It turns out today is Darwin Day, the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Let’s celebrate by renewing our Answers magazine subscription, planning a visit to the Creation Museum, giving a donation to Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International, or read Genesis 1-9 and thank YHVH for being the good, just, and loving Creator of the universe! AiG has some more great ideas for celebrating Darwin Day.
… fulfills this verse: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils." 1 Timothy 6:10. Case in point: China keeps trying to export food to the U.S., whether it is intended for pets or humans, which is laden with banned toxins, chemicals, and other substances which render such food unfit for consumption. Why would China do such a thing? They erroneously believe that the root of Western prosperity is capitalism, when in fact it is Christ. China has embraced capitalism without Christ, and lust for money not tempered by love for your neighbor has produced a very dangerous trading partner, indeed.
A T. rex bone was discovered some years ago with blood cell proteins still intact in the bone marrow – something which is completely impossible by any standard of science if the bone of the dinosaur was truly 68 million years old, as darwinists claim. Yet when the intact protein was discovered, did you read about it in National Geographic, or see one of those controversial documentaries that Discovery Channel likes to air so much? If you knew about it at all, it was because you saw the news in Creation Magazine or in one of the other creation science news outlets.
As Creation Magazine pointedly said at the time, if dinosaurs were created on day six, when the Bible says land animals were created, then were buried for rapid fossilization during the cataclysm of Noah’s global flood some 4500 years ago, it is quite possible for blood proteins to have remained intact without decaying completely.
The first news of this startling discovery just hit the secular press a few weeks ago, but the headline wasn’t "Soft tissue in dinosaur bone shatters millions of years timeline!" as it should have been. It was … "T. rex thigh reveals chicken family ties." They came to that conclusion that since the protein studied most closely matched collagen in chickens, therefore the leap was made that chickens are the modern evolutionary descendants of the T. rex.
Answers in Genesis and Dr. Grady McMurty of Creation Worldview Ministries both handily debunked the claims, while rightly pointing out the bigger story to which the darwinists have blinded their eyes. The protein tested only represented less than 3% of the T. rex’s total genome, and it was compared to the collagen (no other proteins?) of only three modern animals: the chicken, the newt, and the frog. Why those three? Clearly, the bias of the researcher to find "evidence" to support the pre- accepted theory that modern amphibians or birds were descendants of the dinosaurs was at play. Conclusions based on such limited data are logically flawed, and cannot be as conclusive as the media have hopefully portrayed.
In the meanwhile, Bill Maher (he is a comedian; I didn’t know who he was either) has determined to make a "mockumentary" ridiculing Christians and creationists, and to that end, broke into AiG’s Creation Museum last week, bypassing security to gain an interview with AiG founder Ken Ham. I am not sure why criminal activity was necessary, since AiG and Mr. Ham have been granting interviews to all the media outlets who have come calling.
The Creation Museum is set to open next month, on Memorial Day. Atheists who do not believe in God, and Christians who do not believe that God was either the author of Genesis, or who believe He lied to us in Genesis if He was, are staging protests outside the Museum for opening day. Their reason: "… fear that their children may be influenced by what the Museum teaches." It seems to me that only those who have no confidence in the truth of their own position "fear" the free presentation of other positions. Truth always reveals itself upon examination. So why the mocking, why the silencing attempts of non- darwinian viewpoints and evidence, if darwinism is based on such rock solid truth? Just present the evidence.
The evidence does not support darwinism, as the T. rex well shows. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." But since God makes foolish the world’s "wisdom," I expect that all mockers and fools will eventually come to their prescribed end. Then who will have the last laugh?
Is Naziism an outgrowth of Darwinian evolutionary philosophy? Yes.
I had noted in a few previous posts about the atheists, or "non-theists" as I suppose they want to be called now, and their renewed crusade to destroy God and all gods but their own (here and here). I noticed that last week Ken Ham also wrote a very interesting article on the same topic at the Answers in Genesis website; he goes into much more detail on their agenda than the newspaper article I had seen did. So check it out!
There is a little discussion going on in the comments of this post, The illogic of naturalism. Since the comments are getting so long, and are bringing in so many points which were never introduced in the original post, I thought it best to address some of the points raised in a new post.
First, the nature of truth: I have blogged about this before, Ibut a refresher is in order. Discovering what is true is the business of several different disciplines. Philosophy is considered the mother discipline, under which all other disciplines subsist (but one). Mathematics, Logic, Science, and Theology are all disciplines under the umbrella of Philosophy, which seek to determine what is true for their areas of expertise. Mathematics concerns itself with axioms expressed numerically or algebraically, Logic with axioms expressed grammatically, Science with the natural world, and theology with the supernatural world.
There is another branch of truth- finding: historical- legal, or the kind of truth- finding which is employed in police investigations and court rooms. It determines what is true (what happened at a certain point in time) by utilising other avenues, primarily, than the philosophy branches of truth- finding. That is not to say that the philosophy branches are not used in court cases. Forensics is an ever expanding branch of specialized science, and scientists are called all the time to testify in court cases. But why do lawyers call witnesses other than scientists, if what science says is the end of the matter? The testimony of science is included with the testimony of the other witnesses, so that a more complete picture can be drawn.
Now science is not the only avenue of truth- finding that exists with authority, although I find many naturalists believe that it is. It is not. In fact, a hierarchy exists, and science is not at the apex of the hierarchy. Many naturalists have not studied philosophy, and are often unaware of the limitations of science and the authority which the other branches of truth- finding bring to bear on the question at hand. "What exists?" is an ancient question, and much discussion, debate, and proofs are advanced to answer it in each generation. There is a vast library which has already been written on the topic.
But many naturalists ignore all that, and often do not realize that "naturalism" itself is a school of philosophy, which shares the tent with many other schools. Naturalists believe that their school of philosophy is true and that all others are false, but that has never been proven. Thus, they must take their philosophy, their "religion," if you will, on faith, just like the rest of us.
Unfortunately, naturalism is one of the least tolerant of the schools, as we can see by Dr. Dawkins’ statements in his book, in which he seeks to destroy all gods or God but his own. Many naturalists are not only ignorant of the limitations of their own school, but have an exaggerated view of the authority of their school, and a contempt for every philosophy which is not naturalism. The Nazis were naturalists. Their advancement of the "superior white race" policy was an outgrowth of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
It was mentioned that "supernaturalists have no authority to tell those of us living in the here and now natural world how to deal with the world’s problems." Here is an example of naturalism dismissing the authority of the other philosophies which are not naturalism. Among all the philosophies, naturalism is the most likely to impose its views by force on those who do not share them. Protestant Christianity gave the world freedom of religion (which could be translated as freedom of philosophy) and so is responsible for a culture in which naturalism can thrive. But naturalism, as a philosophy with a long history, much more ancient than Darwin, cannot say the same.
To be continued …