Science

Today in North America there is a widespread (though faulty) idea that science is somehow at odds with Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science simply means knowledge, or, in an expanded definition, systematized knowledge based on observation.  The articles in this section are intended to show two things: First, they are intended to show that science itself is based upon several assumptions that can only be justified by presupposing the truth of Christian Theism. Secondly, they are intended to show that the data adduced by the scientific method actually confirms the biblical record.



Creation or Evolution

Creation or Evolution photo

Biblical Creation

According to the Bible, God created the universe over a period of six days roughly 6,000 years ago. Moreover, it teaches that God created representatives of the basic kinds of plants and animals from which their modern counterparts have descended.

Evolution

According to the theory of evolution, every living thing shares a common ancestor that appeared on our planet roughly 3.5 billion years ago. Shaped by mutation and natural selection, countless succeeding generations diversified into a rich plethora of plant and animal species.

Resolving the Conflict

 A special presentation on the subject of origins by Pastor John Feakes. His presentation features a philosophical analysis of both accounts of origins, and a critique of the modern Darwinian account.

Continue reading

Creation

There is confusion in the church on the subject of origins – a recent survey among protestant pastors indicates that most deny that God used evolution, and affirm that Adam and Eve were real people but – there is almost an even split between pastors who think the universe is around 6,000 years old (what the Bible clearly teaches) and billions of years.

In this course we will be covering the following topics:

  • Trick Questions
  • Bible History
  • Evolution Story
  • 10 Reasons Not to Reinterpret Genesis
  • Order of Creation reversed
  • The cross nullified
  • Restored to death
  • Is God Deceptive?
  • Is the New Testament in error?
  • The Day-Age Theory
  • Science and the Creation Foundation
  • What is Science?
  • What is a worldview?
  • Intelligent Design Theory
  • Origin Land Animals
  • The Origin Human Kind
  • Conditional Probabilities
  • Evidence for Human Evolution?
  • The Creation of Woman, The Very Good
    World, and the fall
  • The Preflood World
  • The Mystery of Aging
  • The New Testament affirms the historicity of the Genesis record and its literal interpretation
  • The Flood
  • The Hydroplate Theory
  • Where did the “races” come from?
  • what About the Cave Men?
  • “Icons” of Evolution
  • Radiometric Dating: Evidence for an “Old Earth?”
  • The Eye: Poor Design?
  • The Big Bang confirmed by Science?

 

View and Download course Material here.

Why We Hold to a Literal Reading of the Genesis Record

It’s no secret that we at CARE Ministries Winnipeg take the Genesis account of creation to be literally true. That is, we believe that God created the entire universe over a period of six, 24-hour days, somewhere around 6,000 years ago. We believe, as a straightforward reading of the text would indicate, that what God created was initially “very good”, with no death, bloodshed, disease etc. This very good world, according to the biblical record was ruined when God’s appointed head of creation, Adam, rebelled against his Creator, and introduced sin into the world. As a result, death also entered as the just consequence of such rebellion. A plain reading of the text also indicates that wickedness of men grew to such proportions that God destroyed the entire planet in a catastrophic flood that lasted a whole year. The only survivors of this deluge were Noah and 7 of his family members, who’s survival depended upon their obedience to the Lord in building an ark to His requires specifications. They were also commanded to take 2 pairs of every kind of air breathing, land dwelling animal, which would later become the ancestors to all such animal kinds living today. Finally, we believe that after the flood, the animals migrated all over the earth while humans congregated in Mesopotamia, where, several hundred years later, another collective rebellion against God was staged. This time, God responded by supernaturally changing the language. That is, the human race went from communicating via a single spoken language, into many fractured groups speaking distinct languages. The result was mutual suspicion and hostility amongst these groups, which caused multiple migratory waves of people in all directions. This, we believe, was the birth of the various nations, cultures and people groups worldwide. Of course we judge all this worthy of belief as actual history, not because it feels particularly nice to do so, but because the evidence, we feel, absolutely demands such a verdict.

Continue reading

Some Thoughts on Cat Evolution

Evolution and Creation Contrasted

According to the evolution story, all of today’s cats are descended from a single ancestral cat species. This ancestral species itself ultimately arose from some other fundamentally different kind of animal. That is to say, through the long process of natural selection operating on random mutations to this creature’s genetic code, an ancestral cat was produced which eventually gave rise to all the varieties of cats we see in the world today.

Continue reading

The Oldest Vertebrate Ancestor?

Fairy tale: frog plus a kiss equals a prince

Evolutionary “Science”: worm plus millions of years equals a prince

 

The evolution propaganda machine seems to be working overtime these days. One gets the distinct feeling that the creation/ I.D. movements are making an impact. With scores of creation science museums popping up, creation publications flooding the market and a growing number of scientists who find Darwinism dissatisfying intellectually,1 Darwinists themselves are forced to defend their position with renewed fervour. Though their arguments have the advantage of being propagated by the liberal media which dominates the world of news reporting, they are nonetheless as weak as a bruised reed. The ultimate exemplification of this fact is a recent news story about the discovery (re-discovery?)2 of a leech-like fossil named Pikaia that was discovered in the Burgess Shale Beds.

Research scientists tell us that the fossil is 505 million years old and that the tiny creature – about the size of a human thumb – is the oldest fossil relative of creatures with backbones. What is the evidence for this astounding claim? The creature is said to have an incipient backbone of course. The idea that common anatomy could possibly point to a common designer is not even entertained by the scientists and reporters interested in this fossil. They are committed to the evolution story and any fossil – even this tiny leech-like creature – is interpreted as a “missing link” and then publicly touted as more evidence that evolution is a fact. Never does it dawn on these people that the whole enterprise is circular. That is, these folks are already convinced that evolution is true, which is the very reason why they identify any fossil as a “missing link.” It is poor logic to turn around then and claim that because we have all these fossil “missing links” evolution must therefore be true!

Continue reading

Origin of Life Studies – Life is no Accident

Miracles and the Law of Biogenesis

The evolution story asserts that life began without intelligent intervention. Despite the ardent claims of evolutionists, there is absolutely no consensus among scientists on how, when, where, and why natural forces alone could have created something as incredibly intricate as a living organism.

“At this time, however, no one can say whether any theory is right or wrong. What can be said is that somehow, through some process, the chemicals that make up living things did group themselves together and formed the first cells.”

Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), pp. 14,15

Of interest here is the reason many evolutionists reject the scriptural account, namely, that it evokes the miraculous. This rejection of creation is quite hypocritical, for even the evolutionist must evoke the miraculous to explain the origin of life.

Webster’s has defined a miracle as,

“1. An event of effect in the physical world deviating from the known laws of nature, or transcending out knowledge of these laws; an extraordinary, anomalous, or abnormal event brought about by superhuman agency, 2. A wonder or wonderful thing; a marvel.”

The advent of living things, no matter what the means, can only be described as miraculous. From “Biology”, 1985, p. 1026:

“…the cell theory holds that all cell arise from previously existing cells. Also known as the principle of biogenesis, this principle explains that all organisms arise from living parents. This concept is firmly established in biology today. Yet according to evolutionary theory, life did ultimately originate from non-living molecules, that is, by abiogenesis.”

Therefore, the evolutionist can no longer reject biblical creation for the sole reason that it evokes the miraculous. As for the “wonderous” nature of miracles, consider the words of David Harry Grinspoon, a man of science who rejects the biblical account of creation:

“Something magical and creative beyond belief happened here as a result of carbon and water. Once it started it never stopped, and it completely remade our world. Carbon in water crawls, and flies, respirates and synthesizes, colonizes, adapts seeks, hides, gives birth, invents, worries, wonders, and sings. If that’s not magic, then what is?” “Venus Revealed”, 1997, p. 304

The typical explanation for evolution’s proposed violation of the biogenetic principle:

“This apparent paradox is explained by the assertion that conditions on earth were far different billions of years ago when life first began to evolve. Then, when things came into being, they changed the conditions of their environment so that abiogenesis was no longer probable, at least on most parts of the earth’s surface.”

There are three points to be made here regarding this explanation.

First, evolutionists must violate their beloved uniformatarian principle. This is noteworthy because it was uniformatarianism, a notion made popular by Hutton and Lyle, that was said to have disproved the biblical account of creation. The Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia states concerning the work of geologist Charles Lyle:

“His major contribution was proving that all features of the Earth’s surface were produced by natural forces operating for long times. His strong arguments that the Earth’s crust was the product of thousands of millions of years of activity did away with the need for unscientific explanations based on the Biblical record.”

Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 SoftKey Multimedia Inc.

If we must abandon strict uniformatarianism in order to believe that life evolved without God, then we must also set aside the very thing that caused people to doubt the biblical record in the first place!

Second, it must be acknowledged that this explanation is not based on direct scientific observation, but on purely philosophical grounds. This contradicts the evolutionist’s claimed strict adherence to the scientific process in determining the truth of our origins.

Thirdly, the evolutionist can no longer scoff at the biblical claim that humans once lived to vast ages (930 years old for Adam), or that giants lived on the earth at one time (Genesis 6:4). The explanation for both, typically, has been that atmospheric conditions in the distant past created a far more hospitable environment for life to thrive and flourish. It is theorized by the creationist that the flood brought about major environmental changes, which today suppress organisms’ potential for growth and longevity. This belief is evidenced by the enormous fossil life discovered, and the Bible’s account of decreased longevity in people following the flood.

The point to be raised here is that evolutionists who embrace the notion that life evolved without intelligent intervention as a result of a severely altered environment, the evidence of which is sadly lacking, have forfeited their right to scoff at the biblical account of giants and of great longevity. Both are faith-based systems.

Continue reading

Read the Fine Print(When reading evolutionary propaganda!)

Article taken out of the WInnipeg Free Press

The article to the left appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, April 13, 2007. What is the obvious conclusion that the readers were to draw from the caption? That scientists have finally proved that birds and dinosaurs are related, of course. Is that really the case? Absolutely not! In fact, the hard physical data supports the biblical creation view much better.

 

 

 

 

 

The article states:

“While dinosaur bones have long been studied, ‘its always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level’, said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University. It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs, she said. So, when she was able to recover soft tissue from a T-Rex bone found in Montana in 2003 she was surprised, Schweitzer said.”

Scientists have been studying DNA and proteins in countless of specimens for many years. Take the mummies of Egypt for example. These guys were obviously buried in the not-so-distant-past (by the evolutionist’s reckoning) and yet a marked degree of DNA / protein degradation was observed. Such observations allow scientists to estimate how long DNA / protein can last in a lifeless specimen. Schweitzer claimed that DNA was thought to have a “lifespan” of about a million years. I think that is a huge over estimate, but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. All of a sudden measurable amounts of protein are found in a T-Rex that died supposedly 68 million years ago. What is the reasonable conclusion? Maybe these bones aren’t all that old! But wait a minute. Wouldn’t that destroy the whole evolution story? After all, we “know” that it takes many millions of years for a reptile to become a mammal or bird. Having dinosaurs running around a mere 1 million years ago simply won’t do. So to save the evolution story a little longer from its certain demise, those committed to this sinking monolithic religion have opted to believe that proteins can actually last much longer than they supposed. Over 65 times as long! This is hardly an exact science.

Continue reading

A Lesson from Fossils

 

Dinosaurs

Albertosaurus

At the right is a photo of a fossil cast of Albertosaurus – a smaller version of the famous Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Most of us are familiar with such fossils. They fill museums, are the subject of countless documentaries and textbooks, and have filled the hearts of people everywhere with awe and mystery. Fossils are like shadowy windows to the past. They reveal some facts, but others remain shrouded in mystery

The most popular theory holds that fossilization occurs when a living thing dies and is buried in sediment in the presence of running water. Molecule by molecule, the organic material is washed out of the carcass. The microscopic voids left behind are then filled with mineral material. In time all that is left is a rock which has the exact size, shape and contours of the original animal. Popular scientific opinion holds that the fossil record represents life that has existed throughout the last several billion years. Taking the Bible as our standard, we see the fossils as having been formed within the earth’s 6,000 year history. Since flood conditions present the most favourable environment for fossilization, many Bible-believing Christians posit the Genesis flood (and the post flood catastrophism that resulted from it) as the likely cause of most of the world’s fossils. For the Christian, the fossils are object lessons which teach several important truths.

Continue reading

Origin of Life Studies – Life is no Accident

By : John Feakes

Miracles and the Law of Biogenesis

The evolution story asserts that life began without intelligent intervention. Despite the ardent claims of evolutionists, there is absolutely no consensus among scientists on how, when, where, and why natural forces alone could have created something as incredibly intricate as a living organism.

“At this time, however, no one can say whether any theory is right or wrong. What can be said is that somehow, through some process, the chemicals that make up living things did group themselves together and formed the first cells.”

Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), pp. 14,15

Continue reading

Radiometric Dating

Its important to be reminded that, though many things many be measured on a rock whose origin has not been observed (size, weight, mass, composition, density, etc), age is not one of them. Therefore, to call radiometric dating an absolute dating method (which many textbooks do) is misleading. As we shall see, all radiometric dating consists of, in reality, is a study of the elemental composition of a particular specimen. Age is determined when certain assumptions are applied to these compositional findings. Note that these assumptions, all of them, are unproven and unprovable.

Continue reading