Nature Confounding Evolution - World War II planes buried under layers of ice which are supposed to be ten of thousands of years old.

Nature often has a way of confounding those who set themselves against God and His truth. We are reminded in the Book of Psalms that God in heaven will laugh at the foolishness of those who reject Him, Psalm 2:1-4: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

One example of nature confounding those who set themselves against God and His truth is observed in the account of the World War II planes that were buried under layers of ice which were supposed to be ten of thousands of years old.

The incident is detailed by Creation Ministries International (CMI) in one of their Creation magazine articles. The article in question is entitled The Lost Squadron and is to be found in Creation 19(3) June 1997.

Evolution a 'Theory' - so says the Introduction to The Origin of Species

A Headteacher in Lancashire has been mocked and ridiculed on Twitter for claiming evolution is not a fact. She tweeted: Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true. It was sent in response to another Headteacher who urged teachers to stick to science when teaching the origins of life. Richard Dawkins has even weighed into the argument.

See here - The Guardian - Headteacher mocked on Twitter for claiming evolution is not a fact.

In light of the furore that has arisen about this comment it is worth remembering what was once written by Dr Leonard Harrison Matthews [1901-1986] in the Introduction to an edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. Matthews was a British zoologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was especially known for his research and writings on marine mammals. He was certainly no believer in creationism!

Is believing and teaching Creationism* Scientific? Part 2

*By Creationism we mean the belief in a literal six day creation of the world.

Here are two further reasons why believing and teaching Creationism is scientific [For Part One click here]:

3. Creationism is as scientific as evolution and we believe much more so. The belief in creationism and the belief in evolution stand upon similar foundations. To a considerable degree they are faith based beliefs.

If we think that this is not true about evolution then observe some words which appear in the introduction to one edition of Darwin's Origin of Species:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon a unproven theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, have been capable of proof. [Found on page xi of the Introduction to an edition of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, published in 1971 by J.M. Dent & Sons]

Is believing and teaching Creationism* Scientific?

*By Creationism we mean the belief in a literal six day creation of the world. 

The evolutionist will emphatically say no. Belief in Creationism could never be equated with science, they say. The claim is often made that all scientists believe in evolution. For this reason the teaching of evolution must alone be permitted to enter the Science classroom. The study of Creationism is banished from the Science classroom and found only in the Religious Studies classroom.

Consider some salient facts:
I. Evolution simply doesn't have all the science on its side. That is a false claim they make!
There are eminent, present day, scientists who believe in a literal six day creation. A book entitled "In Six Days" was in recent years researched and published containing the views of 50 scientists who were asked to give their personal response to the question: "Why do you believe in a literal six-day biblical creation as the origin of life on earth?"

These 50 modern day scientists have all earned a Doctorate from a state-recognised university in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa, or Germany. These 50 scientists come from a variety of backgrounds. They include university professors and researchers, geologists, zoologists, biologists, botanists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, medical researchers, and engineers.

Creationists at heart!

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have supposedly broken through a symbolic mark in recent days. Daily measurements of carbon dioxide levels recorded at an United States government agency laboratory on the island of Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time in the modern age.

The claim is made that the last time carbon dioxide levels were regularly above 400 parts per million was 3-5 million years ago. In the evolutionary scheme of things this is supposed to be before modern humans existed.

BBC News - Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark

CNN - CO2 levels hit new peak at key observatory

Matthew Henry on the creation of Eve, the first woman

Further to the posts relating to Women Bishops and The position and role of women in the Church I was reminded this morning of what Matthew Henry had to say in his excellent commentary about the creation of Eve as recorded in Genesis 2:18-25: 

Creationism and the Giant's Causeway

The controversy regarding the creationist explanation at the Giant's Causeway rumbles on.

The latest development involving the £18.5 million National Trust visitor centre, which opened in July, concerns documents released under a Freedom of Information request that suggest that the Stormont Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) considered making the inclusion of a Creationist viewpoint at the new Giant’s Causeway visitor centre a condition of it receiving millions of pounds in public money.

Belfast Newsletter - Documents cast light on Causeway creationist wrangle

Belfast Telegraph - National Trust denies pressure to include creationism at Giant’s Causeway

This new controversy comes after an extensive campaign by the intolerant, anti-creationists to have the creationist explanation removed entirely from the exhibition at the Causeway's visitor centre. Thankfully they have failed! While the National Trust did give some ground in response to the pressure they came under and reduced the prominence of the creationist explanation, they did not remove it entirely. It is still present and still informing people that there is an alternative explanation for the origin of the Causeway other than the evolutionist version. 

It is hard to kick against the pricks!

Every time I read or hear anything of what Richard Dawkins says I am always reminded of the words that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road and recorded in Acts 9:5: 

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Once again Richard Dawkins is in the news. This time the embarrassment is his in that he boasted of being able to reel of the full title of his hero Charles Darwin's famous work: Origin of Species. Yet when pressed to do so on Radio Four's Today programme he stumbled over the title and took the Lord's name in vain. 

The full title of Darwin's work, which runs to 21 words, is: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in The Struggle for Life.

Quotable Quote!

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon a unproven theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, have been capable of proof.

Source: Origin of Species by Charles Darwin published in 1971 by J.M. Dent & Sons. The quote is taken from page xi of the Introduction to this edition written Dr Leonard Harrison Matthews [1901-1986], Fellow of the Royal Society.

What are they so afraid of?

The Guardian reports that the new 'Free Schools' being encouraged by the coalition government will not be able to teach Creationism in any science classes. Not that I ever expected they would be!

For fuller details click - Free schools will not teach creationism, says Department for Education

This surely begs the question: what are these secular educationalists afraid of? Can evolution not stand up to scrutiny in the classroom? If creationism is the outlandish notion of fundamentalists as they claim then surely it will be easily seen to be the case when considered alongside evolution, if evolution is indeed scientific fact as they claim. After all, truth is never afraid of the searchlight, it is falsehood that loves the dark and loves to go unchallenged.

It would seem that these secular educationalists are somewhat afraid that when their pet theory, which at its core is fuelled by an innate desire to reject the existence of God, is examined alongside alternative explanations for the origin of the universe it might be found wanting. That it might be discovered to be less than scientific fact. 

If evolution & creationism were both taught would it be discovered that evolution is also a faith based belief. This has been acknowledged in the past by evolutionists. 

For example in the introduction to one edition of Darwin's The Origin of Species it says:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. 

L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species, J M Dent & Sons Ltd, London 1971, page xi.

If evolution is faith based then creationism has the same right to be examined in the science classroom as evolution.

Stephen Hawking, God & Creation

In a new book Stephen Hawking has said that God is not needed to create the universe. He believes the laws of physics were behind the Big Bang instead. Read more here

According to Hawking: 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing… Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist… It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

His reasoning begs the simple question: where did the laws of physics come from that brought about the big bang? Or did these laws spontaneously appear as well?

It is simply ludicrous to believe in spontaneous creation. It is contrary to logic and good sense and was disproved a long time ago through the work of the Creationist Louis Pasteur.

There is no evidence for it. This is just the wild speculation of scientists who seek to eliminate God from the origin of the universe. We are always being told that the evidence supports evolution. So where is the evidence of spontaneous creation? 

Something cannot come into existence out of nothing. A living organism cannot come into existence out non living matter. Matter cannot come into existence out of non matter. 

Something or someone has to be eternal. Everything else has come from the eternal source. The Bible believer acknowledges that God is eternal. He created the world out of nothing:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear, Heb 11:3.

The following challenge to the BBC appeared on the Peter Hitchens feature page of the International Express 5/1/00:
The BBC teased religious leaders by asking them if they believed in the literal truth of the great bible stories. I would like to ask BBC chiefs and the rest of our secular establishment if they believe in the literal truth of evolution. Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamental supporters say is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival - that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.