A Theory of Biblical Creation

trueorigins.com ^ | 2000 | Timothy Wallace

[DannyTN]

Home | Feedback | Links | Books

A Theory of Creation

A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.  [Last Modified:  14 October 2002]

A popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”^[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.”  They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.

Feigned(?) Ignorance

A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”^[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community^[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.

What is a Scientific Theory?

Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.”  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.”  [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!”  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:

The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic	Creation Hypothesis	Evolution Hypothesis
Primary approach to scientific methodology	Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.	Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Predominant religious/philosophical belief system	Biblical Christianity	Humanistic Naturalism
Primary means of demonstrating system’s positive empirical support	Citation of empirical data	Citation of empirical data
Primary means of criticizing counterpart system	Citation of empirical data	A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.

The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”

What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.

What then is the Theory of Creation?

Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.

Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition	Creation Hypothesis	Evolution Hypothesis
Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]	As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past	Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Predominant approach to the Bible[5]	The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data	The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]	God Created...	Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]	Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection	Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]	Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation	Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]	Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms	Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]	Global Flood & aftermath	Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
The Ice Age[11]	Post-Flood climate compensation	Unknown
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]	Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation	Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]	General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected	Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]	Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood	Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes

Table 2.  The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.

Where is the Theory of Creation documented?

Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2] (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8] (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676] (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2] (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4] (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998) Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9] (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2] (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at http://trueorigin.org/books.asp, while two much more extensive bibliographies are http://trueorigin.org/booklist.asp and http://trueorigin.org/imp-269a.asp.

Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/Technical.asp

The Question of “How?”

Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation.  The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!”  But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand:

• The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means.  It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place).  The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal.

• By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose.  Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.

Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.

Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.

Timothy Wallace            

---

Notes

[1] The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” (as of 25 April 2000), apparently authored by Andy Peters, Onar Aam, Jim Acker, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Isaak, Bill Jefferys, Jim Loats, Thomas Marlowe, Paul Neubacher, Tero Sand, Thomas Scharle, Paul Schinder, Chris Stassen, Brett Vickers, and Kurt vonRoeschlaub. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[2] ibid. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[3] Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht.  Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[4] Such fundamental assumptions are strictly religious/philosophical in both models, and therefore incapable of empirical falsification. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[5] Although much external evidence (e.g., ancient records and archaeological research) points to the accuracy of the Bible (as properly understood), this evidence does not necessarily render the reliability of the Bible an empirically falsifiable postulate—particularly to the mind and will predisposed to resist the moral implications inherent in the Bible’s message.  Some links for serious inquirers might be The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.   [RETURN TO TEXT]

[6] The creationary postulate that the ultimate Primal Cause of time, space, and matter/energy was the Creator-God of the Bible is not empirically falsifiable, although evidence does point to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy.  The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that empirical evidence (i.e., the principle of entropy) points to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy, and no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously.  Serious inquirers might be interested in reading Sarfati’s “If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God?,” “How to Think About God,” by Mortimer J. Adler (New York, 1980: Macmillan).  (Adler was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dir of the Institute of Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Hamanistic Studies.  A self-described pagan, he nevertheless formulated a rationalistic argument for the existence of God “either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons for that conclusion over reasons against it.”  His argument hinges on causation.     [RETURN TO TEXT]

[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible.  The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[8] The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time.  The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[9] It has not been demonstrated empirically and unequivocally that similarities, ranging from genetic to morphological, between various organisms are either indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar/identical structures and information sequences for similar functions in different organisms, or that they are residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors.  Falsification for either interpretation therefore remains impossible.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[10] The creationary postulate that the fossil record, comprised of billions of organisms quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, is a product of the biblical global Flood and its immediate aftermath has not been falsified.  The evolutionary postulate that the same fossil record is a product of millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial likewise has not been falsified per se, though no empirically observed similar uniformitarian process can be demonstrated to support the claim.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification.  But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[12] The Entropy Law, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, finds no disagreement with the creation model, which points to a space/time/matter beginning, followed closely by constant degradation—otherwise creation could be easily falsified via a demonstration that it violates the Entropy Law.  The evolution model, on the other hand, requires a mechanism-free and consistent increase in order, complexity, and new genetic information, which amounts to an outright contradiction to the Entropy Law.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[13] The loose and distinctly variable stratigraphic sequence in the fossil record, with its many exceptions, presents a pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations, which fits the creation/flood model well, whereas a highly consistent and strictly uniform record would only serve to falsify it.  The evolution model calls for a fairly strict and uniform stratigraphic sequence, but ends up with many problematic and unpredicted (i.e., “out-of-order”) anomalies which essentially falsify it.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[14] This aspect of the creation model would easily be falsified if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.  Instead, they vary wildly, spanning a range from little or no apparent age to “billions” of years, strongly suggesting that they are unreliable as a rule, and that the various processes measured to produce them are likely residual effects of the high-energy, catastrophic processes and conditions of the flood.  The evolutionary model seeks confirmation in carefully selected samples of carefully selected methods of uniformitarian “dating” but is falsified by the remaining—and equally legitimate—“dates” obtained from the many other processes available for determining unformitarian “dates.”  [RETURN TO TEXT]

---

Bibliography

Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994). 

Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984).

Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990). 

Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995). 

Denton, Michael J., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986; originally published in England in 1985). 

Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986). 

Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1986).

Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1992).

Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995; an enlargement of Dr. Gish's The Challenge of the Fossil Record, and before it, Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!). 

Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991). 

Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987). 

Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994). 

Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991).

Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995). 

Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970). 

Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). 

Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). 

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism 2d ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985).

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. ed. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987).

Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994). 

Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990). 

Schaeffer, Francis, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975). 

Slusher, Harold, S. and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1982).

Slusher, Harold S., Origin of the Universe (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980).

Spetner, Lee, Not By Chance! (New York: Judaica Press, 1996). 

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis & Stanley, 1992; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1984).

Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995). 

Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

Vardiman, Larry, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964). 

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968). 

Williams, Emmett L., ed., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).

Wieland, Carl, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1994). 

Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

---

Home | Feedback | Links | Books | Back to Top

This site has received over

visits since November 1997

© TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
 

powered by Lone Star Web Works
 

[nicmarlo]

thanks for posting this article. It appears to be an informative and logical disection of people whose belief is evolution.

[RobRoy]

The gospels don't match each other either...

Of course, this is what brought one trial attorney to Jesus. He said that whenever you have several witnesses who's testimony are pretty much identical, it means there is collusion. Real, and sincere witnesses will give slightly different testimony but will remain consistent with the key facts.

That is why one of the gospels says that the two men on crosses beside Jesus reviled him, yet another says that one "came to his defense." Yet both may be right, for one can revile one minute and have a change of heart the next.

Of course those who want to condemn the Bible call this an obvious discrepency...

The attorney would have thought that the gospels were "made up" if they matched too closely.

[free_european]

Thats a fair point.

There does seem to be a consistent view in the Bible that the earth is flat, however. Given that the dominant view of men was that the world was flat until quite recently, this doesnt seem too surprising. H

owever, it might be a good reason for not viewing the Bible as word-for-word fact.

[tfecw]

wait...so it's right if the the stories don't match, and wrong if they do?

That lawyer is a dummy and probably isn't worth his salt in the court room. "Obviously your honor, the prosecution's evidence matches too well together and proves without a doubt that my client did. Obviously it's a conspiracy."

[Quark2005]

"I agree with them on the point that ID/Creation is not science, it is religion."

I concur.

The Creation account of the Bible is inspired poetry meant to convey the greater meaning of God's infinite power of creation to a simple people in a simple time. In this light, it still has powerful value as an inspired message.
To attempt to literally translate it as modern science is completely insane and a hindrance to scientific progress.

The charts shown in the article mostly consist of the same tired and overwhelmingly refuted arguments posited by the deceptive and/or scientifically illiterate over decades past. (i.e. the inability to add information to genetic code, when in fact genes have been observed to replicate, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, which only can be applied to closed or relatively simple systems where the entropy can be quantified).

[RobRoy]

Are you a trial attorney?

[mr2trucker]

Dan 4:6 Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise [men] of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.

Dan 4:7 Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.

Dan 4:8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name [was] Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom [is] the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, [saying],

Dan 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods [is] in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

As you should have noticed the verse referencing the circle stated AS a curtain and AS a tent. The word AS is used as a comparison, or is that to hard to understand.

The CONTRADICTION you stated was found in a dream. Are you saying that if a character in the Bible has a dream that dream must coincide with every other passage in the Bible, or should we see that since it is a dream it is obviously not literal. It seem that the more people try to find fault with the Bible the more they just prove they have not read it. You will NOT find a contradiction unless you take passages out of context.

[tfecw]

no and i don't understand how that would make me less qualified to detect that your argument laughable.

[swmobuffalo]

WOW!

[RobRoy]

I try to keep from readin too much into some of the things the Bible says. For example, when the Bible talks about the "four corners" of the earth, some pundits would argue that that is proof that the word of God says the world is flat AND square.

In fact, when we say today that the sun "sets," we don't literally mean it moves around the earth. But everyone who lives here knows exactly what we mean.

Same is true with the Bible. It is rife with the usage of "figures of speach," That is all the circle of the earth, four corners of the earth, "rabbit chewing cud" and "four legged insects" stuff is all about. The point that was meant to be communicated was, in fact communicated.

When I say the meal will begin at sunset, I am not making a statement about the earth, the sun and their relationship to the cosmos and physics.

I am merely letting all "normal" people who live around me when we will eat. 8^>

[RobRoy]

>>no and i don't understand how that would make me less qualified to detect that your argument laughable. <<

That is because you do not know what you do not know.

Ask an EXPERIENCED trial attorney about the concept some time. I have a feeling you are in for a surprise. ;^>

[PresbyRev]

Good article on the GA evolution controversy:

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/11-23-04.asp

[elbucko]

The Creation account of the Bible is inspired poetry meant to convey the greater meaning of God's infinite power of creation to a simple people in a simple time. In this light, it still has powerful value as an inspired message. To attempt to literally translate it as modern science is completely insane and a hindrance to scientific progress.

I agree.
I find it a curious paradox that so many of the men of science, that are named or quoted, first began as priests, monks or theologians. Many compulsively religious people continue to look for signs, as in the Shroud of Turin, and ignore the whispers of God that men like Gregor Mendel listened to.

It's sad, really. Science is God beckoning us to understand His miracles. If only we would listen, instead of preach.

[Physicist]

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection

Wow! How did all those animals fit on Noah's Ark?

[Jeff Gordon]

And all this proves just what, exactly?

It shows that one can fill a 55 gallon drum with a tablespoon of shit.

[tfecw]

I think i will when i get home.

your arguments are full of double think. If it seems to factual then it's wrong. If it seems inconsistent then it's correct.

Then you start to pick in choose which sections of the bible or literal and which are not. Who decides those sections? My Math books aren't half fiction half non fiction. It's a factual document and read as one. Maybe a better analogy would be to use a history book. For the most part you can reason that some things were factual but others weren't.

We don't read Greek mythology and hail it as factual, why would the bible be different? Heck Greek mythology is older then the bible. I'm sure if i were talking with someone back in Greek times he would claim it factual as well. So it goes.

[elbucko]

......;^)

[free_european]

"I try to keep from readin too much into some of the things the Bible says."

I agree; and that was my original point to a gentleman who earlier made a tortured point about how Nephilim might be neanderthals.

[CyberAnt]

Here's a good story:

A black Baptist preacher had a very good friend who was a noted biologist. As they met for lunch one day, the biologist was excited because he believed he had discovered (after 25 years of research) that the world was made up of 5 major elements -

Time
Force
Energy
Space
Matter

The Baptist preacher began laughing and replied to his friend - You could have saved yourself 25 years of research by simply reading the first line of the Bible.

Time - In the beginning
Force - GOD
Energy - created
Space - the heavens
Matter - and the earth.

I actually saw the black preacher on TV telling this story - 20 years ago - It's stunning in it's simplicity.

[RobRoy]

It is not a matter of literal. Different parts of the Bible are written for different reasons. These four books are unique in that they are four eyewitness accounts of Jesus life. The Gospel of Thomas was not considered authentic.

What is so exciting about them is their obvious inconsistencies in ways that follow the personalities of the real human beings. It smacks of authenticity, while "made up" gospels would almost certainly not survive the test of time.

It is like asking a man and his wife about the same person. The woman said she was wearing a red polka dot pants-suit with white spiked heals and white hat and climbed into her convertible and left.

The guy says she was wearing a red dress and climbed into a beautiful matching red Porsche Boxter.

Now which was it, a pants-suit or a dress? Was it polka dot or not? Was one of them lying? How germane is it?

Would you say, in a court of law, that these two testimonies match? If they both mentioned the exact same details, (red Boxter, white spiked heels, convertible top, "polka dot pants suit" and white hat) would you not suspect collusion because of the unnatural precision.

Yet, if one were to make up the gospels, that is exactly the way they would read: "See, they match perfectly so they must be authentic!"

That isn't how eyewitness testimony works. It is as C. S. Lewis noted: Christianity has just enough odd twists to preclude it from being "invented" by humans.

His book "Mere Christianity" covers this nicely.