On the Bookshelf

The Boxing Match of the Millennium

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?

Ligers and Zorses Sure, but Orangutan-men?

Liger

Zorse

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.

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.

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."

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.