“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Creation Museum a Top-Notch Tour of Biblical Science

Dinosaur and human being, side by side in the Creation Museum

Dinosaur and human being, side by side in the Creation Museum

The Creation Museum created quite a splash when it opened a year and a half ago.  Created by Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis ministry, this fantastic facility became the most spectacular presentation of Biblical creation science ever built.  It wasted no time amazing Christians and the open-minded…and earning the fury and scorn of evolution-faithful.

I have wanted to visit the facility since it opened, but it took some time to work up a trip since the Kentucky area on the outskirts of Cincinnati, Ohio is considerably outside the areas of the United States where I normally travel.  But I managed to put together a trip with my family, and noted with interest what a big attraction the museum has become.

An article in the Kentucky Enquirer tourism quotes Tom Caradonio, president of the Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau:

“It amazes me, 530,000 [visitors] the first year. I’ve been in this business for over 37 years. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an attraction pull in that many people with that kind of facility.”

The Creation Museum says they’ve had over 900,000 visitors since they opened in 2007, far exceeding their expectations. Having now visited this 70,000 square-foot, $27 million facility, I understand why.

When I first pulled into nearby Florence, Kentucky and stopped at Best Western hotel, I walked in and saw prominently displayed on the counter a stack of Creation Museum brochure cards.  We saw such information about the Creation Museum in several places during our two nights and one day in the area.

My family and I arrived a few minutes before opening time at 10:00 am and there were dozens of people waiting outside.  Before we could get our things collected and walk to the front, museum staff opened the doors early to let people in.  I chatted briefly with one of the staff members in the lobby, and he told me that day would be a good day to look at everything at our own pace, since they expected it to be a “slow day.”

About mid-day, I popped out to our vehicle to leave something there and noticed five or six tour buses parked on the far side of the parking lot, and that the large parking lot was half full or more.  A “slow day” indeed.

The museum was filled with wonders both ancient and new.  We saw fossils that were thousands of years old and we saw animated robotic dinosaurs and human figures that moved, made sounds and talked.

There were displays that showed how atheists and evolutionists interpret scientific information alongside illustrations of how creationists interpret the same information.

Other displays showed some of the many attacks on Biblical accuracy, and how in time archaeology and science had come to support the claims of the Bible.  The museum also showed the life-outcomes when the implications of evolution theory are taken to their logical conclusions.

There were several videos shown throughout the museum.  One of the video presentations, “Men in White,” involved several of your senses.  In addition to what we saw and heard, we also felt our seats vibrate as dinosaur’s walked across the screen, and were splashed with a few drops of water during the global Flood (my son was amazed and felt he had to know where the water had come from).

We also watched a couple presentations in the planetarium.  While both were good, I was particularly struck by the video which took you through the solar system, out of it, and millions of light-years across space where our galaxy was so far away–farther even than Destiny in “Stargate Universe”–it became invisible…then brought you zooming back at fantastic speeds, until you were looking down on the Creation Museum on earth.  Being an astronomy and sci-fi fan, I liked this one so well I bought the DVD of the presentation.

Even one of the restaurants inside the museum was a fantastic display of creation science.  Noah’s Cafe had a natural look with wood furnishings, flowery vines strung everywhere and a roof of branches and reeds woven together.  I was particularly fascinated by the stunning mural of Noah’s Ark painted on one wall of the Cafe.

The botanical gardens out back are also a nice feature.  Though it had lost most of its luster in early November when we were there, it was still a beautiful place.  There was a nice lake, a gazebo, rope and pontoon bridges, and lots of other interesting touches.

Alongside the garden was a petting zoo with wallabies, llamas, a couple of zorses (cross between a zebra and a horse), and more.  Children can pet and feed the animals, and staff are on hand to answer questions about the animals.

Below are some pictures I took at the Creation Museum, representing only a very small portion of the incredible things you’ll see there.  Hopefully they whet your appetite to learn more and to visit the museum.

In the end, none of us were there when the fossils we’ve discovered were deposited, and there is no written record attached to those fossils to testify about them.  None of us were there when most of the rocks on earth were formed or when the geology we see was laid down, and there is no video or written record attached to them to explain them.  Therefore, we must make assumptions and guesses about how these objects came to be in the state in which we find them.

We make assumptions based on our worldview, or the set of presuppositions we hold about the universe and truth.  If we begin by assuming an intelligent designer (e.g. God), we interpret the evidence through the lens of assumption that it was intelligently designed.  If we begin by assuming there was no intelligent designer and that all things came about through materialistic and naturalistic processes alone, we interpret the evidence through the lens of assumption that all things had to come about through random chance.

Either way, we are making assumptions about facts.  The question then becomes: which set of assumptions best fit the evidence, and which set of assumptions are the most logically consistent with themselves.

When I came to understand that scientific theories from a Biblical perspective existed that were consistent with science and consistent with the facts, I was amazed, having only previously heard “The Bible says…” with no scientific explanation.  When I came to understand the limitations, the shortcomings, the errors, the flaws, the unproved assumptions, and the illogical inviability of the theory of evolution, I realized that a theory comprised of incompatible assumptions could not possibly be true.  Subsequently, I found that creation’s assumptions not only fit the evidence, but are also compatible and harmonious with one another.  I reached the conclusion that I had misplaced my faith in an untenable theory, and consequently shifted my faith to one that makes far more sense.

Having once believed in evolution, I understand how prevalent and pervasive the theory is in our culture.  Also, having dialogued with numerous evolutionists since I came to understand the theory’s inviability and the strengths of creation science, I also understand that many people are ideologically and spiritually invested in this theory, and will find it extremely difficult to open their minds enough to give a fair hearing to even a spectacular presentation like the Creation Museum. That investment is so deep that some people seem genuinely incapable of intellectually separating assumption from fact.

We’re all entitled to be wrong, and we’re all entitled to close our mind to facts we find uncomfortable. But is that really an enlightened way to live?  Is that how you want to live?  Are you willing to bet the quality of your life (and your eternal destiny) that you’ve “heard enough” and that there’s no possibility at all that you might be putting your faith in a flawed theory?

When I realized I had been wrong to put my faith in evolution theory, I admitted I was wrong and accepted a far more coherent, logical and sustainable explanation.

Are you willing to risk an honest, objective look at the evidence on both sides? If you find a strong case for creation, and that evolution theory is a house of cards, what will you do?


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


50 Responses to “Creation Museum a Top-Notch Tour of Biblical Science”

  1. Statements made in the last five paragraphs of this article need to be read by anyone with an interest in truth. Bob neatly sums up the high-level basics of how we can know that creation science is real science and evolutionism is not.

    There has been a lot of debate about evolutionism vs. creation science on this site, and there will undoubtedly be a lot more. There is no way to cover all the relevant arguments and evidence in this forum. But I know that when there is a controversy, I will not believe those who try to silence the other side rather than reason with them, misrepresenting them and avoiding even quoting them directly. I will not believe those who resort to mockery, slander, equivocation, and censorship. I will not believe those who shout about “proof” while making blind assumptions left and right. I will not believe those who I catch being dishonest about things I can find out for myself. I will not believe those whose very worldview doesn't even given them an objective basis for honesty.

    Controversies generally exist because a lot of people don't like the truth about something important. For someone who's honestly interested in understanding, it's really not hard at all to recognize which is the right side in the origins debate.

  2. Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

    If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, where did the oil come from? If created in the ground, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it did form from plankton, but 10,000 times faster than any chemist thinks it could in those conditions? A young Earth and a Flood would imply some interesting questions to ask, some extremely valuable research programs to start. How come nobody’s actually pursuing such research programs?

    Why don’t creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If “Flood geology” is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why is no one doing this?

  3. Ray, your question about oil sounds very much like a question I fielded a few months to a year ago on this subject; if it was you who asked the question then, then you know the answer already but may not be ready to accept it.

    In case you're not the same person who asked it before, I highly recommend a visit to the Creation Museum–you'll receive amazing answers to your query.

    In the meantime, here are a few items from AIG on the subject:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/ans
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/ans

  4. Discovery backs theory that oil is not “fossil fuel”:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI

    The possibility that the “experts” have been wrong all along should be considered. The possibility that the earth actually produces oil is a very interesting one. Of course the elites don't want this avenue publicly pursued; that would not be good for their agenda.

  5. For me, one of the problems with the Creation Museum is that it operates from a premise that anything at all that questions or disagrees with a specific religious text can't be considered accurate science. If modern day biology, archaeology,anthropology,comparative anatomy, embryology,geology, molecular genetics, cosmology, paleontology,etc. suggests evidence contrary to the Biblical creation story it is discounted. Yes, the creationists do have science models, but in no way do those models have examples of creation science that refute anywhere near the examples of mainstream science.

    The examples are too many to count but one is the yolk sac. Human embrylogy shows that early in the embryo, we human embryos have a yolk sac to form an egg shell for the baby to be born in, like reptiles, that then this yolk sac reabsorbs before birth. Reptiles have this yolk sac which matures and that is why they lay eggs and we don't. The gene for this sac has been found and it is the same gene, but in humans it degrades the sac because we no longer need it.

    Creationists have no scientific explantion for why human embryos have reptile yolk sacs that were going to form an egg shell that reabsorb.There is no intelligent reason or design for it to be there, but it is ignored. Evolution does at least have an explanation, but creation science refutes it because doesn't go along with the religious text. That isn't science. there are many, many other examples as well.

    Creation science may prove someday that its tenants are right, but it has a vast amount of research to do before it can stand on scientific legs. It is in its infancy. When it can explain why human and chimp embryos are both covered with thick hair at six months and the chimps hair continues to grow and the humans doesnt and reabsorbs and not just say 'God did it', it will have some scientific credo. Why would God design that and where is the science? These are just two simple examples where creation science is dumbfounded and they can;t be ignored.

    Brian Rutledge

  6. Actually, the reverse accurately describes the bias of the evolution community: if it doesn't have a materialistic or naturalistic explanation, it cannot be considered “science.”

    Again, your example shows that you are making assumptions about design, purpose and function. Just because one thing looks like or operates in a similar fashion to something else does not necessarily indicate a relation or a parallel evolution.

    From what I understand, the yolk sac in human beings is the source of blood cells at the beginning of human development. Similar apparatus; different function.

    Creationists obviously do not understand the answer to every question about the universe…but then, neither do evolutionists. Unfortunately evolutionists are allowed by a dominately-ignorant culture to get away with a disingenuous double standard: “science” is defined by whatever standard evolutionists wish it to be.

    Real “science” is the facts of the universe around us and the exploration of those facts. We should never confuse (though evolutionists always do) our assumptions about those facts with the scientific facts themselves.

    Then, as I said before, it becomes a question of which set of assumptions best fits the evidence at hand, and which set of assumptions is logically consistent within itself. Unfortunately for evolutionists, key hinge-points within those assumptions are irreconcilably inconsistent with other key assumptions.

  7. Well, you are correct that science requires of itself a non-supernatural explantion of how things work.So do all other studies man is involved in, such as math, history and on and on. The subject of study that does require the supernatural is religion because that is it's definition. Math has many unknowns and makes assertions and is often proved wrong, as is history etc., but we don't invoke the supernatural in those to explain them. Why would man's study of science be any different than math, history etc ?
    .

  8. Actually, science does NOT require a non-supernatural explanation of how things work.

    Again, you're making an assumption, one made from the modern double-standard which allows evolutionists/materialists/naturalists to define “science” in such a way as to exclude anything outside their presuppositional worldview.

    If the creationist is right and God is indeed the author and creator of the universe and the science that governs it, then the assumption that “science” can only consider natural–and not supernatural causes–is illogical, myopic and closed-minded.

    It's hard for some folks who have lived so long with the assumption that materialism and naturalism are the standard for defining “science” to really view the matter objectively, isn't it?

  9. Note the leap in logic implicit in the statement “science requires a non-supernatural explanation.” It amounts to: “Science cannot study God, therefore it must assume he is not real.” That's like saying one does not need to know about the people who invented computers in order to study computers, therefore no one invented them.

    Otherwise intelligent people may not *accept* the fact that our origins require something (or someone) operating outside the laws of nature, but their lack of acceptance doesn't change the fact. Materialism requires that only the laws of nature can be used as an explanation of origins, yet those laws would have had to be violated infinitely in order for our origins *not* to have been supernatural. Quite ironic, really.

  10. That question reminds me of an unintentionally humorous scene from the 1976 remake of King Kong. An oil expedition discovers what they think is oil, but it turns out it needs to “cook” for another 40,000 years or so before it's ready.

    If oil really took millions of years to form, this sort of scenario should be quite common in real life — more common than finding “ready” oil, actually. But have you ever heard of it actually happening? I didn't think so.

  11. I think you should spend a little time reflecting on the concept of a light year… and the implications to the creation story, if as you say that it takes MILLIONS of light years before our galaxy becomes to small to see.

    Just in case I am being vague, in order for your eyes to see the our galaxy, the light from the stars must travel the distance between you and that star… No where in creation science does the concept of millions of years come into play as that smacks of the time needed by evolution.

    Also, Stargate Universe is a fiction.

  12. Creation scientists do have some hypotheses about how we can see the light from stars millions of light-years away. That particular issue, I have to say, seems to give them more difficulty than just about anything else. But keep in mind that (1) it's still not an insurmountable problem for them; (2) the evidence *against* a millions-of-year-old universe is strong enough that the distant-starlight issue does little to counter that; and (3) evolutionism in general has many, MANY problems much more insurmountable to it than ANY problem is for creation science, and evolutionists inevitably deal with these problems in completely hypothetical and inadequate ways (Oort cloud, anyone?).

  13. Man realized, as science progressed through history, that one thing science must have in it's foundation is that anything it proposes MUST be able or at least have the capacity of being disproven. The Laws of Gravity, Relativity, even the germ theory can be disproven if someone comes up with a new discovery that better explains disease. We can never disprove the supernatural so it, by it's own nature, excludes itself from being incorporated into science. The once commonly held belief that illness is caused by evil spirits still can not be disproved and never can be, so these spirits are left out of mans attempts to explain disease. That is the reason we leave the supernatural out of science, we can never disprove it. It's just that simple

    I have always maintained that when Creation science shows how it can disprove God, it will have an entry into what man calls the study of science.

    My response to DCM is that it doesn't matter whether Bill Gates or WHO invented computers to study how they work. Science only asks HOW and not WHO. It excludes 'who' just like math,physics etc do. Just keep in mind religion explores the WHO. Science the HOW.I have a great mechanic that has no idea WHO owns and is responsible for my GM car, but he sure knows HOW to study it when it has a problem. When a researcher finds a mechaninism that better fights cancer, does it matter WHO created that mechanism ?That doesn't mean their isn't a WHO, but just that it is irrelevant to the mechanics of how a cell fuctions.

  14. Dr. Rutledge, I don't mean to be unkind, but you ought to brush up on the facts before venturing your opinions here at Dakota Voice.

    You said “we human embryos have a yolk sac to form an egg shell for the baby to be born in.” The yolk sac has no direct relationship to shell formation in reptiles, birds or amphibians. The yolk sac in other vertebrates contains 'yolk,' a source of nutrition for the developing embryo during incubation of the egg. Unnecessary in mammals, what is called the yolk sac actually contains no yolk. It is instead involved in blood cell production, parts develop into a portion of the gut and other parts lead to an early heart to circulate blood in the developing embryo.

    The fact that embryologically similar structures could have vastly differing functions across the spectrum of phyla testifies at least as strongly for a common designer as for common descent. The challenge for evolutionists is to explain or demonstrate a mechanism by which a simple reservoir for yolk material can become a precursor for diverse and complex systems. This would have to occur at the level of DNA with parallel evolution of several genes to go from a simple to a complex function. Evolutionists are at a complete loss as to how these changes can come about piecemeal over vast time periods without leaving behind some obvious transitional forms or killing off the evolutionary line prematurely.

    Dr. Rutledge, you claim that human embryos are covered with thick hair, which “reabsorbs” before birth and that chimps have the same hair that continues to grow. I have studied and taught embryology and human fetal development and I know of no such “thick hair” in humans. If you are speaking of lanugo hair, both humans and chimps have it and both shed it as it is replaced with vellus hair. That chimps are born with a thick covering of vellus hair and humans mostly are not causes no particular challenge to the beliefs of creationists.

    You say that the examples of “mainstream science” refuting creationist theories “are too many to count.” I would settle for only one that is accurate, Brian. The examples that you’ve given do not support the materialist point of view, and, in fact, make for sound arguments on the side of creationists.

  15. dr theo You are right about my ignorance on the yolk sac and lanugo and I didnn't use those examples to be deceptive, but simply was ignorant on the facts . Very wrong. I checked out what you said and it is correct. Maybe you can help me with this. Science is a field of study and research not unlike math and physics and others, that man uses to figure certain things out. Math, physics and the others have in their foundation that the supernatural is not used to explain HOW they work. To say that God created man and gave him the capacity to understand particle physics in no way helps the physicist in his/her research to understand the mechanics of the math.

    Science, and the study of it, has the same criteria in its foundation that the supernatural isn't needed to explain its workings of HOW things function and develope. First and foremost you can never disprove the supernatural.No matter how much we have learned about the germ theory, if you step in and say that you believe evil spirits or the fall of man is responsible for disease, it can't be disproven and it offers nothing to explaining HOW these spirits work their magic.It is immaterial to the how question. Why would you demand the supernatural be included in the study of biologic science and not… say…. of math ?

  16. You can't really prove or disprove the claims made by evolutionists, such as “The Big Bang happened x years ago…”, “The Big Bang happened like thls…”, “Life sprang from lifelessness in this manner…”, “Primates evolved from…” and so on. Actually, you can in a broad sense disprove many of these because they violate the very laws of nature materialists/naturalists claim they must abide by, therefore disproving them logically. Which brings us back around to a fundamental reality I've stated over and over in the past: materialists, naturalists and evolutionists rely on, they MUST HAVE, supernatural events (i.e. events that defy natural laws of operation) in order to carry their theories forward from one hinge-point to another…all the while denying the existence of or even the recognition of supernatural causation (as long as that causation is connected with an intelligent designer, that is).

    But you cannot run a lab experiment to duplicate and recreate things that allegedly happened thousands or millions of years ago because a host of variables are unknown. So, evolution and other so-called “scientific” studies of things which allegedly happened millions or billions of years ago is, by definition, unscientific.

    As to understanding God and how he created the universe and everything in it, as finite beings we will never understand all that. But that does not in the slightest stop or deter us from the scientific investigation of as much as we can about how the universe and all its contents operate. God created us in his image, with intelligence and curiosity. We learn, we better our lives, and we honor him as we attempt to “reverse-engineer” his magnificent achievements, even though we will never master them all in every detail.

  17. Perhaps you should spend a little time reflecting on the concept of a light-year, along with possible explanations for why the apparent immense distances in the universe do not preclude the possibility of a young earth.

    Those possibilities include but are not limited to:

    (1) The possibility that God could have created starlight with the appearance of age, just as he did plants, animals and humans. Plants were not created as seed first, animals were not created as newborns, and humans weren't created as babies–all were created at an initial state of full development. Likewise, God could have created starlight as reaching the earth instantly, despite distances of millions of light years.

    (2) Changes in the speed of light. It may have been much faster a few thousand years ago, under different conditions. Scientists have changed the speed of light in laboratory conditions, in some cases slowing it down almost to a stand-still.

    (3) About a year ago Oxford scientists published a study which indicated our solar system seems to exist in an area of space unusually and particularly devoid of matter. Scientists also say this may dramatically affect our perception about space-time, that this lack of density in our area of space may make objects appear farther away than the actually are.

    Interesting, huh?

    Finally, I am well aware that Stargate Universe, while fun to watch, is science fiction. Do you understand the difference between conjecture and fact? I hope so, since the overwhelming majority of the substance (if you can generously call it that) of the theory of evolution is conjecture, not fact.

  18. I am a big fan of science fiction so I was just poking a little fun with your mixing SGU into your post. As a tangent, SGU seems to be falling flat for me, I think I was hoping it would be more like BSG in terms of production values.

    Evolution debate aside, as for the points you make, point #1 is pure conjecture. Point #2 physics places limits on the maximum speed of light, not how slow it can go. As Point #3, can you give me a link. I would like more information on that.

  19. I agree with you about SGU. The story has lots of potential, but so far I've been more than a bit disappointed. “The jury's still out” with me, as they say.

    You're right that #1 is conjecture…as are all the major tenets of evolution theory.

    With regard to Point # 2, again you're making an assumption. It used to be assumed that the speed of light was an unchanging constant…until we found out that it could in fact be changed. Just as magnetic fields and a myriad of other scientific phenomena can change over time and in different circumstances, the possibility that the speed of light may also change up or down seems more likely than not.

    For Point #3, I'm pretty sure it was also published in a scientific journal (Scientific American? Science magazine? I can't remember for sure) but the only link I could find right now on short notice is a story Fox News ran on it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html

    Very interesting implications.

  20. I understand your point of view and realize 'something' happened that allows us to be here. To me, understanding the mechanisms of HOW things work is indepedant of WHO that agent is. If that agent is God, Zeus or a super-intelligent alien race, I thank them from my core being. But knowing exactly which one it is or WHO it is, doesn't help us in our daily chore of figuring HOW things work.

    In the 1400's one would have never thought that bacteria caused disease or that gravity holds us down on the earths surface. So maybe someday we will determine that the Big Bang did occur. It is possible is it not. If I happen to know who the WHO is that is responsible for the big Bang, I will pay homage to it. If I don't know, then the explaination that describes how the Bang occured, still stands just the same. Just like the explaination of the Germ Theory still stands whether it was Zeus or God etc.Each person is welcome to give the glory to ever who they believe deserves it.

    We are here no matter who or what caused it. We are now trying to figure out how it was done

  21. There is a certain amount of validity to your point of being able to understand to some degree HOW things work independent of WHO OR WHAT is the origin of their causation.

    However, knowing something about who created the universe (which we cannot know until we know WHO that someone is) can be very helpful in understanding the mechanics of the universe and everything in it.

    For instance, let's pretend for a moment that the Bible told us that God was a fickle guy who changes his mind at a moment's notice, and sometimes does things very differently than the last time, and can even upon getting a wild hair change how existing things operate.

    If we knew that about God, then we would know that there are absolutely no guarantees whatsoever that the way the laws of nature operate NOW can be relied on to tell us how the laws of nature operated 1,000 or a million years ago…or that we may reasonably expect those natural laws to continue operating in the same manner 68 seconds from now.

    In such a setting, it would be quite reasonable to observe the current state of something that came into being in a forgotten, bygone age (say, a mountain, or a fossil) and realize that the natural laws which allowed it to come into being might not apply at this moment at all.

    Or, let's pretend that God is still consistent…but he's consistently menacing, and perhaps certain actions or circumstances incite him to violence. If we found a rock or organism in a certain state which indicated that it had been destroyed by a powerful (supernatural?) means not available to ordinary men, then we would be able to easily recognize acts of God in history by the destructive fingerprint they left.

    But since God is consistent, we can expect his universe to act in a consistent manner (unless acted upon by his supernatural power). And since God is good, we can expect his universe to operate in positive, helpful, wholesome ways–again, unless acted upon by outside influences.

    Which brings us to why our world is so riddled with trouble: God created it perfect, but man's rebelling brought the curse of decay, death, and corruption on it. Even so, we can still see (if we know how to look) God's fingerprint of good and consistency even through the damage caused by the curse of sin.

    But yes, it is true to a point that we don't need to know the ultimate origin and causation of the universe and the things in it in order to be able to study their composition and operation.

    And ironically, this is where materialist/naturalist/evolutionist theory gets itself in trouble: it attempts to answer the philosophical “big question” of ultimate origins, without being properly equipped or really empowered to do so.

    It is essentially like me, a non-doctor, trying to diagnose and treat lung cancer; I can give it a shot, but I'm not properly equipped for it, and I'm likely to come to a lot of erroneous conclusions and make a royal mess of things.

  22. Some good points. Take your first point that what if God is whimsical and changes things at a moments notice. Lets say He changes the earths gravitational pull and our next rocket launch goes askew. All we can say is that the laws of nature changed and back to the drawng board.If God did change the physical laws a million years ago, all we have to go on is the evidence that He left us. 99.9% of scientists think the evidence shows it didn't change and the rest may feel natures laws did change by the evidence. They are both allowed to have their take on things It doesn't matter if God changed them or natural forces changed them. We know that quantum physics is suggesting that what we thought were the laws of the universe, may not apply everywhere. If God is whimsical and made those laws change from what we thought they were or if natural forces are whimsical and did it, doesnt't matter. We are still left with trying to explain HOW they changed.

    And even though naturalists are looking into origins, we realize that no matter what is discovered, we can never say a supernatural force didn't create or precede it. These discoveries may fly in the face of particular religious beliefs a person may hold, but not one person that I have ever heard, even the Dawkins and Bertrand Russells of the world, say that we can ever absolutely state that a supernatural force is not behind it all. We may not believe it to be true, but we can never claim to know absolutely it isn't true.You will not find one man of science who states that he/she absolutely KNOWS there is not a supernatural being

  23. You also made some good points. But you have to remember that both naturalists and creationists consider that practically there has been no significant change in the laws of nature over most if not almost all of history (with the primary exception being the creationist's contention that many of those laws did fundamentally change at the Fall…but have remained pretty constant since then, except for the occasional temporary supernatural intervention in isolated incidents by God).

    And if the laws of science have not changed over the course of history, that presents some terrible problems for evolutionists and materialists, since key elements of their theoretical contentions are impossible by the laws of nature as we understand them. And while you say that we can never say a supernatural force didn't create, etc., that is exactly what the materialist/naturalist community says in practice. They refuse to even consider the possibility. You can say (and I use “you” in the general, materialist/naturalist grouping) “we can't know for sure there isn't a God” all day long, but if everything you say and do acts as if you know there isn't a God, and you refuse to consider the possibility of a supernatural God in your examination of the world around us (as virtually ever materialist and naturalist does, by definition), then it's really the same thing, no matter what protests are made.

  24. I believe that I have read before your comment that naturalists believe there has been no significant change in the laws of nature in most if not all of history. That isn't true and it is true. Starting with Einstein, we know the laws of nature fluctuate all the time relevant to where you are and what matter is present.If light travels from the sun to the earth at the speed of light, it will take it a certain amount of time to get here. If Mars get in between the sun and the earth, the light will bend around and still reach the earth at the same time.If light bends around something then that should increase the time it takes to reach its destination, but it doesn't The laws of nature turn out to be relative or fluctuate depending on how and where they are observed.We typical self-centered humans used to think the laws of nature applied only to how we observed them from earth, but if we were observing them from a different place and time, the laws would follow different principles. I think you and I have too narrow a concept of how the laws of nature work. . A law follows one priniple depending on its surroudings and then that same law or principle changes or fluctuates if the surroundings change.All laws of physics are relative. We are learning all the time how so called fixed laws or principles do indeed change. They just appear fixed to us as we see them only from the earths and our own limited perspective.

    Again. you have to separate the personal beliefs of the naturalist's religion with what that same naturalist feels science can tell him. He may believe that there is no God and shout it to the world, but he also knows that the science that he studies will never be able to absolutely answer that question. Since he knows science can't answer the God question, then he renders it irrelevent in his field of study. It isn't irrelevant in his personal life though. dr theo is a believer and I am not, but when it comes to patient care, we follow the same principles of medical science and fairness to patients.A deity is not relevant in how we apply medical knowledge. It's not relevant to the scientists field of study either ( or the mathmematician or the person studying the artillery of the Civil War)

    I think you are placing HOW man studies science on too high a plain when it should be on the same plain as HOW the researcher of civil War artillery is on.He might feel differently. Like I said, it is all relative. Maybe man just isnt completely capable of determining if absolutes absolutely exist. That's my belief.

  25. That sounds all fine and wonderful in the abstract, but that's most definitely not how materialists & naturalists actually play out their beliefs in practice.

    Materialists and naturalists believe the laws of nature do not change–cannot change or be circumvented–within an existing set of circumstances. It's part of how they “determine” things such as radioactive decay rates, with the assumption that they have been steady and unchanged for thousands/millions of years.

    And it isn't that the naturalist knows science can't answer the God question and so he “renders it irrelevant,” the naturalist refuses to consider the possibility of God. I have seen evolutionists take this approach over and over and over and over and over, so you cannot tell me it isn't true. Virtually every one of them refuses to even consider the possibility of an intelligent designer; they reject the notion outright.

    In the end, this dogmatic (religious?) rejection of even the possibility of the existence of God as the author of creation is not only hypocritical in someone who claims to be searching for answers, but is deliberately myopic and closed-minded.

  26. In practical terms, learning how things work is a sufficient endeavor for scientists and I, like you, have benefited immensely from the work of countless men before us, most of whom were devout Christians. If scientists limit themselves to the study of the things that can be tested scientifically then there would be no controversy. If they were intellectually honest they would simply admit that there are some things beyond our current understanding and carry on with their work.

    But modern science, in many disciplines, seems determined to prove that materialism is all there is and that belief in a superior power is nothing short of superstition. As Mr. Ellis so effectively argues, the assumptions made by evolutionists are untestable and unsupported by known scientific principles. The origin of life and the informational content of DNA, for example, are inexplicable in scientific terms. To claim that these things came about by purely natural means (i.e., the laws of nature) is untenable given our current understanding of nature. It would require something more (perhaps even supernatural) to account for these things. If someone wants to take the position that there are as yet undiscovered laws of nature to explain such miraculous events, that is their privilege, but let’s not confuse that with science. It is a faith no less profound than my faith in a Creator.

  27. #1 – truly, sorry I brought up evolution has that was so tangent to my point.

    #2 – My point is that speed of light has a maximum speed. To suggest that the universe has changed the maximum speed naturally or buy the hand of God is complete conjecture. If I were speculate, having the maximum speed of light increase or decrease based on time, event, or whim, would have untold devastating effects on the machinery of nature.

    #3 Looks like we are going to have to wait for NASA to answer the space bubble vs dark matter issue… http://news.softpedia.com/news/450-Years-Old-As

  28. The speed of light may very well have a “maximum” in the sense that is has never and can never go faster than that speed, but we're making a big assumption in assuming that max is 186,282 MPS. Because c is 186,282 right now under at Earth's location does not automatically follow that c was that same speed 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, or elsewhere in the universe under different conditions (e.g. in an area of space with greater or lesser density).

    In summary, we're making a boat-load of assumptions in the name of “science” that we really cannot verify or know with any great degree of certainty. Understanding that brings up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?

  29. I am sure naturalists, like all people, have multiple motivations and some are indeed quite hostile to religion. But in the U.S., most of us naturalists were not always so and were brought up and/or exposed early on to Christianity and each of us DID at one time struggle with the possiblity of the existence of a God. Many of my friends struggle, as well as mine, was enormous and lasted over many years. We don't just 'refuse' to consider the possibilty of God. in fact , we believed in Him at one time and with time, have rejected the concept of the supernatural of which your God happens to be a part of. Rightly or wrongly, I rejected God because I didn't think a loving Christian God would have created a world like this. Scientific naturalism had nothing to do with it. I didn't have any scientific knowledge and was basically a theist that believed some enity made us, but then left us alone. It wasn't until the last 5 to 10 years that I realized that the universe could have come into existence with no such entity. But I can never say THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GOD.

    Scientific naturalism and its methodology of excluding the supernatural slowly evolved. The great naturalists, like Pasteur and Koch etc., realized that for things like the Germ Theory to have creedance, then a method is needed.Both Pasteur and Koch were deeply religious men, but they knew that science needed to be confirmed by experiment, be re-experimented on and able to be falsified. They knew you can't experiment on God or falsify God scientically. It became obvious to scientists that science can only validate what man can validate. The great Christian Francis Collins, says without his faith, he would have never been able to make the discoveries he did in molecular genetics, but never invokes God in the lab. The great atheists, Watson and Crick, said their anti-theist beliefs had nothing to do with their discovery of DNA. All these men-Koch, Pasteur, Watson, Crick, Collins – knew man can not invoke the supernatural in the lab.It exists outside of it.

    I know you think that some parts of science make assumptions it shouldn't make and I think you have a valid point. But I also know that if God decides to change the Laws of Gravity, that there is not one test or experiment that we can do that shows that such a deity or designer personally did it.It would only be another assumption and science doesn't need more of them. To make a play on words-More unprovable assumptions don't make a right

  30. That process of looking at evidence for God and then rejecting it based on the evidence you had at the time is something I can understand. But the problem I have is that so many naturalists, when they are presented with fresh evidence for God and/or against a naturalistic process, absolutely refuse to give that new evidence a fair hearing; it is rejected outright as “unscientific” with no further consideration.

    And while you may be an exception, virtually every materialist and naturalist I have ever encountered and talked with scoffs at the very notion of an intelligent designer. They virtually tell you there is no God, and some some actually tell you with certainty (in their minds and speech) that there IS no God.

    It is true that we cannot test and experiment on God. But we can examine the scientific evidence to see if it is (a) consistent with materialistic/naturalistic assumptions, or (b) consistent with the truth-claims of the Bible. If (b) is a “Yes” and (a) is a “maybe” or “no,” then you have de facto evidence supporting the existence of God, because the two different philosophies have very different claims and assumptions–so different that both cannot be correct.

  31. Bless your hearts, Bob and Dr. Theo! I couldn't take it like you both do, though I sometimes punish myself anyway and take on the antagonists.

    You keep making clear and intelligent points, but they go unheard. The theory of evolution, which does not answer the question of “how it all began,” is conjecture and assumption, and it's a BAD theory at that. It's a highly implausible scenario with no corroborating evidence in nature or the fossil record, whereas the explanation that an all-powerful God made all that we see makes much more sense.

    But, arguing with the rabidly religious evolutionists is like banging your head on the wall. These people can't open their eyes and see what is quite evident all around them.

  32. Gina,

    I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' newest book, called “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.”

  33. Soccer,

    I suggest you read Phillip E. Johnson's book, “Darwin on Trial,” or even Ray Comfort's newest book, “Nothing Created Everything.”

    Gina

  34. Gina,

    The key difference between Dawkins' book and the two that you mentioned is that the former presents an overwhelming amount of positive evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, whereas “Darwin on Trial” and “Nothing Created Everything” merely present arguments against evolution. This demonstrates a fallacy which creationists don't seem to grasp: disproving evolution does NOT prove creationism.

    If creationists could provide scientific evidence for their claims — that the world was created in six days, that living organisms spontaneously generated out of nothing, that the first male human being was created out of dirt and that his female counterpart was created from his rib, that every plant and animal we see today originated in one single location roughly six thousand years ago, that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, that the alleged “intelligent designer” is Yahweh and not Allah or Zeus or Mithra or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or space aliens, etc. — then I would have no choice but to accept your theory as fact. But so far, creationists have failed to present any such evidence.

  35. Creationists provide at least as much evidence and proof for their theories as do evolutionists. Unfortunately most evolutionists are too closed-minded to see it, though.

    Why have you come back around under a different screen name, Alex? Were you hoping to put your old ways behind you?

  36. Really Bob? Then please show scientific evidence for each of the creationist claims that I listed above.

    And I picked this screen name because I like how it sounds. Is that ok?

  37. Actually, no, it isn't okay. You were blacklisted under your old screen name for reasons very much like what I see brewing right now: an obstinate refusal to even remotely give evidence contrary to your myopic views a fair hearing.

    Such foolishness is a waste of my time, my reader's time, and anyone else who even halfway takes seriously the search for truth.

    The Bible says not to answer a fool according to his folly, and I plan on taking that advice.

    Goodbye, Alex.

  38. Bob You mentioned that when naturalists are presented with fresh evidence for God, they refuse to give that evidence a fair hearing. You stated earlier that God could change the laws of nature any time He wants and wouldn't be nice for scientists to know that so if their reseach suddenly made no sense, then they could entertain the idea that the laws have been changed or were changed in the past and that our current day science may not apply to the past. Well if God can arrange the stars however he wants give that arrangement a meaning to man( which is possible), He could do that. If God can change natures laws He can certainly arrange the stars to have meaning. Then, by your logic, wouldn't we still have to consider astrology as a science ?

    The naturalist would say no, but the creationist would say it is possible. It is merely combining astronomy( naturalistic science ) with religion. Isn't that what you are proposing we do ?

    Many ancient Christians and others felt thunder meant God was angry. It still could. We don't know.Wouldn't it have to be mentioned in meterology classes the naturalistic explanation of thunder, PLUS the idea that the reason it thundered at 2 p.m. yesterday was not just the right conditions to form electricity, but God's anger initiated it? Isn't that one of the 'possiblities' that us naturalists refuse to allow into science ?

    Your camp wants science to say it was God who created gravity. Must not your camp also consider the 'possibility' that thunder is caused by Gods anger and that's why it happens. I believe Genesis says God was pleased when He created the world ( thus and gravity,etc ). Maybe, it is possible that when He is angry, He creates thunder.

    Naturalists look at a star billions of light years away and calculate the time it taks that light to reach earth and get a number that tells us the universe is very, very old. Creation science says that God created the universe so that the light rays were already here at creation and this was again pleasing to God because it was part of His design. Again, they must also thenmention that thunder might occur when it does, because He is not pleased.It's one of those possiblities is it not ?

  39. Michael Behe Long time Discovery Institute member, passionate Christian, distinguished molecular scientist and professor and advocate of creation or ID science( he admits his intelligent designer is God ) stated under oath that the science of ID or creation would consider astrology as a science, since it injects the supernatural into astronomy.He is correct. If you inject God into the study of the origins or evolution, yout must also inject Him into ALL the sciences. Can't pick and choose.That would mean you would have to tell the highschool physics class that if their experiments on the laws of bouyancy don't turn out, it could be one of two things 1) their math is wrong 2) God changed the laws of bouyancy

  40. This thread is getting so narrow, I'm going to continue it on a new one

  41. We seem to really be getting off on a tangent here, but I'll indulge a little bit.

    God certainly could provide meaning through the stars…but there's not a shred of evidence of such a thing. Mere possibility does not equate into a reasonable theory (and ironically, “mere possibility” is the bulk of what passes for “science” in the evolution community). It's possible that time travel might some day be achieved and possible that after such a development an aircraft could have gone back in time to have crashed in Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War…but there's not a shred of evidence to support such a contention in a serious manner.

    God could express himself and his emotions through thunder, and it's quite possible that he actually has at some point in the past…but there is no reason to believe that the vast majority of thunder that we hear is nothing more than the sound created by lightning as a result of meteorological disturbances.

    To put it more simply, the Bible indicates God suspends natural laws very rarely, and our experience backs this up (i.e. we rarely see blatant violations of the laws of nature). Therefore, unless there is evidence to the contrary, we can reasonably expect the laws of nature to act in a consistent manner yesterday, today and tomorrow. Accordingly, during the bulk of scientific discussion it is unnecessary to talk about the rare and infrequent suspension of scientific laws, unless of course there is an examination of a more specific time, place or incident where those scientific laws seem to have been suspended.

    If we assume we can accurately measure stellar distances (and we do make that assumption), and we calculate stars to be millions of light years away, then yes it would be reasonable to conclude that the universe is millions of years old…in the absence of contrary evidence or testimony.

    And it so happens that there is both evidence and testimony to the contrary in this case. The testimony comes from the Bible, which makes the claim that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, and strongly implies that the stars were actually created 4 days after the earth was. This is the testimony, so the next step is to examine the credibility of the testimony. As I have outlined before, the credibility of the Bible (while unconfirmed in some of its claims) is superb and unblemished in areas that can be proved or disproved. The Bible has predicted future events before they happened–including the names of people not yet born–and has been backed up by scientific and historical investigation on many of its other claims about scientific principles and historic events. So with such a good record of credibility, a further examination of its claims about the age and size of the universe is merited. Are there other possible explanations for these apparent huge distances that could explain the disparity about the Bible's claims about the age of the earth and universe? As I outlined earlier in a discussion with someone else, yes, there are other possible explanations that are scientifically plausible within the framework of the overall creation theory.

    That does not in and of itself mean it is NOT possible that the universe really could be billions of years old; it only means that the competing creation theory still stands unrefuted. To further consider which theory is most likely, we have to move on to a broader examination of the reliability of both theories. And this takes us to the examination I have mentioned several times before: whether the pivotal claims of each theory are logically consistent with other pivotal claims within that same theory.

    And unfortunately for materialist/evolution theory, that is not the case.

  42. I might disagree with your first statement. Genesis 1:14 says 'that the lights( stars) in the firmament( shy) are to be used as signs'…….days,months, years and seasons also, but Signs.Messages. God is giving us signs or celestial messages through the arrangement of stars. Under creation science you would then have to teach that the stars are placed where they are, in part, because God is giving us celestial signs. Is that not a fair statement ?

  43. You left out a very important part of that verse (remember, context is always key).

    And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.

    You see, not “signs” of mysterious future events, but signs to mark the seasons, i.e. the earth's orbit around the sun.

    You're drastically overreaching; it smacks of desperation, desperation to avoid an unpleasant conclusion. :-)

    I think we've taken this as far as it reasonably can for now. We're risking blowing what was otherwise a fairly stimulating discussion, so let's stop before that happens.

  44. Bob You mentioned that when naturalists are presented with fresh evidence for God, they refuse to give that evidence a fair hearing. You stated earlier that God could change the laws of nature any time He wants and wouldn't be nice for scientists to know that so if their reseach suddenly made no sense, then they could entertain the idea that the laws have been changed or were changed in the past and that our current day science may not apply to the past. Well if God can arrange the stars however he wants give that arrangement a meaning to man( which is possible), He could do that. If God can change natures laws He can certainly arrange the stars to have meaning. Then, by your logic, wouldn't we still have to consider astrology as a science ?

    The naturalist would say no, but the creationist would say it is possible. It is merely combining astronomy( naturalistic science ) with religion. Isn't that what you are proposing we do ?

    Many ancient Christians and others felt thunder meant God was angry. It still could. We don't know.Wouldn't it have to be mentioned in meterology classes the naturalistic explanation of thunder, PLUS the idea that the reason it thundered at 2 p.m. yesterday was not just the right conditions to form electricity, but God's anger initiated it? Isn't that one of the 'possiblities' that us naturalists refuse to allow into science ?

    Your camp wants science to say it was God who created gravity. Must not your camp also consider the 'possibility' that thunder is caused by Gods anger and that's why it happens. I believe Genesis says God was pleased when He created the world ( thus and gravity,etc ). Maybe, it is possible that when He is angry, He creates thunder.

    Naturalists look at a star billions of light years away and calculate the time it taks that light to reach earth and get a number that tells us the universe is very, very old. Creation science says that God created the universe so that the light rays were already here at creation and this was again pleasing to God because it was part of His design. Again, they must also thenmention that thunder might occur when it does, because He is not pleased.It's one of those possiblities is it not ?

  45. Michael Behe Long time Discovery Institute member, passionate Christian, distinguished molecular scientist and professor and advocate of creation or ID science( he admits his intelligent designer is God ) stated under oath that the science of ID or creation would consider astrology as a science, since it injects the supernatural into astronomy.He is correct. If you inject God into the study of the origins or evolution, yout must also inject Him into ALL the sciences. Can't pick and choose.That would mean you would have to tell the highschool physics class that if their experiments on the laws of bouyancy don't turn out, it could be one of two things 1) their math is wrong 2) God changed the laws of bouyancy

  46. This thread is getting so narrow, I'm going to continue it on a new one

  47. We seem to really be getting off on a tangent here, but I'll indulge a little bit.

    God certainly could provide meaning through the stars…but there's not a shred of evidence of such a thing. Mere possibility does not equate into a reasonable theory (and ironically, “mere possibility” is the bulk of what passes for “science” in the evolution community). It's possible that time travel might some day be achieved and possible that after such a development an aircraft could have gone back in time to have crashed in Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War…but there's not a shred of evidence to support such a contention in a serious manner.

    God could express himself and his emotions through thunder, and it's quite possible that he actually has at some point in the past…but there is no reason to believe that the vast majority of thunder that we hear is nothing more than the sound created by lightning as a result of meteorological disturbances.

    To put it more simply, the Bible indicates God suspends natural laws very rarely, and our experience backs this up (i.e. we rarely see blatant violations of the laws of nature). Therefore, unless there is evidence to the contrary, we can reasonably expect the laws of nature to act in a consistent manner yesterday, today and tomorrow. Accordingly, during the bulk of scientific discussion it is unnecessary to talk about the rare and infrequent suspension of scientific laws, unless of course there is an examination of a more specific time, place or incident where those scientific laws seem to have been suspended.

    If we assume we can accurately measure stellar distances (and we do make that assumption), and we calculate stars to be millions of light years away, then yes it would be reasonable to conclude that the universe is millions of years old…in the absence of contrary evidence or testimony.

    And it so happens that there is both evidence and testimony to the contrary in this case. The testimony comes from the Bible, which makes the claim that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, and strongly implies that the stars were actually created 4 days after the earth was. This is the testimony, so the next step is to examine the credibility of the testimony. As I have outlined before, the credibility of the Bible (while unconfirmed in some of its claims) is superb and unblemished in areas that can be proved or disproved. The Bible has predicted future events before they happened–including the names of people not yet born–and has been backed up by scientific and historical investigation on many of its other claims about scientific principles and historic events. So with such a good record of credibility, a further examination of its claims about the age and size of the universe is merited. Are there other possible explanations for these apparent huge distances that could explain the disparity about the Bible's claims about the age of the earth and universe? As I outlined earlier in a discussion with someone else, yes, there are other possible explanations that are scientifically plausible within the framework of the overall creation theory.

    That does not in and of itself mean it is NOT possible that the universe really could be billions of years old; it only means that the competing creation theory still stands unrefuted. To further consider which theory is most likely, we have to move on to a broader examination of the reliability of both theories. And this takes us to the examination I have mentioned several times before: whether the pivotal claims of each theory are logically consistent with other pivotal claims within that same theory.

    And unfortunately for materialist/evolution theory, that is not the case.

  48. I might disagree with your first statement. Genesis 1:14 says 'that the lights( stars) in the firmament( shy) are to be used as signs'…….days,months, years and seasons also, but Signs.Messages. God is giving us signs or celestial messages through the arrangement of stars. Under creation science you would then have to teach that the stars are placed where they are, in part, because God is giving us celestial signs. Is that not a fair statement ?

  49. You left out a very important part of that verse (remember, context is always key).

    And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.

    You see, not “signs” of mysterious future events, but signs to mark the seasons, i.e. the earth's orbit around the sun.

    You're drastically overreaching; it smacks of desperation, desperation to avoid an unpleasant conclusion. :-)

    I think we've taken this as far as it reasonably can for now. We're risking blowing what was otherwise a fairly stimulating discussion, so let's stop before that happens.