Creation Article Podcast

He seems more like a God-hater than a genuine atheist. In The God Delusion, Dawkins carries on about what he doesn’t like about the God he doesn’t believe in. He seems more like a God-hater than a genuine atheist.

It is clear that if we accept the authority of Scripture alone, we must believe that Genesis should be taken at its plain meaning. Christians who deny this are imposing outside ideas onto Scripture. Today the church needs a new Reformation to return to the authority of the Bible, the writte Word of God, rather than trusting the fallible conjectures of unbelieving scientists.

God has already placed a bent or set an inclination in our children toward whatever He has planned for them. We don’t have to know everything; we just facilitate the process and support our children in what God has called them to do. You can do this!

The evidence from breeding and the science of genetics actually presents a huge problem for evolution. In spite of much breeding and the generation of many varieties of dogs, from chihuahuas to Great Danes, dogs are still dogs. God created all kinds of living things with the genetic capacity for variation by the rearranging of the genetic information, the genes, through the reproductive process.

Although evolutionists since Darwin have been foisting such nonsense on the public, anyone who bothers to investigate the role of the coccyx can see that this is not true. The coccyx does, in fact, make a valuable contribution to the human body, while its alleged derivation from tailed ancestors is based on evolutionary assumptions, not hard facts.

Secular scientists have often challenged creationists to explain the Ice Age. Also, they claim that there were numerous ice ages, possibly up to fifty, at intervals of 100,000 or 40,000 years over the past 2.6 million years. This has to be met by accepting the biblical history and examining the data.

Creationists often point out the circularity and non-falsifiability of evolutionary theory: all potential finds can be explained (or at least accommodated) by the Darwinian paradigm. This illustrates the fact that Darwinism is not empirical science, but rather a philosophical starting point that is being assumed from the outset, and from which all available data are always interpreted.

In his History of the Inductive Sciences, William Whewell describes Sir David Brewster as ‘the Johannes Kepler of Optics’. Though the world today is largely ignorant of Brewster’s contribution to our wellbeing, he received a greater degree of recognition in his lifetime than almost any other physicist before or since.

“I would like to present a balanced view to our visitors.” As a Bible-believing creationist this will be tricky, especially concerning your relationship with those who are employing you. With a public commercial audience, it would not be a good idea to criticise evolution/millions of years and push creationist views.

Even if you scrupulously pre-screen every game, documentary, movie, and book your children consume, evolution will sneak in somewhere, and the best thing you can do is make sure your children are prepared with good creation information, and more importantly, that they know that they can come to you with questions.

Honeybees do not have the benefit of a university education, yet they perform the multiple, complex functions needed to produce honey, and handle complex organic chemistry with ease. Such complexity does not arrive by fortunate happenstance. Honeybees operate using pre-installed programs that only work if all the elements are in place from the word ‘go!’

Preserved in amber, the bee is dated at 100 million years old on the evolutionary timeline. The lack of great morphological change supports the biblical creation model in which bees were created only about 6,000 years ago. Ironically, the way in which this bee was fossilized may also point to a massive flood.

Debate rages about whether there is ‘design’ in nature, or if the teaching of intelligent design is even ‘science’. However, the best robotics engineers have yet to design a navigation program as good as a bee’s and run it on a chip with the energy efficiency of a bee’s brain. So it’s reasonable to believe that the honeybee was designed by a Master Programmer whose intelligence is beyond our own.

I want my students to be able to catch this vision as I did, to be critical thinkers and able to grasp the significance of this world and their place in it. ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge … My son, eat honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, is sweet to your palate; so shall the knowledge of wisdom be to your soul’.

Among the wonders of God’s creation, the honeybee provides some startling evidence against evolution, and for design and purpose by the Creator.

While a lot of modern people want to separate theology from history, in the New Testament the two are inextricably tied together. We should be encouraged that the New Testament authors placed such a great confidence in the Bible’s history, and that should inspire us to be equally as confident.

Because we know that we do, in fact, reason in a generally reliable way, the evolutionary worldview must not be correct. Evolution lacks the resources that enable us to trust in our own rational faculties, but Christianity succeeds where evolution fails.

Accounting for all presently known relevant details and assuming the Babylonian Captivity began in 587 or 586 BC, we can say with confidence that the Bible places limits on the year of creation between 5665 and 3822 BC. If the traditional historic date of 587 BC or 586 BC for the Captivity is correct, the earth cannot be more than 7,680 years old.

Those of you who are unable to drink milk as adults today without feeling nauseous (or worse) can take heart from being closer in that respect to the originally ‘physically-perfect’ first man and woman than are those of us who are milk-drinking ‘mutants’!

There’s no need for ‘magic decoder ring’ hermeneutics; at best, it’s a distraction from what should be our focus, and at worst, it is directly contradictory to the plain meaning of the text.

If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.

God pronounced judgments on the serpent, Eve, and Adam. Because of sin, the serpent would crawl on his belly and eat dust, Eve and all women after her would have pain in childbirth, and Adam and all of his descendants would experience painful toil on the earth until death. But in the middle of these terrible pronouncements, there is a glimmer of hope.

Christians do not need Hawking’s elusive ‘grand unified theory’ of the universe to know the mind of God or to know who they are, why they exist, and where they are going. As matters stand at present, there is no better astronomic theory for the origin of the universe than the inspired explanation of the Bible.

Natural selection should be part of any creation model. It is not proof of evolution. It is not even good support for evolution. Natural selection is not a threat to the Bible or to biblical history. It was a factor that would have been in play if struggle had not entered the world, but its importance only increased when it did.

In the search for a way out of this uncomfortable position, I have found that most atheists seem to gravitate to one particular explanation for consciousness: that it is an emergent property of matter which is ‘activated’ by the particular complex arrangement of our brains. The atheist wants to believe that this mysterious ‘emergent property’ of our brains is able to free us from the stark nature...