This and the previous post promote two books which need to be promoted widely. ZOMBIE SCIENCE in particular reveals how devastating this theory has been to the authority of God’s Word. It actively promotes a materialistic philosophy. Here is what Jonathan Wells thinks of clergymen who claim that evolution and God are “bosom buddies”. Get real!

Image result

Jonathan Wells wrote Icons of Evolution, back in 2002 in which he identified common themes in college textbooks that are used to illustrate evolution, even though they are dubious and even discredited. In this forceful sequel Jonathan refutes criticisms of his original work, and shows that, far from being corrected, these icons not only persist, but have been joined by new icons. That is why we are dealing with zombie science. Wells clearly shows that evolution, as currently taught, has a stifling effect not only on religion, especially Christianity, but also on science itself. Evolutionist ideology – not innocent mistakes. They are intentional – done to promote evolutionism and its materialism at all costs.

According to the establishment science is supposed to deal with factual matters, while religion is relegated to subjective feelings and imagination. This right then and there is prejudicial to religion. Wells quips:

“In effect, this is just a restatement of materialistic philosophy. It’s a bully tactic to convince religious believers that they are not entitled to say anything about objective reality” (p.172). No kidding!

Taken from a very comprehensive book review by Jerry Woodmorappe Journal of Creation Vol.32 (1) 2018


Dr. Del Tackett is part of an upcoming film titled “Is Genesis History?” and he’s hoping the documentary will give Christians the confidence they need to stand strong on the Word of God, particularly the creation account, without compromise.

“I’m hoping that people will look at the film and they would realise that they don’t have to accede to the accusation that if you hold to a position of [young earth], of a literal historical position in Genesis, then [you are] unscientific or stupid,” Tackett told The Christian Post during the premiere screening at The Creation Museum earlier this month.

“My hope is that those people that want to hold to biblical truth would walk away with the confidence that there is credible evidence and there are credible scientists, that they could be sure that what God has given us is true and can hold onto that.”

The documentary follows Tackett as he embarks on an eye-opening educational journey through evidence that supports historic claims from the book of Genesis, featuring commentary from renowned scientists and Bible scholars.

The film explores the questions and findings of the universe being created in six literal days, as well as whether or not humans evolved, the validity of a global flood, what happened to the dinosaurs and more.

“Here’s my position, and I think it’s one of the things that I’ve learned throughout the film: We are in an amazing time when the research is allowing us to see so much data that reinforces a Creator, that reinforces what He told us in the beginning,” Tackett said to Christian Post. “And I think it’s going to be increasingly difficult for the current paradigm to last much longer.”

“I would tell Christians, ‘If you are going to put your trust in Evolution and you’re going to say that God’s Word is now just an analogy, or it’s just some kind of simile, you’re twisting the Word of God because of a paradigm that is already really shaky.’ I would say, ‘You have that backwards. We start with the Word of God. We start with the record that God has given to us and stand on that, then begin to view the world around us. That’s when things will make sense.'”

The same is true when people try to make sense of evil, he noted. “If you come from a natural position, you won’t understand it. But if you come from it as it is described in the word of God, then it does make sense.”

“We live in a time where the current scientific paradigm is infiltrating a lot of the seminaries and a lot of the hierarchy in evangelical Christianity because people have been led to believe that science has settled this issue of deep time,” Tackett lamented.

If Christians are now feeling that they have to somehow rectify their faith for a scientific perspective, Tackett said then they are ripping out the foundation of everything that God has given to His creation.

“You lose the concept of a God that speaks life into existence, you lose the concept of male and female, you lose the concept of marriage, and the origin of sin and why there is evil. You lose the concept of a God that is holy, who judges sin and who will judge sin again,” he explained.

What the Bible scholar sees today is a generation caught in the current belief of creation without God.

“The world is still captive in the current paradigm. That paradigm, just as every paradigm in the past, really doesn’t allow any other questions,” Tackett pointed out.

What Tackett failed to say is that the theory of evolution has been the most successful ploy that Satan has concocted. It provides the excuse for fallen man to reject God, and despite the fact their is no mechanism (or evidence) to take you from “goo to you”, they won’t except the obvious – intelligent design because it requires a designer – GOD.


Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-19770) made a major contribution towards Christian theory of reality (ontology). In his theory, Dooyeweerd proposes that we understand creation as having multiple aspects (law-spheres), where an ‘aspect’ is defined as “a basic kind of properties and laws”. Examples of such kinds are: physical, spatial, biotic, logical, sensory, linguistic, ethical, etc. He distinguishes fifteen such aspects of created reality. They are mutually irreducible both in the sense that none can be coherently eliminated in favour of another and also none can be coherently regarded as the cause of any other.


The core idea is that all aspects are created, since there is nothing that God did not create. This includes matter and life, the laws of logic, and the laws governing all the other aspects. The theory goes on to argue that all things in creation have (active or passive) properties of every one of the aspects and so are subject to the laws of all the aspects. For example, a rock has a specific weight whether we know its weight or not. It is has this property independent of an observer. But its sensory colour is not independent. Rather it appears black in relation to a perceiver. Thus the rock’s colour is a passive property because it requires being acted upon by a perceiver to be actualised. The theory takes note of the observed fact that, as far as we know, only humans have active properties in all fifteen aspects. Second the first six (lower aspects) are governed by laws that cannot be broken such as the law of gravity. By contrast higher aspects such as “ethical” can be violated. Dooyeweerd argues that the aspects lower on the list are preconditions for aspects higher on the list, but that no aspect produces an other. For example, it is necessary for there to be things with active physical properties in order for there to be things with active biotic properties, which are in turn necessary for there to be things that have active sensory perception.

The distinctness of modal aspects is anchored in our experiences with all created things: from a molecule over algae and mammals to humans, each kingdom features new active properties that do not exist in the lower kingdoms, neither can they be imagined – as transitional- properties. A philosophy that presupposes a loving God who has given us the ability to observe, know and experience the world in a meaningful way necessarily leads us to trust our observations. The distinctness and irreducibility of modal aspects and laws tells us, then, that things could not have ’emerged’ or evolved form each other, having their origin in God and without the means of some evolutionary process that cannot account for the step changes in the properties we observe.

I would suggest that the only reason special creation is rejected as the best explanation for origins is a pre-existing bias towards materialistic evolutionary explanations.

Extract from article by Martin Tampier in Journal of  Creation Vol. 30 (2) 2016