Last week I read an article in the local college paper about proposed legislation regarding the teaching of flaws in the theory of evolution. It prompted me to write a response to address the flood of errors and assumptions found within the article.

The original editorial:
http://www.nwmissourinews.com/opinion/article_650db6ba-8958-11e3-a02b-001a4bcf6878.html

My response to the editorial:

Dear Mr. Dresslar,

In your editorial from the January 30^th issue of the Northwest Missourian regarding House Bill 1587, you wrote, “[A]lmost all scientists now agree that evolution is the only explanation…” and “Evolution is not a controversy in the scientific community.” There is actually quite a bit of debate within the scientific community. The Dissent From Darwin project has the signatures of over 800 scientists who hold at least one Ph.D. Many more privately disagree but fear retribution from the Darwinists entrenched in academia.

You admitted that your knowledge of the debate is based solely upon “basic courses in middle and high school.” That is precisely the point Congressman Koenig and others are trying to make. While attending those public school classes you only heard one side of the debate—a side which is fiercely protected from any criticism. You also wrote that “[T]here is a large consensus of professional men of science who have concluded [evolution’s] validity.”  Would it surprise you that nearly all the ‘Founding Fathers’ of science were creationists? Men like Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, as well as later pioneers such as George Washington Carver and Wernher Von Braun, all believed in creation and the Bible.

Your assertion that the scientific community welcomes critiques of theories is simply not true. Peer-reviewed journals will not publish any research which even hints at questioning Darwinism. Then, evolutionists point to the lack of peer-reviewed research as evidence that creationism has no credibility. Your article appeared on the “Opinion” page. That is exactly the problem with evolution. Opinion is presented as absolute fact through hyperbole and overstatement. I have documentation and numerous articles to back up my statements and I would be eager to share them with anyone having genuine interest in honest examination of the whole debate.

Mr. Dresslar’s response to my letter:
http://www.nwmissourinews.com/opinion/article_ecd9b38c-9457-11e3-91cd-001a4bcf6878.html

My response to the response:
Mr. Dresslar:

You complain that many scientists who reject evolution “are not even experts in the field of biology” and mock them as an infinitesimal percentage of those creationist scientists who signed the Dissent from Darwin letter. Your statement betrays your unawareness that the debate over evolution goes far beyond biology. Evolution traces its roots back to the Big Bang which involves the fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, and mathematics. Evolution requires millennia which inevitably involves studying rock layers in the field of geology. Darwinism itself involves the fields of anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology. The remainder of PhDs on the Dissent from Darwin list are in these fields of study. To brush aside intellectual giants such as Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon (the father of empiricism and the scientific method) and suggest they are not qualified to speak about evolution is staggeringly arrogant and obtuse.  Never forget that truth is truth whether in the hands of a PhD or a layman. I could just as easily dismiss your arguments because your degree is in journalism and not biology. I earned a bachelors degree in theology. Should I therefore view you as unqualified to address creationism because you see it as purely religion?

Your appeal to the majority opinion is a common tactic, but irrelevant. You are attempting to employ a logical fallacy known as the “Bandwagon Fallacy.” Truth is objective and is not affected by majority or minority acceptance. The world was never flat simply because most of the “scientific experts” of the day were convinced it was. Columbus had trouble financing his expedition to India because people thought his theory was laughable. That majority of doubt and ridicule for his theory did not make the world any less round. The greatest scientific discoveries are often made by pioneers who reject the status quo of “accepted science” and strike out in search of the truth. Incidentally, where did Columbus find inspiration for his voyage? The Bible, of course! https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-science-of-columbus%e2%80%99-faith/

You are correct in saying that many early scientists were intimidated by the Church (I assume you meant Catholic). Fear of speaking against the majority is exactly the same environment today in which those who dare to question Darwinism find themselves. A 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” exposes how scientists (Dr. Richard Sternberg–holder of two PhDs in evolutionary biology; Dr. Carolyn Crocker–degrees in microbiology, virology, and immunopharmacology; Dr. Michael Egnor MD–neurosurgeon; Dr. William Dembski–PhDs in philosophy and mathematics; Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez–PhD in astronomy) were fired or persecuted for even tentatively supporting Intelligent Design.

Regarding your closing sentences, the Intelligent Design movement was not begun as a way to “inject biblical teachings” into scientific education, but rather because of weaknesses in evolutionary theory for which those scientists had not found satisfactory answers. It was a quest for truth beyond the dogma.

In closing, I chose the words of my first letter very carefully and tried extraordinarily hard to leave mockery out of my comments. Sadly, you did not make the same effort. You began your response by admitting you knew you would disagree with my letter even before you read it. That betrays a closed-off narrow-mindedness which, ironically, is an accusation usually leveled at creationists and Christians! I did not always believe in creation. It took many years of careful, aggravating, and humbling research to finally see the weaknesses of evolution and the merits of creation. I encourage everyone to be brave enough to seek the truth in spite of the cognitive dissonance it creates. May the Lord shine upon you.

In his recent debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye seemed stuck on the supposed failure of the creation model to make scientific predictions. If the Bible is true then we should expect to find:

-Billions of animals rapidly buried in wet sediment

-Animal ancestry traceable back to a single taxonomic family/kind and no further

-Folded rock layers

-Smooth transitions between geologic layers without evidence of millions of years of erosion

-Soft tissue in fossil bone which could not have survived hundreds of thousands of years (let alone millions)

-Marine fossils on the highest mountain ranges

-Sudden appearance of fully functional species in the fossil record with no evidence of clear transitional forms (there should be millions more failures than successes)

-Evidence of geologic catastrophism which could not have been formed by gradual processes (large canyons, Badlands, transcontinental sedimentary layers, Ayers Rock, etc.)

-Polystrate fossils such as trees and whale skeletons which penetrate through several geologic layers supposedly separated by millions of years

-Specialized structures in animals which could not have come about by random mutation over long periods of time (e.g. bird lungs, male/female reproduction, bombardier beetle, bacterial flagellum, human placenta, woodpecker skulls, etc.)

-Symbiotic relationships which must have existed simultaneously (bees/orchids, yucca plant/moth, etc.)

-Verification of practices given by divine revelation which were in sharp contrast to scientific  “wisdom” of the time (circumcision/prothrombin, hygiene laws protecting Jews during Black Plague, geocentrism, necessity of egg and sperm for human reproduction)

This is exactly what we DO find in nature through observational science. Incidentally, we do NOT find anything which clearly supports the evolutionary model. The evidence speaks for itself and it shouts “Creation!” It is only by reinterpreting the evidence according to evolutionary bias that it in any way appears to prop up Darwinism. And these reinterpretations are riddled with weasel words such as “appears to, may, perhaps, seems to, could suggest, might, possibly, etc.” Actual physical science which is measurable, repeatable, and objective always supports the biblical model. And let’s never forget that science can only make predictions based upon the unchanging laws of nature which are only possible in a controlled, designed, stable universe. The chaos which allegedly birthed the Big Bang might revert to chaos again without warning. This is what Ken Ham meant when he said evolutionary scientists borrow from the creation model to do their science, just as atheists borrow from biblical absolutes of right and wrong when they accuse Christians of being hateful, judgmental, wrong, etc.

Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated each other last night about creation versus evolution. There has been much discussion on what both men could have said, so I’ll try not to rehash what has already been spoken and written about the debate. I saw a curious and surprising development as the debate went on. Evolutionists are often seen as having the science and Christians are often portrayed as the ones believing in simple stories and superficial myths (i.e. “God did it”). But it is actually Mr. Nye’s defense of evolution which seems simplistic and populist. Evolution appeals to many because it seems plausible on a superficial and commonsense level. However, it breaks down under close inspection and following the claims to their logical conclusion. For example, if A is true, then B and C must also be true, but we know C is impossible. Therefore, A must be untrue. Deeper study has led many former evolutionists to see that the theory simply does not hold water.

There was a great difference in demeanor between both men. Ken Ham was very calm and rational in his presentation while Bill Nye seemed over-the-top and repeatedly appealed to emotion rather than facts. Nye relied on (attempted) humor and incredulity to sway the audience. I thought it was supposed to be the Bible-thumping Christian who was “working the crowd” appealing to their emotions and avoiding hard facts. The evolutionist was supposed to be calmly reciting data from behind the credibility of a lab coat while the preacher banged the pulpit. Quite a night of opposites.

The debate showed that evolution “sounds good” on a surface level. The proponent was a talented T V personality with “aw shucks” appeal to laymen. The Big Bang and iconic chart depicting the alleged evolution of man strike home to those with a public school exposure to evolutionary dogma.

Mr. Ham was at a disadvantage with only a short amount of time to respond. Refutations are often very technical and beyond the attention span of many laymen. Flawed assumptions ruin radiometric dating and taint any results. Troubles with the Big Bang such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and inflation theory are very real and destructive to the Big Bang model, but are deeply technical and many simply lose interest before the truth can be found. Irreducible complexity was not mentioned even though it destroys the theory of evolution through random mutation. It’s a sad fact that a bacterial flagellum will never be as “sexy” as a life-size model of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) or the chart of hominid skulls shown in Nye’s presentation.

This debate revealed to me that often it is the evolutionist who clutches the simplistic explanation and only those who have delved deeply into the issue have found the flaws in evolution. That sounds arrogant to say, but it’s true. Creationists are accused of stubbornly remaining in the past and rejecting any new thing which challenges their beliefs. It is actually evolutionists who arrogantly refuse to see things differently than their eyes now do. They insist that things we observe today must have always been that way (radioisotope decay rates, speed of light, etc.). Uniformitarianism betrays an arrogant self-importance. “This is how I observe things in my lifetime therefore I impose that upon all eras.” Present-day rates and measurements can be helpful, but not definitive and error-free as is often portrayed. Models are just that—models.

Distant starlight was mentioned, and as Ham admitted, it is problem for both sides so it’s a wash. Regarding radiometric dating, evolutionist methods rely on trusting the unbiased objectivity of those in lab coats (https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/upon-further-review/) and accepting a series of unfounded assumptions. Creationists rightly and wisely question these assumptions which inevitably lead to erroneous results and ages https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/young-carbon-in-%e2%80%9cold%e2%80%9d-rocks/ and (https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/ancient-lava-flows/).

Nye repeatedly dismissed creationism because of its inability (in his opinion) to make scientific predictions. He then used the example of evolutionist prediction of a slowing universal expansion rate (which was exactly 180 degrees wrong) as somehow proving his point! When mentioning Tiktaalik Nye actually used a picture of Ventastega (another alleged “walking fish” transitional form about whom you can read here: https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/ventastega-it%e2%80%99s-all-in-the-hips/).

My hope is that this debate at least planted some seed of doubt (or interest) in the evolution controversy and will encourage more in-depth study by its adherents. Ham was criticized by some creationists for mentioning the Answers in Genesis website too often but as he said, there was not enough time to fully address Nye’s barrage of assertions and radical overstatements. I hope many will go to the website and wade through the massive database of quality articles on evolution and Biblical truth. Indeed, after recommending the link to a friend I found that the AiG homepage had locked up due to traffic. Amen!

I really loved when Ham responded a few times to Nye’s “We don’t know!” with “You know, Bill, there is a book…” But aside from those jabs he should have focused more on science and less on the Bible. Those who believe the Bible didn’t need it and those who don’t won’t be swayed by that appeal alone. And props to the moderator Tom Foreman for keeping control in a polite and friendly way. I honestly couldn’t tell which side he was on (as it should be).

See below the response of Focus Press founder Dr. Brad Harrub

http://www.focuspress.org/ZCreationDebateBrad.html

Albert Mohler’s debate analysis:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Ken Ham (president of Answers in Genesis, author, and speaker) will square off against TV personality Bill Nye “The Science Guy” tonight at 7 PM (eastern). The debate will be moderated by CNN correspondent Tom Foreman. Live streaming will be through www.debatelive.org

From the article linked below:

“Immediately at the conclusion of the debate, Bill Nye and Ken Ham will walk inside the Creation Museum next door to be interviewed for the Piers Morgan Live program on CNN for a 9:45 PM post-debate analysis. During the 10 PM hour and inside the museum, MSNBC TV will interview Mr. Nye by himself.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/03/debate-science-guys-media?utm_source=aigsocial02032014debateattention&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin

Every proverb is rooted in truth. The dog who “ate my homework” has found a real counterpart in a recent Science Daily News article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120829171943.htm). A dinosaur named Sinocalliopteryx gigas was discovered with three birds in its stomach. For evolutionists who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, this presents a real problem. The irony is that this fossil was discovered in China’s Liaoning province. This area has been hailed as the “Promised Land” by those insisting birds evolved from dinosaurs. The very place which burst onto the scene with the long-awaited fossil “evidence” proving dino-bird evolution has now yielded up example after example that disproves the very theory it gave birth to (in addition to several fakes). In the Science Daily News article (linked above), evolutionists try valiantly to make the dino-bird gap smaller by suggesting (without evidence) that Confuciusornis was a “primitive bird…probably limited to slow takeoffs and short flights.” This is not only untrue (https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/what%e2%80%99s-a-bird-like-you-doing-in-an-era-like-this) but also utterly irrelevant. Today we see housecats (earth-bound mammals) easily catching and eating modern birds fully capable of flight. No one is suggesting cats are evolving into birds, are they? As if that wasn’t bad enough, another troublesome dinner has upset the evolutionary narrative. Another alleged “transitional form,” Microraptor gui, was also found with birds in its stomach (www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064952/Microraptor-First-proof-bird-eating-dinosaur-scientists-flap.html). Awfully hard to be eaten by one’s ancient predecessor separated by 10-25 million of years, isn’t it? Or, as evolutionist Dr. Alan Feduccia admitted regarding Microraptor: “You can’t be older than your grandfather” (http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur). Take the time to read all the provided links to fully understand just how weak the “dinosaur-to-bird” theory is.

 http://creation.com/dinos-ate-birds

I have never posted a book review here before, but I recently read a book that has great impact upon the topics discussed in this blog. Creationism hinges upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. A major reason many resist this interpretation is that it requires accepting many other seemingly “problematic” portions of scripture. Author Paul Copan addresses many of these in his book Is God a Moral Monster? (Making Sense of the Old Testament God). Copan begins by establishing a crucial principle: God’s sovereignty and goodness. It is only through an understanding and appreciation of these essential attributes of God that any sense can be made of His actions and commands. He also emphasizes the progressive style of law-giving in God’s dealing with man. After the Fall, things went so bad so fast that God couldn’t simply jump back to the ideal that had been ruined. It required “do-able steps” moving slowly through the covenants with Abraham, Law of Moses, and culminating on the New Covenant through the cross. Just as Jesus Himself explained in Matthew 19:8, God permitted some things temporarily that were less than ideal so He could move humanity closer to the ideal.

Copan provides fascinating insight on many aspects of Judaism which the modern world finds “weird.” The four main areas he covers are: “kooky” (Copan’s word) laws of the Israelites, alleged sexism and mistreatment of women, laws regarding slavery, and the conquest of Canaan. The significance of Jewish dietary law is explained at length and reveals why this was so important to God and His chosen nation. A common theme in many odd-sounding commands was to draw a clear line of distinction between Israel and the reprobate nations surrounding them. Readers who have been left unable to respond to atheists’ charges regarding slavery in the Bible will find meaty answers here. Many tired, old atheistic canards (e.g. selling daughters into slavery, women commanded to marry their rapists, etc.) are dealt with handily and shown to be the illogical attacks they truly are. Radical feminists who allege that the Bible was written by misogynists who worship a sexist god can be responded to with valid explanations. Seekers will find real, logical answers to their questions in this book. Faithful Christians who have struggled trying to reconcile these moral dilemmas will find renewed confidence in God and His divine word. Anyone who has questions about taking the Bible seriously will benefit greatly from this book. While I do not always agree with Copan’s conclusions (some are a bit of a stretch), he at least offers plausible explanations for these issues which have troubled believer and non-believer alike. I mainly purchased this book to find an answer to the seeming immorality of the slaughter during the conquest of Canaan. Of particular interest to me was the issue of non-combatants (women and children). Unfortunately, Copan’s brief explanation was interesting, but unsatisfying to me personally. He addresses the overall conquest quite adequately, but is a bit lacking in the specific area of innocents. Having said that, the book is very helpful and enlightening in many other areas. In conclusion, I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the Bible, or to anyone who has an axe to grind with God for what they have perceived as contradictions and inconsistency on His part or among His followers.

Atheists and skeptics are insistent that the Bible is not an accurate historical record. They claim the times, dates, and names are off and the people are fictional. In the country of Turkey, near the Tigris River, a monolith inscription was found. It recorded the military victory of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III over a coalition of forces. Among these forces were Syria (Aram) and Samaria. Samaria was the capitol city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Ahab, the infamously wicked king of Israel, is mentioned by name in the monument. There is an “order of battle” which lists the forces brought by each member of the coalition. Ahab is credited with providing 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers. Obviously Ahab would not commit his entire army to a foreign commander, so the total size of the Israeli army would have been much larger. This is significant because critics have long denied the size, power, and influence of ancient Israel (especially under the reign of David and Solomon). They claim that Israel was never more than a piddling regional association of Jewish tribesman. Or, according to the favorite snarky insult of the skeptics, “a bunch of Bronze-Age shepherds.” Recent excavations in southern Israel of fortified cities and copper mines have verified the wealth and size of the kingdom under David and Solomon. In 2nd Chronicles 4:25 we read that “Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.” Critics often laugh at these claims, but physical evidence has been found to support this. In Megiddo (near Samaria), immense stalls were excavated in the 1930’s. There was adequate room for hundreds of horses and chariots. They have been dated to the time of Ahab. This fits perfectly with the Bible’s claims as well as the outside historical record of Shalmaneser’s monolith. 1^st Kings 20 mentions Ahab’s constant conflict with Syria/Aramea but also tells of a three-year period of truce between the two nations (1^st Kings 20:31-34). This aligns perfectly with the timing of this coalition united against a bigger, common enemy: Assyria. Archaeology continues to prove the Bible to be true and accurate.

 http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/05/22/Israelite-Kings-in-Assyrian-Inscriptions.aspx#Article

I am always puzzled by the gear-shifting exegesis attempted in Genesis 1:14 by those who refuse to accept that the days of creation are literal, 24-hour days. God said that the sun/moon/stars would be to measure “seasons, days, and years.” Old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists (and atheistic evolutionists) proceed this way: “OK. Seasons are obviously seasons. We’ll admit that this is literal and normal. But wait! *jerky gearshift in the middle of a sentence* Days must be figurative and allegorical. It cannot be literal in meaning. OK *jerky gearshift* now it goes back to normal and years are actual years.” That’s the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. That’s making the word of God say what you want it to say. It’s called eisegesis. But answer this question honestly: If “days” are not normal 24-hour days, but are unspecified long periods of time, what, pray tell, are seasons and years? And don’t forget that God said the lights were to “separate the day from the night.” If day doesn’t mean the lighted portion of a normal 24-hour day, what then, is “night”?

 We measure seasons by movements of the sun and moon (e.g. solstices). We measure years as 365 periods of daytime and nighttime. The position of the sun even tells us we need to add a quarter-day every four years. We speak every day of the common measurement of day and night. The first occurrence of the word ‘day’ (Hebrew yom) appears in Genesis 1:5. “God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness He called ‘night.’ And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” The very first time the word ‘day’ is used, God Himself defines it for us as one cycle of sequential periods of light and dark. God could not have spoken more clearly or plainly. Just because men have attempted to confuse the matter is no reason to refuse to accept God’s straightforward definition. It’s not that difficult, people. Really.

T. rex is the subject of many an online joke or cartoon because of its big head and little arms. http://youtu.be/fQ7rezDwqEI
But now some scientists are saying birds evolved with little heads and big arms which, somehow (*wink*), turned into wings. A recent New York Times Science News article (linked below) begins with yet another disappointing example of evolutionist overstatement and assumption. “It is well accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs.” Uh, not really. This is a prime example of the aphorism that if you repeat a lie often enough and with conviction, people will begin to accept it as truth. Here are some recent articles related to the hot debate among paleontologists about this topic:
https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/dino-to-bird-bird-to-dino-whatever/

https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/challenge-to-dinosaur-bird-link-raised-by%e2%80%a6evolutionists/
The article continues: “Some subtle genetic change slowed or stopped the development of the skull as a bird embryo grew in the shell and after hatching. The body kept on growing and changing proportions, but the skull changed only in size. It did not change in shape. As a result, the skulls of birds look like those of baby dinosaurs.” This led the scientists involved in this research to develop a “working hypothesis that as birds evolved, their growth patterns changed so they kept a juvenile skull shape their whole life.” Sounds an awful lot like Earnst Haeckel’s long-discredited embryology hoax (which is still strangely persistent in science textbooks and articles https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/rehashing-haeckel/). Haeckel’s recapitulation theory claimed that all embryos pass through the same stages of development (fish, reptiles, pigs, chickens, even humans). The theory has been disproven for 150 years. It would be like a scientist today using geocentrism or Piltdown Man as a basis of research. James Gorman, the author of the article, says, “The change from dinosaur to bird is one of those grand evolutionary shifts.” But they are saying here that it resulted from stunted or retarded growth in their skulls. Not exactly a “grand evolutionary shift.” Evolution is supposed to be a steady march toward more advanced and sophisticated organisms, not genetic degradation and stunted development. That sounds more like creationism which affirms that all life began in a perfectly created state but has been ruined by the entrance of sin and death. Are evolutionists actually admitting that creationists may be on to something? The irony is apparent when you pair the opening statement of the article “It is well accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs” with a frank admission by Dr. Mark Norell (a member of the research team): “It’s a common thing to argue it, but it’s a difficult thing to show.” Indeed it is!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/science/skull-analysis-charts-the-changes-from-dinosaurs-to-birds.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

The current record-holder for the world’s tallest building is the Burj Kalifa in Dubai. It is over 2700 feet tall (that’s nearly twice the Empire State building). It was designed with a “Y”-shaped floor plan. This shape allows the most amount of natural light into the interior of the building. It also provides the maximum view of the Persian Gulf, a design feature which was important to the builders. Not only is this design beautiful and unique, it has proven to be extremely stable. With a foundation consisting of over 60,000 cubic yards of specially-formulated concrete and 192 steel pilings (each 45 meters long and driven 50 meters deep), the builders were continually surprised at how strong it proved to be. The building’s finished height was raised several times during the construction phase. Even at its dizzying present height, designers said the structure could easily have risen several hundred meters higher. So where did the clever idea for the building base come from? Design architect Adrian Smith said that his three-lobed concept was inspired by the patterns of the Hymenocallis flower. The field of biomimicry has exploded in recent years. Sophisticated technology keeps borrowing ideas, materials, and structures from the Master Designer. How arrogant to think we could ever do any better than God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_dubai