IMPORTANCE OF CREATION MINISTRIES INT’L AND ANSWERS IN GENESIS

Posted on by

Creation Ministries International (CMI) commonly receive testimonies from folk who have come to faith in Christ but then had a wilderness experience before finding their way to a confident faith. A major reason for this wandering is the doubts generated by the pervasive evolution/ long-ages mindset that crowds in upon the new Christian’s confidence in the Bible as the Word of God. Malcolm T. shared:

I became a believer in 1989 but in all of this time [20 years], I have been plagued by doubts caused because I couldn’t prove creation or doubt evolution. This had caused me so much trouble in my daily Christian walk and a lack of assurance. Recently, I came upon creation.com and began reading the articles every day and, praise be to God! I saw that creation is the truth and evolution is a lie and all my doubts and fears have disappeared …

Simply sharing a Creation magazine has led many to a restored Christian walk. Indeed, not just restored, but, like Malcolm, a much more confident and active faith.

I shared a post recently about Martyn Isles, an Australian evangelist that was being used mightily to share the Gospel in all States of Australia under the banner of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL). Martyn has now moved to Answers in Genesis. This move was orchestrated by God and proved to me the importance of both Answers in Genesis and CMI. God is using both of these organisations to restore faith in the Bible (God’s Word) from Genesis to Revelation. You need to get behind and support both these organisations.

http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org.

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION PREPOSTEROUS

Posted on by

It is mathematically preposterous to infer macroevolutionary developments from microevolutionary observations according to Dr Olen R. Brown, Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri- Columbia, USA, and, David A. Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, US.

This new evidence is from an article “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to Survive” by Brown and Hullender in an international journal called Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, which is a peer-reviewed publication established in 1950. It seeks to offer “informative and critical reviews of recent advances in different aspects of biophysics and molecular biology.

ABSTRACT

Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth-century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by the discovery of mutations. There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) is shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis toward a unifying theory modeled after the Grand Unified Theory in physics. This should include the possibility of a fifth force in nature. Mathematics should be rigorously applied to current and future evolutionary empirical discoveries. We present justification that molecular biology and biochemistry must evolve to aeon (life) chemistry that acknowledges the uniqueness of enzymes for life. To evolve, biological evolution must face the known deficiencies, especially the limitations of the concept of survival of the fittest, and seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization, Schrödinger’s negentropy, and novel approaches.

Something essential is missing in the theory of biological evolution (Neo-Darwinism)

Any overall mechanistic explanation of the origin and evolution of life ultimately must satisfy two challenges: the transition from non-life to life, and the blossoming of life forms that are so extreme as to appear outrageous. The evolution of a few flowers on a hillside is reasonably explained by mutation and selection; it stretches logic to explain the millions of extremely diverse species seen currently and in the fossil record. It is difficult to conceptualize an insect that is novel or more…

A way forward

An example of the application of mathematics to a difficult science problem was the Drake equation which estimated the number of alien civilizations capable of radio communication with Earth (Loeffler, n.d.). Carl Sagan popularized it on the PBS broadcast Cosmos. Drake and his equation contributed significantly to the founding of the Search for Extraterrestrial Life (SETI). We propose an equation, modeled after the Drake equation, to stimulate thought about evolution probabilities (Eq. (1)). The …

Probability of evolution

Probability, like any scientific analysis, has limitations. Because evolution is generally accepted as scientifically established, probability assessment has largely been overlooked; it happened, we are here, so the probability is one. Evolutionary probability generally is said to be supported by the statement that billions of years make evolution possible. However, this overlooks the fact that time is a linear factor and evolutionary probability inevitability involves exponentials that are …

Self-organization is hidden in life chemistry

Manfred Eigen, a Nobel Laureate, and member of the Pontifical Academy, introduced the concept of the self-organizing power of matter into biological evolutionary theory (“Manfred Eigen: From relaxation kinetics to evolution,” 2018). His 59-page article titled Self-organization of Matter and the Evolution of Biological Macromolecules (Eigen, n.d.) was published in 1971. Eigen did more than anyone before or since to apply mathematics to evolution. Throughout the paper, Eigen supports the narrative with …

The enzyme is essential for life

Life is the most unimaginable state of matter. For growth and replication, energy is essential. The cell is chemically far from equilibrium and maintained by intricately complex processes that require enzymes to make required chemical changes. All life forms use ATP as the ultimate energy source to pull reactions in favoured ways essential to life. The human, amazingly, using the power of enzymes makes approximately 450 pounds of ATP each day according to L. M. Krauss (2001). This requires that …

Aeon chemistry

As “the something” additional required to explain life we propose that the concept of life chemistry (aeon chemistry – meaning vital or life chemistry) be used for the biochemistry within cells that has the appearance of being directed or vital. The difference is not subtle; it cannot be avoided with intellectual honesty. Life, and most certainly its evolution, involves direction (for example, the descent of humans from a common ancestor). It is irrational to believe that chemistry to form a rock or a …

New physics and a fifth force in nature?

The long-awaited first results from the Muon g-2 experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are now available (UW News staff, n.d.). The data show fundamental particles called muons acting in ways not predicted by the current best theory, the Standard Model of particle physics. The finding is of tremendous significance. The result, made with unprecedented precision, confirms a discrepancy that has been concerning researchers for decades. Although it is…

Conclusions

Biology originated as a descriptive science; it has progressed to an empirical stage, and now it is time to retain both while boldly progressing into a theoretical phase. Microevolution is probabilistically realistic; macroevolution is not, and this is documented empirically. Biological evolution should be challenged with four objectives: (1) to redefine the limitations of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain what is fundamentally established and creatively to seek and define…

Article “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive” by Dr Olen R. Brown, Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri- Columbia, USA and, David A. Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, US – https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology

GREAT OPERATIONAL SCIENCE VERSUS BAD HISTORICAL SCIENCE

Posted on by

The article, “A New Measurement Approaches Perfection” in Quantam Magazine, April 10th, 2023 by Z. Savitsky, demonstrates the electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles: If the electron’s charge wasn’t perfectly round, it could reveal the existence of hidden particles.

The experiment measured the roundness of the electron with exquisite sensitivity. For comparison, “if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.” The experiment showed “The electron is rounder than that.” But this result in real operational science has disappointed advocates of the historical scientific theory of the big bang. Why? The big bang is the leading naturalistic cosmogony (Greek: ‘birth of the universe’). It basically states that energy appeared from nothing and turned into matter, as per Einstein’s most famous formula, E = mc2. However, The Standard Model of particle physics, among the best-attested theories in all science, throws up severe problems. In particular, any conversion of energy into matter must produce an equal amount of antimatter. Antimatter comprises antiparticles of the same mass but opposite charge (if the particle is charged) and magnetic moment as the corresponding matter particle. When an antiparticle meets its corresponding particle, both are quickly annihilated with a huge release of energy, again as per E = mc2. That is antielectron (positron) with electron, antiproton with proton, antineutron with neutron, etc.

The problem with the big bang is that the universe comprises overwhelmingly matter, with hardly any antimatter except for fleeting moments. As the article says: For one thing, our mere existence is proof that the Standard Model is incomplete since, according to the theory, the Big Bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter that would have annihilated each other.

How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. But notice the logical fallacy known as begging the question (Latin: petition principii)! That is any argument where the conclusion to be proved is presupposed (‘begged’) in one of the premises. In particular, although real operational science overwhelmingly supports the Standard Model, there must be something wrong with it because it means that the Big Bang would not work. How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. This question-begging arises from the previous question-begging: that we arose by naturalistic means—no Creator necessary.

Leading evolutionary geneticist, Professor Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of [evolutionary] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Because of this question-begging a priori commitment to naturalism (only ‘nature’ exists), evolutionary cosmologists have been trying to find loopholes in the Standard Model. In particular, any asymmetry that could explain why much more matter than antimatter was produced in the big bang.

Even with the incredible sensitivity of the latest experiments, the “result is consistent with zero and improves on the previous best upper bound by a factor ∼2.4.”1 This is great support for the Standard Model but a serious problem for the big bang. As stated at the beginning of the article, the experiments have not found any deviation from a perfectly spherical electron, despite unparalleled experimental precision.

Also, trying to find tinier and tinier deviations from a sphere is equivalent to looking for particles at higher and higher energy scales. In turn, this is equivalent to looking for more and more massive particles beyond the Standard Model. This experiment is so sensitive that it’s equivalent to energies above 1013 eV (electron volts). This is over ten times the energy the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can currently generate.

There is no question that this is excellent science: both great ingenuity and careful checking and cross-checking of data. The results back up an extremely well-supported and useful theory of particle physics. However, those committed to the big bang, regardless of real particle physics, continue to be disappointed. The best solution is: to stick to real science and abandon the naturalistic faith that demands the big bang.

Article by Jonathan Sarfati Electron is perfectly spherical – Real particle physics refutes big bang dogma: www.creation.com

SIGNPOSTS TO GOD

Posted on by

Another great article in Creation Magazine 2023, Vol 45, Issue 2, this time by Peter Howe Dip. Th., B.Th., M.A. A trained primary school teacher, Peter pastored several churches as an ordained minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia.

Evidence of design

Flicking through a magazine one day as a child, I came across a photograph of Mount Rushmore, South Dakota, with the unmistakable likenesses of four American presidents carved into the rocks. Knowing nothing of how these came to be there, I remember thinking, “How strange! These can’t have happened by accident.”

Precisely! No one could seriously suggest that these shapes resulted from wind or rain or glacial erosion. These carved faces are clearly the result of creative design and effort.

Though not professing a commitment to anything like the God of the Bible, Paul Davies, former professor of theoretical physics at The University of Adelaide, writes in his book The Mind of God:

“Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact … I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.“

The humblest believer in God as Creator must exercise far less credulity, and has far less explaining to do, than the most ardent evolutionist materialist.

Of course, fallen humanity has devised many increasingly sophisticated speculations of how nature could nonetheless have made itself. Ministries like CMI provide people with specific answers to such challenges. Even so, it pays to step back and contemplate the ‘big picture’ of what is claimed, and its affront to common sense itself.

The evidence within

Another signpost is human nature. We have been made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Thus, we have spiritual capacities that cannot be explained apart from God. Language, reason, ambition, creativity, humour, wonder, worship—all these have no counterpart in the natural world. These qualities mark us out as different from the rest of God’s handiwork. This is another way of saying that our Creator has endowed us with the capacity to relate to Him at a personal level.

Within human nature, conscience is another sign pointing to God. Proverbs 20:27 says of the human spirit that it is “the lamp of the Lord, searching all [man’s] innermost parts.”. Our conscience is responsible for our intuitive knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil. The Apostle Paul states that even those who don’t have God’s law in written form still have a conscience that commends them when they instinctively do what it commands and accuses them when they don’t (Romans 2:14–15).

An image of hand

Even without a ‘book of rules,’ we know it’s wrong to lie, steal, covet, and murder. Conscience ‘puts a pebble in our shoe’ whenever we violate it. The standard it sets and the guilt it inflicts point us to God—the Source of all good and the Judge of all evil.

Eternity in our hearts

Our longing for eternity is another pointer to God. Somehow, we know and feel that this life is not all that there is. Archaeologists have discovered how carefully and elaborately the ancient Egyptians prepared for the afterlife, and they had no Bible to tell them about a life to come. Where does this longing for eternity come from? Everything on Earth is subject to change and decay:

“Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.” Psalm 102:25–27

These ‘immortality longings’ we all feel at various moments are pointers to the God who created us in His own image.

Hunger of the soul

Another signpost to God is our longing for meaning and purpose. We always knew when our cat Simba was hungry and wanted to be fed. (Any cat owner knows that dogs have masters, but cats have staff!) He would eat his prescription dry food and go away content; his next meal seemed to be the limit of his horizon. But we can’t live at that bare, subsistence level—at least, not for long. We crave meaning and purpose in our lives; we long to enjoy significant and satisfying relationships.

This sense of longing is often called ‘the homesickness of the soul’—and rightly so, for that’s precisely what it is. The true object of our longing is God. The words of the psalmist reflect this truth:

“As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?” Psalm 42:1–2

Of all the signposts pointing to God, the Bible is by far the clearest. When a British monarch is crowned, he or she is given a copy of the Bible, and told, “This Book is the most valuable thing that this world affords. This is the royal law; these are the lively oracles of God.” When we read the Bible with a humble and teachable attitude, we find it to be a source of supernatural wisdom and power. The psalmist prayed: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law” (Psalm 119:18). Paul reminded his young associate Timothy that Scripture provides the wisdom and instruction that leads to “salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15).Scripture’s major theme is Jesus Christ, God’s only Son. As “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), Jesus is the clearest and most compelling witness to the existence and greatness of God the Father. Jesus Himself said: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He is the perfect transcript of what God is like.

But the supreme demonstration of God’s love and care is the sending of His Son into the world to suffer death on the cross, to save us from our sins, and to reclaim us for Himself. The Cross is more than enough to convince us that God loves and cares for lost people (Romans 5:8). Jesus Himself said that He came “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).

To help us find our way to God, there are signposts everywhere, but the most vital one is Jesus. He said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

EVOLUTION UNDERMINES THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE SAYS DR SARAH BUCKLAND

Posted on by

The information in this post was largely extracted from an interview with Dr. Sarah Fay Buckland titled GEOGRAPHY EXPERT FOR CREATION (Jonathan Sarfati chats with Dr. Sarah Buckland) in Creation Magazine 2023 Vol 45, Issue 2.

Dr. Sarah Fay Buckland earned her doctorate in geography from The University of the West Indies (Kingston, Jamaica) with high commendation. Dr. Buckland, who is a lecturer and published researcher, also holds a certificate in Bible evidence from the Creation Apologetics Teachers’ College (USA) by the Creation Training Initiative. She is the founder and principal director of Chosen to GLOW Ministries, which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to defend their faith.

Dr. Sarah Fay Buckland explains why it is imperative we believe the Genesis account of origins.

Evolution undermines the reliability of biblical history:

Evolutionary theory posits that human ancestry cannot be traced directly to only one man, contrasting with the biblical account of a literal Adam and Eve. This compromised belief undermines Jesus’ entire genealogy, as recorded in Luke’s Gospel. Jesus’ human ancestry traces back to Adam and the patriarchs. So how much of the Bible, therefore, would be deemed trustworthy? As Jesus asked:

“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” John 2:12

Evolution undermines Jesus’ authority, omniscience, and thus His deity:

In several Bible passages in Luke, Jesus refers to real events that occurred in Genesis. He specifically referenced patriarchs and events, including the murder of Adam’s son Abel.

“Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. ” Luke 11:51

Also in Luke, Jesus uses the time of Noah and the Flood to reference the time of His soon-coming return.

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” Luke 17:26-27

Once again in Luke, Jesus makes it clear that God made Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation they were not the product of evolution over millions of years.

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Mark 10:5-9

Genesis clearly states that all human beings were created in God’s image. All persons being created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights has formed the foundation for most positive anti-racial campaigns, including those by William Wilberforce and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. The Bible clearly teaches that God created humanity from ‘one man’ (Acts 17:26). While many secular movements depict Christianity as racist, the evolutionary worldview inherently has the most racist roots, both philosophically and in practice.

For instance, biological evolution requires an evolutionary ‘progression’ from the first ‘primitive’ humans to modern man. Unfortunately, Darwin and the early Darwinians point to an African origin of the most ‘primitive’ humans. Conversely, Europeans were considered the highest-evolved race. This philosophy influenced some of the most racist movements, including Hitler’s Nazism. It even filtered into early practices under the guise of ‘science’. African Pygmies were even caged in zoos.

Once again, the Bible’s unchanging doctrines always provide the most ethical basis for all aspects of life, in contrast to the ever-changing story of evolution.

GENOME MAKES EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE

Posted on by

The human genome is much more complex than anyone imagined. In fact, the level of complexity argues directly against any sort of evolutionary origin for the code that makes us. This episode features Dr Rob Carter and Gary Bates. This a must-watch video, just 19 minutes, particularly for young people to show that there is a master designer that has produced this incomprehensible complex universe. To my mind, no rational person could look at this video and think we were created by mutation and natural selection. And no one who is intellectually honest could do anything but be in awe of the genius of God.

ANSWERING THE SKEPTICS: NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD

Posted on by

The ‘no evidence for God‘ claim is an interesting one. It often works to frame the discussion in such a way that only creationists have a burden of proof. It allows the unbeliever the comfortable position of the skeptic: they get to poke holes in our case without ever having to make a case for anything themselves. Plus, skeptics regularly demand airtight arguments practically anyone would have to accept before they would believe in God (Agnosticism). As such, we almost certainly won’t convince them. But then that supposedly means that our faith in God isn’t reasonable. The game is rigged from the start. Heads, the skeptic wins; tails, we lose.

How should we respond?

CMI suggests you flip the script. Instead of you presenting a case for God, make them present what they think a case for God should look like. The simplest way to do this is to ask them: ‘What sort of evidence would you expect God to give?’

Many skeptics will say things like, ‘Well, none of the arguments I’ve seen convince me.’ Or they may just continue to demand that you convince them. Don’t let them off the hook. Hold their feet to the fire. Say something like: ‘Well, if I don’t know what would convince you, why should I bother trying? How do I know that anything I might say wouldn’t just fall on deaf ears?’

You want them to give you something concrete. But, failing that, your goal is to make them feel the irresponsible dogmatism of their skepticism. If skeptics hate anything, it’s looking like a gullible dogmatist. If they continue to avoid the question then walk away. The Holy Spirit may prompt you to pray for them but otherwise do not waste more time.

But if they do give you something concrete, then play the skeptic. What you want to do is to show them that even the case they expect would convince them has the same sort of holes they think exist in the case we make for God exists.

EXAMPLES:

Many skeptics will say things like: ‘Well! if I saw an amputee healed in response to prayer, that would convince me.’ Response: ‘Really? How do you know God would’ve done it?’ ‘The prayer’, they’ll respond. Your response: ‘That could just be a coincidence. Besides, it’s just a one-off event. What if it never gets repeated? That doesn’t sound scientific. Plus, how do you know something other than God didn’t step in to heal the amputee? Maybe aliens did it! At least we know aliens can exist, since we exist. But God? You’re just linking events that have no demonstrable link and labelling it with ‘God did it’ to cover for your lack of a scientific explanation.’ This sort of response is a real stinger because it’s exactly how most skeptics respond to cosmological and design arguments for God.

Some of them might say, ‘Well, if God appeared to me right here and said, “Here I am, believe in me!” then I would.’ Response: ‘So, you’d bow the knee at a vision that may very well just be a dream? How would you know for sure you didn’t hallucinate?’

Some might say, ‘If the stars read “God exists. Worship him”, I would believe.’ Response: ‘That would only be useful to people who knew the language the message was written in. Nevertheless, how do you know the stars don’t say that in a language you’ve never encountered? At any rate, why not other beings that want to deceive us? It’s not something we could say that only God could do, so why should we trust a message in the sky with practically no context? Besides, why should you expect God to arrange the stars just to sate your curiosity about his existence? Is that really reasonable to expect of God? Are we the centre of his universe?’

With such responses, you’re not trying to show that God doesn’t exist. Rather, you’re trying to show that we can always come up with reasons to doubt that will sound plausible to someone, no matter what evidence is put forward. And if they say, ‘Well, that’s what would convince me.’ Respond with: ‘So what? You can’t guarantee that it would convince every rational person. You didn’t say, “There’s no evidence for God that convinces me”; you said, “There’s no evidence for God”, period. If all you’re aiming to do is convince yourself, how can anyone else be sure that you’re really looking for the truth? And this isn’t just about trusting you. This is also about whether you’re even competent to look for the truth about God.’

At this point, they might start saying things like, ‘Well, all I can do is look at the evidence and do my best to figure out the truth. You have to do that for yourself, too.’ At which point you can respond with: ‘Exactly! That’s all I’m trying to do, too. But I genuinely think that things like the following are best explained by the existence of God (click on the links for a detailed explanation of each).

‘I see those things and more as evidence for God. I’m not saying that other explanations can’t be offered, or even that smart and sane people can’t disagree with me. Maybe you don’t find these to be conclusive proofs, but it’s a gross overstatement to say that they don’t qualify as evidence. Furthermore, when I look at them as honestly and critically as I can, I still think God is the best explanation for them. But when you say, ‘there’s no evidence for God’, you seem to imply I’m less than rational and/or honest when I say that. Is that fair?’

After all, that’s the real effect of this ‘no evidence for God’ claim. If they hold it consistently, they have to admit that you’re essentially irrational just for being a theist. But hopefully, by this point, they feel the unjustified dogmatism of their view, and walked it back a bit to admit that theists aren’t necessarily failing to reason properly when they believe in God. If you manage to do that, then you’ve won a huge victory. And that might be a good place to end the discussion for the time being. People often need time to process these sorts of things, so bombarding them with everything in our arsenal all at once is just unhelpful. For a start, they are probably not ready to hear most of it with an open mind. Rather, we try to deal with the person where they are at and try to nudge them a little bit in the right direction.

This information was assembled by Shaun Doyle of Creation Ministries International (CMI) in answer to the many queries CMI receives on how to answer skeptics’ arguments. http://www.creation.com

ONLY CREATION CAN EXPLAIN THE GOLDEN PLOVER

Posted on by

THE ANIMAL KINGDOM contains many marvels that modern science has yet to fully explain. One example concerns the migration flight of the golden plover.

The Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) is a small shorebird, about the size of a dove. It lives from northern Siberia to western Alaska. Every year, these birds leave their young and fly south to spend the winter in South Asia, Southeast Asia, Australasia, or on various Pacific islands.

Of the Alaska-dwelling members of this species, almost all (including those stopping en route to more distant destinations) make a migratory flight to Hawaii, where the bird is known as the kolea. Alaska to Hawaii means an 88-hour, non-stop flight across more than 4,500 km (2,800 miles) of open ocean. The birds are unable to swim, and there is no land between these locations for them to stop and rest. Amazingly, for an individual plover to fly this distance would require more energy than is stored in its body.

Before departure, they put on additional weight, mostly in the form of fat reserves to sustain their long flight. On average, they gain enough to give each bird about 70 grams (2.4 oz) of consumable energy. Here is the dilemma, though; these birds in flight burn approximately 1 gram of energy per hour, so they should consume all their stored energy in about 70 hours, which is 18 hours short of Hawaii. However, each year the golden plovers make it to Hawaii. How is this possible?

As do some other kinds of birds, the plovers fly in a V-formation. This is so they can ‘draft’ off each other, which reduces the energy required to fly. This saves each bird, on average, 23% of the energy that would be used if flying unaccompanied. This is, however, not the case for the bird at the lead position, but the plovers take turns in that position and thus ‘share the load’.3 These golden plovers arrive in Hawaii every year with 6.8 g (0.24 oz), on average, left over from what they had ready for the flight. This provides insurance in case of non-advantageous winds encountered on the flight route.4

It is not uncommon for the plovers to lose 50% of their total body weight during this epic flight spanning less than four days. This is amazing. Imagine a 60 kg human losing 30 kg (65 lb) while jogging non-stop for this entire period, neither eating nor drinking—without any ill effects!

Sophisticated programming

The plovers’ innate abilities enabling them to perform this amazing migratory feat have all the hallmarks of design, engineered into their systems for migration purposes. Consider the following instinctive abilities, all of which are pre-programmed within the bird’s DNA, thus already in the fertilized egg:

  • Timing their substantial fat gain. Each bird needs to have this extra fuel already on board when the time comes for them to depart, together, on their astonishing odyssey.
  • Ensuring in advance the correct amount of fat for the distance needed. Too little, and the bird would plunge into the ocean and perish, its fuel all spent, before reaching its destination. Extra weight adds to the effort of flying this incredible distance, so with no possibility to rest, too much fat risks the bird again falling short of Hawaii, in this case from exhaustion.
  • Drafting off each other in flight. Without such a clever aeronautic strategy, even the extra fat they carry would not last the distance. Consider, too, the built-in ingenuity that causes them to alternate the ‘lead pilot’ position so that all of them share this energy-saving benefit equally.

All of this reflects a Designer with intelligence and ability beyond all human understanding. In His omniscience, He can say, “I know all the birds of the hills” (Psalm 50:11). This Designer, the Lord Jesus Christ, created all the original populations (kinds) of living things ex nihilo. He deserves our awe and praise:

“O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” Psalm 104:24

The article is taken from Creation Magazine Volume 45, Issue 2, 2023. Make sure you subscribe http://www.creation.com

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FALSIFIED

Posted on by

The Last Pillars of Darwinian Evolution Falsified: Further evidence proving Darwinian evolution wrong
by Jerry Bergman

Dr. Jerry Bergman is a famous creationist author who has extensively published over many decades and who has taught at several universities. He describes the research that went into this book:

“This project has been for me a lifelong study for which this book is a summary. It is the culmination of four decades of research on the issue of evolution, 41 years of teaching life science at the college level, and over 1,700 publications in 2,400 college libraries in 65 nations and 13 languages” (p. xvii).

In terms of specifics, this work focuses on taxonomy, so-called convergent evolution, irreducible complexity, pseudogenes, and antibiotic resistance. Bergman goes into considerable detail on all of these.

Irreducible complexity is the fatal problem for evolution

Bergman touches on some of the challenges facing commonly believed evolutionary explanations for the origins of complex structures, resulting from the co-option of components originally having different functions. He comments:

“… the availability of these parts would have to be synchronized … the parts must be correctly and properly positioned in 3-D space so they can be properly assembled … . Even if all of the parts are available at the proper time, the vast majority of assembly variations will be nonfunctional or dysfunctional” (pp. 145–146).

Some evolutionists have vulgarized the Intelligent Design explanation as a ‘jackpot or nothing’ one. But that is exactly what it is, and evolutionists have failed to show how the emergence of a complex biological structure can be anything other than ‘jackpot or nothing’.

Bergman has examined and deconstructed a variety of ‘pillars’ of evolution. Each one of them contains major flaws. Neither taxonomy nor genetics, for example, compel belief in evolution. Evolutionists have caricatured, but not overcome, the fatal problem of irreducible complexity. The best explanation for living things, whether somebody likes it or not, remains an intelligent designer.

A condensed version of a review of Dr. Bergmans book in the latest edition of The Creation Journal Volume 37, Issue 1, 2023

EVANGELISE MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH CMI RESOURCES

Posted on by

Creation Ministries International (CMI), including their flagship Creation magazine, exists to help readers worldwide love God with their minds and imitate Christ in logical thinking. In every issue, they interview good examples of that; in their latest issue Vol 45, Issue 2 it is geographer Dr. Sarah Buckland from Jamaica (pp. 18–21) and biologist Dr. KeeFui Kon from Singapore (pp. 36–39). They also show how biblical creation is logically illustrated by super designs, such as the golden plover (pp. 24–25) and even the air we breathe (pp. 50–52).

And he [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37

“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience” 1 Peter 3:15

“​ Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1

What else is in the latest edition? Proof of the flood of Noah’s day, which must logically be global (Genesis 6–8). With an intense process like the Flood, we don’t need millions of years. And millions of years are necessary (but not sufficient) for evolution from goo to you via the zoo. The Flood explains the spectacular ammolite (pp. 12–13) and the wide Nile valley (p. 56). But God rescued a remnant of people (such as Shem, pp. 46–48) and animals on a massive Ark (pp. 32–35). After the Flood, people and animals migrated around the world, such as rafting monkeys (pp. 14–17).

A team of scientists at Australia’s Monash University has “discovered a new universal rule of biological growth that explains surprising similarities in the shapes of sharp structures” across a vast array of living things.

Our universe is governed by many precise and universal physical-mathematical laws, reflecting its lawgiving Creator. Many medieval founders of science, such as Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, and Thomas Bradwardine taught that the Creator upheld the creation in the language of mathematics. Centuries later, Galileo wrote that the universe is “written in mathematical language”. So the discovery that structures in living creatures follow a mathematical power law is fascinating, but not surprising.

This is just a small example of the valuable content of the Creation magazine. You need to subscribe. Go to http://www.creation.com to do so. I have at least 100 copies of back issues of Creation magazine if anyone wants some email me at ron@bakb.com.au.