|
Reject Evolution?
World renowned scientists have rejected macroevolution &
evolutionary psychology
due to new evidence: |
|
Why? |
|
A Few Examples Below: |
Dr. Raymond Damadian, MD
Inventor of the MRI machine
Dr.
A. E. Wilder-Smith
Three earned PhD's in Science |
Dr. Richard Lumsden, PhD
Dean, Tulane Graduate School |
Dr. John Sanford, PhD
Geneticists Cornell University |
Dr. Kurt
Wise, PhD
Harvard trained paleontologist |
Dr. Werner Gitt, PhD
Physicist, Germany |
Dr. John Baumgardner, PhD
Los Alamos National Lab |
Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD
Sandia National Lab |
Dr. Ed Boudreaux PhD
Theoretical Chemistry Univ. NO |
Dr. David Menton PhD
Anatomy Prof. Medical School |
Dr. Dudley Eirich PhD
Molecular Biologist |
1,000's More:
see
AiG,
ICR,
CMI, CRS |
 About
GFE
Scripture
Science
Counseling
Education
Recommended
Organizations:
Creation
Organizations
&
Resources
Creation Ministries
International
Counseling
Organizations
&
Resources
Association of
Biblical Counselors
|
Questions & Evidence
for Evolutionists as well as "Progressive" Creationists
© 1998 Sid Galloway
From zookeeper to my brother's keeper.
Updated June 2006
Which
image portrays
the character of your God?
Did your "God" design & use the process of survival of the cruelest?
The Way of Creation:
Sacrificing self for the needs of others. (Ex. =
Christ's Cross)
The Way of Evolution:
Sacrificing others for the desires of self. (Ex.
= Abortion)
|
Why have 1,000's of PhD
scientists rejected macroevolution?
-
They include the inventor of the MRI &
professors at major universities.
- Yet, PBS, National Geographic, & Scientific American
claim there are none.
- If new evidence has convinced 1,000's, then shouldn't you find out why?
- Take a look for yourself. (Here are a few lists:
AiG,
ICR,
CMI, CRS)
What kind of "god" is portrayed
by theistic evolution?
- Remember, survival of the fittest depends upon pain, fear, suffering, &
death.
- In contrast, the God of the Bible is the Good Shepherd.
- Theistic evolution is a belief that blasphemes God by making Him a
monster.
Why is the character of our Creator
the cornerstone of counseling?
- The foundation for
consistent peace, joy, & unselfish love must be trust in God.
- Believing that God desired & designed disease & death does not
lead to trust.
- Good News: Willful sin, Satan, & selfishness are the cause, not
God.
Dr.
A.E. Wilder-Smith (Christian / Young Earth Creationist)
is one of very few scientists who earned three doctorates in physical sciences from
prestigious universities - Oxford, then Geneva, and finally Zurich. The
website memorializing his work and life,
http://www.wildersmith.org/,
contains a wealth of material, including videos, audios, articles, and books,
for the scientific scholar as well as the layman.
|
Science Seminars -
for your church, school, . . .
See the
"BIO-LOGIC" PowerPoints, Word Docs, etc for further content.
1.
©
"Creation: The Cornerstone of Christianity"
2. ©
"Creation: The Cornerstone of Counseling"
3. ©
"Creation Creature Features"
(Live animal presentations)
|
Condensed "Creation" Summary Outline
© Sid Galloway
See the full "ORIGINS OUTLINE"
from which the seminars are drawn.
I. Significance of Origin Hypotheses
A. God’s Character
(The God of Creation vs. The Idol of Evolution)
B. Graphae (God's Word - Greek term = "written" / Scripture)
C. Gospel (The cross of Jesus, the 2nd
Adam, depends on the 1st Adam's sin)
D. Glorifying His Character
(The Cornerstone of Counseling /
Practical Fruit)
II. Evidence for Origin Hypotheses
A. Scholars (1000's of scientists and theologians reject
macroevolution)
B. Science (Only 2nd strongest evidence /
theories cannot be proven and are often falsified.)
C. Scripture
(Strongest evidence, verified
by hundreds of prophetic proofs - Isaiah 41-48)
** Demonstrates that God who transcends time led the writing of the
Bible.
Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the
Bible
http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html
By PETER W. STONER, M.S., and ROBERT C. NEWMAN, S.T.M., Ph.D., Moody
Press Chicago
Peter Stoner, M.S.
Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena
City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont
College, 1953-57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College;
Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City
College.
Robert C. Newman, S.T.M., Ph.D.
Ph.D. in Astrophysics, Cornell University, 1967; S.T.M., Biblical
School of Theology, 1972; Associate Professor of Physics and
Mathematics, Shelton College, 19689-71; Associate professor of New
Testament, Biblical School of Theology.
(See also,
http://www.familybible.org/Articles/BibleProphecy/Probability.htm)
H.
Harold Hartzler, of the American Scientific Affiliation, in the
foreword of Peter Stoner's book, Science Speaks, writes: “The
manuscript for [the book], Science Speaks, has been carefully
reviewed by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation
members and by the Executive Council of the same group and has been
found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in regard to the
scientific material presented. The mathematical analysis included is
based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and
Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and
convincing way.”
|
Is atheistic evolution mathematically consistent,
when it claims that in the beginning
Nobody
+ Nothing = Everything? |
What about the evolutionary
definition of hydrogen?
Is it really a colorless, odorless gas,
which given enough time,
accidentally became living people?
|
Evolution |
Creation |
In the beginning,
nothing.......exploded? |
In the beginning,
God......created! |
|
Which cornerstone of belief requires blind
faith?
Which cornerstone of belief requires rational faith? |
Science and Scripture:
Complementary not Contradictory
[Both discourage blind-faith]
Act 1:3
"To these [Jesus] also presented Himself alive after His
suffering,
by many convincing proofs,
appearing to them over {a period of} forty days
and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God."
Proverbs 14:15
"The simple-minded believes everything he hears [or reads],
but the prudent examines [evidence]. . . carefully."
Isaiah 1:18
God said: “Come let us reason together.”
Hebrews 11:1
"Faith is the . . . evidence of things not seen"
Not long ago, I
smelled smoke in my classroom. When there's smoke, the logical
inference (Greek "hypo-thesis" = underlying belief) is that there's a fire somewhere, even
though you can't directly see a fire. Since my room is
filled with over 25 aquariums, terrariums (30+
live animals) with scores of
electrical wires I looked everywhere for the source of the smoke.
Finally, I found it. It was coming from the chemistry
teacher's room next door, where the students were using candles for
an experiment.
My belief that there was a fire was not
blind faith, even though I could not initially see the fire. It
was rational faith, based upon the overwhelming evidence of a room full
of smoke. Genuinely biblical thinking and good scientific
analysis both seek to examine evidence before choosing to
believe that something is true. Science and Scripture are
complementary, not contradictory.
|
John Mattick, PhD, professor of molecular biology at
the University of Queensland and director of the Institute for Molecular
Bioscience, addresses the "belief" dimension of science in, “The
Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms”, Scientific American,
October 2004, p. 61. Dr. Mattick in this quote is referring to
old outdated beliefs about DNA.
“Assumptions can be dangerous,
especially in science. They usually start as the most plausible or
comfortable interpretation of the available facts. But when their truth
cannot be immediately tested and their flaws are not obvious,
assumptions often graduate to articles of faith, and new
observations are forced to fit them. Eventually, if the
volume of troublesome information becomes unsustainable,
the orthodoxy must collapse.” [Emphasis added in
bold italics] |
** Please note that all
scientists who are also biblical creationists recognize that natural selection
is a real process resulting in horizontal
change within a particular species/genus (a "kind"), such as frogs of
different size, color and shape. Similarly, artificial selection (like the
breeding of dogs), can produce horizontal change within a particular kind (white
Poodles vs. black Great Danes). However, this is merely "microevolution"
involving the sorting and/or loss of previously existing genetic information,
not the creation of new information in the genome.
The Darwinian belief in vertical change
into new orders, classes, and even phyla (macroevolution), such as the belief that amphibian kinds eventually became
reptile kinds that eventually became bird kinds, is impossible because
the genetic information in each specie's gene pool is fixed / limited and
never increases by mutations. All mutations are a loss of genetic information, not
an addition. (See below)
Is Macroevolution Supported by Science?
A hypothesis (Greek "hypo-thesis") is an underlying proposition
(belief). A proper scientific hypothesis must be formulated
(stated) as a testable prediction that can be falsified. The
term "falsified" in science does not mean "fabricated", but simply
"proven to be incorrect".
Remember that according to the famous expert on the scientific
method, Dr. Karl Popper, useful hypotheses can never be "proven".
They can only be "supported" or falsified. Also, it only takes
one false test to disprove. If a hypothesis is tested many
times by many scientists and not yet proven false, then it
might graduate to the level of being called a strongly supported
"theory". If a theory is further tested for a long time and
still not yet falsified, then the scientific community may
choose to call it a scientific "law". Once again, it only
takes one false test to disprove a hypothesis, theory, or even a law.
Keep in mind that the history of modern science is filled with
disproven theories and laws that were dogmatically defended by the
majority of scientists of that day.
Does the Law of Biogenesis Support
Macroevolution?
The Scientific Law of Biogenesis:
This Law states that "life comes only from life, not from non-living
matter". Not long ago, people believed that dirty rags in a
barn produced mice, and that rotten meat produced maggots. All
scientific tests ever conducted, including the infamous Urey- Miller
failure (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp)
, have shown that "spontaneous generation" of life from
non-living matter cannot happen. However, evolutionists still
blindly
believe that non-living chemicals somehow, somewhere, a long
time ago, spontaneously generated a living cell.
In contrast,
Professor Werner Gitt, in his excellent book,
In the Beginning Was Information, demonstrates the falsification
(disproven nature)
of the evolutionary hypothesis of a spontaneous generational first
cause for the DNA required for a living cell.
"There is no known natural law through which
matter can give rise to information, neither is there any
physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
(Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79)
Is the Mechanism for Macroevolution, Many
Mutations, or is it Merely a Myth?
Hypothesis: If mutations are the mechanism by
which new, previously non-existent, genetic information accumulated
from a hypothesized single-celled organism and over time produced
new genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and kingdoms of
organisms, then genetic research should find numerous examples of
mutations that add genetic information.
However:
Dr. Lee Spetner, (Non-Christian) internationally renowned scientist of Johns Hopkins
University has written a fascinating book called,
Not By Chance: Shattering
the Modern Theory about Evolution, which is a crucial resource for
anyone interested in scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian theory. In reviewing Spetner's book, Professor E. Simon, Department
of Biology, Purdue University says: "It is certainly
the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"
Dr. Spetner concludes in his book:
“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a
little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the
millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well
not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds
information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory.
It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious
challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.” [Emphasis added, p.159-160]
"I have shown in my book that the broad sweep
of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. I have
shown it on both theoretical and experimental grounds. On theoretical
grounds, I have shown that the probability is just too small
for random mutations to lead to a new species. On experimental
grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations
that have added any genetic information to the organism. I
go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by
evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information
rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information
is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays
in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution.
That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
(This quote is from Dr. Spetner's own comments on Amazon.com about his book.)
By the way, viral mutations that allow for interspecies infection
(especially zoonotic diseases), bacterial adaptations to antibiotics, and insects to
pesticides do not
result from the addition of new genetic information, therefore they are not
examples of or support for vertical change into new "kinds" (i.e.
macroevolution producing new orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms).
For example,
bacterial changes can result from the sorting of already existing
genes in the population, the transmission of genes from one
bacterium to another (conjugation), or a mutation that causes a loss of genetic
information. For example, a mutation can occur that causes the loss of
coding for normal cell wall function that incidentally prevents an
antibiotic from killing the microbe, but no new information is
created and thus it does not produce a new kind of creature.
In fact, the change is a downward devolution or degeneration that
overall makes the bacterium less functional in the general
environment.
The same is true of a more complex creature like a beetle born
with a mutation resulting in a loss of genes for wings. If
that beetle population lives on a rocky island where the average
wind speed has dramatically increased, then that mutation could be
beneficial, producing a population of beetles without wings so they
don't get blown out into the ocean. However, note that the
mutation is a loss of original information not an addition of
functional genetic coding.
The statistical
probability that mutations served as the mechanism for
macroevolution over many millenia is for all practical purposes
zero, therefore this foundational evolutionary hypothesis is
a myth, not worthy of rational, logical (New Testament Greek:
logikos) faith.
[For far more information, both technical and non-technical,
please see the links for science and creation organizations above.]
|
