Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Mr. Darwin, about that book of yours...

November 24, 2009 – 150th Anniversary of Publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species

It is nearly impossible to calculate just how deeply our culture has been affected by the writings and ideas of Charles Darwin. This year – 2009 – has been a landmark year for evolutionists. On February 12 they celebrated the 200th birthday of the founder of their evolutionary faith, and today they celebrate the 150th anniversary of his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In his autobiography Darwin comments on the initial publication and public reception of Origin.

“It is no doubt the chief work of my life. It was from the first highly successful. The first small edition of 1250 copies was sold on the day of publication, and a second edition of 3000 copies soon afterwards. Sixteen thousand copies have now (1876) been sold in England; and considering how stiff a book it is, this is a large sale…”

It has sometimes been said that the success of the Origin proved “that the subject was in the air,” or “that men’s minds were prepared for it.” I do not think that this is strictly true… What I believe was strictly true is that innumerable well-observed facts were stored in the minds of naturalists ready to take their proper places as soon as any theory which would receive them was sufficiently explained.” – Charles Darwin, Autobiography (Barnes & Noble, pg. 50-51)

There are a few comments I will make about Darwin’s remarks. First of all, he is being very honest when he describes Origin as a “stiff book.” I cannot claim to have read the whole thing cover to cover (though I plan to soon), but from what I have read I heartily concur. Very stiff indeed.

In the second paragraph notice what Darwin believes about the human mind. He tries to make the case that his theory of evolution (originally “transmutation) was merely a systematized framework for “well-observed facts.” In other words, people already had all the data they needed, and all that they lacked was a proper context for that data so they could draw substantial conclusions. This is completely backwards.

All men bring certain presupposed ideas or “presuppositions” to the table when discussing any issue, whether it be science, art, ethics and so on. These presuppositions are inescapable. What this means is that no one can truly be “neutral.” Certain things must be assumed before the data is examined. Conclusions are reached based on the available data and based on the worldview grid through which you interpret that data.

My point is simply this. No scientist has a truly “open,” “unbiased” mind, and “raw factuality” is a myth. Some people believe that the universe is the handiwork of a sovereign Creator God, while others believe that it is nothing more than the result of random processes over eons of time. THESE ARE BOTH FAITH CLAIMS, and will incontrovertibly influence their respective interpretations of the data.

Why is this important? Because today, November 24, 2009, you are being told that the only true science is that which acknowledges the supremacy of human reason over the Revelation of God. If you haven’t yet realized it, we are in the midst of a battle, and it’s outcome will determine the course of countless generations to come. Take a moment to consider just how much one little book has influenced the way we do education, government, healthcare, family life, science… and the list goes on.

Ideas have consequences. Don’t stand idly by and watch the things you hold most dear crumble before your eyes – take a stand for truth today!

Friday, October 16, 2009

How did the animals fit on the Ark?

John Morris comments on this issue in this mornings issue of "Days of Praise."

"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." (Genesis 6:14)

Details surrounding the story of Noah and the Flood have long caused laymen and theologians alike to stumble and compromise.

None could argue that the wording was not clear. God had commanded Noah to build a wooden boat of huge dimensions and to take on board representatives of land-dwelling, air-breathing animals. The Flood, Scripture reveals, devastated the entire world. But nineteenth-century theologians, pressed on by Hutton, Lyell, and others proposing the new uniformitarian interpretation of earth history, became convinced that the scriptural account must be understood in a figurative sense. Their twentieth-century counterparts repeat this error, promulgating the non-biblical idea that the Flood was only local.

Some have wondered how Noah could gather all the animals, but the Bible simply says they "went in two and two unto Noah into the ark" (7:9), evidently migrating to the location on God’s command.

Their care while on the Ark has also been raised as a problem. But, in all likelihood, the animals entered a state of semi-dormancy, as nearly all of their descendants do today when faced with danger over which they have no control and from which they cannot flee.

Scripture supports this idea in our text: The word "rooms," which is more properly translated "nests" everywhere else in Scripture, implies a small place to sleep or nestle, rather than a large cage. The job of caring for the animals may have been difficult, but our gracious God would have seen to it that it was possible. Questions like these are no cause for compromise. JDM

Saturday, October 3, 2009

The Mysterious Islands - Coming Out Next Month!

Here's one film you won't want to miss. The Mysterious Islands, a groundbreaking new adventure documentary that explores the errors of Darwinism at the very "birthplace" of evolution - the Galapagos islands.

This film project is very special to me since I did some research earlier this year on Darwin's voyage and visit to the Galapagos islands, especially his speculation about the finches he found there. Read my article on why "Darwin's finches" actually disprove his theory!

From the press release:
As the world prepares to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s landmark book, On the Origin of Species, Vision Forum has unveiled details on a new documentary, filmed on the Galapagos Islands, that debunks the conclusions Darwin reached during his storied trip to this island chain during the voyage of the HMS Beagle. Shot and directed by the award-winning Jon and Andy Erwin of Erwin Brothers Motion Pictures, the 90-minute film, entitled The Mysterious Islands, is set for release in early November, just weeks prior to the November 24 anniversary date of Darwin’s influential book...

“Christians look to Jerusalem, Muslims to Mecca, but for the followers of Charles Darwin, the Galapagos Archipelago is the spiritual homeland to their evolutionary faith,” Phillips observed. “Our film — shot on ground-zero of evolutionism — will be a counter-offensive to the Darwin adulation that blows holes in the conclusions he formed while observing the wonder-filled creatures that inhabit the Galapagos Islands.”
Visit the official The Mysterious Islands website here, watch the trailer, read about the documentary team, their adventure and some historical facts surrounding Darwin's theory you may not have been aware of.

Show your support and let others know about the film - become a fan on Facebook!

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Video Clips from the Galapagos Islands

This was shot on the Canon 5D Mk. II during Vision Forum's expedition to the Galapagos Islands this past March.

Monday, August 3, 2009

A Contrast

"Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system - with all these exalted powers - Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." - Charles Darwin

"O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!" - Psalm 8 [emphasis added]

Friday, July 31, 2009

(2007) Bill O'Reilly Show discusses the grand opening of AIG's Creation Museum

In which Ken Ham gets virtually no opportunity to argue for his views, and the validity of his museum... That's the media for you. Tell me what you think about this.

Becoming Charles Darwin

In this video, Bill Potter explains how he came to play the part of Charles Darwin at Vision Forum's recent debate between John Calvin and Darwin at the Reformation 500 in Boston. I think you'll like it!

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Voyage that Shook the World

Creation Ministries International will be releasing an exciting new documentary called The Voyage that Shook the World, which comes as a challenge to the hyper-Darwinian dogma being propagated all over the world this year - Darwin's 200th birthday. Here are two trailers for the film.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Responding to the Judge

This is an article I pulled from the archives of my personal blog, in which I responded to a judge's evaluation of a little poem I wrote about Creation, and commented on the controversy in general.

You already know that so-called "science" and "religion" are at odds today. They're seen as mutually exclusive, so if you want to engage in science, of course you must suspend your beliefs and be "objective." Be careful that you don't come to the table with any preconceptions or a cohesive, decided worldview or you will inevitable skew the scientific process and commit the sin of "subjectivity" in your research. Right?

Well, actually no. With that view we now have a problem; how can any scientist be certain that certain laws of nature that were true yesterday will hold true tomorrow? We're trying to be objective here! Why would he expect anything in nature to be uniform or constant, if he doesn't first assume that the laws of nature will continue to act as they always have? You see, the scientist that relies solely on unadulterated observation has no good reason to believe that anything will be the same when he wakes up tomorrow morning. No reason at all.

Think about his underlying worldview for a moment. First of all he has outlawed God from the universe--supernatural reality is absurd in his view, and oh so "non-scientific." So what is he left with? Well, to be honest, absolutely nothing. Literally! ;) Without an initial creative act, how could someone postulate that something came from nothing, matter came from non-matter? "Well, that's just one of those things we have to accept by faith!"...though they probably wouldn't express it quite that way. :) Big problem guys. You can't explain to me how something came from nothing, even though that is the fundamental factor for your theory to even have a chance of working?! Evolution falls apart on this point.

Obviously evolutionists have a strong commitment to something which prevents them from acknowledging the Creator, and causes them to approach a field which they have no ideological right to, because in their worldview they have no basis for the uniformity of nature. Dad posted some excellent thoughts on this topic here.

So whatever happened to objectivity Mr. Scientist? You see, we all have preconceptions and fundamental beliefs. But when you're asked to capitulate your position and be "objective," realize that the atheist intends to remain armed.

All that by way of introduction, here's the real reason I decided to address this topic. Last week I received the judge's comments on my writing, photography, sketching and painting from the Young Birder of the Year competition, which I recently won. The professional feedback is really valuable and encouraging to me. I try to make a conscious effort to show forth my faith in my work, and last year I wrote a short poem expressing the clarity with which Creation points to its Creator. Read it here: "This Must Be God's Hand". I realize it's kind of a simplistic piece--I'm not a poet--but I tried to capture something of the wonder of nature and how it rebukes the atheist, materialist worldview.

As I excitedly scanned over the judges' reactions I was shocked to learn that I wasn't being "objective!" I mean, I try to be a good ornithologist and be careful about my observations, but all along I guess I was self-deceived. In the spirit of the literary masterpiece, "Little Mouse and the Big Hungry Bear," there's only one way to be a good, objective scientist. It's easy. Simply accept...evolution? Wait a minute...

"This poem definitely evokes wonder. As your study of birds progresses, you may find yourself needing to consider what scientists believe to be the truth of evolution. It's demonstrably visible in the process of speciation, which is going on before our eyes and in our lifetimes. Nothing is static in the natural world, and evolution is an ongoing and vital process that should not be summarily dismissed as random or theoretical..."

"I think your style would benefit from a healthy dose of objectivity. Check your beliefs and pre-conceptions at the door and write about and describe what you see and feel. Focus not on how you believe a bird came to be or its purpose in the grand scheme, rather the bird itself, its nature, behavior and essence..."

Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate all the comments and insights that the judges bring to my work, but when someone questions the authenticity of doing science from a Christian worldview, I need to respond to that. (If only to clarify what I believe on the subject and how I should answer when questioned) And I don't mean to offend any of these people who lent their time and effort to the judging process--they weren't being harsh. But they are wrong in assuming that a belief in evolution is the only "objective" way to approach science.

You know what I find ironic? In the second quote, he tells me to remain objective in my observations, then immediately turns around and tells me to be subjective. See that? If I started to inscribe my personal feelings about a bird in my notebook, how objective is that? Interesting.

It all comes down to definitions. When an atheist says "be objective" he means, "Abandon this silly notion that God exists and is the sovereign Creator of the universe." "Stop worshiping the Creator, and instead worship the creature."

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." --Romans 1:18-23

What a telling passage. It's an age-old problem folks. We need to understand that the only rational way of doing science is by first accepting God, as He has revealed Himself in Creation and in Scripture, as the only stable foundation for studying the complexities of the things He has created, and continues to sustain through his almighty power and sovereignty.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Darwin and Racism

I came across this article today published by CBN. Paul Strand takes a look at the extremely racist underpinnings of historic Darwinism and it's consequences in society over the past century and a half. From the article:
Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist."

"He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.

"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."

Another resource I recommend is the book Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots, by Ken Ham and Charles Ware. This work has been highly criticized and slandered by countless reviewers (see Amazon.com), but what would you expect? They document the ugly legacy of evolutionary racism and genocide - an aspect of Darwinism which many modern scientists seek to conceal.

A few thoughts and excerpts from the book:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” - Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)
Jim Fletcher, upon visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., wrote:
“The railroad car, once you realize what it represents, forces you in...The odd smell - which many visitors say must be the smell of death - can’t be scrubbed away. It shouldn’t be, for it reminds our senses in a visceral way of what happens when men leave God, and malevolent ideas go unchallenged....When Adolph Hitler looked for a ”final solution“ for what he called the ”Jewish problem“ - the fact of the Jews’ existence - he had only to recall what scientists like Ernest Haeckel and liberal theologians embraced: that a purposeless process, known as evolution, had generated all of life’s complexity, including civilization itself. It had done so through a pitiless procedure of the strong eliminating the weak. As the influence of this idea spread, the Bible was increasingly taught as myth.” (from Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 23-4)
Evolutionary thought regarding the origin of races, and the timescale of human development, was lived out in men like Hitler, and produced racial genocide such as that which occurred in Australia. Gathering "specimens" (especially fresh ones) was quite lucrative and highly valued by science because it provided evidence for “missing links.” Grave robbing and murder were rampant. The British museum received somewhere around 10,000 specimens, and today the Smithsonian holds the remains of over 15,000 individuals.
"Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years starting in 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He published a booklet for the museum that gave instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to plug bullet wounds from freshly killed "specimens." Many freelance collectors worked under his guidance. For example, four weeks after Ramsay had requested skulls of Bungee Blacks, a keen young scientist sent him two of them, announcing, "The last of their tribe, had just been shot." (Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 25)
"Today, Darwinism and evolutionary thinking also enable ordinary, respectable professionals - otherwise dedicated to the saving of life - to justify their involvement in the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings, who (like the Aborigines of earlier Darwinian thinking) are also deemed “not yet fully human." (Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 26)
All of this is shocking and horrifying, but we must understand that without God, man truly is reduced to a beastly state, and will try to justify brutality under the guise of "science" and "progress."

In a future post, we will examine some of Darwin's personal views regarding slavery (commonly cited as evidence that evolution is not an inherently "racist" worldview), the perception of interracial marriage in the early 1900's, and the Biblical view of race.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The "Missing Link"

In this episode of Generations, Creationist radio host Kevin Swanson comments on "Ida," the supposed "missing link" which was unveiled recently, (and which the media has popularized as our "great great aunt") as well as a number of other issues regarding evolution.

What it Would Take for a Rational Person to Believe in Evolution

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Blog Redesign in the Works

Howdy folks. This is just a heads-up that Confronting Darwin is ready for a redesign. The light text against the black background is difficult to read, and I want to spruce the general design a bit. So here's a sneak-peek at one of my mockups.

Now I just need to get this into HTML format to use as a template...

The Work of His Fingers

Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

~Psalm 90:2

I intend to post some commentary and images from my trip to Grand Canyon at some point. For now, I hope you enjoy the image. It's a truly spectacular sight.

Monday, May 25, 2009

What do we do with the environment?

Attenborough blames Genesis for ecological devastation
"The influence of the book of Genesis, which says, "The Lord God said 'go forth and multiply' to Adam and Eve, and that the natural world is there for you to dominate. You have dominion over the animals and plants of the world." And that basic notion, that the world is there for us, and that if it doesn’t act to serve our purposes it is dispensable--that has produced the devastation of vast areas of the earth’s surface. Of course, this is a great simplification. But that’s why Darwinism and the fact of evolution is of great importance, because it is that attitude [Creationism] which has led to the devastation of so much, and is why we’re in the situation that we’re in." - David Attenborough

A Biblical view of environmental stewardship

First of all, I want to quote what God actually said in Genesis (since Attenborough's paraphrase was less-than-accurate).
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. - Genesis 1:26-30
For the sake of time (mine and yours) I will briefly summarize the issue in four bullet points, addressing the macro-level arguments from a Creationist, Christian perspective. I will be referencing a Protestant position paper on the issue, published by the Acton Institute in their 2007 release, Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, which I believe to be a succinct, solid overview of the Christian position on environmental stewardship.

I. Biblical Stewardship: Conditions and Qualifications
  • "Two groups of interrelated conditions are necessary for responsible stewardship. In one group are conditions related to the freedom that allows people to use and exchange the fruits of their labor for mutual benefit (Matt. 20:13—15). These conditions–knowledge, righteousness, and dominion–provide an arena for the working out of the image of God in the human person. In another group are conditions related to responsibility, especially to the existence of a legal framework that holds people accountable for harm they may cause to others (Rom. 13:1—7; Exod. 21:28—36; 22:5—6). These two sets of conditions provide the safeguards necessitated by human sinfulness. Both sets are essential to responsible stewardship; neither may be permitted to crowd out the other, and each must be understood in light of both the image of God and the sinfulness of man."
  • Thus we are not free to do whatever we please with God's creation (including our own bodies by the way), but are restrained in our actions by the principles of righteousness and responsibility laid forth in His Word, and are accountable to the sanctions and authority of His Law. Dominion is therefore not the mindset that "if [the earth] doesn’t act to serve our purposes it is dispensable." It is the solemn obligation laid on humanity to care for the earth in a manner consistent with the created order.
II. We are "Created in His Image"
  • Mankind is NOT a product of natural processes (a.k.a. “mother earth”).

  • The predominant view today is one where man - as a "child of nature" - must necessarily subordinate himself to "mother earth," and assume an equal or inferior position to the natural world around him. So, if an endangered field mouse and a farmer happen to occupy and use the same plot of land, the farmer automatically gets the boot.
  • According to Genesis man and woman were given a privileged status in Creation, and were commanded by God to exercise stewardship and dominion. The Lord said, "Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
  • This brings us to what is commonly called the "Creator / Creature distinction." God is God, and we are His creatures and subject to His rule. In our capacity as stewards, we are to act as responsible agents of His benevolent rule, not autonomous destroyers of His good gifts.
  • Having established the clear Biblical hierarchy of the created order (God - man - natural world), let's make sure we have our priorities straight. As we said above, we do not advocate the subordination of man to the earth (i.e. the field mouse analogy), but instead place first priority on human well-being. “The quest for the humane treatment of beasts by lowering people to the level of animals leads only to the beastly treatment of humans.” By keeping mankind in his Biblical role as steward, we not only promote the betterment of society, the freedom for economic growth, and the health of the environment, but we stridently oppose the environmental slavery which drives so many countries (especially third-world countries) in the exact opposite direction.
III. Biblical Checks and Balances
  • “People, alone among creatures on earth, have both the rationality and the moral capacity to exercise stewardship, to be accountable for their choices, to take responsibility for caring not only for themselves but also for other creatures. To reject human stewardship is to embrace, by default, no stewardship.”
  • Government is not to usurp the responsibility of individuals to exercise stewardship - it exists to restrain evil and to encourage and reinforce righteousness. When people become enslaved to the natural world by tyrannical governmental measures, free market economies become impossible, innovation is stifled and poverty prevails (i.e. third-world countries are sacrificed as a result of stringent environmental measures imposed by wealthy nations)
  • "Our stewardship under God implies that we are morally accountable to him for treating creation in a manner that best serves the objectives of the kingdom of God; but both moral accountability and dominion over the earth depend on the freedom to choose. The exercise of these virtues and this calling, therefore, require that we act in an arena of considerable freedom–not unrestricted license, but freedom exercised within the boundaries of God’s moral law revealed in Scripture and in the human conscience (Exod. 20:1—17; Deut. 5:6—21; Rom. 2:14—15)."
IV. Conclusion
  • “Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace International, said in an interview in the New Scientist in December 1999, "The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s\... political activists were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than with the actual science...." What we have said above indicates that Moore was right in his critique of the movement to which he made such an important early contribution. Too often, modern environmentalism has become anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-economic development, and anti-reason. It is time to reverse this trend.” [emphasis added]
  • “On the basis of a biblical worldview and ethics, as well as of sound science, economics, and public policy principles, we believe sound environmental stewardship celebrates and promotes human life, freedom, and economic development as compatible with, even essential for, the good of the whole environment. While we do not rule out all collective action, we believe market mechanisms are frequently better means, in both principle and practice, to environmental protection. They are less likely to erode important human freedoms and more likely to be cost-effective and successful in achieving their aims. While we understand that passions may energize in the pursuit of sound environmental policy, we also believe that reason, coupled with a commitment to "do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with … God" (Mic. 6:8), must ultimately guide environmental policy."

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The Devolution of Law

"Evolution has affected the thinking of our culture at every level: theology, family life, art, business, law, and public policy. Even Christians have become afraid of the Bible in some of the most practical ways, and as a result, our families are falling apart. This is not a day for timidity and complacency. In this message, Doug Phillips explains how the Word of God gives answers to every area of life, including law, how Christians may identify evolutionary assumptions that have crept into our way of thinking, and how they may powerfully give an answer to the lies of cultural evolutionists."

Friday, May 8, 2009

Evolution...Superfluous to Practical Science

“Most [biologists] can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Wilkins, evolutionary biologist (as quoted in ICR's article "Obama Pushes for Expansion of Science and Technology" by Randy J. Guliuzza)
In a recent address at the National Academy of Sciences' annual meeting, President Barack Obama expressed his desire to focus scientific research on improving peoples' daily lives, "for the purpose of providing 'the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery...of new and useful things.'"

Interestingly, as this article points out, Obama refrained from mentioning any of these ideas in the context of their perceived "evolutionary" significance. This makes sense when you consider that there are essentially two spheres of scientific research today.

The one which we hear the most about, and which we (meaning likeminded Creationists) are most critical of, is what we might call "conjectural science." A scientist discovers a fossil, and evaluates it according to his (unproven) evolutionary presuppositions. This kind of "conjecture" drives the priorities of mainstream scientific research today. But the question remains: on a strictly practical level, just how necessary is evolutionary theory to science?
"A great chasm exists between the real, testable, and experimental science behind developing 'prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again' and the scientific basis for looking at the fossilized bones of a wolf-like creature and contriving a “just so” story of how it “emerged” into a whale." (Guliuzza)
The second category is what we might label "testable and experimental science" as explained in the quote above.

Just for clarification, here is what I am NOT saying. I'm not arguing that a scientist's assumptions about the world have little or no influence on his research. A person's worldview always finds practical outworking in the things he does and says.

The point I'm trying to make is simply this. Evolution is not science - it is an ideology within which "science" is practiced. In fact, honest research reveals the exact opposite of evolution, as we're told in Romans 1:20:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
Obama claims that in his administration, "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over." This sounds nice, but it's only more rhetoric - the president's real scientific agenda is revealed in what he does and not what he says. Consider his recent decision to fund embryonic stem-cell research...

If Newton or Galileo or Watts were alive today, I wonder what they would think of scientists who have to work overtime to make the "facts" fit their theory. As I recall these men did just the opposite.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The Stone Forest in the Desert

These are some images I took in August, 2007 during our visit to Petrified Forest National Park in the badlands of southern Arizona. It was an incredible experience to walk through a graveyard of petrified trees - colorful giants composed of solid quartz, thickly scattered across rolling hills with no water in sight. Where did they come from? Did they grow here?

Park staff will tell you the trees drifted into their current location from distant forests during the Triassic period, and in a mixture of water, sediment and volcanic ash were very slowly petrified and buried (and are now being slowly revealed by erosion.) But is this really a satisfactory explanation?

Consider the petrified forests of Yellowstone National Park.
"Evolutionists explain the petrified forests of Yellowstone as the result of an ongoing cycle: 1) A forest grows and then is buried by volcanic ash and other debris. 2) Dissolved minerals are soaked up by the trees, petrifying them. 3) The ash weathers into clay and soil. 4) A new forest grows on top of the previous one, which is subsequently buried by volcanic ash to begin the process again. This process would have occurred numerous times to produce the 27–50 layers of petrified forests found here at Yellowstone, estimated to have taken over 30,000 years. Eventually these layers, with their forests, were exposed by erosion, revealing what we see today at Yellowstone...

...Biblical creationists explain these forests in a different way. The evidence points to catastrophic processes, which are consistent with the Bible’s teaching of creation about 6,000 years ago and a worldwide Flood. The petrified forests of Yellowstone actually are the result of catastrophic burial during the Genesis Flood, which with its associated volcanic activity, would have produced the right conditions for these trees to have been rapidly deposited and then to have been petrified quickly.
Quoted from Petrified Forests in Yellowstone.

Isn't it interesting how the same "evidence" generates two drastically different explanations?

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Ligers and Zorses Sure, but Orangutan-men?



Did you ever wonder what a cross between a tiger and a lion or a horse and a zebra would look like? As it turns out, these creatures are part of the same respective "kinds" which means hybridization is very possible. The consequent "ligers" and "zorses" are evidence of the fact that these creatures are closely related. This gets some evolutionists very excited, and leads them to ask the question, does the same hold true for men and apes?

Back in the 1920's Russian zoologist Ilya Ivanov (funded by the Soviets) attempted to produce human-ape hybrids in order to demonstrate evolution in action.
"Charles Lee Smith wrote that the objective of Ivanov's experiments was to achieve 'artificial insemination of the human and anthropoid species, to support the doctrine of evolution, by establishing close kinship between man and the higher apes.' The project was supported by The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism because it was seen as 'proof of human evolution and therefore of atheism.' When applying to the Soviet government for funds, Ivanov emphasized the importance of his research for anti-religious propaganda."
Needless to say, Ivanov's experiment was a complete failure.
"Today we know it will not be successful for many reasons, and Professor Ivanov's attempts are, for this reason, a major embarrassment to science. One problem is humans have 46 chromosomes--apes 48--and for this reason the chromosomes will not pair up properly even if a zygote is formed. Another problem is a conservatively estimated 40 million base pair differences exist between humans and our putative closest evolutionary relatives, the chimps. These experiments are the result of evolutionary thinking and they failed because their basic premise is false."
Read the article published by ICR here.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Darwin's Famous Finches: Compared

Many of you have heard about the finches Darwin discovered during his brief jaunt on the Galapagos Islands back in September of 1835. The story behind their discovery and the ongoing controversy regarding the finches' supposed "evolutionary" significance is addressed in depth in my article, Darwin's Finches: Reexamining the Icons of Evolution.

You may be wondering, what do these birds look like? Why are they such a hot topic? Consider the following diagram. (you may need to zoom in for more detail)

Notice how diverse they are, and yet how similar. There almost seems to be a series of fine gradations from small beaks to big beaks...almost like evolution in action. At least, that's what Darwin and others speculate. But there's far more to it than that. Read my essay to discover the truth behind Darwin's finches, those important details which most scientists aren't telling us these days.

Here are some photographs of the finches.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Dr. John Morris Comments on the Galapagos Islands

ICR just published an article by John Morris, Galapagos: Showcase of Creation. Dr. Morris was in the Galapagos Islands with Vision Forum in March - his article is excellent.

"No, there is no evolution happening on the Galapagos Islands. They really are a showcase for creation. On display is God's wise creative design in preparing robust gene pools in each created "kind" that enable all of God's creatures to adapt and survive varying conditions.

Darwin got it wrong at the Galapagos Islands. The Genesis account stands."

Friday, May 1, 2009

That's Not Science!

"According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon.

The intelligent-design movement, Miller said, seeks to allow a non-natural explanation into science. 'By altering the definition of science, they seek a playing field where the supernatural can have scientific meaning.'" [Emphasis added]

"Ever since the birth of science as we know it, a cardinal rule for theists [believers in the existence of a god or gods] and nontheists alike has been to limit scientific explanations to natural causes," said Ronald Numbers, a science historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." [Emphasis added]
The above quotes were taken from National Geographic's article, Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?, written by John Roach, published on April 27, 2005.

It looks like some of us weren't part of the comittee which decided that science must be strictly limited to "naturalistic" explanations, at least if Ronald Numbers is correct. If that were true, any theist who cast his vote in favor would have realized that he was defining himself into extinction.

Ultimately the question of Supernatural vs. Natural explanations draw up their respective battle lines on the issue of origins. Roach admits this in the very first paragraph of his essay.
"Where did we come from? It's one of the oldest and most profound questions. Now "intelligent design" theory may change the very definition of science by allowing the supernatural into the lab."
But, as in all other areas of true "science," supernatural explanations cannot be used--after all that wouldn't be science would it?

Before he makes such a bold assertion, the evolutionist should pause and think for a moment. "What authority do I have to make such a judgment? In fact, what foundation is there for me to even think rationally at all?"

At the end of the day, the battle of the worldviews is not a free-for-all fact fight (ie. who has the most credible research and "evidence"), but one which must be waged at the worldview level. We need to evaluate presuppositions, and determine which side actually has the moral and intellectual foundation upon which to base their arguments.

Prov. 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Psa. 24:1 The earth is the LORD’S, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

I'll Be Back Soon

Forgive my temporary hiatus. I've been deeply involved in research surrounding Darwin's Finches, the Galapagos Islands, and evolutionary theory. So believe me, I have plenty to post about.

I appreciate your patience. Expect some new content soon.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!

Listen to today's Generations Radio Broadcast

In which Kevin Swanson thanks Darwin for eugenics, racism, nihilism, and pseudo-science!

What Led Darwin Astray? Part II

“Why is the Origin of Species such a great book? First of all, because it convincingly demonstrates the fact of evolution: it provides a vast and well-chosen body of evidence showing that existing animals and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms, but must have evolved from earlier life forms by slow transformation. And secondly, because the theory of natural selection, which the Origin so fully and so lucidly expounds, provides a mechanism by which such transformation could and would automatically be produced…” Julian Huxley, Introduction to Origin pg 10
In his introduction to Darwin’s groundbreaking work The Origin of Species, Julian Huxley—grandson of “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley—praises Darwin’s contributions to evolutionary theory, and the way he knowingly contradicted the prevailing views of the 19th century church. As you read the quote above, notice how Huxley characterizes the creationism of the day (and dismisses it as a myth). First of all he correctly notes that the church was teaching a doctrine known as “the fixity of species,” an idea inherited from Greek thought, which claimed that the natural world cannot and does not change over time.

“…showing that existing animals and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms…”

And secondly, Huxley points out that “natural selection” provides a purely materialistic mechanism for transformation. Both of these concepts (change over time, and natural selection as a mechanism for that change) ran counter to the philosophy of the English church at that time.
“Until recently the great majority of naturalists [many of whom were clergy] believed that species were immutable [unchanging] productions, and had been separately created.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species pg. 17
After all, if species adapt and change in response to changes in their environment, wouldn’t that imply that God’s creation was somehow “imperfect?” Wouldn’t it undermine God’s sovereign governorship of His creatures, if nature were in some way responsible for sustaining the viability of a species?

The answer is both yes and no.

Before we address these questions in depth, we need to quickly dispel a common myth about modern Creationism. I’ll make this really plain and simple.

Creationists recognize that species do change and adapt.

Historically this was not the case. The 19th century church espoused the erroneous doctrine of the fixity of species. We DO NOT. It is an unbiblical idea, and no longer has any scientific credibility. There are numerous real-world examples of species’ characteristics changing in response to weather patterns, food supply, predation and other environmental pressures. But most importantly, we understand that the Biblical account—when properly interpreted—allows for such adaptation, without in any way compromising the truth of the Genesis account.

Nonetheless, many evolutionists continue to misrepresent our views. Douglas Futuyma defines “special creation” as “the doctrine that each species, living and extinct, was created independently by God, essentially in its present form” (Todd C. Wood’s “Species Variability and Creationism,” Origins 62 (2008))

In future posts we will deal with natural selection and adaptation, examining the Genesis account to properly understand meaning of the word “kind.” We will take the popular evidences of evolution and point out how they instead point directly to the Creator and affirm the truth of the Biblical account.
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:20-22

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Defend the Faith!

Greg Bahnsen was firmly convinced. The only way to successfully defeat an atheist in argument is to take him back to his foundational beliefs, his unquestioned assumptions about the world, and thereby demonstrate the folly of unbelief. This "presuppositional" approach to apologetics is consistent with the Biblical pattern (ie. Paul on Mars Hill), and is ably articulated and defended in Bahnsen's foundational book Always Ready.

Too many Christians think they have to find "common ground" with their oponent in order to bridge the gap and debate in a meaningful way. But despite their valiant efforts to muster an arsenal of "scientific facts" to counter the arguments of the evolutionist, these sorts of debates ignore the glaring inconsistencies of the atheist position, and culminate in "evidential warfare."

Pick up a copy of Always Ready and learn the Biblical tactics and tools to defend the faith against all opposition!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

What Led Darwin Astray? Part I

The Galapagos Archipelago
“The natural history of these islands is eminently curious, and well deserves attention. Most of the organic productions are aboriginal creations, found nowhere else; there is even a difference between the inhabitants of the different islands; yet all show a marked relationship with those of America, though separated from that continent by an open space of ocean, between 500 and 600 miles in width.”– Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle
Darwin spent several weeks surveying these “curious” islands, venturing inland to explore and catalog the unique flora and fauna of the archipelago. At that point he was neither a committed Creationist nor a convinced evolutionist. The Galapagos Islands were the proverbial “tipping point” in his career, though it would be several years before he would formulate his theory, and write Origin of the Species. To the young adventurer, the islands were teeming with unanswered questions, some of which he recorded in his journal on the voyage back to England.
“When I see these Islands in sight of each other, and possessed of but a scanty stock of animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure and filling the same place in nature, I must suspect they are only varieties…If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks, the zoology of Archipelagoes will be well worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species.” - Charles Darwin (The Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner, 1994)

Interesting sidenote:
Darwin did not initially base his theory of natural selection on the varied bills of the Galapagos finches—he didn’t consider his finch specimens to have much merit, so he failed to catalogue them by island, thereby rendering them useless for scientific evaluation—but rather on the variations he observed between the mockingbirds that inhabited the islands and those of the mainland. The popular story about the finches is a myth.


So, what happened on the Galapagos islands that so drastically altered Darwin’s views on the “origin of species?”

To find the answer, we must return to England and examine the state of the church. It was an age of compromise and doubt, the deadly kindling which sparks the flame of error and eventually, cultural demise.

Come back soon for the continuation of this article.

"There Is No Controversy..."

In an interview with Owen Bennett Jones (BBC News), Richard Dawkins responded to a question about Darwin and evolutionary theory being contraversial. He made the following comment.
He [Darwin] is controversial amongst people who don't know anything, but if you talk to people who are actually educated, he's not really controversial. There's no controversy about the fact we are cousins of monkeys, cousins of cows, cousins of aardvarks. That's completely non-controversial among anyone who knows anything about science.
This is what we have come to expect from Dawkins--from most evolutionists in fact. Their faith allows no room for alternative explanations. And they're certainly not allowing any "outside influences" to enter their schools (that's why only the people who attend government schools are considered "educated" in Dawkin's view).

After all, why teach kids anything but the truth? Right?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

What Should You Teach Your Children About Charles Darwin?

"In 2009, the eyes of the world will turn to commemorate the anniversaries of the births of the two most influential men of the last one thousand years — the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin, and the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. No two men of the past millennium have done more to shape the thoughts of mankind or to affect the political and social destiny of nations than Calvin and Darwin — the former for the glory of God, and the latter for unimaginable evil..."
Read the entire article by Doug Phillips

"The Ghost of Darwin" by Ken Ham

On February 12, 1809, in the modest town of Shrewsbury, England, Susannah Darwin gave birth to her now-famous son Charles in their family home called The Mount.
Darwin’s Presence Where He Was Born
That was [200 years ago today], yet as you walk through the town of Shrewsbury, you sense Darwin’s influence (his “ghost”) all around. Darwin Street, Darwin Terrace, Darwin House, Darwin Gardens, and the Darwin Shopping Center are just a few of the landmarks that honor and immortalize this man.

“I don’t believe in ghosts! But the ghost of Darwin is a very real phenomenon nonetheless.”

Before patrons enter the town library, they are greeted by a statue of an older Darwin and a plaque, which informs them that this is the very building where Darwin received his education.

As area students enter their modern school, they see a prominent statue of a young Darwin, with sculptures of various animals he saw on the Galápagos Islands, which he used to support his idea of natural selection.

Darwin’s ghost also inhabits the classrooms of this school. There students are taught that Darwinian evolution is indisputable fact—the same fact that is taught in secular schools around the world.

Shrewsbury is also gearing up for major celebrations in 2009, the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his famous work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. However, town officials are not just gearing up for 2009. With the prospect of ongoing financial development through the promotion of Darwin’s roots in Shrewsbury, they commissioned a 90-page, 30-year strategic plan centered on celebrating and commercializing Darwin.1 His ghost will become even better known and celebrated (not just in Shrewsbury, but around the world) and will be the focus for tourists visiting the area.

Isn’t it ironic that Darwin—a man who popularized a philosophy destructive to the foundations of the church—was honored by the Church of England by being buried in the foundations of the building? His grave is in the actual floor of Westminster Abbey in London, England

Darwin’s Presence in the Church

The really sad aspect of all this is that Darwin’s ghost has invaded the church. Hundreds of thousands of churches around the world have adopted Darwinian evolution and reinterpreted the history in Genesis to fit with Darwin’s anti-Christian beliefs. Theistic evolution (the belief that God used evolution) has become a dominant position in much of the church in England and has spread from there around the world... Read more

Wednesday, February 11, 2009


There is a tremendous controversy raging today - perhaps more violently now than it has for the last 150 years - between the self-proclaimed scientific elite of our day and Bible-believing Christians who firmly uphold the authority of the Genesis account.

We must not stand idly by.

Welcome to Confronting Darwin, a blog dedicated from the outset to the Biblical understanding of origins, and to the Creator who continues to sustain and sovereignly direct the universe He has made.

Though this blog is not intended to be the "one-stop-shop" for Creation research, I intend to use it as a platform to voice some of my own thoughts, as well as those of more qualified men, on the issue of origins, "evolution," natural selection, adaptation, mutation, speciation...etc. from a distinctly Biblical perspective.

I pray this will be a source of encouragement for you. Drop by as often as you like!