Sunday, January 30, 2011

Eureka! I finally found how to convert my documents so that I can publish them here. The following column was ignored when I submitted for publication by the United Methodist Reporter but has been accepted for publication in the initial issue of a ressurected publication EPWORTH HERALD.

There are two ways for a scientists to approach their research. One, they can believe that there is a God and two, they can believe that there is no God. If they believe in God then they have the problem of deciding how God has communicated with people. In Europe, North Africa and the New World the basic belief in God has been the Judea/Christian ideas as transmitted through the accepted Old and New Testaments. For over 4,000 years that story told of God creating the universe with the people, plants and animals of the earth in six days. This was the belief of most of the scientists who developed the basics of chemistry, physics and astronomy up to Darwin.

If scientists don't believe in God then they must develop another story of how we came to exist in the highly complex biological state that is programmed to reproduce itself. This has led to the development of the assumption that natural forces randomly interacted to form the elements and life forms. Currently this is expressed as evolution theory. Because the laws of physics say that inorganic molecules will not randomly form more complex molecules or organic living molecules without eons of time for the reactions, they have postulated billions of years as the time line for the universe. However, other atheists have realized the impossibility of nature forming life and have postulated the concept of life being placed on earth by aliens from outer space. They have assumed that the those forms somehow evolved.

The concept of evolution has been accepted by biology and is now developed into evolutionary biology that is taught as fact. Archeology, Anthropology and other life sciences have all accepted that evolution is the only way to view their studies. When opposition to evolution is expressed their response is that they are practicing science and opposition is a religious belief.

However opposition to evolution has existed even before Darwin published his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. But evolution was debated and finally accepted as the favored theory in scientific circles. Beginning in 1961 with the publication of his book The Genesis Flood co-authored with Whitcomb, Dr. Henry M. Morris, who was educated as a Civil Engineer specializing in Hydraulics, created the Institute for Creation Research that has focused activities on developing science from the Creation viewpoint. When those scientists who believed in creation were blocked from presenting their research in scholarly publications they created the Creation Research Society that published a referred Quarterly Journal of their findings.

These are the two extreme viewpoints. In an effort to reconcile the differences many combinations of thinking have developed including ideas that God used evolution to create and that the times listed in the Bible for creation represented eons rather than days and it is argued that the Bible was edited as it came down through the ages to reflect bias of those copying and transmitting the Bible. This thinking leads to questioning all of the text. Church leaders felt that they couldn't argue with scientists and did not support the Biblical story of creation.

The Institute of Creation Science and Creation Research Society have adopted the concept that the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days. They believe that the earth was surrounded by a canopy of water until the time of the Noah when catastrophic events created the fossil beds as well as reforming the earth. The Bible states that after the Flood the earth was divided and all geologists believe that the world at one time was one land mass called Pangaea that divided into the continents of today. They argue that the evidence for catastrophic geology is much greater than the currently accepted geological theory that the earth is being formed slowly. The Creation Research Science Quarterly, a referred journal has published numerous scientific studies of the earth geology arguing that the land has been formed by massive catastrophic events including the effects of water-driven movement of land masses. Much attention is given to the formation of the Grand Canyon as a catastrophic event with the ground cracking and water scouring out the canyon. They use the catastrophic geology of the Mount St. Helens eruption demonstrating catastrophic geology formation. A special task force was formed to look at the radioisotope age of the earth that has investigated all of the uses of isotopes to date the rocks of the earth. Radio carbon dating has proven to be a real problem for old-earth advocates. Carbon 14 has a half-life that would make it disappear in millions of years and yet it has been found in coal, oil, gas, and diamonds requiring that they must only be a few thousand years old. The scientific facts more and more support the Biblical story of creation.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Here is the action taken where the best candidate for an academic research position was denied the job because he had questioned evolution in his writings as I published it in The Livestock Weekly:


I haven't seen the documentary film Expelled produced by Ben Stein, but have read about it. It documents the persecution of teachers who dare to question evolution in the classroom. In one of my latest engineering newsletters I got this:

UK Settles With Astronomy Professor Alleging Religious Discrimination.

The AP (1/19, Lovan) reports, An astronomy professor who sued the University of Kentucky after claiming he lost out on a top job because of his Christian beliefs reached a settlement Tuesday with the school. The university agreed to pay $125,000 to Martin Gaskell in exchange for dropping a federal religious discrimination suit he filed in Lexington in 2009. According to Gaskell's suit, he was passed over to be director of UK's MacAdam Student Observatory because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of evolution. The university did not admit any wrongdoing, and said its hiring processes were and are fundamentally sound and were followed in this case.

I went into teaching at a university when we didn't have a tenure policy. Later it was established and the one criteria was that a professor couldn't be fired for what he taught in the classroom in order to ensure freedom of research and teaching. Apparently that only applies if you toe the evolution thinking. I think scientists should only teach only the truth and question every assumption behind their conclusions.

A Kentucky newspaper stated that "no one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007--until his writings on evolution came to light." In his lawsuit Gaskell claims that "UK officials repeatedly referred to his religion in their discussions and e-mails" as the real reason he was denied the post. One astronomy professor, for instance, "feared embarrassing headlines about Kentucky's flagship university hiring a 'creationist' in a state already home to the controversial Creation Museum. Three biology professors and a geology professor also hammered that theme, that hiring Gaskell would be a "disaster" and an embarrassment to the university, even though Gaskell disagrees with the young-earth position of the Creation Museum. Some of his views, which resemble those of old-earth astronomer Hugh Ross, are published on his personal webpage. "UK biologists said in their e-mails that evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that Gaskell had no scientific basis to raise questions about it."

I have been quoting from a story in Creation Matters, a publication of the Creation Research Society that anyone can subscribe to. I want to quote their last two paragraphs:

" Even the "potential" exposure was enough to expel this man, without any evidence he had actually tried to influence anyone a the university of observatory about his views. This can only mean one thing: the Darwin Party, whose hardcore stance on secular evolution represents a small fraction of American opinion, is running scared. They cannot afford to give a platform to anyone who potentially might expose to the public the existence of alternative views. They will destroy careers to keep ideological purity in their ranks.

This tactic cannot work forever, because it is self-refuting; it violates academia's own ostensible commitment to the Enlightenment ideals of reason and tolerance. If Darwinists' beliefs are so fragile that they worry exposure to alternative viewpoints is intolerable, then their beliefs are not worth believing. And if they think that the public must be protected from such exposure, they disparage the intelligence of their fellow Homo Sapiens. No scientist should fear openness about the evidence. Bring it on."

You can reach me by E-mail at

Copyright C. A. Rodenberger 2011 602 words