Lecture Planning for 2009

Today I emailed the Missouri Association of Creationists my lecture topics. Of course there are numerous issues that can be explored in reference to creation or evolution issues, therefore I settled for a few general areas.

If you would like to get email updates concerning this blog click here.

Here are my general topics I would like to speak about in 2009

The Evolution of Charles Darwin?
What were the events and situations that made Darwin's view so appealing? Why is he worshiped today as the father of evolution? What were Darwin's bluffs, which are explained by creationist today? What should Christians learn from the silence of Christians in Darwin's day?

The Genesis Flood: Feasibility or Fallacy?
What are the reasons people disbelieve the biblical account of Noah and a worldwide flood. What are some Bible believing scientist saying about the feasibility of such a flood and gigantic ark.

An Introduction to Biblical Creation
Why have thousands of academic minded people held on to the Genesis account of creation? Why does it matter what Christians believe about Genesis' account of creation? This presentation covers the importance of Genesis in reference to the entire Bible.

Evolution's Poison as Noted in History
Many leaders in science and politics today have ignored the poisonous philosophies that evolution promotes. What effect has evolutionary thinking had not only in North America but around the world.

The Historical Struggle with the Book of Genesis
Christians once were esteemed for their scientific discoveries. What took place, which focused scientific inquiry away from the original view of science? What compromises did Christians begin to accept which opened the door for evolution to be widely accepted. What struggles have existed in the public schools concerning creation and evolution.

Happy New Year!!!

A Response to Congressman Mark Soulder’s Creationist Comments

Souder's top triumph: Saving VA hospital. Sylvia A. Smith, Washington editor.WASHINGTON. Published: December 27, 2008 3:00 a.m. – Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, has been northeast Indiana’s representative in Congress since before Starbucks opened its first overseas shop.

Smith: You appeared on the big screen this year. What was that experience like?

Soulder: The biggest single moment was (that) the movie “Expelled” came out on intelligent design. (The documentary about intelligent design – also called creationism – hosted by Ben Stein describes how some educational professionals have been blacklisted from universities and journals because they disagree with the theory of evolution.)

Critics of ID have spoken of ID being the Trojan horse of creationism. Soulder’s comment about ID being called creationism is not reflective of ID discussion. If ID scientists were true biblical creationists then they would eliminate all talk except God of the Bible being the creator. As a Christian I think they almost blaspheme God by suggesting that the intelligent designer might be dead, be an space alien or be many such beings.

Michael Behe is probably the most famous ID scientists and he even suggests that Darwin’s idea of common decent may have taken place. He even suggests that Darwinian evolution did take place over billions of years but this cannot account for apparent design within some biological organisms.

Smith: Was it the highlight of your year?

Soulder: I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design. I believe that if there wasn’t a purpose in designing you – regardless of who you view the designer as being – then, from my perspective, you can’t be fallen from that design. If you can’t be fallen from that design, there’s no point to evangelism.

I do not know what Soulder was trying to say here. I will make a few points from his rambling. ID scientists do not ascertain why a God would allow suffering, and disease. Most creationist would point to the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden as the initial catalyst of human suffering.

Soulder: As an evangelical Christian, I believe the premise of a fall being at the core of reforming lives. I believe the concept of grace and forgiveness comes from having fallen from something.

....Now, how that occurred – whether you believe in the young earth theory, gradual evolution, or whatever – is disputed. Those become religious. But whether there was a fundamental designer who developed a complex DNA molecular structure is critical. Since I view that as the most important thing in the world, yes, being in a movie that advanced that cause was the personal highlight of the year.

Evolutionists would certainly dispute the comment of Expelled being an advanced movie. It is interesting that Soulder opened the door for complete theistic evolution to be a possibility. ID critic Ken Miller has spoken of his faith as being a theist. Miller would argue against the term theistic evolution and argue for a designer of universal laws that would make Darwinian evolution possible.

Bristol Palin gives birth to boy: Creationism Observation

Bristol Palin gives birth to boy

BY Owen Moritz. DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER. Monday, December 29th 2008, 7:54 PM

Bristol Palin, the 18-year-old daughter of Alaska Gov. and former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, gave birth over the weekend to a 7-pound, 4-ounce boy. Both mom and baby were said to be doing well.

I spoke to some married friends of mine before I started this blog and they made a comment about how Creation Moment sounds like inception that causes pregnancy. Since they were expecting a baby I thought it was amusing. Creation Moment is intended to refer to issues related to creation and evolution, however the issues related to abortion are also related.

Many are fascinated with the story of Sarah Palin’s pregnant un-wed daughter. Christians have used her story to focus not on sex outside marriage but on her decision not have an abortion. Evolutionary philosophy has brought discussion of natural selection into the realm of human existence. If humans (fetuses) are not desired then natural selection through abortion will assure others more benefits.

I do not think that evolutionary theory has caused the abortions of over 41 million babies in North America, but I think it has been a strong contributor. It has contributed not directly but as ingredients to a soup can make a difference in the taste, so has evolutionary philosophy contributed a bit of poison. Before this week is over a number of unborn babies will taste of this poison and there lives destroyed.

Australian geologists still oppose creationism (Creationism Response)

From the website http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/12/australian-geologists-still-oppose-creationism-003448

The Geological Society of Australia recently updated its policy statement (PDF) on science education and creationism. A previous version of the statement (reprinted in the third edition of NCSE's Voices for Evolution) from 1995 read, in part, "The Geological Society of Australia considers that notions such as Fundamental Creationism, including so called 'Flood Geology', which disregard scientific evidence such as that based on repeatable observations in the natural world and the geological record, are not science and cannot be taught as science ... The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. ... the Society dissociates itself from Creationist statements made by any member."

In my last two posts I mentioned the need to include creationism as a topic of teaching in public schools. I mentioned that it is a topic that people talk of in society, but much more it is a topic intrinsically involved in the history of Western Society. I suggested that there should be academic freedom for teachers to compare and contrasts ideas related to life issues including creationism and evolution.

I would elaborate upon my post in regards to geological science. Should teachers feel threatened to totally avoid hundreds of years of scientific inquiry into flood geology based upon the Bible? It is understood that modern science is defined by the principal of natural methodology. This view contrast Francis Bacon's popularity with the empirical method of science. What better way to define natural science by contrasting it with what is assumed to be supernatural flood geology.

When Charles Lyell promoted uniformitarianism in the nineteenth century, catastrophism was the predominant view in scholarly writings for nearly two centuries. Even today’s geologists must admit that fossils are the product of floods. Tertullian, in the second century CE, wrote that the traces of marine fossils in the mountains were proof of a worldwide flood. While biased by biblical texts, the view of fossils being the remnant of former living things counteracted the view that fossils were mere naturally designed rocks.

Lyell's disdain for flood geology catastrophism was noted in his biased conclusions. These conclusions were affected by his Christian doctrine belief in deism. Deism teaches that God has no direct interference in the affairs of humans. Everything was created and the creator sits back and does not get involved. The biblical miracles are stripped away from its pages and interpreted in allegory. Michael Ruse in his book Evolutionary Wars called Lyell's geology as 'deism in the stones.' This bias has been recognized as detrimentally effecting geological science as observed by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.

In fact the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped away...to circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination on the evidence...the catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. { Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (New York:W.W. Norton, 1977), 150.}

Teachers Should Have Academic Freedom
In conclusion, flood geology has been treated like science in the past by the majority of scholars. While this is dismissed in modern academia the tenants of catastrophism should be discussed in comparison and contrasts with uniformitarianism. If the late Stephen Jay Gould would acknowledge Charles Lyell’s religious bias, biases in modern science should be discussed today. No one comes to the table of science teaching without bias.

Teachers are not mere robots but people like their students who have to deal with life. Education is all around us not only on an objective level but also a subjective level. Subjective personal biases should be expressed in order for objective learning to take place. Teachers should have the freedom to express creationism and flood geology from a historical reference but also from personal bias.

This posting was written by John Martin. www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.
Stephen Jay Gould Photo Credit Kathy Chapman

More Reasons to Teach Creationism in Schools

I am responding in length to a comment that bmatt left on my post "1/3 UK teachers say "Teach pupils creationism at schools":

Mr. Martin, if you can come up with one good reason why creationism should be taught in schools outside of a "ridiculous wack-o theories" class than please...feel free to design that curriculum. The inclusion of creationism in a science class would further show the dumbing down of Western schooling.

Prior to the eighteenth century the prevalent belief in Western Culture was in special creation as described in Genesis. With this stated, today there are numerous creationism stories related by Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, American Indian, African religions etc. What is the difference with biblical creationism? How does one determine the value of biblical creationism in today’s schools which are pluralistic in religious and atheistic beliefs?

First of all I will address the problem of compartmentalization of Western education. From a child’s first day in school subjects are generally placed in categories such as math and reading. By the time a child is in their fourth year of school they are acquainted with divisions of knowledge such as Math, Science, Literature, History, Social Studies and The Arts. For pragmatic reasons these divisions or efficacious on a pedagogical scale.

The issue of subject categorization has been observed in the present education system as a problem. Educators notice the lack of cohesion of subjects especially in the realm of math and science. Many children who learn math are not properly prepared for the math required in chemistry and physics. In other words math, many times, is not taught to compliment the sciences.

I certainly do expect a class to exist to be called “ridiculous wack-o theories,” as has been suggested to me I would suggest cohesion between religious assumptions about origins of life and how science is taught will help children learn. There are at least two secular reasons that I have for teaching Creationism in public schools at least on an acknowledgement level.

First, it should be understood that Creationism beliefs are intrinsic to one’s faith. Faith in a deity has been observed in cultural anthropology in past and present civilizations. By simply dismissing the subject of Creationism altogether there is an ignoring of something important in society a belief in gods or Gods. Teachers cannot prevent children from wondering about life’s questions. The questions of origins are discussed in the media, movies and every day conversation.

The second reason is more specifically related to biblical creation. The Bible has been the center of education in Western Society for hundred’s of years. Especially since the printing press, the Bible has been focused extensively in the arts, literature, politics, social justice, and archaeology of the middle east. Hundreds of thousands of children learned to read the Bible in not only English but also Greek and Hebrew. Creationism was the basis given for morality in society because in the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. With this premise children grew to be scientist who established the foundations for modern science. Some of these religious Christians were: Newton, Bacon, Galileo, Pasteur, Linneaus, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Morse, Faraday, Simpson, Joule, Kelvin. They all held strong beliefs in a creator God.

Biblical creationism should also be taught in it’s varieties. Since the 18th century there has been a wide range of Christian creationism beliefs. Each variation of Creationism beliefs sought to compliment evolutionary assumptions about the history of the Universe, earth and life. Some of these types are known as theistic evolution, day age creation, progressive creation, and old or young earth creationism.

Once again I am not suggesting that creationism or intelligent design should be required in science classes but at least acknowledged in text books. Creationism is on the minds of children and schools should address their curiosity on some level. --John Martin www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.

The Day the Earth Stood Still: Movie Review

Another Quasi Christ Science Fiction Film

I was thinking about the philosophies that evolution theory spawns and thought about the recent movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. One does not have to bother viewing the film for trailers and movie reviews explain the main synopsis as I do below.

Evolution theory teaches that humanity is a pest to the planet. Higher evolved creatures come to Earth in this movie to exterminate humanity so that lower life forms could eventually evolve. The main character, Klaatu, is seen as a messianic figure giving a choice to the world to be good stewards or to face judgment of destruction.

The Day the Earth Stood Still: Movie Review from Christian Answers.net. Reviewed by: Thaisha Geiger.

Throughout the film, humans are merely viewed as pests who should be exterminated to save Earth. The planet is portrayed more valuable than a human life. The aliens give themselves a god-like status in determining to heal the Earth. In Genesis 1:28-30, God gave humans dominion over the planet and everything in it.

On the same website a person named Luke makes interesting observations.

He was “born” out of a blinding white light, escaped death at the hands of the ruling government, matured quickly, had vast wisdom and knowledge, and preformed “miracles.” He was shown walking on water for a brief instant, and, at one point, had bright red stigmata-like lasers coming out of his extended hands. He had a special relationship with a child, healed people's wounds, brought a man who was dead back to life, and sacrificed his “perfect” self out of love for violent and “imperfect” people.

This is clearly another role designed to imprint this messianic image upon the person of Keanu Reeves. Reeves is now very familiar with this Christ-figure role, thanks to his appearances in the “Matrix” Trilogy, and “Constantine.” This is a blatant form of mind-altering programming for the masses, and I am amazed at the lack of recognition this has received......

The New World Order exudes a vast influence on what we are allowed to see, and many movies are designed to imprint certain ideas and images on our subconscious mind, so that we will accept reality in the way in which we are told. Christians should be aware of this! Be aware. You are being specifically targeted, and it is not an accident.

These observations may seem a bit extreme but as mentioned before there are numerous statements in print by evolutionists that maintain the premise of the movie. This premise is that humans are just like other animals who happened to evolve better but not better than some other advanced race of aliens.

The Day The Earth Stood Still stars, Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates, John Cleese, Leanne Adachi, and others. It was first shown in theaters on December 12, 2008. If you would like to submit other similar movies which depict evolutionary philsophies please do.

Is ID Doomed Because Of "Eternal Universe" Theories?

After enjoying Christmas with my family I came across an article in the Economic Times of India regarding Intelligent Design. I responded to the article which can be found in it's entirety here. Timepass for the watchmaker. By M.l Sharma. The last paragraph concludes thoughts on why the author thinks ID is doomed because of differing scientific views from the Big Bang theory. It reads:

Basically, this means everything was not created when scientists used to think it was but also existed before that. And perhaps before that too. This is where the design argument collapses completely because if a watch was never made but always existed, it obviously wouldn't require — or even imply — a watchmaker since only something that's been created needs a creator. So how do some faiths which also believe that the universe has always existed reconcile with their belief in a creator too? Simple: they say the creator has also always existed. In fact they rather imply that the two are inseparable aspects of each other.

To imply that new scientific theories of the origin of the Universe can strike intelligent design a "death blow,” is crazy. First of all atheistic scientists have never insinuated that the miniscule dense matter seed prior to the Big Bang happened out of nothing. The idea of matter or the Universe always existing has been studied since Aristotle. Jews, Christians and Muslims have opposed this idea.

Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) do not require a belief in the Big Bang. In fact when William Paley gave his famous analogy of the watch and design in the Universe, the Big Bang Theory would not be invented for 150 years. The common consensus among atheists at the time was that matter always existed.

Those who advocate intelligent design hold a plethora of ideas of what this means. Some views are more akin to theistic evolution which teaches that the laws of the Universe were created specifically for life to exist as it is today. Most followers of ID suggests that an intelligent force from a god or gods tinkered with biological systems to produce varieties of organisms over eons.
Most Jews, Christians and Muslims hold the view that the Universe came into existence by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). Even is science could prove beyond a doubt that the Universe was a product of other universes this would still not effect a religious belief in ex nihilo. There will be no "death blows" to the beliefs of intelligent design or creation. The watchmaker still lives and is watching us as humans in how we spend our time.

The Neglect of Bethlehem and Creationism

There are many traditions that are taking place this week in honor of the Christmas Holiday. One of the most interesting is the pilgrimage to Bethlehem.

This past Sunday night I attended a church service in which Pastor Jonathon Urshan mentioned his birth and raising in Jerusalem. He mentioned as a Christian boy his annual visit to Bethlehem and how the atmosphere was charged with good wishes to strangers. Those of different backgrounds that gathered at Bethlehem would celebrate a creation, the birth of Christ.

When Brother Urshan attended the annual pilgrimage to Bethlehem in the 1940's and 50s the Christian population was at least 80 percent. As Aaron Klien reports with Worldnetdaily.com things have changed drastically in that beloved city. Almost all media concerning Palestine deals with the Jewish attack on Muslims in the West Bank and other parts of Palestine. However there is much to be said about the Muslim attacks on Christianity as Klien reported in "Media's 'cold deceit' descends upon Bethlehem"

Bethlehem was more than 80 percent Christian when Israel was founded in 1948. But since Arafat got his grimy hands on it, the city's Christian population dove to its current 23 percent. And that statistic is considered generous since it includes the satellite towns of Beit Sahour and Beit Jala. Some estimates place Bethlehem's actual Christian population as low as 12 percent, with hundreds of Christians emigrating each year.

It appears that this story also reminds Christians and Jews that biblical history is not only unappreciated but denied by critics. Evolutionists deny the biblical account of Creation and also deny the significance of Christ born. For those who deny Christ’s virgin birth, they would also deny the veracity of scripture which states:

He [Jesus] indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1Pe 1:20-21)

Most in Bethlehem ignored the birth of Jesus according to the biblical narrative. Today’s apathy toward Christianity is comparative to those times. To those whose lives have been changed by this Christ, there is celebration this season.

Christmas reminds us that it is not only about the special creation of a zygote within a virgin’s womb but also the authentic design God held before the beginning of Earth’s creation. Will you take time to pray to this Jesus Christ who is more than a nativity child, or a human. He is God almighty robbed in the flesh and has conquered Hell for you.

Mocking Christ . . . Attacking Creation

A response to E. Kaiser at December 23, 2008 1:10 PM
I am amazed at the audacity of some evolutionists and how they openly offend Christians. I wrote a response to the following article. From the website City Pages.

"The Cincinnati Zoo is promoting an anti-science, anti-education con job run by ignorant creationists," Myers wrote on his blog, Pharyngula. "I believe the Cincinnati Zoo has betrayed its mission and its trust in a disgraceful way, by aligning themselves with a creationist institution that is a laughing stock to the rest of the world, and a mark of shame to the United States."

The news quickly spread and two days later, the deal was off. The flood of emails and phone calls were enough to scare the friendship to a halt.

Take that, Jesus!

Your last comment "Take that, Jesus!" brings your disgust of the zoo agreeing with the museum to a different level and that is attacking Christianity. The image of Christ with a cross on a dinosaur also brings mockery to the Christian doctrine of atonement for the sins of the world.

There are a number of Christians that disagree with the Creation Museum. Some Christians disagree because they maintain a belief in Darwinian Evolution and Christianity such as Kenneth Miller. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould suggested that Christianity and Evolution could exist together. Additionally, the present Catholic Pope Benedict XVI and Evangelical preacher Billy Graham endorse evolution as theistic causality.

In addition to a theistic belief in evolution there numbers of former evolutionists, including scientists who maintain the plausibility of special creation. while these views are debatable this is where the debate begins and ends--with their views. If the person of Jesus Christ is to be criticized then a different forum should be considered. John Martin.
www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.

1/3 UK teachers say "Teach pupils creationism at school"

I was pleasantly surprised at the news today that at least one-third of teachers in the UK believe that Creationism should be taught in schools. The article begins:

Teach pupils creationism at school, say third of staff
By Daily Mail Reporter. Last updated at 12:29 AM on 23rd December 2008

More than a third of teachers say creationism should be taught in schools, a survey has revealed. But the belief is seen as ' nonsense' by many colleagues. Fiona Johnson, of pollsters Ipsos Mori which spoke to 923 primary and secondary teachers, said: 'Many are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue.

What should be noted is that this survey did not occur to science teachers only but all teachers. Some evolutionists will concede that Creationism can be taught in public schools just not in science classes. Furthermore, some evolutionists suggests that other creation stories besides that found in the Bible be taught. I have addressed this issue of Christianity in the schools in an earlier blog. It should also be noted that this survey did not ask teachers if they would argue with their school administrations over teaching Creationism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1100586/Teach-pupils-creationism-school-say-staff.html
(Subscribe to this blog on the right.)

Merry Christmas Vs. Merry Darwinmas

On the Fox News Show 'Huckabee' this weekend, John Gibson was interviewed concerning his book "War on Christmas" (http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html)

One of the points discussed was the political correctness of some school districts concerning Christmas. For example there is a major concern in calling the holiday's winter breaks and avoiding any Christmas reference including Santa Claus or reindeer. Some school boards will make a practice to avoid Christianity or Jewish references all together but will allow discussion of Islam or Wicca religion under the guise of cultural studies. Gibson mentioned that there may be some liabilities in mentioning Christmas but there are over a dozen Christian legal associations that will defend a school district in such matters free of charge. This was true three years ago in Dover, PA.

This weekend marks the three year anniversary of the Dover, Pennsylvania ruling against Intelligent Design. For three weeks arguments were heard on both sides till Judge Jones gave his elaborate verdict. The following is a paragraph taken from Discovery.org, one of the main websites representing Intelligent Design. Speaking of this December 20^th John West writes:

Today marks the third anniversary of Judge John Jones' attempt to ban science classroom discussions of intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In the three years since Jones' decision was announced, it has not worn well. Judge Jones' supposedly devastating critique of intelligent design turned out to be cut and pasted (factual errors and all) from a document written by lawyers working with the ACLU. Law professors (including some who oppose intelligent design) have skewered Jones' embarrassing judicial opinion as poorly argued and unpersuasive. And many of the alleged factual claims on which Judge Jones based his opinion have been refuted. In the meantime, public interest in intelligent design has continued to grow, as has support for academic freedom to question Darwinism (no doubt encouraged by this year’s theatrical documentary Expelled). Darwinists, alas, have yet to learn the futility of trying to win scientific debates by court orders and intimidation. No matter—although Darwinists may not believe in free speech and debate, the vast majority of Americans do.

It was apparent that political correctness goes beyond mentioning Christmas into not mentioning any tenants of ID or Creationism. As discussed in this blog before there is one holiday coming up that public schools will honor ... Darwin Day. Merry Darwinmas on that day!

The Sudden Appearance of Modern Humans

How do evolutionists describe the "sudden" appearance of advanced humans in history? One evolutionists in Scientific American describes how in his imagination.

In the December, 2008 Scientific American, Peter Ward wrote an article entitled “The Future of Man--How Will Evolution Change Humans?”

Creationists would find the article interesting because it essentially compliments creationist models of the existence of humans. With the bias that human ancestry comes from parents Adam and Eve, Ward describes races of people deriving from one population of humans. Many times he uses the word evolution when in fact he is only speaking of natural selection observations. For example he talks about lactose intolerant peoples in China compared to Denmark. He describes this has evolution when natural selection could easily be noted.

I think it is interesting how Ward describes human evolution in the past 10,000 years as "evolving 100 times." Once again the evolutionary bias is at work. Biblical creation states that the first humans were created and soon thereafter were found working in fields and raising animals.

Harpending and Hawks’s team estimated that over the past 10,000 years humans have evolved as much as 100 times faster than at any other time since the split of the earliest hominid from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees. The team attributed the quickening pace to the variety of environments humans moved into and the changes in living conditions brought about by agriculture and cities. It was not farming per se or the changes in the landscape that conversion of wild habitat to tamed fields brought about but the often lethal combination of poor sanitation, novel diet and emerging diseases (from other humans as well as domesticated animals). Although some researchers have expressed reservations about these estimates, the basic point seems clear: humans are first-class evolvers.

Stephen Jay Gould and others postulated 30 years ago the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory states that evolution did not occur in a gradual linear procession but that there were time periods of evolution on speed. This theory helped explain the evolution's embarrassment of a incomplete fossil record. It appears that Peter Ward's article is also helping address an evolutionary embarrassment and that is the sudden appearance of advanced humans on the evolutionary scene {sic}

Will Evolution Theory Bring Socialism?

-John Martin-
Will the lack of creationism emphasis lead to churches being closed? At least one critic of creationism thinks so.


Each week I spend some time reading comments not only from my writings but also those critical of Creationists. Sometimes I learn to crystallize my thinking on the subject of biblical creationism when I hear objective criticism. The challenge is sifting through mountains of high emotional anger toward Creationism.

Today’s blog I decided to quote extensively from a critique of creationism, because they make a better reason for creationism relating to politics then I could come up with. Below is a response posted by a person named Kitty on December 18, 2008 10:57 AM. Blog Post #225. from
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/here_we_go_again_i_get_more_em.php

Keri
One of the common threads among creationists, other than the fact that they're creationists, seems to be a fear of socialism and communism. I guess I can understand this fear of communism (it hasn't exactly worked out to be pleasant for the people wherever it's been tried), but what on earth is the problem with socialism? They toss it around like a bogeyman, but it doesn't seem to be anything bad to me. Maybe I just need to go back to school and study political science or something.

Where socialism takes hold in a community religion often fades away. The support system offered by the church is replaced by the support systems offered by the socialist society. This was particularly observed in coal mining communities in the UK in the 20th century when the Labour Party began to gain power. It culminated in the formation of the Welfare State.
Many mining communities switched allegiance from church, often Methodist or Baptist, to Union run social clubs which provided for families in distress without requiring participants to abide by the 'Thou shalt not' rules of the Chapel.

If the local club will take care of you without telling you how to run your sex life or curb your alcohol intake , indeed if it provides cheap drink, good entertainment, a free library, and a youth club the pews will empty quickly and churches will close.

The comment reminds us of the state of Great Britain’s once recognized Christian presence. Taking a tour down the streets of England and Scotland show beautiful architectural structures built to house Christian assemblies. If one were to look closer, there is no longer a Christian presence in many of these but they are museums, restaurants and Muslim mosques.

While I do not agree with all the tenants of creationist groups, associations etc. I still have to thank God for creationism emphasis in North America. Creationism reminds Americans that our roots are indeed in the Bible. If we compromise on the special creation message found in Genesis then we will also compromise on the authenticity of Jesus Christ himself. Encourage your church to host a Creationism seminar today.

Creation Moment is Available for Mobile Users

Creation Moment is now available for mobile users. Feel free to send the links below to your phone and friends phones.

For the Iphone: http://creation.mofuse.mobi/iphone.

For all other mobile phones
http://creation.mofuse.mobi/

Amazing Creation . . . Amazing God !

I love this video. Videos like this would make good presentations for church services and youth group activities. Heck, this would be a good video anywhere at any time. I showed this to Bible school students in New Delhi, India.

Two Different Genesis Creation Stories????

I met with some speakers from MAC (Missouri Association of Creationists) tonight at St. Louis Bread Company (owned by Panera Bread). We are going to be offering our services to speak in schools and our regular MAC meetings which is the second Monday of every month. I was impressed with the five men who came. They all have a burden to share the Bible's view of creation to a ungodly world.

Marv brought up how the History Channel was showing recently the bias that Genesis contains two creation accounts. Genesis Chapter One and Chapter Two. More specifically the first account ends in 2:3 and the second account begins in 2:4. These two accounts are complementary. Critics of biblical creation try to make an issue that Genesis creation narrative is fuzzy because of these two accounts. Lets look at how Jesus showed these two accounts were one in the same:

First Account

And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.Genesis 1:27

Second Account

And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

In the New Testament, Jesus referred back to each Genesis account and showed that they were one in the same. Regarding the issue of Divorce Jesus said:

. . ."Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6. NKJV.

Genesis chapters one and two are not only complementary but they are meant to be more than allegory. Jesus could have cleared the air if Genesis was meant to teach evolutionary processes, but he did not. Everyone in Jesus' time knew that Genesis spoke of miraculous creations of inorganic and organic material. You and I are a product of that special creation of humanity. Jesus tells us so.

Getting the IDEA of ID into Universities

As mentioned in my first post on this blog, Academic Freedom day is on the way for December 12. This recognition was created in response to Darwin Day. IDEA stands for Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness. Over 25 campuses have an Idea chapter. Perhaps you should support a chapter starting in your college or university. From the website http://www.ideacenter.org.

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory. The Center has existed since 2001, but has its roots in the pre-existing Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at the University of California at San Diego.

The mission of the IDEA Center is:

• To promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligence;
• To educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life;
• To challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism;
• To support academic freedom for legitimate intellectual viewpoints in academia and the culture as a whole;
• To facilitate discussion, debate, and dialogue concerning these issues in a warm, friendly, and open atmosphere where individuals feel free to speak their personal views;
• To help students on university and high school campuses, and others, to start IDEA Clubs to fulfill this mission.

Photo on Right: IDEA staff pose with UC Berkeley Law Professor Phillip Johnson after a Center - sponsored lecture. Our small staff is based out of San Diego, California, and handles the programs and activities of the IDEA Center. Professor Johnson, whose writings helped form the intelligent design movement, is a member of the IDEA Center's Advisory Board.

The Rat Fossil is Alive!

Rat's, Snakes and Spiders oh my!

Spider as big as a plate among scores of new species found in Greater Mekong: From the UK Telegrah:

The UK's Telegraph reported that at least 1068 new species of animals were scientifically categorized from 1997 to 2007.

The Greater Mekong, which is made up of 600,000 square kilometres of wetlands and rainforest along the Mekong River in Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and China, is also home to striped rabbits, bright pink millipedes laced with cyanide and a rat that was believed to have become extinct 11 million years ago.

Who would think that the Laotian rock rat (Laonastes aenigmamus) would survive for at least 11 million years. What a monument to survival of the fittest. Evolutionists suggest that homo sapiens evolved about 100,000 years ago, do we have another 10 million 900 thousand more years from now to survive? yepeeee.

The reason why this rat was dated at such as long age is because of presumptions of evolution in a contrived history.Over 60 million years ago ratlike creatures were supposedly the ancestors of all other mammals including elephants, giraffes, and whales. I would think that evolutionists would take their rat theory back to the drawing board, for that is where it belongs only, imagination.

The Christian faith speaks of eternal life from now. There is a way we humans can exist in 11 million years from now, it is called dying. There are two places of existence the Bible states we will be in the future. Heaven or Hell.

Atheist in the Links

A short response to god of the gaps criticism

Evolutionists point to natural selection of favorable chance mutations over numerous generations as the secret to biological evolution. More specifically this refers to Darwinian evolution. This process takes incremental changes in DNA (genotype) to create observable changes (phenotype) in biological organisms.

ID scientists maintain that all of biological life cannot be explained by this definition of evolution. Dr. Michael Behe (right photo) coined the phrase ‘irreducible complexity’ to show that some (or many) features in biological systems cannot be explained this way. For example Behe speaks of bacterium flagella’s tail motor as irreducibly complex. This motor assembly is extremely complex on the molecular and cellular level. If any of the parts of this assembly were removed than the entire feature would be useless.

Intelligent Design proponents will always face the ‘God of the gaps’ criticism. The phrase god of the gaps is given to ID scientist and creationists who point to the lack of empirical evidence in points of evolutionary assumption. In Behe’s example of bacteria flagella, critics debated in several ways of how the flagella could be created but ultimately accused Behe of invoking a god of the gaps argument.

The mantra god of the gaps is made loud and repeatedly by ID critics. Beyond the naturalistic methodology that is promoted in public schools, god of the gaps points to the religious implications of ID. Religion cannot be tolerated in public schools not just because of the pluralism of society but because of Humanism’s tenants in not only biology, astronomy, social science but also in social sciences.

The antithesis of god of the gaps would be a phrase like atheism in the links. It appears that this would be a fitting phrase for at least the severest critics of special creation and intelligent design. The arrogance of anti-creationist expressed in forums and letters to newspaper editors show a hidden agenda. We do not only want creationism in society we do not want God either.

Bill Maher's Challenge

I was interested in Denyse O'Leary's article "Imagine no Religulous" from /mensnewsdaily.com, December 13, 2008. He critiques Bill Maher's mockery of Christianity including creationism. While O'Leary was kinder to Maher's ridiculous ridicule, he did point out Maher's arrogance. There are larger names who have criticized Maher including Dinesh D'Souza. With interest I read:

"D’Souza, incidentally has offered to debate Maher, just as he has debated other famous atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. If Maher accepts (so far he hasn’t), he had better do some homework. D’Souza, author of What’s So Great About Christianity?, is one of the sharpest young policy analysts in the United States today."

I was privileged to see a debate between D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens in St. Louis on September 10, 2008 at Powell Symphany Hall. (Click here for D'Souza's website with a video debate.) There were probably at least 1,000 people present and there was much energy between the Atheist Hitchens and Catholic Christian D'Souza. As with all atheist I too did not not believe in the god that Hitchens was dismissing. D'souza did a great job in pointing to the design of creation and intrinsic desire for humans to seek a creator. The impression that I received in the debate was that D'Souza follows a theistic evolution model at least on an intelligent design scale.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck Stands Against Atheistic Evolution

Hasselbeck Against Evolution

Elisabeth Hasselbeck gave her opinion about a creator of the universe this week on the view. It appeared that there was some debate among the other members concerning life. Whoopi Goldberg suggested that cockroaches were created to give humans an example of perseverance in life. I don't think I would have thought of that reason but I was impressed.

The Link to the exerpt can be found here.

George Bush on the Bible and Creation

George Bush was asked in the Monday night’s Nightline interview by Cynthia McFaddenif he thought the Bible was literally true.

"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'"

There is no one that really suggests that the Bible is literally true. For example, Jesus made the command, “If your right hand offends you, cut it off.” And “if your eye offends you pluck it out.” Where are all the newspaper articles of churches having hand cutting and eye plucking rituals? There is a right way of literally interpreting the Bible.

This book was never meant to be a cosmic Wigi Board to guide anyone anyway they seem fit. How did the early Jews interpret Genesis? What were comments made by Jesus, Peter and Paul that related to Genesis. The truth is that evolution could have been described in the Bible in some form or fashion but it did. There is no record of early Jews and Christians interpreting Genesis as anything more than special, immediate creation of the world, plants, animals and humankind. This type of interpretation is called the grammatical historical method of interpretation. This method entails taking passages in context, word usage and historical timing of when written and who it was first written. This is why we should literally see a hand chopping ceremony at church.

President Bush should have given a better response to interpreting the Bible. It is apparent in the interview that Bush has not allowed the Bible to guide him very much as president. Perhaps this would be the real lasting legacy of man who disappointed even loyal followers. Where was the Bible really in his administration was it just another book or was it literally a part of his life.

President George Bush and Evolution

A Response to "Bush talks of belief in God, evolution" (From the AP)

It would seem that after eight years of public office as president, that George W. Bush would learn to be more poise in interviews. This is the least of my concern relating to his befuzzled answers in Monday night’s ABC Nightline interview.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution." . . . "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life."

Can we have creation and evolution together? To a theistic evolutionist the answer is yes. To those who follow Intelligent Design the question needs to be clarified. If Darwinian Evolution and creation exist together the answer is no. It may be surprising to some that ID and theistic evolution are similar in that a god or gods got involved in the process of forming life. The ‘how part’ is what is debatable.

So it would appear that President Bush is aligned with the theistic evolution camp. Many theistic evolutionist such as Pope Benedict would maintain that theistic evolution is creation. Atheistic evolutionists on the other hand would denounce any role of a supernatural being in the existence of life. While theistic evolution proponents have no problem with evolution being taught in schools, the real philosophy is Humanism is taught. Everything came into existence by chance. This is the very crux of evolution. There can be no designer in evolution whatsoever. Theistic evolution followers cannot understand this. Their view of evolution is for the most part expelled just as ID has been expelled from public schools.

I would maintain that you cannot have evolution alongside with a biblical understanding of Creation. For thousands of years Jews and Christians believed in special immediate creation. If Darwinian evolution were true then God lied to millions of people over thousands of years. Genesis could have been easily worded to give the impression of slow gradual processes created life from a common ancestor over eons of times. This common ancestor came from a rock, to goo to you. Not a chance!!!

George Bush has paid too much attention to the cartoons of him looking like a monkey.

Religious Expression in Public Schools

Today I wrote an article to the Lufkin Daily News of Lufkin, TX. I lived there for four years and it is an area that is considered Bible Belt territory. Someone wrote an article mocking parents for desiring religion to have a place of existence in the public school arena. The image on the right showed that editors had difficulty recently identifying photos of president candidates with the names McCain and Obama.

A response to "Atheists should teach Bible class" By Louis W. Cable. Sunday, December 07, 2008
It is nice for the Lufkin Daily News to allow a letter to appear in response to a nine month old editorial article. As far as atheists teaching the Bible, this occurs all the time. Every day in public schools, the Bible is demythologized in front of children of Christian parents. We all know that the Bible as a textbook will not be required in public schools. Perhaps a few school districts are allowing elective Religion courses to be offered, but the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and other religious books are a threat to Humanism. Humanism and Evolution are the only mantras allowed which I debate are religious beliefs.

The intrinsic nature of humanity craves to know about it's existence and public schools attempt to answer this interest through evolution theory and Humanism. I remember the Christian gathering in my High School before classes began. I remember how good it was to recognize with others a God designed order in Creation and moral absolutes. As with any organization there has to be rules and guidelines, but where does this authority come from? Society only who is lead by corrupt politics? My strong opinion is that religion and from my experience Judo-Christianity is the best moral reference.
Public teachers are some of the most dedicated and stressed workers in North America. Religious elective courses and Bible clubs before and after schools are great ways students can recognize morality on a level that Humanism cannot compete. The problem in North America’s public schools is not religion but a lack of moral authority.

Those students who demonstrate respect to authority are what teacher’s desire in setting examples for other students. Peaceful religion tolerated even on a limited level is a great way of achieving this result. When this takes place academic excellence along, with peacefulness will prevail.

Logical or Illogical?

Logical or Illogical?
Missouri Association of Creationists (MAC) Meeting 9-8-08

Every second Monday of each month Creation enthusiasts in the Saint Louis area gather for over three hours of fellowship. From 6:15 to 7:15 a video is shown of a lecturer, debate or documentary relating to Creationism. I have been privileged to speak on two occasions over the past couple of years.
The website for MAC is http://www.gennet.org/. MAC has been existence since 1972 and is perhaps the longest continual community gathering of those interested in Creationism.

Tonight Marv Schaefer gave a great presentation entitled Logical or Illogical. He had prerecorded comedy skits pertinent to his illustrating his talk along with interesting PowerPoint. From the MAC website his talk is described:

Some Christians are reluctant to engage in the debate over Creation and Evolution because they are intimidated by the "guys in the white lab coats". This presentation is designed to help them understand that scientists are locked into a world view that does not allow them to stray from the Naturalist position to even explore Design...resulting in some illogical reasoning that can at times be ridiculous. Christians will be encouraged and emboldened to engage evolutionists on issues of logic.

Will The Zoo Get A Clue?

Hundreds of Complaints Force Zoo to Break Ties with Creation Museum
It is apparent that the Cincinnati Zoo’s change of heart in working with the Creation Museum was based on long term strain with groups supporting evolution. Perhaps public education grants or endorsements would be at risk for any association with the Creation Museum. As one person commented to this issue I too “am assuming that zoological gardens are now officially bastions dedicated to the endorsement and propagation of specific "scientific" ideology.”

Ironically, the nearby Cincinnati Zoo appears to be making a financial and marketing decision based on future arrangements with intolerant evolutionist and humanist ideology. Biblical theology has no room for evolutionism and this is why humanists applaud the Cincinnati Zoo’s decision.

Darwin Day Meets Academic Freedom Day

Here is my first Creation Moment Post. May you enjoy the upcoming posts with intellectual thought and appreciation.

Over the past years there has been a growing enthusiasm for honoring the Birthday of Charles Darwin on February 12. Ironically both Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were both born in 1809 and their birthdays are observed at the same time. Not only will February 12 will represent 200 years since Darwin's birth it will also be noted as the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species.

Academic Freedom day was created in response to Darwin Day's desire for exclusivity in the spot light. As the documentary Expelled shows, many proponents of Darwinian Evolution will not tolerate any other idea of concept of origin's of life and species to be discussed in academic settings. While focused to high school and college settings, Academic Freedom Day will no doubt be a point of discussion for everyone concerning the important topic of origins. Resources for promoting Academic Freedom day can be found here. http://www.academicfreedomday.com/.
Watch a short clip of Ben Stein describing Academic Freedom Day.