I have invited the ministers of the Central Texas Conference of UMC to get their own copy of Biblical Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris. I asked Cokesbury to stock them but when I went by Saturday they have not yet gotten any in stock. They can be ordered on the Internet.
The book goes through every book of the Bible and finds references that support creation and the flood of Noah. He then looks at other historical literature like The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus and the Ancient Books for the same references.
In the appendix he sums with these words:
"The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ therefore encompasses the three-fold work of Christ---creation, conservation consummation---past, present. and future. One preaches a gospel with no foundation if he neglects or distorts the creation, a gospel with no power if he omits the cross and the empty tomb, and a gospel with no hope if he ignores or denies the coming kingdom. He preaches the gospel 'according to the scriptures' only if all three are preached in fullness.
In light of these facts, how sadly mistaken are the great numbers of "evangelicals" (a word meaning "those who preach the gospel")who oppose or neglect the doctrine of creation. They tell us not to "waste time on peripheral controversaries such as evoluion-creation question--just to preach the gospel," not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply "emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation," forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Heb. 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex-nihilo creation of all things by God's Word (v.3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of his promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to "preach Christ" but ignore the fact that Christ was the Creator before he became Savior, and that his finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of his finished work of creation (Heb. 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of his first revelation. the first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure will soon collapse."
I truly hope that each minister will take the time to read this book if they don't read anything else.
While I was at Cokesbury I used the gift card my granddaughter gave me to help purchase Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith by Douglas Groothius. I have read a lot of apologetics in the past but not recently and this was published in 2011. Chapter 13 is Origins, Design and Darwinism and gives an excellent argument for believing in creationism as opposed to the false doctrine of evolution.
I am also working on my thesis about God creating the universe from light by reading The New Physics. I have been intrigued by the background information on light, especially the concept that once light is projected that it will slow down with distance. I need to follow up on that because it has a lot of consequence for the images from the Hubble spacecraft and how fast the images from distant stars arrive here. The speed of light in the past has been suggested to be a lot faster than today by some Australian physicists. I have their paper published by the Stanford Research Institute and a follow-up paper they wrote to show how their thesis could harmonize with Biblical ages. Supposedly their theory was discounted by current astronomers, but I don't trust any scientist that believes in evolution.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
WELCOME
I want to welcome any UMC ministers who have come to this blog after my email to all of the members of the Central Texas Conference with this blog on my signature.
I have recieved several responses to my email, some supporting me and others disapproving of my stand. Some said that they supported my ideas but don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
It interests me that ministers can believe that the universe came from a big bang several billions of years ago and from a bunch of hydrogen atoms banging together and eventually creating by accident all of the molecules that accidently formed into living molecules that became fish, animals, apes and men but can't believe that God could have created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. All living organisms have DNA that contains an enormous amount of information that controls the reproduction of the cell. There is no way that this could happen without intelligence input of that information. A lightning strike on a puddle of mud can not form complicated life. Any scientist that believes this must have his credentials questioned.
I hope that more ministers will believe that the age old Bible stories are true and support the scientists that are working on that thesis.
I have recieved several responses to my email, some supporting me and others disapproving of my stand. Some said that they supported my ideas but don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
It interests me that ministers can believe that the universe came from a big bang several billions of years ago and from a bunch of hydrogen atoms banging together and eventually creating by accident all of the molecules that accidently formed into living molecules that became fish, animals, apes and men but can't believe that God could have created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. All living organisms have DNA that contains an enormous amount of information that controls the reproduction of the cell. There is no way that this could happen without intelligence input of that information. A lightning strike on a puddle of mud can not form complicated life. Any scientist that believes this must have his credentials questioned.
I hope that more ministers will believe that the age old Bible stories are true and support the scientists that are working on that thesis.
Monday, October 31, 2011
I have been unable to access this blog from my laptop but it is working on my desktop. I have been posting creation science comments in my Livestock Weekly column and this week I got two replies. For my next column I plan to tell how to find Creation Science books. When you do a search for Creation Science books you get several excellent sites. One site has free online books and I spent an hour or so reading some of them last night. I want to read Walt Brown's book that is listed online but haven't gotten to it.
I am reading Alien Intrusion by Gary Bates on my Kindle and am halfway through it. He makes an excellent rebuttal of evolution in the first half of the book and tells how the science fiction books and movies have prepared the public for the common belief in aliens from outer space. The first ones were from the Moon,Venus and Mars, but as we investigated those planets and found that they could not support life, the aliens moved to other planetary systems. In the second half that I have just started he is making the argument that the alien sightings and abduction stories are coming from spirits that are trying to subvert Christianity. He makes a good argument and interesting discussion of angels in the Bible.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Another example of radioactivity measurements showing young earth ages. I have only copied the last of the article published by ICR.
Humphreys used the argon data from Figure 2 to compute the age of sample 5 to be 5,100+3,800 -2,100 years, where 5,100 years was his best estimate with the lowest age of 3,000 years and the oldest age of 8,900 years. Humphreys’ lower estimate of 3,000 years was the same as the estimate made by Harrison et al.4
Conclusions
Humphreys concluded that the observed high argon retentions shown in Figure 2 conflict severely with the uniformitarian-assumed long ages. These data say that the feldspar in the Fenton Hill borehole generated over a billion years’ worth of argon-40 and then retained it during a period of time that began only thousands of years ago.The argon data thus support accelerated nuclear decay, RATE’s young helium age, and the biblical youth of the world. Consequently, we can say that both argon and helium diffusion rates agree that the earth is only thousands of years old.
Humphreys used the argon data from Figure 2 to compute the age of sample 5 to be 5,100+3,800 -2,100 years, where 5,100 years was his best estimate with the lowest age of 3,000 years and the oldest age of 8,900 years. Humphreys’ lower estimate of 3,000 years was the same as the estimate made by Harrison et al.4
Conclusions
Humphreys concluded that the observed high argon retentions shown in Figure 2 conflict severely with the uniformitarian-assumed long ages. These data say that the feldspar in the Fenton Hill borehole generated over a billion years’ worth of argon-40 and then retained it during a period of time that began only thousands of years ago.The argon data thus support accelerated nuclear decay, RATE’s young helium age, and the biblical youth of the world. Consequently, we can say that both argon and helium diffusion rates agree that the earth is only thousands of years old.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
NEW BOOKS
I apologize for not posting more often in this blog. I read something everyday that should be here, but I don't get around to posting. The Institute of Creation Research had a summer sale and I bought some bargain books both for me and sent some to the Cross Plains Public Library. I checked the other day and they only had a couple of creation science books. And those hadn't been checked our. I have been thinking about writing essays for publication in the Review to let people know what is in the Library and on the Internet. I wrote a Livestock Weekly column on this subject for next week.
I am reading a couple of the books. One is Biblical Creationism by Henry M. Morris, written before he died that goes through the entire Bible showing how all of the books support the concept of a young earth and belief that God created the universe in six literal days. A recent argument in Creation Matters published by the Creation Research Society argued that the age of the earth is history not science and that the historical report in the Bible may be the correct age of the earth. That same publication had four of five essays showing the problems with the astronomy assumptions of long ages that are not supported by the many solar observations.
I am also reading THE GENESIS FACTOR: Myths and Realities edited by Ron J. Bigalke, Jr. that argues with Hugh Ross' position on creation by millions of years. It argues strongly for the young earth creation concept. I also have the book by Sarfarti arguing with Ross but haven't read it yet. It is quoted often. Bigalke's book is a number of essays about geology, flood, astronomy, RATE report (that looks at radioactivity measurements) that all support young earth theories.
I am reading a couple of the books. One is Biblical Creationism by Henry M. Morris, written before he died that goes through the entire Bible showing how all of the books support the concept of a young earth and belief that God created the universe in six literal days. A recent argument in Creation Matters published by the Creation Research Society argued that the age of the earth is history not science and that the historical report in the Bible may be the correct age of the earth. That same publication had four of five essays showing the problems with the astronomy assumptions of long ages that are not supported by the many solar observations.
I am also reading THE GENESIS FACTOR: Myths and Realities edited by Ron J. Bigalke, Jr. that argues with Hugh Ross' position on creation by millions of years. It argues strongly for the young earth creation concept. I also have the book by Sarfarti arguing with Ross but haven't read it yet. It is quoted often. Bigalke's book is a number of essays about geology, flood, astronomy, RATE report (that looks at radioactivity measurements) that all support young earth theories.
Friday, June 3, 2011
I respect Guliuzza because he is both an engineer and an M.D. This was one of his articles in Acts and Facts that takes a design engineer approach to understanding evolution and creation.
Charles
Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design
by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. *
Everyone has some unhealthy habits and the best way to achieve long-term freedom from them is not to "drop" them but to "replace" them with something better. The freedom-through-replacement reality is also useful during any conversation about evolution's failure to explain the origin of nature's design, since, at some point, an evolutionist is likely to ask, "Well, do you propose something better?"
Creationists, in fact, do have a scientifically better explanation to replace the notion that nature's design is all an illusion that stems from a purposeless process in which evolution's substitute god, the imaginary "Natural Selector,"1 chooses the fittest mutations randomly arising in an organism's DNA. A concise answer could be, "Our claim that nature's design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research."
That answer ought to catch attention and keep discussion on the main question: "What is the best explanation of nature's design?" The Bible says in Romans 1:18-23 that the Lord's witness to His reality is "clearly seen" from the "creation" by the things He has "made." He used the language of design construction, not biology. Everyone can see nature's design and conclude it was designed--by a cause bigger than nature. Thus, Romans details how everyone's accountability to acknowledge God has always been based on the very clear design-designer (i.e., created-creator) connection, demonstrated by all human cultures, and not on detailed biological insight.
So, the biological question "how do organisms adapt to environments?" is not the root issue, which is founded on a basic question corresponding to problem-solving activities of intelligent engineers:
"Are features of design evident when the innate programming of organisms actively solves problems (or exploits opportunities) presented by environments?"
Real Design: A Scientifically Superior Explanation
Begin by stating that you have carefully examined the two explanations head-to-head. You find the explanation for real design is more persuasive since the activities of real engineers--which cannot be duplicated by natural processes--are reflected in the living world. Then, enumerate four verifiable observations that reflect real design.
Possibly the clearest observation of organisms is that they have multiple intricately arranged parts that fit together for a purpose. Many of these parts show proper alignment, exact dimensions and shape, tight fit, proper balance, and moving parts with precisely synchronized timing. These complex patterns are features of design that have been observed to originate only in intelligently designed items--never by natural forces.
The fact about sections of DNA is that their four letters are precisely arranged as a set of plans and specification detailing the materials and controls to reproduce a new organism. Since DNA 1) selects 2) in advance 3) exact attributes 4) for a purpose, it has the same features of intelligence as any engineer's specification. Throughout recorded human experience, plans and specifications are always a product of intelligence. In addition, all known natural processes that randomly choose letters one-by-one outside the context of an intelligence to guide the selection--as evolutionists assert--always yield nonsense that is totally inconsistent with information held in DNA.
Another certain feature of design is demonstrated when engineers foresee aspects of their project that cannot be built by increments. They respond by establishing conditions so all information and materials are 1) available, 2) localized together, 3) at the right time, 4) capable of functioning together 5) for the intended purpose. Only intelligent agents have been observed to set conditions where all of the parts must be collected and built together or none of a specific function is obtained. Creatures have many examples of this all-or-nothing unity, but the best example is reproduction. Evolution is a dead end without operative reproductive abilities. Intelligent foresight best explains why the minimum number of parts necessary for an organism to reproduce--is the organism itself.
Mathematicians have quantified the probability of the information for the most basic functional proteins developing by natural processes as exceedingly small.2 Therefore, it is not a stretch to assert that it is mathematically impossible to obtain by natural processes the information that is needed for the origin of a living, reproducing bacterium. Overcoming infinitesimally small probabilities in a single bound by engaging them--as evolutionists do--with infinite numbers of resources generated by an infinite number of universes falls outside the realm of acceptable scientific explanations.
Intricately arranged parts, information for specifications, all-or-nothing unity, and the impossibly low probabilities of these things happening in living things by chance are real observations. Their association to the actions of real designers is visible. Science is based on observation and testing. Real design is the better scientific explanation.
A better scientific explanation supports a better approach to science. Since these features point so clearly toward real design, biological researchers should approach investigations of nature like engineers would study an unknown electronic device. They should expect to discover well-designed, coherent, and incredibly complex systems functioning for a purpose--an expectation forbidden by the rules governing evolution's mental "thought prison."
Escaping the Thought Prison Called "Apparent Design"
Being confined to a tiny cell is the depressing reality that makes prison awful. But even worse is when a mind is so straitjacketed by the atheistic philosophy of naturalism that it eagerly believes explanations that are resisted by scientific observations. Claiming that the purpose of an eagle's wing cannot be known and that the synchronized movement of all its precisely fitted parts is only an "illusion of design" is a perception contrary to real external stimuli. How much better could scientists--set free to conclude design when they see design--approach research when released from misconceptions that flow from invalid, yet firmly held, reasoning constricted by naturalism?
First, researchers would be free to follow data wherever it leads, which allows them to never stop questioning and discovering. This mental state far exceeds the shackled thinking characterized by a candid statement from a Kansas State University professor:
"Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.3"
Second, there is freedom from the sense-dulling obligatory conclusion that intricate designs are "only an illusion"--a peer-enforced mantra indistinguishable from forced indoctrination. Researchers would not be pressured by popular evolutionary authorities such as Cambridge's Richard Dawkins, who insists that "biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."4 Or by Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of DNA, who cautioned, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."5
Third, it would liberate researchers from a smothering presupposition that expects regular mistakes in nature due to millions of years of chaotic evolution. They will escape a blinding mindset inclined to label not-readily-defined findings as "junk," "vestigial," or "bad design." Reacting to observations with ill-informed hasty conclusions such as labeling non-protein coding DNA "junk DNA" or the human appendix a "vestigial organ" is not only poor scientific practice, but this prejudice tends toward neglect in research. Stanford University reported on immunological research on "natural killer" cells that "have largely been ignored by immunologists…[and] thought by some to be an archaic remnant of the primitive mammalian immune system."6
Pulling It All Together
In a conversation about the best explanation for the origin of nature's design, first expose the weakness of the assertion that design is "only an illusion." Recount how evolutionists rely on a mindless iterative process to accumulate genetic mistakes "favored" by totally imaginary forces from their stand-in god, natural selection. The impotence of this mechanism always forces them to make conclusions far exceeding what the data support. Consequently, they resort to "counter-intuitive" scenarios that are "mystifying to the uninitiated," full of infinite numbers of self-creating universes where microscopic biological machines "self assemble" by "co-opting" "off the shelf parts," leading to creatures with "ghost lineages" that magically "arise" or "burst onto the scene." So even if the evolutionist doesn't ask "can you offer something better?"…do it anyway.
Creationists can show that nature's design has features associated with those known only to be derived from real designers. Support is based on actual observations of living things' intricately arranged parts, plans and specifications reflected in DNA's information, and many examples of all-or-nothing unity. This truth frees researchers to expect that nature is a product of a rational, coherent design, a path that will lead to research that is once again open to fresh insights into nature. In biology, discovering purposes is better than forcing the absurdity that purpose is unknowable. Real design is the better scientific explanation, and free minds are better than imprisoned minds.
References
Hanke, D. 2004. Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology. In Explanations: Styles of explanation in science. Cornwell, J., ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 143-155.
Axe, D. 2004. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology. 341 (5): 1295-1315.
Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: WW Norton & Company,
1. Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.
Weidenbach, K. "http://news.stanford.edu/news/1998/january14/nkdrug.html">Natural-born killers: An immunologic enigma solved. Stanford Report. Stanford University news release, January 14, 1998.
* Dr. Guliuzza is ICR's National Representative.
Cite this article: Guliuzza, R. 2011. Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 10-11.
Charles
Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design
by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. *
Everyone has some unhealthy habits and the best way to achieve long-term freedom from them is not to "drop" them but to "replace" them with something better. The freedom-through-replacement reality is also useful during any conversation about evolution's failure to explain the origin of nature's design, since, at some point, an evolutionist is likely to ask, "Well, do you propose something better?"
Creationists, in fact, do have a scientifically better explanation to replace the notion that nature's design is all an illusion that stems from a purposeless process in which evolution's substitute god, the imaginary "Natural Selector,"1 chooses the fittest mutations randomly arising in an organism's DNA. A concise answer could be, "Our claim that nature's design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research."
That answer ought to catch attention and keep discussion on the main question: "What is the best explanation of nature's design?" The Bible says in Romans 1:18-23 that the Lord's witness to His reality is "clearly seen" from the "creation" by the things He has "made." He used the language of design construction, not biology. Everyone can see nature's design and conclude it was designed--by a cause bigger than nature. Thus, Romans details how everyone's accountability to acknowledge God has always been based on the very clear design-designer (i.e., created-creator) connection, demonstrated by all human cultures, and not on detailed biological insight.
So, the biological question "how do organisms adapt to environments?" is not the root issue, which is founded on a basic question corresponding to problem-solving activities of intelligent engineers:
"Are features of design evident when the innate programming of organisms actively solves problems (or exploits opportunities) presented by environments?"
Real Design: A Scientifically Superior Explanation
Begin by stating that you have carefully examined the two explanations head-to-head. You find the explanation for real design is more persuasive since the activities of real engineers--which cannot be duplicated by natural processes--are reflected in the living world. Then, enumerate four verifiable observations that reflect real design.
Possibly the clearest observation of organisms is that they have multiple intricately arranged parts that fit together for a purpose. Many of these parts show proper alignment, exact dimensions and shape, tight fit, proper balance, and moving parts with precisely synchronized timing. These complex patterns are features of design that have been observed to originate only in intelligently designed items--never by natural forces.
The fact about sections of DNA is that their four letters are precisely arranged as a set of plans and specification detailing the materials and controls to reproduce a new organism. Since DNA 1) selects 2) in advance 3) exact attributes 4) for a purpose, it has the same features of intelligence as any engineer's specification. Throughout recorded human experience, plans and specifications are always a product of intelligence. In addition, all known natural processes that randomly choose letters one-by-one outside the context of an intelligence to guide the selection--as evolutionists assert--always yield nonsense that is totally inconsistent with information held in DNA.
Another certain feature of design is demonstrated when engineers foresee aspects of their project that cannot be built by increments. They respond by establishing conditions so all information and materials are 1) available, 2) localized together, 3) at the right time, 4) capable of functioning together 5) for the intended purpose. Only intelligent agents have been observed to set conditions where all of the parts must be collected and built together or none of a specific function is obtained. Creatures have many examples of this all-or-nothing unity, but the best example is reproduction. Evolution is a dead end without operative reproductive abilities. Intelligent foresight best explains why the minimum number of parts necessary for an organism to reproduce--is the organism itself.
Mathematicians have quantified the probability of the information for the most basic functional proteins developing by natural processes as exceedingly small.2 Therefore, it is not a stretch to assert that it is mathematically impossible to obtain by natural processes the information that is needed for the origin of a living, reproducing bacterium. Overcoming infinitesimally small probabilities in a single bound by engaging them--as evolutionists do--with infinite numbers of resources generated by an infinite number of universes falls outside the realm of acceptable scientific explanations.
Intricately arranged parts, information for specifications, all-or-nothing unity, and the impossibly low probabilities of these things happening in living things by chance are real observations. Their association to the actions of real designers is visible. Science is based on observation and testing. Real design is the better scientific explanation.
A better scientific explanation supports a better approach to science. Since these features point so clearly toward real design, biological researchers should approach investigations of nature like engineers would study an unknown electronic device. They should expect to discover well-designed, coherent, and incredibly complex systems functioning for a purpose--an expectation forbidden by the rules governing evolution's mental "thought prison."
Escaping the Thought Prison Called "Apparent Design"
Being confined to a tiny cell is the depressing reality that makes prison awful. But even worse is when a mind is so straitjacketed by the atheistic philosophy of naturalism that it eagerly believes explanations that are resisted by scientific observations. Claiming that the purpose of an eagle's wing cannot be known and that the synchronized movement of all its precisely fitted parts is only an "illusion of design" is a perception contrary to real external stimuli. How much better could scientists--set free to conclude design when they see design--approach research when released from misconceptions that flow from invalid, yet firmly held, reasoning constricted by naturalism?
First, researchers would be free to follow data wherever it leads, which allows them to never stop questioning and discovering. This mental state far exceeds the shackled thinking characterized by a candid statement from a Kansas State University professor:
"Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.3"
Second, there is freedom from the sense-dulling obligatory conclusion that intricate designs are "only an illusion"--a peer-enforced mantra indistinguishable from forced indoctrination. Researchers would not be pressured by popular evolutionary authorities such as Cambridge's Richard Dawkins, who insists that "biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."4 Or by Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of DNA, who cautioned, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."5
Third, it would liberate researchers from a smothering presupposition that expects regular mistakes in nature due to millions of years of chaotic evolution. They will escape a blinding mindset inclined to label not-readily-defined findings as "junk," "vestigial," or "bad design." Reacting to observations with ill-informed hasty conclusions such as labeling non-protein coding DNA "junk DNA" or the human appendix a "vestigial organ" is not only poor scientific practice, but this prejudice tends toward neglect in research. Stanford University reported on immunological research on "natural killer" cells that "have largely been ignored by immunologists…[and] thought by some to be an archaic remnant of the primitive mammalian immune system."6
Pulling It All Together
In a conversation about the best explanation for the origin of nature's design, first expose the weakness of the assertion that design is "only an illusion." Recount how evolutionists rely on a mindless iterative process to accumulate genetic mistakes "favored" by totally imaginary forces from their stand-in god, natural selection. The impotence of this mechanism always forces them to make conclusions far exceeding what the data support. Consequently, they resort to "counter-intuitive" scenarios that are "mystifying to the uninitiated," full of infinite numbers of self-creating universes where microscopic biological machines "self assemble" by "co-opting" "off the shelf parts," leading to creatures with "ghost lineages" that magically "arise" or "burst onto the scene." So even if the evolutionist doesn't ask "can you offer something better?"…do it anyway.
Creationists can show that nature's design has features associated with those known only to be derived from real designers. Support is based on actual observations of living things' intricately arranged parts, plans and specifications reflected in DNA's information, and many examples of all-or-nothing unity. This truth frees researchers to expect that nature is a product of a rational, coherent design, a path that will lead to research that is once again open to fresh insights into nature. In biology, discovering purposes is better than forcing the absurdity that purpose is unknowable. Real design is the better scientific explanation, and free minds are better than imprisoned minds.
References
Hanke, D. 2004. Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology. In Explanations: Styles of explanation in science. Cornwell, J., ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 143-155.
Axe, D. 2004. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology. 341 (5): 1295-1315.
Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: WW Norton & Company,
1. Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.
Weidenbach, K. "http://news.stanford.edu/news/1998/january14/nkdrug.html">Natural-born killers: An immunologic enigma solved. Stanford Report. Stanford University news release, January 14, 1998.
* Dr. Guliuzza is ICR's National Representative.
Cite this article: Guliuzza, R. 2011. Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 10-11.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
I need to react to the comments to the last blog. My vision of the earth at creation was a perfect world. It was a sub tropical environment with a large canopy of water that distributed the solar heating uniformly from pole to pole. Mammoths at the Siberian and Alaska latitudes were found eating semi-tropical plants when they were frozen after being drowned following the Flood. The Biblical story tells of the ground being watered by heavy dews every morning. I also believe that the oxygen content was closer to 30% than the current 20% that acted to heal cuts and like hyperbaric chambers enabled people to live for hundreds of years. The collapse of the canopy during the Flood permitted the high intensity solar radiation along with the change in oxygen to decrease life spans.
The Biblical story tells of the destruction of all air-breathing animals and men during the Flood. In my mind the earth did not have the high mountains that were formed by later geological events and that the world-wide flood could cover the world easily. It was accompanied by geological events and volcanic eruptions that added water to the collapse of the canopy.
I believe that later, after people restocked the earth and after the tower of Babel that at that time the one continent was divided. How fast could that happen? It would proceed at the speed of sound in the earth. I know that cracks in metal proceed at the speed of sound in certain metals and I assume that the earth can crack and move at the speed of sound in the rocks, so that it would not take long for the continents to be formed and drift apart to their present positions. This would be accompied by the geological movements that have formed the mountains and valleys and canyons. But later continued geological activity formed more of the earth as we know it now, and continues to create new islands in the Pacific.
I haven't read The Genesis Flood since it came out in the 60's but believe much of the hydrodynamic theories are accurate. I believe that all this could have happened within the 6000 years of a young earth theory. A lot of theories have been published about the canopy theory and I have seen them but have not followed all of the arguments. I was intrigued by the Australian physicists who proposed a theory that the speed of light has changed through time which explains the possibility of a young earth in the long times postulated by physicists. The Creation Quarterly has some new proposals for how the universe could be stretched out by God within a young earth time frame.
My personal effort is directed toward explaining how the earth was created by all matter being formed from "light" that has been explained by the physicist N. S. Japowlsky in his theory of rotating electromagnetic energy being the basis of all matter. It makes a lot of sense to me. The Bible is full of allusions to light. I am behind on writing the paper I have wanted to prepare for a journal.
The Biblical story tells of the destruction of all air-breathing animals and men during the Flood. In my mind the earth did not have the high mountains that were formed by later geological events and that the world-wide flood could cover the world easily. It was accompanied by geological events and volcanic eruptions that added water to the collapse of the canopy.
I believe that later, after people restocked the earth and after the tower of Babel that at that time the one continent was divided. How fast could that happen? It would proceed at the speed of sound in the earth. I know that cracks in metal proceed at the speed of sound in certain metals and I assume that the earth can crack and move at the speed of sound in the rocks, so that it would not take long for the continents to be formed and drift apart to their present positions. This would be accompied by the geological movements that have formed the mountains and valleys and canyons. But later continued geological activity formed more of the earth as we know it now, and continues to create new islands in the Pacific.
I haven't read The Genesis Flood since it came out in the 60's but believe much of the hydrodynamic theories are accurate. I believe that all this could have happened within the 6000 years of a young earth theory. A lot of theories have been published about the canopy theory and I have seen them but have not followed all of the arguments. I was intrigued by the Australian physicists who proposed a theory that the speed of light has changed through time which explains the possibility of a young earth in the long times postulated by physicists. The Creation Quarterly has some new proposals for how the universe could be stretched out by God within a young earth time frame.
My personal effort is directed toward explaining how the earth was created by all matter being formed from "light" that has been explained by the physicist N. S. Japowlsky in his theory of rotating electromagnetic energy being the basis of all matter. It makes a lot of sense to me. The Bible is full of allusions to light. I am behind on writing the paper I have wanted to prepare for a journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)