Tuesday, February 20, 2007

From http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

So just what is creationism trying to say?
Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").

No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.

Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!

[This article shows no copyright and is printed in it's entirety without permission from Creation Science]

photo of Death Valley basin after rains
by R. Hoeppner

What About 'Those' Bible Contradictions?

Does the Bible contradict itself? You know, like the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 concerning the conversion of Saul. There are a number of good websites that deal with this and one that I would recommend is CRTA. Check it out for yourself. Here is a place to go for answers to the well worn atheist's arguments against God, the Bible and Christianity.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Darwinism Delusion Exposed

Read this interesting article by Professor Emeritus of Biology
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, an independent think tank, based in San Francisco.
He is dedicated to the analysis of complex problems, and the development of realistic, concrete proposals on issues of global concern. His stance is independent, interdisciplinary, with an analytical rigor, and a view to the future.
He is uniquely qualified to help you understand what makes scientific sense, and what does not, based on cause-and-effect and systems principles.

author's web site
view author's other articles
Join this author's mailing list Your Name:E-mail Address:
Kazmer Ujvarosy

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Intelligent Design - Peer Reviewed Publications

As much as some scientists would like to eliminate the concept of an Intelligent Designer from the discussion of origins, there is a growing number of scientists who are willing to embrace ID as an alternate and competing theory to Darwinistic evolution.

At personal financial and professional risk, some of these brave scientists have dared keep an open mind to the possibility of Intelligent Design showing that there is easily as much evidence to support that theory as there is the various evolution theories.

Allegations that proponents of Intelligent Design have no peer-reviewed scientific theories are a deliberate distortion of the facts. Inspite of attempts that have been made to marginalize and even censure scientists who support ID, they've been able to credibly articulate ID in peer-reviewed publications.
Organizations and scientists that support ID, such as the Discovery Institute present Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

A few of these examples are:

** DNA and the Origin of Life: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302;

**Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.

**The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”

**Dynamical Genetics

**“Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,"

** Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,”

A few of the many publications that support ID.

**The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

**Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).

**The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).

**Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

While I would like to see ID presented alongside Evolution taught as a theory of Origins, I have to admit that such teaching would not necessarily support my particular faith. Many ID scientists have a very different concept of the Designer than my Christian-Trinitarian idea of a personal God. Of course I know I'm right. ***smile***

Oh, by the way did you know that there is recent evidence to support the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of Pharaoh's army and the real Mt. Sinai?

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Hawaii Again!

Hawaii is the jewell of the Pacific Ocean. There are so many things to see and do it would take a lifetime. I keep up with the news from Hawaii daily.
We are no strangers to Hawaii (having been there four times last year alone) and yet we are. Each time

we go intending to just relax we end up filling our time with activities from dawn to sunset and beyond. We are looking forward to our next visit with our youngest son and his wife. The question is, will we be ready? Right now my tan has faded completely and I'm still trying to get in shape for those famous hikes Jason like to take! He riminds me of Indiana Jones. Don't believe it? Check the picture of him taken on Maui last year. The two Islands we haven't visited yet are the Big Island and Molokai. We'll have to put those on hold for a while. It's been some

time since we were on Kauai so I'm sure it's changed since then. I will try to keep up with this blog on our trip. Here are more pictures.

This past December all the family went and we stayed at a condo in Turtle Bay. Living so far apart it was a rare treat to all be together. It was especially nice for our family Christmas. Besides the weather was cold on the mainland. Mid to upper 70's there. (All pictures on this post were taken by me or my family members).

Here's A Backlog of My Previous Blogs from the Archive

Blog Archive

The Science in the Bible
Discrimination Against ID Proponents
A Thought about God -- from C. S. Lewis

Will Israel Ever Be Exiled Again?
Patriot's Thoughts of God, America and the Bible
Is Darwinian Evolution Being Over-hyped?
The Scopes Monkey Trial -- and Hollywood
First Prophecy and Fulfillment Concerning Christ
Saturn: It's Rings and Mythology
The Real Story: Evolutions Billions of Missing Lin...
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
St. Luke Revisited
The Gospel of St. Luke
Natural Law and Miracles
Four Great American Presidents
Christians - By Maya Angelou
Pascal's Wager
Evidence is the Tip of the Iceberg
The Simple Cell?
John's Vision of a Meteor Strike
Ben Franklin Speaks
King Sargon
Could This be a Biblical Description of a Helicopt...
Acknowledgement of God in the States of America
How Enduring is the Word of God?
Abortion: The Real Agenda
Why Abiogenesis (Life from Non-Life) Cannot Occur
Bible Description of a Nuclear Blast
What Darwinism Has Done for the Aboriginals
Atheism Defined
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation...
Sir Isaac Newton
Shotgun Approach?
Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled By Christ

Thursday, February 8, 2007

The Science in the Bible

The Bible is not a science book but where it speaks to science it is accurate.

Today there is a popular conception being promoted by secularists that the Bible is anti-scientific and Christians are uneducated. Is that a fair statement? Are Christians unenlightened? Often cited are the actions of the medieval Roman Church with it's geocentric beliefs. This prime example that is most often presented by skeptics will point out that the Roman Catholic Church officials held to Aristotle’s geocentric philosophy (that the planets and sun itself revolved around a stationary earth). Included in this argument is how the Roman Catholic Church persecuted the astronomer's Galileo (who was imprisoned) and Bruno (who was burned at the stake). One of the fallacies of this argument is that it has nothing to do with the Bible, or Christians at all since Bruno was said to have been executed for other heresy. Galileo himself was a devout Christian. Galileo in his letter to Castelli on Dec. 13, 1613, observed that "scripture deals with natural matters in such a cursory and allusive way that it looks as though it wanted to remind us that its business . . . is about the soul and that, as concerns Nature, it is willing to adjust its language to the simple minds of the people." ** The Roman Catholic Church later apologized for the atrocities but it's detractors gladly confuse the superstitions of the medieval church with the Bible, which in my opinion, is intellectual hypocrisy on their part.

Galileo 1564 - 1642

When Galileo observed the Milky Way with his primitive telescope, he realized that it was a mass of stars “so numerous as to be almost beyond belief.” Astrologers at the time believed there were between 3000-5000 stars. Going back three thousand years before Galileo the Bible says in the book of Genesis that the stars are as numerous as the sand of the sea shore. (Genesis 22:17). And with regard to the earth? Let's look at one of the oldest books of the Bible, Job. Job was written over a thousand years before Aristotle. Consider Job's astounding observation:
“He...(God)...hangeth the earth upon nothing.” – Job 26:7

** Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (Alexandria, Va.: Time-Life Books, 1955), p. 39.

photo "Super Bubble" courtesy of NASA

Monday, February 5, 2007

Discrimination Against ID Proponents

The following article was taken from the Wall Street Journal (see acknowledgement at the bottom of the article). It is not uncommon for Scientists who don't march in lockstep with their Darwinist counterparts to be marginalized. They are a brave sort who risk the loss of money (grants), defamation and ridicule for research that is open to a theory of intelligent design without promoting a religion.

The Branding of a Heretic

Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?

Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m.

The question of whether Intelligent Design (ID) may be presented to public-school students alongside neo-Darwinian evolution has roiled parents and teachers in various communities lately. Whether ID may be presented to adult scientific professionals is another question altogether but also controversial. It is now roiling the government-supported Smithsonian Institution, where one scientist has had his career all but ruined over it.
The scientist is Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included typical articles on taxonomical topics--e.g., on a new species of hermit crab. It also included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

The piece happened to be the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms--such as the miniature machines and complex circuits within cells--are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

Mr. Sternberg's editorship has since expired, as it was scheduled to anyway, but his future as a researcher is in jeopardy--and that he had not planned on at all. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

The offending review-essay was written by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism--mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. Mr. Meyer gathers the threads of their comments to make his own case. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.
Whatever the article's ultimate merits--beyond the judgment of a layman--it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues--the museum's No. 2 senior scientist--denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.
Mr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space, and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as "unclaimed space." Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

It may or may not be, but surely the matter can be debated on scientific grounds, responded to with argument instead of invective and stigma. Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

According to the OSC complaint, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda." Definitely not, says Mr. Sternberg. He is a Catholic who attends Mass but notes: "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."

Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist--a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives--he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory.
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.

Mr. Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, is the author of "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," to be published by Doubleday in March.

Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (Links added).

Saturday, February 3, 2007

A Thought about God -- from C. S. Lewis

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis