acts & facts. december 2010

8/8/2019 Acts & Facts. December 2010

1/24

INSTITUTE FORCREATION RESEA

www.icr.org

D E C E M B E R 2CTS&FACTSINSTITUTE FORCREATION RESEA

www.icr.org

D E C E M B E R 2

. 3 9 N O . 1 2

Removing the Reasonfor the Season


2/24

A U D I O S E R I E S

THEGEnESISRE C O R D

Based on the popular Genesis commentary, The Genesis Recordaudio

series features ten presentations by the late Dr. Henry Morris

scientist, educator, and founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

In these engaging talks, Dr. Morris highlights the essential elements of the

book of Genesis, beginning with creation and ending with the account of

Joseph, Jacob, and the children of Israel in Egypt. Also included is a fasci-

nating discussion of Genesis, the Bible, and the book of Revelation.

To order, call 800.628.7640or visitwww.icr.org/store

$49.9510-disc set

Disc 1: The Book of Beginnings

Disc 2: The Record of Creation

Disc 3: The Lost World

Disc 4: The Genesis Flood

Disc 5: Origin of Races and Nations

Disc 6: Abraham and the Covenant of Faith

Disc 7: Isaac and the Promised Land

Disc 8: Jacob and the Israelites

Disc 9: Joseph in Egypt

Disc 10: Genesis, the Bible, and Revelation

(plus shipping and handling)


3/24

Published by

Institute for Creation Research

P. O. Box 59029, Dallas, TX 75229

214.615.8300

www.icr.org

Executive Editor: Lawrence E. Ford

Managing Editor: Beth Mull

Assistant Editor: Christine Dao

Designer: Dennis Davidson

No articles may be reprinted in

whole or in part without obtaining

permission from ICR.

CONTENTS

4

XMAS

Henry M. Morris III, D.Mi

6Literature Review:

Molecular Data and

the Tree o Lie

Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D

8Fighting Over

Furniture and Faith

James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th

10The Folly o Design

without Purpose

Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.

12An Ice Age in Yellow-

stone National Park

Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

15Creation with the

Appearance o Age

John D. Morris, Ph.D.

16 The Strange Meta-

physical World o

Evolution

Frank Sherwin, M.A.

17 Doubts Raised about

the Goldilocks Plane

Brian Thomas, M.S.

20Letters to the Editor

21 The Breadth and Dept

o ICR Ministries

Henry M. Morris IV

D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 ACTS&FACTS

FROM THE EDITOR

Stand Up! Stand Up or Jesus!

The October 31 sermon by Pastor

Chuck Swindoll in Frisco, Texas,

highlighted the lie and work o

Martin Luther, responsible in large

part or the Protestant Reormation, o which all

evangelicals are inheritors. Luther was convinced

that the Roman church had drited rom the

Scripturesand thus into corruptionand that

the common people desperately needed the Bible

in their own language. His 95 Theses, nailed to the

door o the Wittenberg Church on October 31,

1517, put the Roman church authorities on no-

tice and brought the issues o aith and Scripture

to the oreront o religious lie at a time when

the world was very dark indeed. The point o

Pastor Swindolls sermon: there are times when

Christians need to stand or truth, counting and

accepting the consequences, regardless o the op-

position they may ace, and doing so in the power

and or the glory o God.

It was a rereshing reminder on a day that

much o the Western world has turned into a glo-

rication o Satan and his demonic orces. The

infuence o evil in our post-modern culture has

saturated every acet o our livesthe denition

o marriage and sexuality; the removal o abso-

lute moral standards rom education, rom busi-

ness, and rom our courts o law; and the casual

acceptance o atheistic naturalism in public dis-

courses. More disturbing, as Luther ound, is the

drit o the Church away rom Scripture.Dr. Albert Mohler, the keynote speaker at

ICRs 40th anniversary banquet in Dallas, is a

powerul voice in evangelicalism as he addresses

the destructive infuences o popular culture to-

day upon the moorings o conservative Christi-

anity. Along with ICR, leaders like Dr. Mohler, Dr.

Mac Brunson, Dr. John MacArthur, and others

are standing, unaraid o the masses, shepherding

the Church through the unwavering communi-

cation o biblical truth. Throughout our 40 years

o ministry, ICR has counted on the riendship o

men like these who resist compromise and seek

to honor the Creator and His Word.

As we think o the birth o Jesus this month,

we must remember that the Son o God not only

created the world with great purpose, but that He

also came to us to ulll one grand purposethe

salvation o our souls. Its so clear in Scripture

rom Genesis to Revelation.

So why do so many Christians and

churches waver on the undamental doctrines

o the Bible? How can they deny God the power

and might to create the world in six days? Why

do they deny the detailed account o a food that

covered the entire world? When will they realize

that they are treading on dangerous ground by

turning Gods inerrant and inspired Word into

a supposedly fawed book o myths mixed with

history?

When the reason or the season is torn

away rom the pages o the Bible, why should we

be surprised that Christian teacherssome call-

ing themselves evangelicalsdescribe God as an

evolutionist? May God have mercy on them!

And may God grant us all a renewed deter-mination to take and maintain our stand or the

Creator and His holy Word.

Lawrence E. FordExEcutivE Editor

V O L . 3 9 N O . 1 2


4/244 ACTS&FACTS D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0

Sometime during the last century (it is

dicult to nd an actual beginning),

the word Xmas began creeping into

public correspondence and adver-

tisements. It was a little thing, hardly noticed

by anyone, but it set the stage or a proound

movement away rom Christ in any public

discourse. X is, o course, the universal symbol

or the unknown.2

Quietly and unobtrusively at rst, but

rising to a crescendo o legal and governmen-

tal attacks against Christianity, the words and

the symbols o the gospel message are being

purged rom open expression.

A steady drumbeat o lawsuits, threaten-

ing letters, and joint amicus bries have been

generated by the American Civil Liberties

Union (ACLU), the Americans United or Sep-

aration o Church and State (AU), and other

national organizations such as the Freedom

From Religion Foundation, pounding away at

any semblance o the Christian message. The

ACLU even has a separate unit dedicated to the

ght or the equal treatment o all religions,

euphemistically titled the ACLU Program on

Freedom o Religion and Belie.

There are many examples that could be

given, but here are just a ew that have devel-

oped in the past three years.

The ght over the World War II memorialcross in the middle o the Mojave Desertis still being waged between the ACLU

and Congress. Meanwhile, someone hasstolen the cross.3

The city o Avon Lake, Ohio, placed a signin ront o City Hall that read, Remem-ber Christ is in Christmas. The AU ob-

jected and the city took it down.4

The Parks & Recreation Committee in

Menominee, Michigan, was going to placea crche in the band shell o a public park.The AU claimed this would violate theEstablishment Clause and the committeebuilt a holiday display instead that con-tained all o the winter symbols.5

Handels Messiah was perormed inHolladay, Utah, during the Christmasseason, or which the city provided adiscount to the choral and orches-

Removingthe Reason for the

SeasonThedifferencebeTweenThealmosTrighTwordand

TherighTwordisreallyalargemaTTerTisThediffer-

encebeTweenThelighTning-bugandThelighTning. markTwain1

H e n r y M . M o r r i s i i i , D . M i n .


5/24

tra or the use o government acilities.Strong letters were written to the cityand the city leaders caved in. No more

Messiah in city venues.6

A public school in Connecticut was usingan evangelical chapel or graduation cer-emonies. Some teachers, parents, and stu-dents complained that they were orcedto view a large cross and hear music thatspoke o Jesus and salvation. This wasvery oensive to them. The result: law-suits and judgments declaring unconsti-tutional the use o religious venues orpublic school ceremonies.7

In human terms, the ACLU is large and

successul, with over 500,000 members and

dues-paying supporters, 200 sta attorneys,

and oces in all 50 states. Other organiza-

tions, like the Freedom From Religion Foun-

dation, are quite small, with ewer than 16,000members. Texas has its own Texas Freedom

Network that brags on its website

that its 45,000 members have be-

come a trusted source or all the

major print and news networks in

the nation.

All insist, o course, that they

are only deending the Establish-

ment Clause o the Constitution,

and that all individuals are ree to worship

however they wishjust dont try to do so onany public or government property.

President Barack Obama and Secretary

o State Hillary Clinton have started using the

term reedom oworship instead o reedom

oreligion. That small change has vast impli-

cations should those words signal a change in

ocial policy. Freedom o religion implies your

reedom to assemble, proselytize, and conduct

your personal lie in a manner refective o

your religious belies. Freedom o worship is and

can be limited to mere personal and private ex-

pressions o religious belies, negating all pub-

lic demonstrations o what one believes. Wor-

ship can be conned to a designated placeor

restricted to ones private thoughts.

Remember Mark Twains observation?

The dierence between the almost right word

and the right word is really a large matter.

Holiday is the Anglicized orm o Holy

Day. The original meaning has been totally

lost. Holy has nothing to do with our holi-

days. The term has come to mean no work.

We are conditioned to think o weekends as

regular holidays and the special holidays as

mere extensions o ree time in which we can

do pretty much whatever we want to do.

Halloween has been prostituted rom the

original All Hallows Eve in which one was sup-

posed to prepare or worship the next morn-

ing on All Saints Day. Granted, the eve airlyquickly turned into sensual and mischievous

license, since one was assured o conession

and absolution the next day. Now, Hallow-

een has become the most glaring promotion

o wickedness and demonic representation

imaginableall in the name o un and cel-

ebration and with absolutely no thought o

seeking conession and absolution.

Woe unto them that call evil good, andgood evil; that put darkness or light,

and light or darkness; that put bitter orsweet, and sweet or bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

We were hardly out o Halloween (the

advertisements or which began sometime in

late September), mostly skipped Thanksgiv-

ing (which had little to do with any giving o

thanks), beore we rushed into the winter

holidaysthe secularized, sanitized, and com-

mercialized version o Saturnalia, the pagan

and sensual ritual o worshiping the winter

solstice. In the words o a rather well-known

slogan, Youve come a long way, baby.

Christmas, even or many Christian am-

ilies, has become more about the giving o gits

than the Giver o Gits (James 1:17). Churches

all across the country will host organ recitals

and promote cantatas, dramatic extravagan-

zas, and musical productions that stress en-

tertainment more than the eternal message o

orgiveness, salvation, and the coming King.

May I humbly suggest that more o us

need to spend time with our amilies teaching

them the wonder and majesty o Gods incar-

nation. The rst 14 verses o Johns Gospel

need to be read to our children along with the

section in Philippians 2:5-11, in addition to the

rst three chapters o the Gospel o Luke.

Those o us who have positions o lead-

ership in our churches or at our places o

ministry should try to encourage our pastors

and other leaders to keep a strong emphasis

on the reason or Christs birth. All too oten

the baby Jesus is let cute and cuddly amongthe barn animals, smiling benignly up at the

poor shepherds. Oh yes, we repeat the song o

the angel chorus and tell o the wise men who

came rom aar to give the gits o honor to the

newborn king.

Please understand. The actual birth o

Jesus was absolutely ordinary in every human

way, even i the story is gripping in its emotion

and wonder. The miraclewas the conception.

The good tidingswere that God had become

man to save his people rom their sins (Mat-thew 1:21).

Please take the X out o

Christmas.

For unto us a child is born, untous a son is given: and the govern-ment shall be upon his shoulder:and his name shall be calledWonderul, Counsellor, Themighty God, The everlastingFather, The Prince o Peace. O

the increase o his government and peace

there shall be no end, upon the throneo David, and upon his kingdom, to or-der it, and to establish it with judgmentand with justice rom henceorth evenor ever. The zeal o the Lordo hosts willperorm this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

References

1. Letter to George Bainton, October 15, 1888, solicited orand printed in Bainton, G. 1890. The Art o Authorship: Lit-erary Reminiscences, Methods o Work, and Advice to YoungBeginners. London: J. Clarke & Co., 87-88.

2. X has long been a mathematical symbol or an unknownvariable. X later came into use as an abbreviation or thename Christ because it is the rst letter o the Greek word (Christ). To the vast majority o people in ourculture, however, the X in Xmas would be completely

meaningless, eectively removing the Reason or the sea-son.3. The Mojave Cross. Stanislaus Skeptics. Posted on stanskep-

tics.org August 8, 2009. See also Mojave Cross. Snopes.com.Posted on snopes.com July 2009, updated May 15, 2010.

4. Avon Lake. Americans United or Separation o Churchand State. Posted on au.org May 5, 2009.

5. Menominee. Ibid, April 23, 2009.6. Holladay. Ibid, October 26,

2009.7. Connecticut Schools Plan

to Hold Graduations inChurch Is Ruled Uncon-stitutional. American CivilLiberties Union news re-lease, May 31, 2010.

Dr. Morris is Chie ExecutiveOcer o the Institute or Cre-ation Research.


freedomofworshipisandcanbelimiTed

TomerepersonalandprivaTeexpressionsof

religiousbeliefs, negaTingallpublic

demonsTraTionsofwhaTonebelieves.



The ICR lie sciences team is in the midst o the litera-

ture review phase o our new research venture that will

examine the major unanswered origins biology ques-

tions.1 Our current ocus is on reviewing papers relevant to

the rst o our identied research questions, reuting the evolutionary

tree o lie.2

We are targeting our review specically toward molecular-based

(i.e., DNA-based), rather than anatomy-based, tree o lie papers.

Molecular-based classication is a more recent approach to taxonomy

and is, in some ways, superior to the traditional method based on

anatomy and physiology, or reasons we have detailed previously.2 Since

DNA is the genetic material that is passed rom parent to ospring each

generation, it provides a record o an organisms history and is, there-

ore, a potentially powerul tool or ancestry and classication studies.

Furthermore, there is a wealth o dierent types and catalogs o

inormation present in an organisms DNA sequence, making DNA a

very rich repository o data to utilize in taxonomy. Hence, evolutionists

have been exploiting DNA as a means to explore the supposed evolu-

tionary relationships across all orms o lie, and we are presently evalu-

ating these claims.

There are at least two approaches we could take to assess the

validity o the molecular data used to support the evolutionary tree

o lie. First, we could gather and read every single tree o lie paper

published, learn the methods they use to build their trees rom the

molecular data, and then look or discrepancies and controversies

amongst evolutionists themselves. The problem with this approach

is that essentially all tree o lie analyses are perormed under the

assumption o common ancestry. Hence, any controversies within the

evolutionary eld are inevitably debates over ambiguitiesin their con-

clusions under the assumption o common ancestry, not conficts about

the undamental assumption. Hence, or us to ocus on highlighting

disputes over the tree o lie amongst evolutionists leads to a weak

creation apologetic, since this ocus ails to address the core problem

o the errant underlying assumption.

Second, we could use the same raw data behind molecular tree o

lie studies and look or evidence odiscontinuitywithin these data sets

without making any assumptions o common ancestry. Though nearly

all papers that publish new DNA sequence data attempt to make some

contribution to the evolutionary paradigm, beneath these speculations

are data that support the creation model. This ocus on discontinu-

ity is undamentally dierent rom highlighting debate over ambiguity

under the assumption o common ancestry, and it permits discovery

o conclusions that make or a superior creation-based apologetic. We

are currently ocusing on discovering discontinuity in our review o the

tree o lie literature and analysis o similar data sets.

Studying discontinuity at the DNA level may yield insights not

only into the problems in the evolutionary paradigm, but also into the

true ancestry o each creature under the biblical paradigm o created

kinds.3, 4 Expect to read about our ndings in uture issues o Acts &

Facts.

References1. Jeanson, N. 2010. Literature Review: Simpliying the Research

Process. Acts & Facts. 39 (11): 6.2. Jeanson, N. 2010. New Frontiers in Animal Classication.

Acts & Facts. 39 (5): 6.3. Jeanson, N. 2010. Common Ancestry and the BibleDis-

cerning Where to Draw the Line. Acts & Facts. 39 (6): 6.4. Jeanson, N. 2010. The Limit to Biological Change. Acts &

Facts. 39 (7): 6.

Dr. Jeanson is Research Associate and received his Ph.D. in Celland Developmental Biology rom Harvard University.

RESEARCH

n a t H a n i e l t . J e a n s o n , P h . D .

Literature Review:

Molecular Data

and the Tree of Life


7/24


EVENTS

n DECEMBER 7

Farmers Branch, TX

Metroplex Institute of Origin Science

(J. Morris) 972.293.6891

n DECEMBER 12

Meridian, ID

Treasure Valley Baptist Church

(J. Morris) 208.888.4545

F m m h v

chd v, p cc h

iCr ev Dpm 800.337.0375

[email protected].

On October 7, the Institute or Creation Research held a

special banquet in honor o its 40 years o ministry. Over

400 people gathered at the Hilton Dallas Lincoln Cen-

tre to celebrate Gods marvelous provision or the work

o ICR during the past our decades, as well as to look orward to the

opportunities that lie ahead or ICR to share the message that Gods

Word is accurate, authoritative, and completely trustworthy in all that

it conveys.

Dr. Henry Morris III, CEO o the Institute or Creation Research,

served as Master o Ceremonies or the evening. The banquet opened

with a special video message rom Ken Ham, president/CEO o Answers

in Genesis, in appreciation o ICRs vital role in the creation science

movement. Senior Pastor Robert Jeress o First Baptist Dallas led the

assembly in prayer, and then the attendees enjoyed the delicious meal

prepared by the Hilton sta.

A video montage honored the lie o ICRs ounder, Dr. Henry M.

Morris, beginning with the prayer o evangelist R. A. Torrey over the

inant Henry that he would become a aithul warrior or the King and

that God would use him in a mighty way. And God did indeed honor

that prayer, or the child grew up to become the ather o the modern

creation science movement, co-authoring The Genesis Floodin 1961 (as

well as authoring many other books both beore and ater) and ound-

ing the Institute or Creation Research in 1970. The video traced Dr.

Morris legacy through the initial ministry o ICR (with special insights

provided by Dr. John Morris), the work being done today, and plans or

uture opportunities to proclaim Gods truth in science and beyond.

During the banquet, guests were treated to the music o The Her-

itage Quartet, who blessed the gathering with close harmonies and a

proound worship o the Creator in song. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., pres-

ident o Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered a dynamic

keynote speech. In a message titled Maker o Heaven and Earth: Why

Creation Is a Gospel Issue, Dr. Mohler presented a compelling case or

the integrity o the Word, the importance o belie in its authority, and

the desperate need o todays world to turn to Gods truth.

Dr. Morris III then oered a brie overview o ICRs current

work in the areas o research, education, and communication. The

ICR lie sciences team is making strides in its important research into

biological origins, the School o Biblical Apologetics has entered its

second year, and the Communications and Events Departments are

reaching countless people through their publications and seminars,

as well as providing vital help to Christian and homeschool teachers

through ICRs Science Education Essentialscurriculum supplements.

This memorable evening was then closed in prayer by ICR Board

Member Dr. Mac Brunson, the senior pastor o First Baptist Church,

Jacksonville, Florida.

A special DVD is being prepared that will include the video trib-

ute, Dr. Mohlers stirring talk, and a special presentation by Dr. Morris

III regarding ICRs accomplishments, current work, and exciting plans

or the uture, as well as other eatures. You wont want to miss this.

Look in upcoming issues oActs & Factsor more details.

ICR Celebrates 40 Years



mericas evolution-creation

controversy is like a

lawsuit over a pro-

bate estate. The evo-

lutionists are contesting the willo the ounding athers o modern

science, but so ar they are only

winning the estates urniture

as an example rom Puritan New

England will illustrate.

Inside the competitive arena

o biblical creation apologetics,

this outcome might appear to be

a loss or the creationistsbut it

actually isnt, according to bibli-

cal standards. Why? Because realwinning is dened by Gods

values, not by mans. Thereore,

biblical apologetics must priori-

tize honoring God and His truth

much more than achieving vic-

tory in mans political games. This axiological principle relies

on 1 Peter 3:15. In other words, sanctiying the Lord God comes

rst and winning a case with inquirers comes second, as was

noted in a previous article:

Apologetics is more about honoring God than winning

an argument. Scripturally speaking, the main purpose oapologetics is not to win a case like a litigator, becausethe jury may be hopelessly corrupt or distracted. Rather,apologetics is primarily a science or honoring the Lordby careully studying and then accurately communicat-ing His revealed truth (biblical, scientic, historical, etc.),especially those truths that are questioned or opposed ormisrepresented, ultimately trusting God to accomplishHis good with the truths communicated.1

With that reminder, consider the parallel between New

Englands Puritan churches and the politics o Americas scien-

tic community.

Contesting the Will of the

Founding Fathers of Puritan

New England

A review o the probate

court records o the Puritan set-

tlers can provide interesting in-

sights into the lives o those brave

pioneers. Some o the Puritan set-

tlers in Massachusetts and Con-

necticut, or example, came to

these shores with valuable prop-

erty items, such as silverware and

pewter vessels, weapons, tools,

clothing, various kinds o am-

ily heirlooms, and (o course)

personal copies o the Geneva

Biblethe Holy Bible in their

common English tongue.

However, their legacies

were not limited to physical pos-

sessions. The Puritans, like their

Pilgrim counterparts in Plymouth, came with a proound aith

in Jesus Christ and unwavering trust in the Holy Bible as Gods

authoritative Word, intangible treasures that they shared as a

legacy or uture posterity.

Thus, when the rst generation o Puritan colonists

departed this earthly lie, they let an inheritance o two

kinds: physical possessions and intangible aith. Some o

their successors took the possessions, but ignored the aith.

Conversely, some people became heirs to the Puritans bibli-

cal aith, yet received little or nothing o the Puritans physi-

cal eects.

This probate estate scenario, with the partitioning and

distribution o Puritan legacies, is also illustrated in the histo-

ries o some Puritan churches. All too oten, within a ew gen-

erations the Puritan-established congregations strayed rom

the spiritual legacy o their ounders, driting away rom bibli-

J a M e s J . s . J o H n s o n , J . D . , t h . D .

RealWorldApologetics

TakingtheInitiativetoCommunicateTruth Fighting

OverFurnitureand Faith

A


9/24

cal basics such as the Bibles teaching that God is a TrinityFather, Son,

and Holy Spirit.

Ater a Puritan congregation acquired a number o anti-Trinitarian

congregants (i.e., Unitarians), that congregation would experience

an internal crisis o identity. This led to a theological showdown, or-

mally executed by a congregational vote. A typical outcome would be a

church split. The biblical Trinitarian minority, who lost the church vote,

would withdraw rom the Unitarian majority and start a new Trinitar-

ian church somewhere down the road. When these church divorces

occurred, the Trinitarians would remark, They kept the urniture, but

we kept the aith.2

Contesting the Will of the Founding Fathers of Modern Science

Like the turbulent tourney over who got what o the Puritans

legacy, the ounders o modern science let a legacy that has two sepa-

rate groups o heirs. Although it is beyond genuine dispute (to use the

ederal evidence standard o Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56) that the ranks o these

ounders were overwhelmingly dominated by Bible-revering Christians,3

the legacies o those godly science pioneers have been partitioned anddistributed into two very dierent categories o heirs, some o whom are

creationists and others evolutionists. (The latter group is a mixed bag o

theistic evolutionists, like BioLogos ounder

Francis Collins, and atheistic evolutionists, like

Richard Dawkins).

Thus, the pioneering discoveries and

analytical legacies o the ounding athers o

modern scienceSir Isaac Newton, Johann

Kepler, John Ray, Robert Boyle, William Her-

schel, Michael Faraday, Jedidiah Morse, Matthew Maury, Lord Kelvin,

Conrad Gessner, Alexander Graham Bell, George Washington Carver,etc.have been inherited by scientists as diametrically distinct as evo-

lutionist Linus Pauling (the biochemist who championed Vitamin C) and

biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (the M.D./engineer who invent-

ed the medical MRI).

Consider how modern scientists have partitioned the scientic leg-

acy o these ounding athers: Who kept the urniture? Who kept the aith?

Who got the better inheritance? For the most part, the evolutionists have

inherited the sociopolitical urniture o the scientic community.

But the tactics used to do so have involved an unreasonably high

priceideological commitment to a primordial soup mythology, com-

parable to the high price that Esau once paid or a bowl o real soup. (To

get this ood, Esau traded away the Messianic-line birthright. This was

an intangible inheritance o immeasurable worth, but Scripture says he

despised it.4)

Like Esau, evolutionists have traded away the biblical aith o the

ounding athers o modern science, keeping only the sociopolitical ur-

niture and urnishings. Colleges ounded by biblical creationists (such as

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton) are now wholly owned and operated by

evolutionists. Meanwhile, biblical creationists routinely nd themselves

out-voted, ostracized, and ousted rom the institutions and opportunities

established by the ounders o modern science.

ICRs recent litigation in Texas illustrates how even privately

undedhigher education can be politically stymiedeven byoutsid-

ersi educators dare to express a biblical creation viewpoint through

a science education degree program. This disinheritance o privately

unded science education programs is something new. (Unlike prior

court battles involving creationist viewpoints in contexts involving

public unding, there is no Establishment Clause excuse or censuring

private education that oers graduate education rom a creationist

viewpoint.) A ederal judge in Austin ruled that such government-im-

posed viewpoint discrimination is allowed because teaching a genu-

inely theistic view o natural science was deemed (he opined) to be

religion, not science.5

Consequently, despite ICRs expert witness adavits (by ICR

science experts such as Dr. John Morris, Dr. Steven Austin, Dr. Randy

Guliuzza, Dr. Charles McCombs, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Dr. Patricia

Nason, Proessor Frank Sherwin, etc.), plus evidence that real-world

scientists are sometimes ICR-aliated biblical creationists (such as

Dr. Raymond Damadian), the ederal judge ignored these evidences

as irrelevant, thereby bypassing the usual evaluation process that

occurs with an evidentiary trial on the merits. ICRs lawsuit put the

system on trial regarding academic reedom. That system could have

tolerateda creationist viewpoint in private education, but it chose to

do otherwise.

So, ICR has lost the legal right to oer

its viewpoint-distinctive creationist teachings

in a Master o Science in Science Education

program, while ICR may (and now does)

oer its viewpoint-distinctive creationist

teachings through its Master o Christian

Education in Biblical Education and Apologetics program, which is

now in its second year.6

Despite losing some valuable property in the litigation, ICR

has (by Gods grace) stood its spiritual ground, reused to compromise

with old-earth mythology, and has kept the aith.

And, as noted above, 1 Peter 3:15 teaches us that biblical apolo-

getics is much more about sanctiying the Lord God than merely win-

ning an argument (or a lawsuit), because aithulness beore God is

worth much more.

References1. Johnson, J. J. S. 2010. Understanding Eective Biblical Apologetics.Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 8-9, quot-

ing and explaining 1 Peter 3:15.2. See, e.g., First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church o Scituate, Massachusetts, established in

1634. This Puritan-ounded churchs website describes historic urniture it contains and reportsthat its Trinitarian-versus-Unitarian split occurred on April 29, 1825, with the splitting action

becoming the First Trinitarian Church o Scituate later that year. Conficts between the ortho-dox and liberal actors became intense.This time the departing members o the congregationstayed close at hand, removing themselves around the corner to establish the First TrinitarianChurch o Scituate in 1825. As one wag put it, the Trinitarians kept the aith, while the Unitarianskept the urniture. Our History, posted on rstparishscituate.org, accessed October 14, 2010.

3. See Morris, H. M. 1988. Men o Science, Men o God: Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible.Green Forest, AR: Master Books. See also Dao, C. 2009. Thinking Gods Thoughts Ater Him: GreatScientists Who Honored the Creator. Dallas, TX: Institute or Creation Research.

4. Genesis 25:34. Note that Hebrews 12:16 describes Esaus tempo-ral values as proane.

5. Institute or Creation or Research Graduate School v. TexasHigher Education Coordinating Board, 2010 WL 2522529 (W.D.Tex.Austin 2010) (erroneous naming o plainti in the origi-nal). Revealingly, the legal phrase academic reedom was neverused anywhere within the judges 39-page ruling.

6. For more inormation about ICRs School o Biblical Apologet-ics, visit www.icr.org/soba.

Dr. Johnson is Associate Proessor o Apologetics at the Institute orCreation Research.


Real winning is defned by

Gods values, not by mans.



ranDy J. Guliuzza, P.e., M.D.

construction contractor struggling to

prevent a ailed project criticized his

designer as fying by the seat o his

pants, meaning that he was sim-

ply making up stu as the project progressed.

Projects that lack clearly dened purpose or key

design objectives generally ail. Purpose and

design are inseparable.1 Only a oolish architect

would propose a project devoid o

purpose. So it is astounding

how explanations o natures

design by evolutionary

theoristsa career eld

that never designs any-

thingnot only inten-

tionally decouple purpose

and design, but are presented

as something to boast about.

That thinking by evolutionists was

predictable. According to Romans 1, natures

design is so clear, so obvious, and so under-

standable that people o all ages in all cultures

can easily see the Lords eternal power and

Godhead. The one who actively suppresses

this truth becomes a God-denier, an act that

leaves him without excuse.

The Bible adds another valuable insight

that is useul in any conversation about the ori-

gin o natures design. Truth suppressors who

proess themselves to be wise actually become

ools. One certain reality is that evolutionary

explanations o natures design will invariably

be oolishthey cannot escape thisand ev-

eryone else just needs to be mindul to look.

Is it possible to know where a conversa-

tion will end upwithout ailright rom

the beginning? Yes. This useul assurance will

help believers who worry that evolutionists will

produce a killer explanation that crushes cre-

ationist thinking. Trueevolutionists mustdeny

purpose in nature. Since design and purpose

are inseparable, they violate this principle at

their peril. Just as purposeless construction

projects ail, evolutionary think-

ing orces ailed scientic

explanationsleaving only

incoherent or mystical

stories.

The First Step to Inco-

herence: Deny Natures

Purpose

The Accreditation Board or

Engineering and Technology states that en-gineering design is the process o devising a

system, component, or process to meet desired

needs. It is a decision-making process (oten

iterative), in which the basic science and math-

ematics and engineering sciences are applied

to convert resources optimally to meet a stated

objective.1 The centrality o purpose to design

is emphasized twice. Purpose initiates design

processes, and designs are constrained to meet

the purpose.

Evolutionists choose not to accept na-tures purpose since purpose arms intent,

willul decisions, or other attributes o person-

ality, and only God is big enough to implement

a purpose or earth. Thus, evolutionists must

eschew teleology, the study o purpose in na-

ture. But the purpose-recognition instinct is

strong, biologists struggle to escape it. Evol

tionist David Hanke complained:

Biology is sick. Fundamentally unscien-

tic modes o thought are increasinglyaccepted.[T]he heart o the problem isthat we persist in making (literally) senseo a world that we know to be senseless by

attributing subjective values to the objectsin it, values that have no basis in reality.[I]t is no longer acceptable to think obiological objects as having any purposebecause the overwhelming consensus oscientic opinion is that they were notdesigned and built by a Creator (a men-tal construct necessary to inject a humansense o purpose into existence) with pur-poses in mind or them. Instead we believe(Ill put that as strongly as I can) they areproducts o Darwinian evolution.2

For evolutionism, design must somehoarise rom mindless properties o matter. Th

belie that nothing exists outside o matter

called materialism. Would evolutionists pe

sist in this mindset unazed, even knowing th

excluding purpose is toxic to sensible explan

tions? It seems so. Evolutionary authority Ric

ard Lewontin is candid about this materialist

implication:

We have a prior commitment, a com-mitment to materialismwe are orced

by oura priori

adherence to materialcausesthat produce material explana-tions, no matter how counter-intuitive, nomatter how mystiying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is an absolute,or we cannot allow a Divine Foot in thedoor.3

A


11/24


Learning a Short Example

Do evolutionists really maintain expla-

nations that are counter-intuitive and mys-

tiying to the uninitiated?

Explaining the universes origin, cosmol-

ogist Stephen Hawking says:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the

Universe can and will create itsel romnothing. Spontaneous creation is thereason there is something rather thannothing, why the universe exists, why weexist....It is not necessary to invoke Godto light the blue touch paper and set theUniverse going.4

Another theorist detailed why Hawkings

views are plausible:

Then theres the idea o infation, whichpredicts that an extremely tiny region ospace can blow up into a universe-sizeddomain. Modern cosmologists believethat infation, once it starts, can keepgoing orever, continually creating newpocket universes with dierent condi-tions in each one.5

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss

adds:

So i we can explain a raindrop, why cant

we explain a universe? Mr. Hawking basedhis argument on the possible existence oextra dimensionsand perhaps an in-

nite number o universes, which wouldindeed make the spontaneous appear-ance o a universe like ours seem almosttrivial.6

In biology, the National Academy o

Sciences solved the origins dilemma or how

molecular machines got all o their parts at the

right time and place:

We proposed that simple core machineswere established in the rst eukaryotesby drawing on pre-existing bacterial pro-teins that had previously provided distinctunctions. Subsequently, and in a step-wise process in keeping with Darwinianevolution, additional modules would

have been added to the core machines toenhance their unction.7

Evolutionist Kathryn Applegate o Bio-

Logos joins in: The bacterial fagellum may

look like an outboard motor, but there is at

least one proound dierence: the fagellum as-

sembles spontaneously, without the help o any

conscious agent. Acknowledging that the sel-

assembly o such a complex machine almost

dees the imagination, she justies shrugging

o this diculty since natural orces work like

magic.8

Then theres natural selections clever

abilities to evolve systems: The discovery that

the hemoglobins o jawed and jawless verte-

brates were invented independently provides

powerul testimony to the ability o natural

selection to cobble together similar design

solutions using dierent starting materials.9

Or how humans inherited basic parts o their

nervous system rom sponges: Evolution can

take these o-the-shel components and put

them together in new and interesting ways,

said study leader Kenneth Kosik....Other genes

would also have had to evolve or to have been

co-opted to create complex nervous systems,

such as our own.10

Ater studying a pivotal ossil, Britains

top science journal explained its evolutionary

ancestry:

This orces us to iner much longer ghostlineages or tetrapods and elpistostegids[lobe-nned sh] than the body ossil re-cord suggests....(Ghost lineages are thosethat must have existed at a particular time,according to the phylogeny, but which arenot represented by ossils at that time.)11

What about humans? In jocular evolu-

tionary speculation, Oliver Curry expects uture

genetic-based classes o humans will emerge:

People would become choosier abouttheir sexual partners, causing humanityto divide into sub-species.The descen-dants o the genetic upper class would betall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent,and creative and a ar cry rom the un-derclass humans who would have evolvedinto dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-likecreatures.12

Evolutionary theorists appear to build

one incoherent or mysterious explanation

upon anotheran uninitiated contractor

might be tempted to conclude that they are fy-

ing by the seat o their pants.

Pulling It All Together

The best explanation or design remains

the main issue. Is it real or only apparent? True

evolutionary explanations or apparent design

must separate two things that cannot be dis-

connected: purpose and design.

Should Christians eel threatened by a

oolish worldview that inevitably produces

counter-intuitive explanations that appeal to

an innitude o sel-creating universes where

an unobserved orcenatural selectionco-opts discrete, o-the-shel molecular parts

and cobbles together complex machines that

sel-assemble like magic, eventually emerging,

ater a long trail o ghost lineages, as organisms

which, by the year 3000, will give rise to dim-

witted goblins coexisting with their cousins

genetically superior attractive humans?

Why dont you believe in evolution?

A totally rational response is: Explanations

that assert that the diversity o lie on earth is

the outcome o a blind purposeless process areridiculous. I have no desire to engage in sel-

delusion that the exquisite eatures o design

seen in nature are all an illusion. A ar better ex-

planation is that the Lord Jesus Christ created

each kind o organism with inherent capabili-

ties to diversiy in order to ll environments on

the earthwhich they do remarkably well.

References1. ABET Denition o Design. The University o Nevada, Las

Vegas. Posted on me.unlv.edu, accessed October 8, 2010.2. Hanke, D. 2004. Teleology: The explanation that bedevils bi-

ology. In Explanations: Styles o explanation in science. Corn-well, J., ed. New York: Oxord University Press, 143-155.

3. Lewontin, R. 1997. Billions and Billions o Demons. TheNew York Review o Books. 44 (1): 31.

4. Roberts, L. Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to createthe Universe. Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk Septem-ber 2, 2010, accessed October 8, 2010.

5. Carroll, S. The Why? Questions, Chapter and Multiverse.Wall Street Journal. Posted on online.wsj.com September 24,2010, accessed October 8, 2010.

6. Krauss, L. M. Our Spontaneous Universe. Wall Street Jour-nal. Posted on online.wsj.com September 8, 2010, accessedOctober 8, 2010.

7. Clements, A. et al. 2009. The reducible complexity o a mi-tochondrial molecular machine. Proceedings o the NationalAcademy o Sciences. 106 (37):15791-15795.

8. Applegate, K. Sel-Assembly o the Bacterial Flagellum: NoIntelligence Required. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on bi-ologos.org August 19, 2010, accessed October 8, 2010.

9. Simons, T. Biologists nd that red-blooded vertebratesevolved twice, independently. University o Nebraska-Lin-

coln news release, July 26, 2010.10. Than, K. Origins o Human Nervous System Found in Sea

Sponges. LiveScience. Posted on livescience.com June 6, 2007,accessed October 8, 2010.

11. Niedzwiedzki, G. et al.2010. Tetrapod trackwaysrom the early Middle De-vonian period o Poland.Nature. 463 (7277): 43-48.

12. Human species may splitin two. BBC News. Postedon news.bbc.co.uk Octo-ber 17, 2006, accessed Oc-tober 8, 2010.

Dr. Guliuzza is ICRsNational Representative.


12/24

Introduction

Yellowstone National Park holds the distinction o being the rst

national park in the United States and in the world. It exhibits mag-

nicent geological eatures such as a 30-mile-diameter volcanic caldera;

myriads o geysers, including Old Faithul; and a major community o

large animals such as deer, elk, moose, and bear.

What many visitors to Yellowstone do not realize, however, is that

it also contains latent evidence o massive amounts o ice that lled the

basin o Yellowstone Lake to a depth o over 3,000 eet, and glaciers that

fowed rom the high elevations in the park northward into Montana

along the Yellowstone River and southward into the Snake River at the

oot o the Tetons. These glaciers are conventionally thought to have been

present hundreds o thousands o years ago during several ice ages, the

last o which reached its peak about 18,000 years ago. However, i one ac-

cepts the literal biblical chronology that the age o the earth is only six to

ten thousand years old, how is it possible or ice to have lled the basins

and valleys o Yellowstone in such a short time?

I reported in an earlier issue oActs & Factsabout numerical simu-

lations o glacier growth in Yosemite National Park rom a storm called

the Pineapple Express.1 The storm picked up moisture rom warm sea-

surace temperatures in the Pacic Ocean ater the Genesis Flood and

doubled or quadrupled the precipitation in the park at warmer sea-

surace temperatures. Enhanced snowall and greater requency o

storms during the Ice Age explained the glaciation in the Sierra Nevada

rom a young-earth perspective. Glaciers thousands o eet thick would

have readily developed in hundreds o years ollowing the Flood.

Wesley Brewer and I completed additional simulations or other

storms in Yosemite National Park that conrmed the original ndings.2, 3 We

ound that the major type o storm that appears to have contributed the

most to the glaciations during the Ice Age was a deep upper-low type o

storm. We then proceeded to conduct simulations on three other storms

or Yellowstone National Park.4 The reason or conducting similar stud-

ies in Yellowstone was to determine i warm sea-surace temperatures

in the Pacic Ocean would also cause glaciation in mountains arther

north and inland rom the coast.

The basic mechanism that was proposed to orm glaciers in

short periods o time was a warm ocean heated by the events o the

Genesis Flood.5 Geologic work done during the Flood is believed to

have transerred heat rom magma in the mid-ocean ridges on the

sea foor to the ocean. A warm ocean would have produced a giant El

Nio eectincreased evaporation over the ocean and more trans-

port o moisture over land to be condensed as precipitation on the

mountains. The case studies done in Yosemite and Yellowstone Na-

tional Parks conrmed this theory.

IMPACT

12 ACTS&FACTS D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0

l a r r y V a r D i M a n , P h . D .

An Ic A inYllwn Nainal Pak


13/24

The Continuous Zonal Flow Storm

O the three types o storms simulated in Yellowstone National

Park, the type that moves rapidly rom west to east across the North-west and the northern Rocky Mountains was ound to be the primary

contributor to glacier growth. It is common or the polar jet stream to

move southward rom Canada and strengthen during winter, producing

a series o rapidly moving, small-amplitude waves in the jet stream with

associated surace storms that move rom the Pacic Ocean across the

North American continent.

During the Ice Age, the jet stream is thought to have been located

across central Caliornia.6 Each storm moving with the waves in the jet

stream typically lasted about 24 hours in a given location and precipi-

tated a moderate amount o rain or snow. However, the cumulative e-

ect o many such storms augmented with moisture rom a warm ocean

can rapidly grow glaciers at high elevations in Yellowstone National Park.

Other types o storms such as the Gul o Alaska low and the plunging

western low can produce more precipitation during each storm and can

last longer, but their requencies are typically much less.

A ten-day series o zonal fow storms during the Christmas holi-

days o 2005-2006 was simulated with the National Center or Atmo-

spheric Researchs mesoscale Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)

model.7 The storm period was validated using observed sea-surace tem-

peratures (SST) in the Pacic Ocean. Then the sea-surace temperature

was articially set in the model to six prescribed temperatures between

32oF and 113oF to determine the eects o a warm ocean.

Figure 1 shows an example o the total accumulated precipitation

in millimeters over the ten-day period or a sea-surace temperature o

104oF. Note that the boundary o Yellowstone National Park is shown in

the center o the gure near 44oN and 114oW and the Great Salt Lake is

shown near 41oN and 112oW. The West Coast near Seattle is shown in the

upper let-hand corner o the gure. The total accumulated precipitation

over the ten-day period is displayed in millimeters o equivalent liquid

precipitation in various colors according to the legend at the bottom o

the gure.

The main region o precipitation in and around Yellowstone Na-

tional Park occurred along the continental divide, which runs north-

westward rom Colorado along the Wind River Range in Wyoming

and through the southwest corner o the park. Farther south, a region

o moderate precipitation occurred along the Wasatch Mountains in

eastern Utah and along the mountains o southern Utah and northern

Arizona near Grand Canyon. The heaviest precipitation or this series o

storms occurred over the Pacic Ocean and along the West Coast. Themagnitude o precipitation in the park reached about 40 inches (~1,000

mm) and about 80 inches (~2,000 mm) over the ocean.

Figure 2 shows the accumulated WRF model precipitation or the

continuous zonal fow storm in Yellowstone National Park as a unction

o simulation time and sea-surace temperature. Precipitation accumu-

lated more rapidly or the warmest sea-surace temperatures, somewhat

similar to what Brewer and I reported or Yosemite National Park.2,3 The

increased accumulation rates at the warmer temperatures were expected,

since the rate o growth o snow in clouds and the ormation o pre-

cipitation are governed by a strong unction o sea-surace temperature.

However, in Yellowstone, the accumulation rate is a complex unction otemperature, which indicates that some other actor is also important.

Brewer and I suggested that convection over the Pacic Ocean and along

the West Coast and sinking air over the intermountain region modi-

ed this relationship.4 Only at the warmest sea-surace temperatures,

Figure 2. Accumulated WRF model precipitation or the continuous zonal

fow storm in Yellowstone National Park as a unction o simulation time

and SST.

Figure 1. Total continuous zonal fow storm precipitation or SST = 40oC

(104oF). East/west and north/south distances are in number o grids 9 km

(5.6 mi) each or a total o 1,174 mi east/west and 895 mi north/south.

Run time: 10 days.



14/24

above about 86oF, does the strong unction o sea-surace temperature

dominate.

There are several important consequences to these dual driv-

ing orces on the accumulation o precipitation during the Ice Age: 1)

storms crossing the coastline and mountain barriers close inland would

produce high accumulation rates that are strongly proportional to sea-

surace temperature; 2) storms crossing the intermountain region would

produce high accumulation rates on mountain barriers or sea-surace

temperatures warmer than about 86oF; 3) accumulation rates on moun-

tain barriers more than a hundred miles inland rom the coastline would

be reduced somewhat or cooler sea-surace temperatures; and 4) pre-

cipitation would be greatly depressed in valleys and on plateaus inland

rom the coastline and downwind

o mountain barriers.

The reduction o precipi-tation downwind o mountain

barriers occurs today along and

downwind o the Sierra Nevada

and the Rocky Mountains and is

known as the rain shadow eect.

However, during the Ice Age this

eect would have been even great-

er. It may have led to the hypoth-

esized ice-ree region between the

Cordilleran ice sheet along the

coastal mountains o British Co-lumbia and North America, and

the Laurentide ice sheet o central

Canada. This ice-ree corridor has

long been believed to have been

the path that Ice Age man used to

migrate southward on the North

American continent rom Beringia to Central and South America.

These simulations appear to support this view o conditions during a

rapid ice age.

Increased Glacier Growth

Figure 3 shows glacier depth as a unction o precipitation rate

and requency o storms in Yellowstone National Park. Notice that gla-

cier thickness is a unction o precipitation rate, requency o storms,

and the length o an ice age. The blue oval represents a region o average

conditions that likely occurred during an ice age with a warm ocean.

Since precipitation rate is a unction o sea-surace temperature and

storm requency is a unction o the location o the jet stream, it ap-

pears that the presence o glaciers in Yellowstone National Park during

the Ice Age can easily be explained by warm sea-surace temperatures

and a more southerly position o the jet stream. Glacier depth could

have easily exceeded about 3,000 eet per century.

Conclusions

Glaciers thousands o eet thick could have readily developed in

the mountains in and around Yellowstone National Park during the hun-

dreds o years ollowing the Genesis Flood. Glaciers lled Yellowstone

Lake, topped many o the mountains, and fowed down the canyons and

valleys in and around Yellowstone. The glaciers in Yellowstone were esti-

mated to be a minimum o 3,000 eet thick or sea-surace temperatures

warmer than 86oF over the period o a century.

Precipitation in the intermountain valleys and plateaus decreased

signicantly in the simulations, magniying the dierence in precipita-

tion between the mountains and

the valleys. This rain shadow e-

ect not only occurred downwind

o mountain barriers, but also

within a hundred miles or so o the

coastline. The cause or this eect

was hypothesized to be increased

convection and rising motions

over the ocean, with descending

motions inland. These model re-

sults support the theory that an

ice-ree zone extended rom north

to south in western Canada and

the northwestern United States,

separating the Cordilleran and

Laurentide ice sheets and allowing

Ice Age immigration rom Berin-

gia to Central and South America.

The dierence rom the conven-

tional theory is that this happened in just a ew hundred years ater the

Genesis Flood because o the extreme precipitation rates caused by the

warm oceans.

References1. Vardiman, L. 2010. An Ice Age in Yosemite National Park. Acts & Facts. 39 (3): 12-13.2. Vardiman, L. and W. Brewer. 2010. Numerical Simulation o Precipitation in Yosemite National

Park with a Warm Ocean: A Pineapple Express Case Study. Answers Research Journal. 3 (2010):23-36.3. Vardiman, L. and W. Brewer. 2010. Numerical Simulation o Precipitation in Yosemite National

Park with a Warm Ocean: Deep Upper Low and Rex Blocking Pattern Case Studies. AnswersResearch Journal. 3 (2010): 119-145.

4. Vardiman, L. and W. Brewer. 2010. Numerical Simulation o Precipitation in Yellowstone Na-tional Park with a Warm Ocean: Continuous Zonal Flow, Gul o Alaska Low, and PlungingWestern Low Case Studies. Answers Research Journal. 3 (2010): 209-266.

5. Austin, S. A. et al. 1994. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A GlobalFlood Model o Earth History. Proceedings o the Third In-ternational Conerence on Creationism. Walsh, R.E., ed. Pitts-burgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 609-622.

6. Crowley, T. J. and G. R. North. 1991. Paleoclimatology. OxordMonograph on Geology and Geophysics, No. 18. New York: Ox-ord University Press, 71-91.

7. The Weather Research & Forecasting Model. Posted on wr-model.org.

Dr. Vardiman is Senior Research Scientist, Astro/Geophysics, atthe Institute or Creation Research.


IMPACT

Figure 3. Glacier depth as a unction o precipitation rate and storm (short

wave) requency. The blue oval represents the minimum likely glacier depth

o about 3,000 eet per century.


15/24

Some Christian old-earth advocates

hold that i God created ully unc-

tioning organisms and physical sys-

tems, then He lied to us. They would

have looked deceptively mature when they had

in act just appeared. This, they eel, is ample

reason to deny creation and a literal interpreta-

tion o Scripture, or God cannot lie.But how else could He have done it?

Would they preer God to have created Adam

as a newborn baby, or an embryo? Even an

embryo would appear to have had ancestors,

thereore would have an appearance o age.

Indeed, creation with no apparent history is

impossible.

When Adam was created, he no doubt

looked like a mature adult, ully able to walk,

talk, and care or the garden. When God cre-

ated ruit trees, they were already bearing ruit.

In each case, what He created was unctionally

complete right rom the start. Stars, created on

Day Four, had to be seen on Day Six in

order to be useul in telling time; there-

ore, their light had to be visible on earth.

Gods evaluation that the completed cre-

ation was very good (Genesis 1:31) necessi-

tated that it be unctionally complete, operat-

ing in harmony, with each part ullling the

purpose or which it was created.

I a hypothetical observer rom a

dierent universe, with no knowledge

o Adams creation, traveled to earth

on Day Seven and tried to determine Adams

age (or the age o a rock, or the age o a star),

how could it be done? He would rely on todays

human growth rates (or rates o radioactive de-

cay, or the speed o light), calculate how long it

would take or this state o maturity to develop,

and come to a wrongconclusion.

This is because the world today is not as

it was at creation. Gods creative powers are at

rest now and He is maintaining the creation us-

ing the present laws o nature. The original cre-

ated world, perect and non-decaying at rst,

was subsequently cursed and made subject to

decay and death (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20).

Furthermore, even thatworld was destroyed by

the Flood o Noahs day, so that the world we

observe is a relic o destructive processes, not

creative processes. Any eort to

apply present processes and pro-

cess rates to creation will not succeed.

It is rightly claimed by old-universe ad-

vocates that Romans 1:20 reveals truth about

creation and Gods character must be clearly

seen rom the study o the creation. Any sci-

entist, using valid theory and careul analysis,

must be able to determine the age and origin

o any object, they say. Since secular scientists

have concluded the universe began with a Big

Bang, that must be the way it happened. God

could not have created with the appearance o

a Big Bang i He didnt use that method, they

say, so that must be the way He did it.

But this position denies the clear scrip-

tural teachings regarding creation, the Fall, and

the Flood. Furthermore, it denies the very pos-

sibility o creation, or creation without the ap-

pearance o age is impossible.

God, in His sovereignty, knew that allen

man, living in the post-Flood world, might

wrongly conclude the age and origin o things.

For just that reason, He gave us a clear record

o what He had done and when He had done

it. Furthermore, when we look at the evidence

in light o what He has told us, the universe

doesnt even look old. The real evidence is ully

compatible with an origin only thousands o

years ago.

On the other hand, i allen scientists

extrapolating present process are right and

the universe isold, then

God haslied to us, or He

clearly said He created all

things in six days, not too

long ago.

Dr. Morris is President o theInstitute or Creation Research.


BACK TO GENESIS

J o H n D . M o r r i s , P h . D .

Creation

with theappearanCeofage


16/24

Secular colleges and universities, the

media, and the Internet are alive with

vitriolic accusations regarding the

supposedly unscientic nature o cre-

ation science.

But is evolutionary science itsel sci-

entic? In opposition to what is normally

claimed, it would seem that when it comes to

the supernatural, secular science not only be-

lieves in itit also depends on it.

For example, evolutionists believe inghosts. Commenting on the implications o

nding tetrapod tracks 18 million years ear-

lier than expected, authors o a Naturestudy

stated, This orces us to iner much longer

ghost lineages or tetrapods and elpistostegids

[lobe-nned sh] than the body ossil record

suggests.1

Ghost lineages are conjured up to ex-

plain puzzling gaps in the ossil record. A par-

ticular animal might appear near the bottom

o the record, be absent or many strata, thenreappear ar above the rst layer. In some cases,

the upper specimen is ound rst, then another

much lower down. Sometimes a lower-layer

ossil is surprisingly discovered still alive!

Commenting on the issue o ghost lin-

eages, creation writer David Coppedge said,

In other words, [evolutionists] see phantoms

in their evolutionary minds eye. They see

mythical entities that must have existed, simply

because their belie system requires them. And

you thought science required evidence.2

The enigma o ghost lineages is solved

when the rock record is decoupled rom belie

in millions o years. Some o the same kinds o

organisms may have been inundated and ossil-

ized earlier in the year o the Great Flood, with

others ossilized a little later on. Large hiatuses

in the ossil record are no mystery i all these

creatures lived at the same time, as the Genesis

record states.

In similar vein, evolutionists believe in

mysterious powers, like the 5th Force: a myste-

rious new power [that] is shaping our cosmos,

according to New Scientist. The article says, A

orce that keeps changing its spots might ex-plain the mysteries o dark energy, although

this cryptic dark energy has never been seen

or produced on Earth.3

Some evolutionists believe in invisible

hands:

Our ndings conrm that cooperationdoes not always require benevolence ordeliberate planning. This orm o coop-eration, at least, is guided by an invisiblehand, as happens so oten in Darwinstheory o natural selection.4

Some evolutionists believe in magic.

Kathryn Applegate o BioLogos said, The

bacterial fagellum may look like an outboard

motor, but there is at least one proound di-

erence: the fagellum assembles spontaneous-

ly, without the help o any conscious agent.

Acknowledging that the sel-assembly o such

a complex machine almost dees the imagi-

nation, Dr. Applegate assures the reader that

this is not really a problem, because natural

orces work like magic.5

Magic is dened asthe use o charms, spells, etc. in seeking or

pretending to control events, or any mysteri-

ous power.6

Some evolutionists have aith theres

something unknowable out thereas long as

its not the revealed Creator o the Bible. I sus-

pect there could be [alien] lie and intelligence

out there in orms that we cant conceive said

Lord Rees, president o the Royal Society.7

Each o these metaphysical claims con-

tradicts a standard doctrine o evolutionary

naturalismthat nothing exists outside the

physical universe. But aced with the acts o a

created cosmos, in which the invisible things

o God are so clear that no one has an excuse

or ailing to recognize their Creator, evolution-

ists instead choose to attribute them to wacky,

unseen, and unknowable imaginary causes.

References1. Niedzwiedzki, G. et al. 2010. Tetrapod trackways rom

the early Middle Devonian period o Poland. Nature. 463(7277): 43-48.

2. Coppedge, D. Creation/Evolution Headlines. Commentaryto TiktaalikDemoted to Has-Been. Posted on creationsa-aris.com, accessed October 1, 2010.

3. Reich, E. S. 2010. Chameleon Cosmos. New Scientist. 6: 31.4. Research shows that invisible hand guides evolution o co-

operative turn-taking. University o Leicester press release,July 9, 2009.

5. Applegate, K. Sel-Assembly o the Bacterial Flagellum: NoIntelligence Required. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on bi-ologos.org August 19, 2010, accessed August 1, 2010.

6. Magic. 1995. Websters NewWorld Dictionary. New York:Simon & Schuster, 354.

7. Ghosh, P. Astronomershopeul o detecting extra-terrestrial lie. BBC News.Posted on bbc.co.uk January25, 2010, accessed October 1,2010.

Mr. Sherwin is Senior ScienceLecturer.


BACK TO GENESIS

F r a n K s H e r W i n , M . a .


17/24


B r i a n t H o M a s , M . s .

distant rocky planet was recently discovered orbiting close

enough to its red dwar star that liquid water could exist on its

surace. This rare position is called the goldilocks zone (not

too hot and not too cold) and is one o thousands o precon-

ditions or lie to exist on any planet.1

Since the announcement, there has been breathless excitement.2

One headline proclaimed, Odds o Lie on Newound Earth-Size Planet

100 Percent, Astronomer Says.3 Another asked, Could Goldilocks

planet be just right or lie?4

All the excitement has been over the subtlest o wiggles observed

in a star system named Gliese 581, 20 light years rom earth.5 American

astronomers combined data rom two dierent spectral analyses showing

the likelihood o six nearby planets.6 However, a Geneva group, also look-

ing at subtle wiggles in Gliese 581s position in the sky, announced that

they could nd no trace o the prized planet.5

It would be tough or lie to exist on a planet that doesnt.

Even i the planet (dubbed Gliese 581g) is in the goldilocks zone

and has water, it would probably be rozen, since one side o the planet

always aces its star. Astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzales explained that

or the extreme case o synchronous rotation, the complete reeze-out o

water on the dark hemisphere is very likely....Once water begins to reeze

on a region o a planet with continuously sub-zero temperature, the stage

is set or a runaway process o continuing reeze-out.7

But even i one were to grant the presence o surace liquid water

on Gliese 581g, there are many more hurdles to clear beore entertaining

the possibility o lie there.

Not only does lie require external parameters such as the right tem-

perature, pressure, atmospheric composition, and appropriate available

elements, it also needs internal equipment capable o producing new gen-

erations o the biochemical machines that perorm all o the thousands o

tiny tasks needed or lie processes such as metabolism and reproduction.

This equipment would have to be protected rom the very environmental

conditionslike water, or examplethat make lie possible. And this is

just the tip o the iceberg o living cell requirements.

None o these issues were addressed by study leader Steven Vogt,

who said at a press brieng, Personally, given the ubiquity and propen-

sity o lie to fourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal eel-

ing is that the chances o lie on this planet are 100 percent.3

Perhaps there could be no stronger statement o blind aith that an

evolution-inspired, imaginary property o nature could somehow gener-

ate lie. In reality, any propensity or lie to fourish is a direct result o the

specialized machinery and coded instructions already placed into living

cells, rather than the result o any known natural law.

Those coded instructions make lie possible precisely because they

circumvent or exploit the laws o nature. Instructions always arise outside

o natural laws, and the equivalent o a ull encyclopedia is required or

even the simplest lie.8 Wild pronouncements o lie on other planets are

ueled by evolution-inspired excitement, not by real science.

References1. Without liquid water, there would be no medium to acilitate the complex chemistry o lie.2. Gugliucci, N. Gliese 581g and the Nature o Science. Discovery News. Posted on news.discovery.

com October 14, 2010, accessed October 16, 2010.3. Bryner, J. Odds o Lie on Newound Earth-Size Planet 100 Percent, Astronomer Says. Space

com, reporting on research slated or publication in Astrophysical Journal. Posted on space.comSeptember 29, 2010, accessed September 30, 2010.

4. Borenstein, S. Could Goldilocks planet be just right or lie? Associated Press, September 30,2010.

5. Kerr, R. A. Recently Discovered Habitable World May Not Exist. Science Now. Posted on news.sciencemag.org October12, 2010, accessed October 28, 2010.

6. Vogt, S. S. et al. The Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey: A 3.1 M_Earth Planet in the Habit-able Zone o the Nearby M3V Star Gliese 581. arXiv:astro-ph/1009.5733. Posted on arxiv.org September 29, 2010.

7. Gonzales, G. Habitable Zones in the Universe. arXiv:astro-ph/0503298v2, 14. Posted on arxiv.org September 1, 2005.

8. For example, a recent in-depth study o the simplest bacteria,Mycoplasma, shocked its investigators with its highly struc-tured, multiaceted regulatory machinery, which is unexpected.Quoted in Thomas, B. Bacteria Study Shoots Down Simple CellAssumptions. ICR News. Posted on January 4, 2010, accessedOctober 14, 2010.

Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Doubts Raised about the Goldilocks Planet

A



Christmas Savings on Creation Truth for Kids

To order or for product information, call 800.628.7640 or visit www.icr.org/storeOffer good through December 31, 2010, while quantities last. See pages 22 and 23 for more savings!

The Answers Book for Kids, 1-4

$7.95 each, Or buy all 4 books or $22.26

a savings o 30%!


Adventures in Nature

The Complete Zoo Adventure

Normally $16.95, now just $13.95

The Complete Aquarium AdventureNormally $18.95, now just $15.95


The Wonders of Creation

The Astronomy Book

The Cave Book

The Fossil Book

The Geology Book

The Ocean Book

The Weather Book

Normally $15.95, buy

individual books or $12.76

eacha savings o 20%!

Or buy the ull set or

$66.99a savings o 30%!



19/24

For 40 years, the Institute or Creation Research

has equipped teachers with evidence o the accuracy and

authority o Scripture. Science Education Essentials, aseries o science teaching supplements, exemplifes what

ICR does bestproviding solid answers or the tough

questions teachers ace about science and origins.

This series promotes a biblical worldview by

presenting conceptual knowledge and comprehension o

the science that supports creation. The supplements help

teachers approach the content and Bible with ease and

with the authority needed to help their students build a

deense or Genesis 1-11.Each teaching supplement includes a content book

and a CD-ROM packed with K-12 reproducible class-

room activities and PowerPoint presentations. Science

Education Essentials are designed to work within your

schools existing science curriculum, with an uncompro-

mising oundation o creation-based science instruction.

SpeCIal OffeR BuY the COmplete Set fOR $99.95!

Science Education Essentials

Creation-Based K-12 Curriculum Supplements

Each curriculum supplement with content book and CD-ROM

is only$24.95(plus shipping and handling)

Or order all fve or just $99.95(plus shipping and handling)a savings o 20%!

To order, call 800.628.7640, or visitwww.icr.org/store

For more inormation about Science Education Essentials, visitwww.icr.org/essentials

Oer good through December 31, 2010

Demand the Evidence. Get it @ ICR.


20/24

LETTERSTO THE EDITOR

The greatest attribute o creation science is its truly objective in the

study o Gods creation. It allows the evidence to speak or itsel, and

when it seems in confict with our core assumptions we reexamine the

hypothesis to arrive at a more complete understanding o the Creators

enormous power. This means we dont have to try and bend reality to t

neo-pagan belies such as evolution or the unworkable Big Bang theory.

Instead I trust, and am continually impressed, by the tremendous work

and progress being made by ICR and others to urther reveal the Glory

and Wonder o our Great Creator.

P.L.M.

The rst time I heard o ICR was in 1971 or 2 when going through oneo our sta trainings with Campus Crusade or Christ. Bill Bright had

someone rom ICR speak to us. The impact was proound and you have

been on my heart ever since. It has been a privilege to be a part o this

wonderul and needed ministry over the years....Thank you or all you

do in providing evidence we can use in our deense o the Gospel!

C.A.F.

I know that you and the sta like to be made aware o ways in which

these [Days o Praise] devotionals or the organization are being used to

gloriy God. Our church has a ministry once a month or a local nurs-ing home. We collect residents into one o the large activity rooms and

conduct a church service or them. It eatures special music, congrega-

tional singing, prayer and a message rom Gods Word. I wanted you to

be aware that Ive started using your devotionals as the outline or the

messages delivered there. They are succinct, well written, and doctrinally

sound. They also lend themselves in many cases to perect outlines or

messages or these dear olks. Thank you or what you and all the sta

there are doing to gloriy Christ and magniy His Word.

D.J.B

We support ICR monthly with a small donation and hope that over the

years it has helped a little with your critical mission. We are both com-

mitted to the task o convincing the many skeptics o recent creation

and their need or salvation through our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

We are particularly thankul that your ounder Henry M. Morris was so

aithul that he let a legacy o dedicated amily members who carry out

his original work so devotedly. Thank you and congratulations or 40

aithul years o servicemay the Lord grant ICR many more!

T.&S.S.

Hv cmm? em [email protected].

o w ed,

P. o. Bx 59029,

D, tx 75229.

Naturally, I assumed it was a trick question! Why Doesthe Universe Look So Old? So the cover o the October

2010 Acts & Factsmagazine asks. O course, it must be a

trick question! Those o us who have been reading Acts

& Facts or years and allowing the great teaching and

ministry o ICR to enlighten us with the scientic acts

as they correspond to the revelation o Scripture already

clearly know that the universe does NOT look so old.

The universe only looks old to those who have accepted

erroneous theories by allowing unounded presuppo-

sitions to shape their worldview. But when I take my

morning walk and see the outcrop o rock strata along

the river, I no longer imagine millions o years o unior-

mitarian depositions at the bottom o some primordial

sea. I know that God judged the world in Noahs day

with a global food that let behind 1000s o eet o rock

ormations. When zoologists insist that it took eons o

minor evolutionary mutations to turn the earliest lie

orm into a man, I stand amazed instead at the variety

and splendor o the God who created each lie orm to

reproduce ater its own kindall in a matter o days.

When astrophysicists tell me they can still register the

background radiation o the Big Bang in space, I look

rather at the awesome night sky and know that in a mo-

ment o time my God spoke the universe into being by

an omnipotent Word that has let His echo amidst all

the worlds.

Why does the universe look so old? That was a very clev-

er trick question you put to us. The answer is sure. The

universe does not look so old! When viewed with theright worldview and in the light o real scientic acts,

the universe looks pretty young indeed.

Thanks or all your great work. Keep it up.

J.



21/24


When I am asked about ICRs

current projects and pro-

grams, people are oten sur-

prised by the breadth and

depth o the ICR ministry. This is particularly

true or visitors who tour our acilities, taking

in our rich array o ossil exhibits, laboratories,

and classrooms that provide the backdrop or

our work. The sheer volume and quality o

ICR programs make a lasting impression on

visitors as they gain a greater appreciation or

ICRs infuence over the past 40 years. They

leave with a eeling o deep thankulness or

Gods abundant blessing, seeing rsthand how

their partnership with ICR has had a meaning-

ul impact on the cause o Christ our Creator.

I suspect many o our readers may t a

similar mold, generally aware o what ICR does

but not certain how they can help. As we enter

this joyous holiday season in celebration o our

Saviors birth, I encourage you to prayerully

consider a generous git to support one o the

core acets o the ICR ministry:

Research: ICRs lie sciences team is currently

working on an exciting biological research

project that aims to topple the evolutionary

assumption o gradual change over long ages.

The phrase ater his [their] kind is used re-

peatedly throughout Scriptureten times in

Genesis 1 aloneclearly stressing that repro-

ductive integrity and uniqueness were built

into animal and plant lie as originally cre-

ated. The goal is to show that genetic change

is limited, thereby eliminating the possibil-

ity o evolutionary change over time o all lie

rom a common ancestor. The results o such

a project would be proound in the battle or

truth, so please encourage our research team

in prayer and nancial support as they work

toward this end.

Education: People are oten unaware that ICRoers education programs or virtually the

entire educational spectrum, rom graduate

degree programs down to elementary school

curriculum. For adults, the School o Biblical

Apologetics oers a masters degree in Chris-

tian Education with our concentrated minors,

while our Creationist Worldview proessional

certicate program caters to working adults

and pastors who desire a deeper understand-

ing o the creation-evolution issues rom

biblical perspectives. For K-12 teachers andhomeschool parents, ICR oers the Science

Education Essentials series o science curricu-

lum supplements, providing solid answers or

tough questions about science, origins, and the

Bible. Our aculty asks or your prayers and -

nancial partnership to grow this vital arm o

our education ministry.

Communication: Over the last 40 years, God

has enabled ICR to

reach millions with

the scientic truth oHis creation through

a myriad o presenta-

tions, publications,

and other media. ICR

distributes Acts & Facts

and Days o Praise to

hundreds o thou-

sands ree o charge,

while countless mul-

titudes have beneted

rom ormal presentations like our Demand

the Evidence lecture series, Genesis presenta-

tions, and Back to Genesis seminars. Creation

science radio programs are broadcast on near-

ly 1,600 outlets each week, while hundreds o

books, audio CDs, and DVDs have been pro-

duced through the years. These comprise the

public ace o ICR, and based on the many

testimonies received, they have brought many

to a saving knowledge o our Creator and havebeen a great blessing to many more. Yet these

comprise the most expensive portion o our

ministryso please consider partnering with

us with a generous git to continue these vital

outreach programs.

And God bless you and

your amily this holiday

season.

Mr. Morris is Director oDonor Relations.

PrayerfullyCoNsIder

suPPortINgICr

( G a l a t i a n s 6 : 9 - 1 0 )

Through

nOnline Donations

nStocks and Securities

nMatching Git Programs

nCFC (ederal/military workers)

nGit Planning

CharitableGiftAnnuities

Wills

Trusts

Visit icr.org/give and explore

how you can support the vital

work o ICR ministries. Or con-

tact us at [email protected]

or 800.337.0375 or personal

assistance.

ICR is a recognized 501(c )(3)

non-proft ministry, and all

giftsaretax-deductibletothe

fullestextentallowedbylaw.

The Breadth and Depth of ICR MinistriesH e n r y M . M o r r i s i V

STEWARDSHIP

The day ater ICRs 40th anniversary banquet, supporters were treated to a

private tour o the ICR campus.



Give the Gift of Tru

The New Defenders Study Bible


Thinking Gods Thoughts After Him


Made in His Image


Days to Remember


Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study


The Revelation Record


The Genesis Record


The Big Three


The Young Earth


40%OFF!

50%OFF!


23/24


This Christmas Season

The Fossil Record


Earths Catastrophic Past


Flight and SpikeDVD


Climbers and CreepersDVD


The Mysterious IslandsDVD


Dragons or Dinosaurs?DVD


Demand the EvidenceDVD


Darwin: The Voyage That

Shook the WorldDVD


God of WondersDVD


40%OFF!

50%OFF!

Add shipping and handling to all orders To order or for product information, call 800.628.7640 or visitwww.icr.org/storOffer good through Dec

acts & facts. december 2010

Documents