It's About Time!

Most of the debate over the Genesis account of creation is about time. What is time? Is it constant throughout the universe? Einstein's work with relativity established the idea that time is not constant. Time actually changes in relation to velocity. In other words, the faster that matter travels, the slower time goes. In fact, as matter approaches the speed of light, time stops. Einstein went on to suggest that matter could never reach the speed of light. But, what if during the creation event (Big Bang for the secularists out there), the universe expanded at near the speed of light. Wouldn't God's day (and ours) seem like billions of years after the universe stopped expanding?

So if everything moved out or expanded at the speed of light at the "Big Bang", then slowed to the rate of expansion now, the 6 days of creation would seem like billions of years to us now (or at least the first day). Perhaps things had already slowed when the earth, sun, and moon were created to what time is now. I think that we often put God into a "time box" when, in fact, God is outside of time. The reason "time" is so important to the creation/evolution debate is that evolution needs billions of years to work (in theory). Actually, evolution has never been proven in a lab setting because it is not testable. This is the definition of philosophy rather than science. In fact, this would put evolution in the category of a religion. Interesting...

Point- Counter Point

I found a website with anti-creationist claims and creationist answers. My last blog was on the arrogance of evolutionists. It seems that many in this camp are not out to prove that evolution is a viable theory, but to eradicate any mention of creationism in the public arena. So much for the free market of ideas in science or education for that matter. Below is a copy and paste job so I want to give credit where credit is due. I found this on the following website: http://www.icr.org/article/anti-creationist/



It is from The Institute for Creation Research, one of the premier creationist organizations, along with Answers in Genesis.

CHARGE: "The creationist model does not have the same kind of scientific validity as the theory of evolution. This is not to say that it cannot be a true account of the origin of life. It could be." (Today's Education, Apr-May 1981, p. 58G)

FACT: The evolutionist's definition of "scientific" is "mechanistic" or "naturalistic," but this is misleading. Science means knowledge, and the essence of the scientific method is observation and repeatability.

Evolution is not "scientific" since macro-evolution is neither observable nor repeatable. Evolutionists admit creation may be "true," so it is appropriate—indeed essential—to include it in the educational process if teachers sincerely desire their students to search for truth, as they claim.

CHARGE: "The basic premise, the basic dogma, is the existence of a divine creator. What they espouse as academic freedom to teach creationism is the academic Freedom to teach the flatness of the earth." Discover, Oct. 1980 p. 94.

FACT: No creationist scientist teaches a flat earth nor, for that matter, is such a notion taught in the Bible. The "dogma" of the existence of a divine creator is not one bit more "dogmatic" than the evolutionist's assumption of "no creator" and of the preexistence of matter as the source of this marvelous universe and its infinite array of complex systems.

CHARGE: "The creationist movement boasts a number of adherents who have been trained in science. Significantly, few are biologists. Creationists have done almost no original research." (Time, Mar. 16, 1981, p. 81)

FACT: There are thousands of well-qualified creationist scientists today, a large percentage of whom are in the life sciences. Over half of the present and past members of the Board of Directors of the Creation for Research Society, for example, are in biological fields. In addition, of the 29 scientists associated directly with ICR (including the ten staff members, plus trustees, advisory board members, and regional representatives), 17 are in the life sciences. At least 15 scientists in these two groups have regular Ph.D's in Biology from leading universities, and the others all have terminal degrees in closely related fields (biochemistry, medicine, etc.). As far as research is concerned. the ICR staff may be typical. These ten scientists (H. Morris, Gish, Bliss, Barnes, Slusher, Parker, Cumming, J. Morris, Austin, and Rybka) have published at least 150 research papers and ten books in their own scientific fields—all in standard scientific refereed journals or through secular book publishers—in addition to hundreds of creationist articles and perhaps 50 books in creationism and related fields.

CHARGE: "If the world view of fundamental Christians is presented as science, why not that of the Hindus or the Buddhists?" (American School Board Journal, Mar. 1980, p. 32

FACT: There are only two world views, evolution and creation. Each of these has many variants. Hinduism and Buddhism are variants of the typical evolutionary world view, beginning as they do with an eternally self-existing universe (the same is true of Confucianism, Taoism, and all the other ancient pagan pantheistic religions).

Creationists do not want the Biblical record of creationism taught in the public schools, but only the general creation model as a viable scientific alternative to the general evolution model.

CHARGE: "(Creationists) have shown a certain genius for couching their arguments in scientific terms ... But their viewpoint remains dogmatically fundamentalist and profoundly anti-scientific." (The Sciences, Apr. 1981, p. 18)

FACT: Whether or not the scientific creation model is compatible with the Biblical record is irrelevant to the question of whether the actual scientific data fit the model. Most creationist scientists do believe that the tenets of Biblical creationism are compatible with the tenets of scientific creationism, but it is only the latter that we believe should be taught in the public schools. The fact that the scientific model of creation can be used to support Christian theism is parallel to the fact that the scientific model of evolution can be used to support Marxist atheism or Religious Humanism or Theological Liberalism. All this is irrelevant to the fact that creation and evolution can both be discussed and compared simply as scientific models.

Again, these are direct quotes from "The Anti-Creationist" by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

My Thoughts

I have come across several science educators in my 16 years of teaching who are so venomously opposed to the view of creationism that they often become emotional and almost violent when arguing against it. My initial reaction is to wonder if their positions are actually rooted in objective scientific reasoning or in a deep emotional wounds experienced at the hands of organized religion. Let us remember that we battle not against flesh and blood. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). We should remember to pray for all of these people who are so blinded. Lord, please open their eyes.

Evolutionary Arrogance

I have often been astounded at the arrogance and even hostility that evolutionists have toward creationists. This week, a local theater showed a movie with a creationist perspective titled "The Mysterious Islands". The movie was sold out, but I hope to get it on DVD. What puzzled me was the hostility that evolutionists showed in their comments in the local paper. I have often wondered why evolutionists get so emotional in their attacks. If the theory is correct, why is it so vigorously defended?

(Pillars of Creation)


Lately the news has been covering the climate data cover-up by global warming advocates. It turns out that scientists have been manipulating data to promote their ideology and political views. In one case, important data was deleted from data banks that could have been used to debunk the global warming theory. Scientists have forsaken their call to be objective and have entered the realm of politics.

If this can happen to climate scientists, why not evolutionists? It makes me wonder what what evolutionists are hiding. Why are they so emotionally attached to this theory? Where is objectivity?

In the next few posts, I will begin a series that documents the evidence of hostility that evolutionary scientists and secularists have toward creationists. I think that the quotes will astonish you. It is clear that there is no tolerance for opposing viewpoints in the world of evolutionary science. Welcome to the new religion.

Unreliability of Radiometric Dating

For decades, scientists have used the process of radioactive decay to measure the ages of rocks. From the process of unstable isotopes(parent isotopes) decaying into more stable isotopes(daughter isotopes), they estimate the ages of rocks based on the ratio of parent isotopes remaining in the rock to daughter isotopes. Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote an article titled "Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions" in the Oct.-Dec 2009 edition of Answers.
Dr. Snelling holds a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He has worked as a consulting geologist to organizations in the U.S. and Australia and has written numerous scientific articles. Dr. Snelling claims that radiometric dating, which is used to "prove" that the Earth is billions of years old, is based on three faulty assumptions.

Faulty Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero

• No geologists were present when most rocks formed.
• Scientists do not know how many daughter isotopes were in the rocks when they formed.
• They assume that no daughter isotopes were in the rocks when they formed, so the fact that daughter isotopes exist in present day lava flows is ignored, yielding rock dates that are way too old.

• Documented cases that support this theory:

1. A rock formed at Mount St. Helens in 1986 yielded a radiometric age of 350,000 years.
2. A rock formed by lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe in 1954 yielded a radiometric age of 3.5 million years.
3. A rock at the top of the Grand Canyon, formed by a recent volcanic eruption, yielded the same age as volcanic rocks deep below the canyon wall --- 1.143 billion years.

Faulty Assumption 2: No Contamination

• The process of radioactive decay in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall.
• As molten lava rises through a conduit, pieces of conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.
• Scientists do not know how much the rocks have been contaminated, so they usually assume no contamination.

Faulty Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate

• Physicists have not been able to change decay rates in lab settings using heat, pressure, electricity, or magnetism. So geologists assume these decay rates have been constant for billions of years.
• This is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude through an enormous span of time.
• New evidence of helium leakage in radioactive uranium decay suggests that uranium decays at a much faster rate under conditions of the past. (see "Thousands...Not Billions" by Don DeYoung).

My Thoughts

Radiometric dating is the backbone of old earth scientists who suggest that life evolved over billions of years. However, enough evidence is documented to suggest that this method of dating is faulty and unreliable. Yet, to acknowledge this, scientists would have to scrap much of the evolutionary suppositions. As a result, science textbooks would need to be rewritten casting even more doubt on the theory of evolution. It is no wonder that even after 12 years of indoctrination in public and non-religious private schools, a majority of people do not accept evolution as fact. In the words of a very wise pastor, "I do not believe in evolution because I simply do not have that much faith". Evolution: it still comes down to a "belief".

The Danger of a Real Adam

I have often wondered about how the Bible and Science coincide. The Bible can be scientifically "proven" on so many points. Actually, I am of the opinion that science needs to be Biblically verified rather than the Bible being scientifically verified. What is science anyway? It is merely a man-made study of this world. This statement is coming from someone who has spent his whole life in the field of science. I have witnessed first-hand its flaws and inconsistencies as well as the bias of those who call themselves "open-minded".

With that said, I have often wondered how my evolutionist and theistic evolutionist friends could explain away the fact the a man (Adam) was created. You see evolution is thought to be a gradual process whereby an entire species emerges from "less evolved" species over time. If that is the case, wouldn't there be many "Adams" emerging at about the same time from our supposed evolutionary ancestors? In essence, there would not be one Adam, but many Adams around the world.

I feel that this is a dangerous idea. The whole foundation of the Gospel is the fact that Jesus came as a second Adam to atone for the fall of man through Adam. And for that matter, if we evolved as a species spontaneously and at different times, wouldn't that mean that we are still evolving and that some races are more evolved than others (another dangerous idea used by Hitler among others to kill millions). I will have more on that topic in a future post. Back to Adam...

The Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit called Adam by name as the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). Paul goes on to distinguish the difference between the origins of man and the origins of animals in 1 Cor. 15:39. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of man, and another of beasts, and another of fishes". The following is a direct quote from Dr. Bert Thompson in a paper published for Apologetics Press called "First Man - Adam" (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/First-Man-Adam.pdf).

"Paul, however,speaking through inspiration,denied this not only in 1 Corinthians 15:39 but in 1 Corinthians 11:8, 12 where he produced what is considered by many to be the clearest New Testament teaching on the Supernatural origin of mankind: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man...for as the woman is of the man, so is also the man by the woman." The preposition "of" (ek) has reference here to ultimate physical origin, while the preposition "by" (dia) refers to the process of birth. Paul stated that while men today are born of women, women had their ultimate origin in a man (compare Genesis 3:20 with Acts 17:26, ASV). This, of course, can be true only if all evolutionary views (including theistic evolution) are false, for otherwise the first woman would have come physically from a female animal, not a man!

I highly recommend reading Dr. Thompson's study in its entirety for one of the best cases for a literal Adam. I have often wondered how all of these evolutionists can control our schools and universities for so long, indoctrinating our youth, and still have so many in society who raise doubts about evolution. Can't they present their argument any better? Are they poor communicators or is the theory in some way flawed to the point that children at their most instinctive level KNOW that there is a creator?

My First Post!

Greetings! I have finally entered the cyberworld.I have resisted doing this for many years, but God has really been speaking to me about doing this. So why have I resisted for so long? As a science teacher in public and independent schools for 16 years, I have always felt like I had to watch what I say. My goal was always to reach the lost with the love of Christ, but sometimes it is best to live out your testimony rather than speak it. You see, Darwinism and the study of evolution is the religion of many in the science community. Many of my colleagues, past and present, would pride themselves in being Darwinists and priests in this new Religion. I always felt like I had to be better than them at everything. For this reason, I drove myself to near insanity pursuing every degree and teacher training that I could attend. By God's grace I graduated with honors in undergraduate school, earned my Master's Degree, and eventually a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction. Even so, I felt like Joseph in Pharaoh's court. I felt as though I had to be very cautious and calculating to survive in a world so contrary to God's word.

I have spent my whole life in public schools from kindergarten through Doctoral studies. I have even spent 16 years as an educator in this world. I am so thankful to God that the many years of exposure to the lie of evolution has not weakened my faith. In fact, studying science to the degree that I have has actually increased my faith! I once heard a quote and I forgot who said it, but it went something like, "A little science will cause one to lose faith in God. A lot of science will cause one to never doubt." I have studied so many topics in science that can only be explained by the work of a creator. Many famous scientists in the past have proclaimed their faith in God.

However, I have seen what the current secular educational system has done to the faith of many young people. As a science teacher, I have witnessed the gradual erosion of faith of many "on fire" Christians when they enter high school as freshmen. Could I have done more? The answer to that is YES. I have recently started regularly praying in the empty classrooms at my school. This is a practice I have done sporadically in the past, but God has really put it on my heart to begin this practice again. I have so much that I want to tell these students. But I know that once I do so, my career is over. For that reason, I am currently looking into teaching at a Christian school where I can equip God's people (with the help of the Holy Spirit) with the knowledge they need to defend what they believe in this secular humanist society. It has been a dream of mine since the very first day I started teaching. I have often wondered why God has kept me in public education for so long. I have often heard that "God doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called." Have these 16 years been the work of God qualifying me for this task? Many will say that I am leaving the mission field that God has placed me in. If that is the case, I pray that God closes every door out before I foolishly walk through. However, it is not until you have taught in such a system for the length of time that I have that you become aware of how difficult it is to minister in such a place.

This blog is a collection of thoughts that I have had for many years as well as a commentary of sorts on different articles I have read and sermons I have heard. I hope that this blog is encouraging and strengthens your faith in Jesus Christ.