_edit] =>In Christ's day, the prevailing philosophy on origins included evolution and long ages of earth history. Their view, of course, was not Darwinian evolution, but it held that the earth and the universe, acting on itself by the forces of nature (which were given names by some) had organized itself into its present state, and was responsible for all of life. The same was true for the philosophy of Moses' day, as he prepared the book of Genesis.
Genesis stands in opposition to such a view, insisting that a transcendent God, external to the universe had called the universe and all it contains into existence from nothing. Genesis further reveals the steps God took during a six-day period to bring this about, and reveals that those days were only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.
When God stepped into the space/time universe which He had created He stepped into a world dominated by those who denied His creative acts, and whose intellectual descendants still refuse to honor Him as Creator. And so, as we try to form our own beliefs about creation, it would behoove us to discern His views on creation and to believe likewise. When we examine His teachings, we will find that Jesus was not only the Creator, He was also a "creationist." Let us briefly look at some of the passages which reveal this: No natural process was responsible for creation—rather, God, Himself, created: ". . .from the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19).
The cosmos had a definite beginning. Matter is not eternal: "...such as was not since the beginning of the world (Greek kosmos) to this time" (Matthew 24:21).
The world had been "founded." Not just coalesced from interstellar dust. ". . .for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).
Even the sun was of God's doing: ". ..He maketh His sun to rise" (Matthew 5:45).
As to plants and animals, each created "kind" was of a different sort: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles" (Matthew 7:16)? Furthermore, God had made provision for even the birds (see Genesis 1:30): "Behold the fowls of the air: . . .your heavenly Father feedeth them" (Matthew 6:26).
The Sabbath was a day of rest in commemoration of the completed creation: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Men and women were created at the start, not 4,000,000,000 years after the start: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), and the union of Adam and Eve forms the basis of our doctrine of marriage: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6).
The two supposedly contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are fully compatible: "Have ye not read that He. . .made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27], and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh?" [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew 19:5).
These and other teachings of Christ, when coupled with the total lack of any reference to evolution or long ages, give us complete confidence that our Lord, the Creator, accepted the Genesis account of creation in its most literal sense. Dare we believe otherwise?
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-jesus-believe-creation [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Kenneth Ham ) -->
The decade of the 1990's holds great promise for the spread of Christianity in previously closed countries. The dramatic call from Eastern Europe for Bibles and other Christian literature, as well as requests for training under Christian leaders, has many missionary-minded organizations rapidly working to fill that need. Thoughtful persons are recognizing that the walls and curtains which have so recently been torn down, may rise once again to shroud great portions of the globe.
Similar calls are echoing from the Far East, from Africa, and from South America. Darkness has had its day, and souls are clamoring for light. The window of opportunity for the Gospel, although perhaps created by a lust for Western materialism and a desire in some sectors for peace, must be traversed by a thoughtful, well planned effort. Should the message of creation play a role in such an evangelistic effort?
During my recent lecture tour in Moscow, I spoke almost exclusively to college students, professors, and scientists. Local Christian leaders, who sponsored my lectures, had targeted the "intelligentsia" as being nearly unreachable by other evangelistic efforts, yet who become very influential, if and when converted. My lectures were predominately of scientific content, but the spiritual implications were included. I had brought gospel tracts in Russian, translated from one used with effectiveness on American campuses, but the Christian leaders discouraged their distribution. How can a person who has been convinced by science that naturalistic evolution accounts for all of reality, and who "knows" there is no God, and has only heard a ridiculous caricature of the superstitious beliefs of the uneducated, possibly be affected when they hear, "God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life"? A lecture on the inability of chance processes to produce life forced them to consider the possibility of God. Then, and only then, could a salvation message communicate. And, as it turned out, each of my lectures was followed by intense interest in both creation science and the nature of the Creator.
Missionaries and Christian leaders from many lands have testified that evolution is the chief roadblock to the acceptance of the Christian Gospel. Most of the world's religious systems, including the atheism of the eastern bloc, the pantheism of Asia, the animism of tribal cultures, and the polytheism of the ancients, are all basically evolutionary systems, ascribing to natural causes, the effects we see around us. Those "educated out of" such systems naturally gravitate to scientific evolutionism, and away from God.
Conversely, many missionaries have found that when they teach the early chapters of Genesis, including the doctrines of creation and Adam's subsequent fall into sin, before the doctrine of salvation from sin by the work of the Creator on the cross, that the response is much greater. Many cultures have traditions which are faded memories of the events of Genesis, yet their descendants have no knowledge of Christ, and this focal point of reference opens their hearts to the fulfillment of their traditions.
Indeed, creationism must be a part of any modern missionary effort. And why not? It is part of the true Gospel of Christ, called "the everlasting gospel," by John, the evangelist (Revelation 14:6,7). Without it, nothing else makes sense!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The decade of the 1990's holds great promise for the spread of Christianity in previously closed countries. The dramatic call from Eastern Europe for Bibles and other Christian literature, as well as requests for training under Christian leaders, has many missionary-minded organizations rapidly working to fill that need. Thoughtful persons are recognizing that the walls and curtains which have so recently been torn down, may rise once again to shroud great portions of the globe.
Similar calls are echoing from the Far East, from Africa, and from South America. Darkness has had its day, and souls are clamoring for light. The window of opportunity for the Gospel, although perhaps created by a lust for Western materialism and a desire in some sectors for peace, must be traversed by a thoughtful, well planned effort. Should the message of creation play a role in such an evangelistic effort?
During my recent lecture tour in Moscow, I spoke almost exclusively to college students, professors, and scientists. Local Christian leaders, who sponsored my lectures, had targeted the "intelligentsia" as being nearly unreachable by other evangelistic efforts, yet who become very influential, if and when converted. My lectures were predominately of scientific content, but the spiritual implications were included. I had brought gospel tracts in Russian, translated from one used with effectiveness on American campuses, but the Christian leaders discouraged their distribution. How can a person who has been convinced by science that naturalistic evolution accounts for all of reality, and who "knows" there is no God, and has only heard a ridiculous caricature of the superstitious beliefs of the uneducated, possibly be affected when they hear, "God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life"? A lecture on the inability of chance processes to produce life forced them to consider the possibility of God. Then, and only then, could a salvation message communicate. And, as it turned out, each of my lectures was followed by intense interest in both creation science and the nature of the Creator.
Missionaries and Christian leaders from many lands have testified that evolution is the chief roadblock to the acceptance of the Christian Gospel. Most of the world's religious systems, including the atheism of the eastern bloc, the pantheism of Asia, the animism of tribal cultures, and the polytheism of the ancients, are all basically evolutionary systems, ascribing to natural causes, the effects we see around us. Those "educated out of" such systems naturally gravitate to scientific evolutionism, and away from God.
Conversely, many missionaries have found that when they teach the early chapters of Genesis, including the doctrines of creation and Adam's subsequent fall into sin, before the doctrine of salvation from sin by the work of the Creator on the cross, that the response is much greater. Many cultures have traditions which are faded memories of the events of Genesis, yet their descendants have no knowledge of Christ, and this focal point of reference opens their hearts to the fulfillment of their traditions.
Indeed, creationism must be a part of any modern missionary effort. And why not? It is part of the true Gospel of Christ, called "the everlasting gospel," by John, the evangelist (Revelation 14:6,7). Without it, nothing else makes sense!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => creationism-missionary-effort [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
During the Christmas season, we focus on the blessed fact that Jesus left His home in Heaven to come to earth as a Babe born in a lowly stable into a human family of modest means. But only an extensive treatment of the Christmas story in evangelical circles deals with the Babe's previous lofty position in Heaven and the redemptive goal of His mission on earth. Even then, much is ignored or omitted.
As is true for much of the New Testament, the Christmas story makes little sense without an understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. In fact, the message of Creation is The Big Picture—the work of Jesus Christ from eternity past to eternity future, with its central focus on Christ's death and resurrection—and it includes the Christmas story.
We must first recognize that the Babe, whose birthday we celebrate on Christmas day, was none other than the omnipotent Creator of all things. Paul, writing of the "Father's...dear Son" (Colossians 1:12,13) reveals that "by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by Him, and for Him" (v. 16). Similarly, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3).
In order to fully understand the nature of the Christ child, we must back up and appreciate the flow of history. Scripture clearly reveals that while each Person of the Trinity participated in Creation—God the Son played the primary role. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation, as well as to set the penalty for breaking the rules. Since God's primary attribute is His absolute holiness, He justly established the penalty for sin to be death (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23, etc.). When mankind chose to rebel against Him, the Holy Creator pronounced the just death penalty on all of Creation. Indeed, sin distorts everything, such that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain" (Romans 8:22).
But this death penalty was also an act of God's grace, because by establishing a penalty for sin, it became possible for the Creator Himself to step into creation, become a Man without sin, Who did not deserve to die, Who then could die as a sacrificial substitute for sinful man, and redeem fallen creation under the guidelines He had established (Colossians 1:14, 20). Only the Creator could be the Redeemer, and He could redeem creation only by taking on the form of a man, experiencing all aspects of life. Therefore, He can even now identify with all problems of life which we encounter—from the womb, to the stable, to the garden, to the cross. Furthermore, the Creator's resurrection from the dead established victory over death and provides us eternal life, with our sins forgiven.
Finally, the Babe in the manger is the King of kings! Only the Creator is able to take the universe's throne and reign in majesty. "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: For Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
As we enjoy the warmth of this Christmas season, let us recognize and indeed revel in the complete Good News—Jesus Christ, the Babe in the Manger is the Sovereign Creator, the Holy Judge, the Sinless Sacrifice, the Victorious Conqueror, the King of kings and Lord of lords!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
During the Christmas season, we focus on the blessed fact that Jesus left His home in Heaven to come to earth as a Babe born in a lowly stable into a human family of modest means. But only an extensive treatment of the Christmas story in evangelical circles deals with the Babe's previous lofty position in Heaven and the redemptive goal of His mission on earth. Even then, much is ignored or omitted.
As is true for much of the New Testament, the Christmas story makes little sense without an understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. In fact, the message of Creation is The Big Picture—the work of Jesus Christ from eternity past to eternity future, with its central focus on Christ's death and resurrection—and it includes the Christmas story.
We must first recognize that the Babe, whose birthday we celebrate on Christmas day, was none other than the omnipotent Creator of all things. Paul, writing of the "Father's...dear Son" (Colossians 1:12,13) reveals that "by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by Him, and for Him" (v. 16). Similarly, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3).
In order to fully understand the nature of the Christ child, we must back up and appreciate the flow of history. Scripture clearly reveals that while each Person of the Trinity participated in Creation—God the Son played the primary role. As Creator, He had the authority to set the rules for His creation, as well as to set the penalty for breaking the rules. Since God's primary attribute is His absolute holiness, He justly established the penalty for sin to be death (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23, etc.). When mankind chose to rebel against Him, the Holy Creator pronounced the just death penalty on all of Creation. Indeed, sin distorts everything, such that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain" (Romans 8:22).
But this death penalty was also an act of God's grace, because by establishing a penalty for sin, it became possible for the Creator Himself to step into creation, become a Man without sin, Who did not deserve to die, Who then could die as a sacrificial substitute for sinful man, and redeem fallen creation under the guidelines He had established (Colossians 1:14, 20). Only the Creator could be the Redeemer, and He could redeem creation only by taking on the form of a man, experiencing all aspects of life. Therefore, He can even now identify with all problems of life which we encounter—from the womb, to the stable, to the garden, to the cross. Furthermore, the Creator's resurrection from the dead established victory over death and provides us eternal life, with our sins forgiven.
Finally, the Babe in the manger is the King of kings! Only the Creator is able to take the universe's throne and reign in majesty. "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: For Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11).
As we enjoy the warmth of this Christmas season, let us recognize and indeed revel in the complete Good News—Jesus Christ, the Babe in the Manger is the Sovereign Creator, the Holy Judge, the Sinless Sacrifice, the Victorious Conqueror, the King of kings and Lord of lords!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => who-was-babe-manger
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
In the past few weeks, I was able to read Frank Peretti's best-selling Christian novel, This Present Darkness. The supposed fictional account of an entire town, including a local college, most of the churches, and many of the businesses being taken over by a shadowy, New-Age group, struck a familiar chord with me.
The story weaves many threads together, pitting praying Christians against the demonically controlled "Universal Consciousness Society" and its front organization, the "Omni Corporation.'' Before good triumphs over evil, however, we see that those committed to "world peace" through Eastern mysticism will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, including harassment, smear campaigns, larceny, violence—even murder. Demon-possessed civic and governmental leaders are in total control at every level, who change laws, alter records, confiscate, and imprison to reach their ends.
"What's the connection?" you are asking. First of all, let me say that until ICR became embroiled in its difficulties with the California State Department of Education and its Superintendent over the right to teach science from a creationist perspective in its graduate school, none of us had ever been involved in lawsuits or political bureaucracies before, to more than a nominal degree. But what an eye opener! It now seems to us that those in political power have excessive, if not near-total, control over anything they desire. We have found ourselves in an adversarial relationship not of our making.
Second, perhaps due to the popularity of the creation message these days, but also to a bitter hatred of Christianity, it seems that many individuals and powerful organizations have aligned themselves in a united front to destroy ICR. Those specifically involved include most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups (you could name most of them) as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education. Their goal is total control of education—total mind control. Already, many laws, policies, and programs are in place whose effects will be more pronounced in the days ahead. Evidently they feel powerful enough to move against ICR, perhaps feeling that if ICR falls, Christian education as a whole will be severely weakened.
These same groups are moving against Christian groups on a number of fronts: tax status, credentials, counseling, use permits, hiring of homosexuals, new-age teaching in public schools, banning Christmas scenes in public, etc., etc. Our religious freedoms are being stripped away, and already our influence in the community, as salt and light, is limited.
In the novel, the ruling officials were bound together in covert Satan worship. Although I haven’t run into widespread occultism in governmental circles yet, there is a dominant anti-Christian flavor to much of what is going on—an effort to totally secularize society. It is becoming more and more obvious that the battle must be fought primarily on a spiritual level.
The Christians "won" in the novel. In our case, the battle has been joined. If ever you prayed for ICR and the truth of God's creation of this world, now is the time.
[body_edit] =>In the past few weeks, I was able to read Frank Peretti's best-selling Christian novel, This Present Darkness. The supposed fictional account of an entire town, including a local college, most of the churches, and many of the businesses being taken over by a shadowy, New-Age group, struck a familiar chord with me.
The story weaves many threads together, pitting praying Christians against the demonically controlled "Universal Consciousness Society" and its front organization, the "Omni Corporation.'' Before good triumphs over evil, however, we see that those committed to "world peace" through Eastern mysticism will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, including harassment, smear campaigns, larceny, violence—even murder. Demon-possessed civic and governmental leaders are in total control at every level, who change laws, alter records, confiscate, and imprison to reach their ends.
"What's the connection?" you are asking. First of all, let me say that until ICR became embroiled in its difficulties with the California State Department of Education and its Superintendent over the right to teach science from a creationist perspective in its graduate school, none of us had ever been involved in lawsuits or political bureaucracies before, to more than a nominal degree. But what an eye opener! It now seems to us that those in political power have excessive, if not near-total, control over anything they desire. We have found ourselves in an adversarial relationship not of our making.
Second, perhaps due to the popularity of the creation message these days, but also to a bitter hatred of Christianity, it seems that many individuals and powerful organizations have aligned themselves in a united front to destroy ICR. Those specifically involved include most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups (you could name most of them) as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education. Their goal is total control of education—total mind control. Already, many laws, policies, and programs are in place whose effects will be more pronounced in the days ahead. Evidently they feel powerful enough to move against ICR, perhaps feeling that if ICR falls, Christian education as a whole will be severely weakened.
These same groups are moving against Christian groups on a number of fronts: tax status, credentials, counseling, use permits, hiring of homosexuals, new-age teaching in public schools, banning Christmas scenes in public, etc., etc. Our religious freedoms are being stripped away, and already our influence in the community, as salt and light, is limited.
In the novel, the ruling officials were bound together in covert Satan worship. Although I haven’t run into widespread occultism in governmental circles yet, there is a dominant anti-Christian flavor to much of what is going on—an effort to totally secularize society. It is becoming more and more obvious that the battle must be fought primarily on a spiritual level.
The Christians "won" in the novel. In our case, the battle has been joined. If ever you prayed for ICR and the truth of God's creation of this world, now is the time.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => there-conspiracy-against-creationism [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
I wonder how many Christian parents and teachers are aware of the subtle way in which young minds, and in many cases older minds, are being programmed away from truth and Christian values. For example, what would you say if I pointed out that one of the finest video productions on whales, "Voyage of the Mimi," now being used in fourth-grade classrooms throughout the nation, is, in reality,an evolutionary propaganda?
The first three segments tell the beautiful story of whales and their habitat, and the children have a wonderful time observing and talking about these great mammoths of the sea. We could praise this fine production for children if it weren't for the last segment that tries to answer the question: Where did the whales come from? At this point, an expert (from the Smithsonian Museum) in the study of whales shows a fourth grader how the whale's "blow hole" evolved from the nostrils of a small dog to this monstrous beauty of the sea, where it wound up on top of his head.
It seems that no cost was spared in the producers' lavish efforts to program fourth-grade minds in this outlandish and unscientific idea of the whales' supposed evolution. Few children could come away from this fabrication without being thoroughly convinced that a dog-like creature was the whale's ancestor. The reader should keep in mind that it is not science that the parent and teacher must fear, it is the manipulation of the child's mind through semi-truths and outright fabrications labeled as science that give us reason to fear.
While the "Voyage of the Mimi" draws obvious conclusions about evolution, there are other programs that also claim to teach scientific truth, of which parents and teachers must take note. One of these programs is called Project Wild, endorsed by such New Agers as singer John Denver, which claims to develop environmental literacy. Instead, however, in it we find the most subtle training imaginable in humanism and New-Age philosophy. Project Wild teaches the child "what to think," rather than "how to think" about the environment. Once again, this is done in a most subtle and convincing manner and is not always easily detected.
For example, who would say that mammals and other organisms are not vital to our ecological well-being? Or who would say that we should not be considerate of our pet's comfort, as well as that of wild animals on Planet Earth? This truth is extended out in Project Wild to blind the reader, and makes him more vulnerable to thinking about himself as an animal, rather than a very special creation of God. This is precisely the essence of New Age philosophy.
In Project Wild, man and animal are equal entities in the environment. Anthropomorphism goes on throughout the curriculum, and, by any standard, there is no pedagogical reason for this approach to environmental awareness. What we see in the Project is the antithesis of science as it relates to critical thinking in regards to environmental awareness. Parents and Christian teachers would do well to inform themselves of the new and ever more subtle attempts at capturing the minds of children, as well as ways to combat them. Commitment to the creationist world view is the place to start.
[body_edit] =>I wonder how many Christian parents and teachers are aware of the subtle way in which young minds, and in many cases older minds, are being programmed away from truth and Christian values. For example, what would you say if I pointed out that one of the finest video productions on whales, "Voyage of the Mimi," now being used in fourth-grade classrooms throughout the nation, is, in reality,an evolutionary propaganda?
The first three segments tell the beautiful story of whales and their habitat, and the children have a wonderful time observing and talking about these great mammoths of the sea. We could praise this fine production for children if it weren't for the last segment that tries to answer the question: Where did the whales come from? At this point, an expert (from the Smithsonian Museum) in the study of whales shows a fourth grader how the whale's "blow hole" evolved from the nostrils of a small dog to this monstrous beauty of the sea, where it wound up on top of his head.
It seems that no cost was spared in the producers' lavish efforts to program fourth-grade minds in this outlandish and unscientific idea of the whales' supposed evolution. Few children could come away from this fabrication without being thoroughly convinced that a dog-like creature was the whale's ancestor. The reader should keep in mind that it is not science that the parent and teacher must fear, it is the manipulation of the child's mind through semi-truths and outright fabrications labeled as science that give us reason to fear.
While the "Voyage of the Mimi" draws obvious conclusions about evolution, there are other programs that also claim to teach scientific truth, of which parents and teachers must take note. One of these programs is called Project Wild, endorsed by such New Agers as singer John Denver, which claims to develop environmental literacy. Instead, however, in it we find the most subtle training imaginable in humanism and New-Age philosophy. Project Wild teaches the child "what to think," rather than "how to think" about the environment. Once again, this is done in a most subtle and convincing manner and is not always easily detected.
For example, who would say that mammals and other organisms are not vital to our ecological well-being? Or who would say that we should not be considerate of our pet's comfort, as well as that of wild animals on Planet Earth? This truth is extended out in Project Wild to blind the reader, and makes him more vulnerable to thinking about himself as an animal, rather than a very special creation of God. This is precisely the essence of New Age philosophy.
In Project Wild, man and animal are equal entities in the environment. Anthropomorphism goes on throughout the curriculum, and, by any standard, there is no pedagogical reason for this approach to environmental awareness. What we see in the Project is the antithesis of science as it relates to critical thinking in regards to environmental awareness. Parents and Christian teachers would do well to inform themselves of the new and ever more subtle attempts at capturing the minds of children, as well as ways to combat them. Commitment to the creationist world view is the place to start.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => evolution-new-age-your-childs-education [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Richard Bliss, Ph.D. ) -->
Throughout the years, questions have been raised regarding the Christian faith, which have caused many to stumble, or even abandon the faith altogether. Some seem rather simple, while others are difficult. But if the Christian faith is the true faith, there must be answers, and there are, if one is willing to study and believe.
It does no good to ignore the questions, or to insist that some questions are unaskable, exhibiting a "lack of faith." If young people can't ask and receive honest, satisfying answers in their Christian homes or churches, they will probably assume there are no answers, and deny the validity of Christianity. Remember, many, if not most of the leading humanists, atheists, and anti-Christians come from Christian homes. A few such plaguing questions, with (very) brief answers, follow. (I recommend the ICR book, The Bible Has the Answer as one excellent source of more complete answers.)
1) Evidence for a Creator God? The design and order of the universe, in particular living systems, demands an intelligent Designer. To deny the obvious signature of God in His creation is to be "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
2) Where did God come from? The Bible reveals God as self-existent. This is a basic assumption of Christianity, but all the facts of nature support the validity of this assumption.
3) Where did Cain get his wife? Adam and Eve had "sons and daughters" (Genesis 5). Such unions were a genetic problem by the time of Moses, but were not a problem so soon after Creation.
4) Human color differences? Genetic studies have shown that all humans have the same color, although some have more of the skin-coloring agent than others.
5) Where did the races come from? All humans are descended from Noah's family. Isolation of language groups following the dispersion at the Tower of Babel caused certain characteristics to be expressed which best fit the local environment.
6) What about the dinosaurs? The Bible reveals that land animals were created on Day Six of Creation Week. There is much evidence that humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time.
7) Carbon–14? The Carbon–14 dating method is applicable only for the most recent 3000 years or so, good for dating human archaeological remains.
8) Is the earth billions of years old? Other radiometric dating schemes are thought by some to show that the earth is old, but in reality do not prove the earth is old. They merely assume it, and then work within that and other questionable assumptions. All the real facts fit the concept of a young earth.
9) Is there evidence for Noah's Flood? The global, mountain-covering flood described in the Bible laid down most of the world's fossil bearing (things that died in the Flood judgment) sedimentary (water-deposited) rock. To deny the Flood is to be willingly ignorant" (II Peter 3:6).
10) Isn't Creation a side issue? Most of Christian doctrine is based on Genesis, especially the definition of, and punishment for sin, and man's desperate need for a Savior to die in substitutionary payment for that sin. The Genesis account of creation is vital to the Christian faith.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Throughout the years, questions have been raised regarding the Christian faith, which have caused many to stumble, or even abandon the faith altogether. Some seem rather simple, while others are difficult. But if the Christian faith is the true faith, there must be answers, and there are, if one is willing to study and believe.
It does no good to ignore the questions, or to insist that some questions are unaskable, exhibiting a "lack of faith." If young people can't ask and receive honest, satisfying answers in their Christian homes or churches, they will probably assume there are no answers, and deny the validity of Christianity. Remember, many, if not most of the leading humanists, atheists, and anti-Christians come from Christian homes. A few such plaguing questions, with (very) brief answers, follow. (I recommend the ICR book, The Bible Has the Answer as one excellent source of more complete answers.)
1) Evidence for a Creator God? The design and order of the universe, in particular living systems, demands an intelligent Designer. To deny the obvious signature of God in His creation is to be "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
2) Where did God come from? The Bible reveals God as self-existent. This is a basic assumption of Christianity, but all the facts of nature support the validity of this assumption.
3) Where did Cain get his wife? Adam and Eve had "sons and daughters" (Genesis 5). Such unions were a genetic problem by the time of Moses, but were not a problem so soon after Creation.
4) Human color differences? Genetic studies have shown that all humans have the same color, although some have more of the skin-coloring agent than others.
5) Where did the races come from? All humans are descended from Noah's family. Isolation of language groups following the dispersion at the Tower of Babel caused certain characteristics to be expressed which best fit the local environment.
6) What about the dinosaurs? The Bible reveals that land animals were created on Day Six of Creation Week. There is much evidence that humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time.
7) Carbon–14? The Carbon–14 dating method is applicable only for the most recent 3000 years or so, good for dating human archaeological remains.
8) Is the earth billions of years old? Other radiometric dating schemes are thought by some to show that the earth is old, but in reality do not prove the earth is old. They merely assume it, and then work within that and other questionable assumptions. All the real facts fit the concept of a young earth.
9) Is there evidence for Noah's Flood? The global, mountain-covering flood described in the Bible laid down most of the world's fossil bearing (things that died in the Flood judgment) sedimentary (water-deposited) rock. To deny the Flood is to be willingly ignorant" (II Peter 3:6).
10) Isn't Creation a side issue? Most of Christian doctrine is based on Genesis, especially the definition of, and punishment for sin, and man's desperate need for a Savior to die in substitutionary payment for that sin. The Genesis account of creation is vital to the Christian faith.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-difficult-questions-have-answers [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Picture this scene: A young, pregnant girl is taken into the counseling room at an abortion clinic. Understandably frightened, confused, and vulnerable, she only knows she didn't mean to get pregnant, and wishes she wasn't. She also knows that an abortion would put an end to her pregnancy. But this is a baby we're talking about!
"How far along are you, Sweetie?" the counselor asks.
"Oh, about two months," she answers, to which the counselor replies: "You remember what you learned in your 10th grade biology class—how that the developing embryo goes through various stages during its growth? It goes through a fish stage, where it has 'gill slits' just like a fish. At other times it has a yolk sac like a bird, and a tail like a monkey. At two months it is probably going through its fish stage; it is not fully human yet. Don't think of it as a baby, but as a fish." On display are drawings pointing out the various stages of development of human, fish, monkey, etc., embryos with the similarities pointed out, and, sure enough, they do look remarkably the same convinced by this evidence, our young friend decides to go ahead and have the abortion. After all, it's okay to kill a fish.
It might interest you to know that the above story is true. Not only is it true, it's probably commonplace. This line of reasoning called the biogenetic law, and known by the catch phrase "ontogeny recipitulates phylogeny," is many times given as the supposed scientific justification for abortion. It was originated in 1866 by Hitler's mentor, Ernest Haeckel, who produced the series of comparative drawings used in both biology textbooks and abortion clinics.
It might also interest you to know that the whole concept has been discredited for decades. As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.
But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth. Similarly, the embryonic human "tail" is in reality the developing coccyx, or "tail bone," a vitally important, fully human feature, while the so-called yolk sac is not a source of nourishment as in a bird egg, but is the source of the embryo's first blood cells. Everything about the human embryo is totally unique and human.
It doesn't make sense that abortionists could use such bad science to justify their deeds. But then, a lot about abortion doesn't make sense.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Picture this scene: A young, pregnant girl is taken into the counseling room at an abortion clinic. Understandably frightened, confused, and vulnerable, she only knows she didn't mean to get pregnant, and wishes she wasn't. She also knows that an abortion would put an end to her pregnancy. But this is a baby we're talking about!
"How far along are you, Sweetie?" the counselor asks.
"Oh, about two months," she answers, to which the counselor replies: "You remember what you learned in your 10th grade biology class—how that the developing embryo goes through various stages during its growth? It goes through a fish stage, where it has 'gill slits' just like a fish. At other times it has a yolk sac like a bird, and a tail like a monkey. At two months it is probably going through its fish stage; it is not fully human yet. Don't think of it as a baby, but as a fish." On display are drawings pointing out the various stages of development of human, fish, monkey, etc., embryos with the similarities pointed out, and, sure enough, they do look remarkably the same convinced by this evidence, our young friend decides to go ahead and have the abortion. After all, it's okay to kill a fish.
It might interest you to know that the above story is true. Not only is it true, it's probably commonplace. This line of reasoning called the biogenetic law, and known by the catch phrase "ontogeny recipitulates phylogeny," is many times given as the supposed scientific justification for abortion. It was originated in 1866 by Hitler's mentor, Ernest Haeckel, who produced the series of comparative drawings used in both biology textbooks and abortion clinics.
It might also interest you to know that the whole concept has been discredited for decades. As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.
But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth. Similarly, the embryonic human "tail" is in reality the developing coccyx, or "tail bone," a vitally important, fully human feature, while the so-called yolk sac is not a source of nourishment as in a bird egg, but is the source of the embryo's first blood cells. Everything about the human embryo is totally unique and human.
It doesn't make sense that abortionists could use such bad science to justify their deeds. But then, a lot about abortion doesn't make sense.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => does-human-embryo-go-through-animal-stages [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
When God wrote the Biblical record, He chose not to give all the scientific and historical details. The best we can do is to hold tightly to the specifics it does give, and interpret the scientific facts within that framework. The Christian creationist must be committed to truth, and hold lightly those pet theories and opinions not spelled out in Scripture, striving to fine-tune his understanding through careful scientific research.
Case in point: Recent news reports have noted that a few explorers claim to have identified a "boat-shaped rock formation" in the foothills of Mt. Ararat as the remains of Noah's Ark. Readers who have followed the search for the Ark are aware that most researchers have concluded that the remains, if still in existence at all, are most likely on the nearby glacier-covered volcanic peak where several hundred people over the last 150 years claim to have seen a rectangular, barge-shaped object partially covered by rock, ice, and snow.
But recently, these few individuals have concluded that this rock formation is the Ark. Supporting their claims are very questionable research methods, but it is worth noting that very serious scientific study (including my own field and lab study, and corroborated by Dr. John Baumgardner's core-drilling investigation during the summer of 1988) discovered nothing that does not have a simple geologic explanation. As much as I wish it were the Ark, there is no evidence that it is, and we should not be overly encouraged by these unwarranted claims. Research continues, with at least one expedition planned for this summer on Mt.Ararat.
Actually, we can learn a lot from this episode. Science is not (or should not be, anyway) done in the media. Saying something often enough, and loudly enough, doesn't make it so. Creationists at times forget this fact.
But it seems to me that our evolutionary counterparts purposefully abuse science in this way. How else can the fact that a viewpoint which claims to explain the entire universe, yet which has so little objective scientific evidence to support it, which runs counter to basic scientific law, which is statistically impossible, and which is an affront to logic and intuition, hold such sway in American life? It is no wonder that big-name evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, and Carl Sagan, who command incredibly large lecture fees, refuse to debate creationists on the scientific evidence. They know their bias might be exposed. Only as the evolutionary religion is told in the name of science and received without question can it continue. And that is what evolutionist’s bank on!
Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard. Although we have a Book, which we accept on faith, that faith is not a mindless, groundless faith, for it is based on sound evidences given in the context of scientific and historical truth. We do have a mandate to transmit the truths of Scripture to the next generation, but it is also true that the Bible is not specific on every issue. It does not specify the exact location (or even the present existence) of Noah's Ark. We must do our science carefully and honestly, reporting our conclusions properly and cautiously, and correcting them when warranted, all the while identifying our presuppositional bias, even though evolutionists seldom do the same.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>When God wrote the Biblical record, He chose not to give all the scientific and historical details. The best we can do is to hold tightly to the specifics it does give, and interpret the scientific facts within that framework. The Christian creationist must be committed to truth, and hold lightly those pet theories and opinions not spelled out in Scripture, striving to fine-tune his understanding through careful scientific research.
Case in point: Recent news reports have noted that a few explorers claim to have identified a "boat-shaped rock formation" in the foothills of Mt. Ararat as the remains of Noah's Ark. Readers who have followed the search for the Ark are aware that most researchers have concluded that the remains, if still in existence at all, are most likely on the nearby glacier-covered volcanic peak where several hundred people over the last 150 years claim to have seen a rectangular, barge-shaped object partially covered by rock, ice, and snow.
But recently, these few individuals have concluded that this rock formation is the Ark. Supporting their claims are very questionable research methods, but it is worth noting that very serious scientific study (including my own field and lab study, and corroborated by Dr. John Baumgardner's core-drilling investigation during the summer of 1988) discovered nothing that does not have a simple geologic explanation. As much as I wish it were the Ark, there is no evidence that it is, and we should not be overly encouraged by these unwarranted claims. Research continues, with at least one expedition planned for this summer on Mt.Ararat.
Actually, we can learn a lot from this episode. Science is not (or should not be, anyway) done in the media. Saying something often enough, and loudly enough, doesn't make it so. Creationists at times forget this fact.
But it seems to me that our evolutionary counterparts purposefully abuse science in this way. How else can the fact that a viewpoint which claims to explain the entire universe, yet which has so little objective scientific evidence to support it, which runs counter to basic scientific law, which is statistically impossible, and which is an affront to logic and intuition, hold such sway in American life? It is no wonder that big-name evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, and Carl Sagan, who command incredibly large lecture fees, refuse to debate creationists on the scientific evidence. They know their bias might be exposed. Only as the evolutionary religion is told in the name of science and received without question can it continue. And that is what evolutionist’s bank on!
Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard. Although we have a Book, which we accept on faith, that faith is not a mindless, groundless faith, for it is based on sound evidences given in the context of scientific and historical truth. We do have a mandate to transmit the truths of Scripture to the next generation, but it is also true that the Bible is not specific on every issue. It does not specify the exact location (or even the present existence) of Noah's Ark. We must do our science carefully and honestly, reporting our conclusions properly and cautiously, and correcting them when warranted, all the while identifying our presuppositional bias, even though evolutionists seldom do the same.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => has-noahs-ark-been-discovered [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
The biggest problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from non-life. Even the simplest single-celled organism is unthinkably complex, with scores of highly-sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate that even a protein molecule, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids, could never arise by chance. And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life from non-life is impossible without intelligent design. Actually, any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignoring of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.
Another huge problem for evolutionists lies in the nature of the fossil record, i.e., the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no in-between forms have ever been discovered. Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual, "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that in-between forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.
The evidence for creation is so strong; it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists, who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
The biggest problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from non-life. Even the simplest single-celled organism is unthinkably complex, with scores of highly-sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate that even a protein molecule, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids, could never arise by chance. And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life from non-life is impossible without intelligent design. Actually, any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignoring of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.
Another huge problem for evolutionists lies in the nature of the fossil record, i.e., the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no in-between forms have ever been discovered. Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual, "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that in-between forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.
The evidence for creation is so strong; it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists, who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => there-evidence-against-evolution
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
After a recent, televised, creation/evolution debate with a well-known evolutionist, a scientist who has written several particularly venomous articles against Christianity in the journal, American Atheist, I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently? Having asked this same question to a number of such persons, I was not surprised by his reply.
He had grown up in a very religious Christian home and church, and throughout his teen years had accepted Scripture in its entirety and had intended to become a minister. Yet, he did not get answers to a number of questions. All it took was one course in evolution at a nearby formerly Christian college to cause him to abandon Christianity and adopt atheism, not only as his own view, but also as his life's message.
His testimony is far from unique. A surprising number of this country's leading atheists, humanists, and evolutionists are from evangelical Christian homes, but almost none were ever taught how to defend their faith in a confrontational environment, nor were they taught how to think along Biblical lines.
Our ICR books and messages have shown that creationism is foundational to all Christian doctrine and living. Neither Christianity as a whole nor individual Christians can remain strong against frontal attacks without a firm belief in supernatural creation. Until we understand that Jesus Christ is the Creator, we can never fully grasp the significance of His work of redemption. Unless we understand that He created the world in a sinless state, and that this state was lost by the rebellion of Adam, we can never understand our need for a Savior.
How did we get into such a situation? With few exceptions, today's public high schools and state universities are confrontational to the creationist student. I have counseled with students and wept with heartbroken parents over this issue. The creationist perspective is simply not tolerated by many teachers or professors, who take it upon themselves to ridicule Christianity and belittle and intimidate creationist students. When I was on the faculty of a major university, my outspoken creationist testimony was strongly resented, and a number of efforts were made to silence me.
The problem extends to Christian schools, as well. Recently, a creationist science professor at Baylor University (Southern Baptist) was warned by the faculty and by a national atheistic organization never to identify himself with creationism again on that campus. Many professors at Wheaton College, Calvin College, and other schools with strong Biblical roots, are now among the most outspoken critics and bitter opponents of a return to creationist thinking.
Perhaps the greatest responsibility, however, is reserved for evangelical churches and homes. Many pastors have: been trained in theistic evolution (sometimes even in leading evangelical seminaries) or else taught to ignore "controversial issues." Likewise, parents have neglected to get good reading material into the hands of their children, and have not monitored their input from TV, schools, etc.
Today we can expect at best only tolerance of the Christian worldview in the public schools. Our only hope is to return, in our own churches, schools, seminaries, and hearts, to the infallible Word of God, especially its foundational principles in the early chapters of Genesis.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>After a recent, televised, creation/evolution debate with a well-known evolutionist, a scientist who has written several particularly venomous articles against Christianity in the journal, American Atheist, I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently? Having asked this same question to a number of such persons, I was not surprised by his reply.
He had grown up in a very religious Christian home and church, and throughout his teen years had accepted Scripture in its entirety and had intended to become a minister. Yet, he did not get answers to a number of questions. All it took was one course in evolution at a nearby formerly Christian college to cause him to abandon Christianity and adopt atheism, not only as his own view, but also as his life's message.
His testimony is far from unique. A surprising number of this country's leading atheists, humanists, and evolutionists are from evangelical Christian homes, but almost none were ever taught how to defend their faith in a confrontational environment, nor were they taught how to think along Biblical lines.
Our ICR books and messages have shown that creationism is foundational to all Christian doctrine and living. Neither Christianity as a whole nor individual Christians can remain strong against frontal attacks without a firm belief in supernatural creation. Until we understand that Jesus Christ is the Creator, we can never fully grasp the significance of His work of redemption. Unless we understand that He created the world in a sinless state, and that this state was lost by the rebellion of Adam, we can never understand our need for a Savior.
How did we get into such a situation? With few exceptions, today's public high schools and state universities are confrontational to the creationist student. I have counseled with students and wept with heartbroken parents over this issue. The creationist perspective is simply not tolerated by many teachers or professors, who take it upon themselves to ridicule Christianity and belittle and intimidate creationist students. When I was on the faculty of a major university, my outspoken creationist testimony was strongly resented, and a number of efforts were made to silence me.
The problem extends to Christian schools, as well. Recently, a creationist science professor at Baylor University (Southern Baptist) was warned by the faculty and by a national atheistic organization never to identify himself with creationism again on that campus. Many professors at Wheaton College, Calvin College, and other schools with strong Biblical roots, are now among the most outspoken critics and bitter opponents of a return to creationist thinking.
Perhaps the greatest responsibility, however, is reserved for evangelical churches and homes. Many pastors have: been trained in theistic evolution (sometimes even in leading evangelical seminaries) or else taught to ignore "controversial issues." Likewise, parents have neglected to get good reading material into the hands of their children, and have not monitored their input from TV, schools, etc.
Today we can expect at best only tolerance of the Christian worldview in the public schools. Our only hope is to return, in our own churches, schools, seminaries, and hearts, to the infallible Word of God, especially its foundational principles in the early chapters of Genesis.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => where-do-anti-creationists-come-from [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Not too long ago, a scientist who claims to believe the Bible and calls himself a creationist, came to ICR to confront us with our error of teaching a recent creation. He held to a 5-billion year-old earth, a view, which we feel, is fraught with many logical fallacies, not the least of which is the insistence that the Flood of Noah was merely a local flood.
Here is the issue: All advocates of the old earth insist that "proof" of such ages lies in the rocks and fossils of the earth's crust. They claim these were laid down by either slow and gradual processes, or by occasional rapid processes of local extent. The fact that many of these rock layers are of continental extent forces them to postulate migrating shorelines, widely meandering rivers, unthinkably large deltas, etc. Furthermore, the rock units in most cases were laid down by catastrophic events, but these events, they say, were rare, occurring every million years or so.
But if the flood actually happened the way the Bible seems to describe it (i.e., a year-long, mountain-covering, world-restructuring event), it would have laid down many layers of mud full of dead things (i.e., now rocks and fossils) covering immense areas, having been deposited under catastrophic conditions. A proper interpretation of the rocks and fossils speaks of a global, dynamic, watery catastrophe: the Biblical Deluge.
Only denial of Biblical teaching could lead one to misinterpret the rocks and fossils to support long ages. If the flood happened the way the Bible says it happened, then it laid down the rocks and fossils, and there is no remaining evidence for an old earth, or evolution, for that matter.
Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He certainly could have written much more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted over 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. Consider these few quotes of the many: "the face of the earth (i.e., planet)" (6:1); "end of all flesh . . .the earth is filled with violence . . .I will destroy them with the earth" (6:13); "destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die" (6:17); etc., etc.
Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah's Flood (9:11, 15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah's Flood. If Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival for he had many years' warning (6:3).
Perhaps more convincing is the fact that Jesus Christ based His teaching of coming judgment on all mankind on the fact that Noah's Flood judged all mankind (Matthew 24:36-39, Luke 17:26, 27). A local flood implies a partial judgment. Likewise, Peter based his prophecy that the existing planet: will "melt with fervent heat" (II Peter 3:10) and an entire"new heavens" and a "new earth" will be recreated (3:13) on the historical fact of the global flood of Noah's day (3:6). All things considered, few doctrines are taught as clearly in Scripture as that of the global flood.
The Christian need not distort the clear teachings of the Word of God. My testimony as a geologist is this: I know no fact of geology that cannot be interpreted by the Biblical worldview in a way at least as satisfying as (usually better than) the evolutionary, slow-and-gradual worldview.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Not too long ago, a scientist who claims to believe the Bible and calls himself a creationist, came to ICR to confront us with our error of teaching a recent creation. He held to a 5-billion year-old earth, a view, which we feel, is fraught with many logical fallacies, not the least of which is the insistence that the Flood of Noah was merely a local flood.
Here is the issue: All advocates of the old earth insist that "proof" of such ages lies in the rocks and fossils of the earth's crust. They claim these were laid down by either slow and gradual processes, or by occasional rapid processes of local extent. The fact that many of these rock layers are of continental extent forces them to postulate migrating shorelines, widely meandering rivers, unthinkably large deltas, etc. Furthermore, the rock units in most cases were laid down by catastrophic events, but these events, they say, were rare, occurring every million years or so.
But if the flood actually happened the way the Bible seems to describe it (i.e., a year-long, mountain-covering, world-restructuring event), it would have laid down many layers of mud full of dead things (i.e., now rocks and fossils) covering immense areas, having been deposited under catastrophic conditions. A proper interpretation of the rocks and fossils speaks of a global, dynamic, watery catastrophe: the Biblical Deluge.
Only denial of Biblical teaching could lead one to misinterpret the rocks and fossils to support long ages. If the flood happened the way the Bible says it happened, then it laid down the rocks and fossils, and there is no remaining evidence for an old earth, or evolution, for that matter.
Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He certainly could have written much more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted over 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. Consider these few quotes of the many: "the face of the earth (i.e., planet)" (6:1); "end of all flesh . . .the earth is filled with violence . . .I will destroy them with the earth" (6:13); "destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die" (6:17); etc., etc.
Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah's Flood (9:11, 15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah's Flood. If Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival for he had many years' warning (6:3).
Perhaps more convincing is the fact that Jesus Christ based His teaching of coming judgment on all mankind on the fact that Noah's Flood judged all mankind (Matthew 24:36-39, Luke 17:26, 27). A local flood implies a partial judgment. Likewise, Peter based his prophecy that the existing planet: will "melt with fervent heat" (II Peter 3:10) and an entire"new heavens" and a "new earth" will be recreated (3:13) on the historical fact of the global flood of Noah's day (3:6). All things considered, few doctrines are taught as clearly in Scripture as that of the global flood.
The Christian need not distort the clear teachings of the Word of God. My testimony as a geologist is this: I know no fact of geology that cannot be interpreted by the Biblical worldview in a way at least as satisfying as (usually better than) the evolutionary, slow-and-gradual worldview.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-noahs-flood-cover-whole-earth [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for"God hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah's family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah's family, the creation model postulates a "racially mixed" population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn't. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by "a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes" (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for"God hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah's family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah's family, the creation model postulates a "racially mixed" population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn't. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by "a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes" (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => where-did-races-come-from
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
The other night at bedtime, after we had read a Bible story and prayed, my oldest daughter, Chara, aged 8, fired a series of questions at me which came from her innermost being. "How do I know if creation is true? In fact, how do I know if there really is God I've never seen Him. The girl next doors' teacher believes in evolution. How am I supposed to know?" Appreciating her questioning spirit, I promised to do a set of creation "experiments" with her that weekend, and her excitement grew as the weekend approached.
When the time came, I presented her with a series of four grocery sacks, each to be examined in turn. I explained that God no longer creates as He did during creation week (Gen. 2:1-4, Ex. 10:1 1, etc.), but that if He has created we ought to be able to tell it by observing the things He has made. By way of analogy we discussed how to tell if a person had "made" (i.e., created) something. She determined that a human "created" object would be designed, it would have some purpose, and it would require some intelligence to make it.
The first sack contained a series of rocks, several from the driveway, and a piece of polished marble, a rounded turquoise, a stone arrowhead, and a concrete brick (i.e., man-made "rock"). She methodically examined each one, correctly identifying those with design, purpose (even though she didn't always know the specific purpose, she knew it must be there), and underlying intelligence. The next sack was a similar array of wood, several pieces quite rough, a twig, a tongue depressor, a wooden button, and a carving. Again, she could easily discern the evidence for "creation."
Next she examined a stack of paper. One page was blank; one had random blobs of paint on it, neither showing human intelligence. A page of scribbling was correctly identified as of human origin, for although it was a mess, it was not something that could "just happen." Next were a page from a magazine and some of my own sloppy artwork. Then came a note from me expressing my love and support for her in her quest. She was getting the point. There is a difference between things that are purposefully made and things that just happen.
Next, I showed her pictures of animals and plants from a biology book, and explained how each living thing is made up of many complex cells, which were also shown. At a smaller scale, I explained the DNA code, which was both pictured and sketched, which contains more information and design than is in all the books in San Diego put together. All of that information must be read and followed for each cell to continue living. She recognized that such marvelous design could only come about if designed by someone very intelligent-more intelligent than any of today's scientists.
The last sack contained several more driveway rocks (granite, with no fossils), several rocks with fossils in them, a dried sea horse and sand dollar and a flower. Her questions were answered, all living things are the handiworks of a creator, and even nonliving rocks accomplish a wonderful purpose, for without them there would be no place to live.
There may be other questions or times of doubt ahead for her, but I am sure she will never forget the conclusions she reached that day. No amount of "education" will convince her that order can naturally come from disorder.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The other night at bedtime, after we had read a Bible story and prayed, my oldest daughter, Chara, aged 8, fired a series of questions at me which came from her innermost being. "How do I know if creation is true? In fact, how do I know if there really is God I've never seen Him. The girl next doors' teacher believes in evolution. How am I supposed to know?" Appreciating her questioning spirit, I promised to do a set of creation "experiments" with her that weekend, and her excitement grew as the weekend approached.
When the time came, I presented her with a series of four grocery sacks, each to be examined in turn. I explained that God no longer creates as He did during creation week (Gen. 2:1-4, Ex. 10:1 1, etc.), but that if He has created we ought to be able to tell it by observing the things He has made. By way of analogy we discussed how to tell if a person had "made" (i.e., created) something. She determined that a human "created" object would be designed, it would have some purpose, and it would require some intelligence to make it.
The first sack contained a series of rocks, several from the driveway, and a piece of polished marble, a rounded turquoise, a stone arrowhead, and a concrete brick (i.e., man-made "rock"). She methodically examined each one, correctly identifying those with design, purpose (even though she didn't always know the specific purpose, she knew it must be there), and underlying intelligence. The next sack was a similar array of wood, several pieces quite rough, a twig, a tongue depressor, a wooden button, and a carving. Again, she could easily discern the evidence for "creation."
Next she examined a stack of paper. One page was blank; one had random blobs of paint on it, neither showing human intelligence. A page of scribbling was correctly identified as of human origin, for although it was a mess, it was not something that could "just happen." Next were a page from a magazine and some of my own sloppy artwork. Then came a note from me expressing my love and support for her in her quest. She was getting the point. There is a difference between things that are purposefully made and things that just happen.
Next, I showed her pictures of animals and plants from a biology book, and explained how each living thing is made up of many complex cells, which were also shown. At a smaller scale, I explained the DNA code, which was both pictured and sketched, which contains more information and design than is in all the books in San Diego put together. All of that information must be read and followed for each cell to continue living. She recognized that such marvelous design could only come about if designed by someone very intelligent-more intelligent than any of today's scientists.
The last sack contained several more driveway rocks (granite, with no fossils), several rocks with fossils in them, a dried sea horse and sand dollar and a flower. Her questions were answered, all living things are the handiworks of a creator, and even nonliving rocks accomplish a wonderful purpose, for without them there would be no place to live.
There may be other questions or times of doubt ahead for her, but I am sure she will never forget the conclusions she reached that day. No amount of "education" will convince her that order can naturally come from disorder.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => how-do-i-know-there-really-god [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
