TRULY FREE THOUGHT

EVIDENCES OF A YOUNG EARTH

2010-05-10T22:05:00.006+01:00

[Picture: NASA]

The Answers in Genesis website offers an interesting article listing 'Six Evidences of a Young Earth'; some food for thought -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Six_Evidences_of_a_Young_Earth&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign

POPULATION III STARS MISSING

2010-02-17T18:24:00.008Z

[Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Photo Credit: NASA/ESA/S. Beckwith(STScI) and The HUDF Team]

TrueOrigin presents a very interesting and informative article (initially published by the Creation Research Society in 2007) by amateur astronomer Steve Miller entitled ‘Population III Stars and the Big Bang Model’ in which Miller observes that the absence of these kind of stars is a problem for ‘evolutionary astronomers’ who resort to ‘special pleading to deal with the fact that Population III stars have never been found.’

Here is the article -
http://www.trueorigin.org/pop3bigbang01.asp

ALGAE ARE TOP PHYSICISTS

2010-02-17T16:00:00.011Z

Over at the Institute for Creation Research there's a facinating article by Brian Thomas entitled 'Algae Molecule Masters Quantum Mechanics' about a type of algae utilising the quantum mechanic coherent travel path of light. Check it out here -
http://www.icr.org/article/5268/

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE NOT NECESSARILY LIKE THE REAL THING

2010-02-09T20:43:00.009Z

[Picture derived from public domain image from PDClipart.org]

Fascinating item over at Creation Ministries International about Artificial Intelligence.

A Professor of Artificial Intelligence provides a little reality check into the matter, apparently much to the chagrin of people holding to Naturalistic philosophy.

Raises some interesting issues. Here's the article -

http://creation.com/robots-not-intelligent

INTERESTING ARTICLE ABOUT DINOSAURS

2010-02-09T19:34:00.013Z

The Creation Research Society (CRS) Blog highlights a very interesting article by Jerry Bergman entitled 'The Evolution of Dinosaurs: Much Conjecture, Little Evidence' which appeared in the CRS Quarterly, Volume 46, Number 2, Fall 2009 -

http://www.crsblog.org/paleontology/the-evolution-of-dinosaurs-much-conjecture-little-evidence

On the CRS Blog you can click the PDF button at the bottom of the post for the full article.

EVOLUTIONIST UNCERTAINTY ABOUT ASSUMED CONSTANT IN RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPE DATING

2010-01-22T11:54:00.013Z

A fascinating article over at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) reports on recent work by researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) which brings into question the reliability of radioactive isotope dating used by Evolutionists to date the age of the Earth and the solar system.

The ICR article -
http://www.icr.org/article/5161/

ASU news report -
http://asunews.asu.edu/20091231_brennecka

DEBATE IN THE USA, MARCH 2010

2010-01-22T11:00:00.010Z

March 12-13 2010 there will be a series of professionally moderated debates under the event heading 'The Debate Summit' in a town called Washington Court House, in Fayette County, Ohio, USA.

The first debate is scheduled to be “Moral Foundations: Which Makes More Sense, Christianity or Atheism?” and is between Jay Lucas, senior pastor of Grace Community Church, and Dr. Ed Buckner, president of American Atheists.

The second, “Flight in Birds and Bats: Is Evolution or Creation the Best Guide?” will be between Dr. Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at Leeds University in the UK, and Dr. Will Provine, professor of biology at Cornell University.

And the third and last debate will be “Free Will: Does It Exist? Does It Matter?” between Dr. Dennis Sullivan, of Cedarville University’s Center for Bioethics, and Dr. Will Provine again, professor of biology at Cornell University.

Some information from Ken Ham's blog -
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/01/20/creation-evolution-debate/

The Debate Summit blog -
http://debatesummit2010.blogspot.com/

TIKTAALIK ROSEAE DEMOTION CAUSES EVOLUTIONIST RADICAL RE-THINK... AGAIN

2010-01-19T21:18:00.046Z

[Picture of Tiktaalik roseae derived from original

National Science Foundation public domain image]

Well, well, who'd have thought it?!

Tiktaalik roseae, it seems, is not all it was cracked up to be. It was thought, in the Naturalistic fable of Evolution, to be the first out of the water, but it is now being asked to hand back the 'First Place' rossette it had won in the 'Gotta Get Outta The Water' section. Yup, turns out Evolutionsts now think something else broke free of the water before it!

I remember when I read about the Tiktaalik roseae fossils in the New Scientist issue of September 2006, I was struck that really it was yet another fine example of how remarkably easily Evolutionists weave a speculative web as fact. And although the fossils' historic Evolutionistic stature was founded firmly on speculation, Evolutionists at the time of course, as is their way, felt confident they were pretty sure they knew exactly what the significance of the Tiktaalik roseae was.

Now, though - Whoops! Not so sure.

The recent discovery of what are believed to be fossilised 'footprint' tracks made by a walking animal have been aged as older than Tiktaalik roseae.

The Creation Ministries International article linked to below quotes Evolutionists as saying things like-

“They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”

And -

“These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals.”

Evolutionists will, of course, be able to comfort themselves with the knowledge that nothing is as flexible as the ever nebulous fable of Evolution. They'll just do their ususal jiggling-everything-about-a-bit trick until they feel confident enough again to tell everyone they know what happened. Just one of the benefits available to those whose philosophy promotes opinion and assumption as fact.

Reports about the recently discovered fossilised tracks-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8443879.stm
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/2

The article over at Creation Ministries International -
http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik

Some other Biblical Creationist articles of interest concerning Tiktaalik roseae -
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

And an interesting article from the Discovery Institute (which promotes Intelligent Design theory rather than Biblical Creationism) -
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat.html

UPDATES ABOUT DARWIN DOCUMENTARY

2010-01-11T14:35:00.003Z

Couple of quick updates about the Darwin documentary ‘Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World’ from Creation Ministries International (CMI).

With the completion of the documentary, Evolutionists, only too predictably, have been indulging their penchant for frenzied mud-slinging with the usual vitriolic accusations following any project daring to mention criticisms of Darwinism.

In the articles below the film-makers defend themselves against accusations of deceit, lying by omission, bearing false witness, and misrepresenting historians -

http://creation.com/the-voyage-darwin-film-defended

http://creation.com/darwin-historians-not-misrepresented

And in this article, along with a useful list of ‘Deconstructing Darwin’ articles, CMI reports that the documentary won gold ‘for a dramatised documentary in the Queensland division of the Australian Cinematographer’s Association Awards, which automatically puts it in the national awards early in 2010’ -

http://creation.com/the-darwin-anniversary

Congrats!

And the DVD is available to buy here -

https://store.creation.com/uk/product_info.php?sku=30-9-543

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Voyage-That-Shook-World/dp/B002XOL66I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263220648&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Voyage-That-Shook-World/dp/B002J1RZG0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263220725&sr=8-1

Broadcast and Distribution information at this site –

http://www.thevoyage.tv/default.aspx

BIBLICAL CREATIONIST MUSEUM IN THE UK!

2010-01-06T21:34:00.008Z

A Biblical Creationist museum in Portsmouth says of itself –

'The Genesis Exhibition is a creation museum, the first of its kind in the UK on this scale. The expo is run by the Creation Science Movement, also known as CSM.'

The Genesis expo is the biggest Creation Museum in the UK. The expo is located in the touristic heart of Portsmouth, minutes walk from the railway station at Portsmouth Harbour, opposite the bus station, and within view of the historic dockyard and HMS Warrior.'

And –

'The topics covered include -

-The impossibility of life forming from chemicals.

-Chinese calligraphy refers back to Genesis.

-The present day forms remain unchanged from their fossil counterparts.

-Geological sediments are laid down rapidly.

-A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman.

- and many other subjects.

They are all presented in an easily understood form for those with little knowledge of the enormous amount of scientific evidence that is against evolution and supports creation.'

Here's their website -

http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/index.html

And expo pages online -

https://www.csm.org.uk/expo.php

Alternative to Darwinism?

2010-01-06T21:22:00.002Z

Just found this thought-provoking Alternative Darwin Day website -

http://darwinday.org.uk/

See this article about Darwin's Dissenters -

http://darwinday.org.uk/Page20.html

HOW OLD?

2010-01-06T20:10:00.011Z

Interesting article by Don Batten, published June 2009, over at Creation Ministries International, entitled ‘Age of the earth - 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe’ which lists evidences for 'a young world' and has links to articles expanding on each point -

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

ATHEISTS SHY AWAY FROM DEBATE

2010-01-06T19:56:00.008Z

Creation Ministries International (CMI) reports that prominent Atheists refuse to debate Biblical Creationists.

CMI issued an invitation to a recorded debate in response to the planned 2010 Global Atheist Convention, entitled ‘The Rise of Atheism’, to be held at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre in Melbourne, Australia over the weekend of March 12–14, 2010.

But The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc (AFA), organisers of the event, declined to have such a debate, saying ‘It is the Convention’s policy to not arrange interviews or debate with any of the presenters.’

It could taken as being very telling that an organisation like AFA, which states that part of its philosophy is to ‘reject... prejudice’ and which asserts that it aims ‘To encourage and to provide a means of expression for informed free-thought’ and ‘to offer the methodology of reason’ has decided to organise a high profile global convention with a policy of non-debate.

I guess it is indeed much easier to appear unprejudiced, informed and reasonable when shielded from the bothersome scrutiny of intellectual challenge by a no-debate policy. Sounds more like a methodology of evasiveness.

But as no debate is allowed at the Atheist convention, CMI have arranged ‘a special Melbourne creation event at the same time’ –

‘On the Sunday afternoon (14 March) of the same weekend, CMI will be holding a multisession event in the same city (Melbourne)—from 2pm to 7pm, with an optional ‘early bird’ screening of our Darwin documentary The Voyage That Shook the World at 1 pm.

It will feature one session each from three of our scientist speakers, followed by a public panel question/answer time, with ample breaks between sessions.’

More can be found here, including correspondence between CMI and AFA -

http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

JUST A QUICK UPDATE

2009-09-21T22:15:00.002+01:00

Well, we’ve moved, but still surrounded by boxes of stuff waiting to find it's place. Ain’t it just the way.

And because I seem to be getting busier and busier and the days shorter and shorter, I’ve been umming-and-ahhing about whether I can realistically keep my blogs going in any way that would make them of interest and help to people. And I’ve decided I really want to keep them all going.

I always envisaged they would each develop gradually over time into some kind of resource; but I hadn’t thought it might be quite as slow as it has been. I could be in danger of winning some internet award for the net’s slowest blogger!

But, as I say, I really want to keep them going, so I’m going to keep plodding on in my own sweet time and hope they will each continue to grow into something enjoyable, stimulating and useful.

I’m aiming to start blogging more regularly again some time in the next week or two, so do please keep dropping by and checking out what’s going on.

BLOG UPDATE

2009-07-10T18:42:00.002+01:00

I know my blogs progress slowly anyway, but they will completely inactive for about a month from now while we move.

After that I shall persevere with all my blogs, because even though I am usually very busy and they develop slowly (some more slowly than others), I still hope they will develop into useful resources over time.

I hope you find this blog interesting, and will come back and visit again in the not too distant future.

Til soon then!

GRAND EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS MADE FOR FOSSIL IDA

2009-05-25T23:12:00.007+01:00

Some grand claims have been made for the newly publicised fossil named Ida. Even some Evolutionists are surprised how flashy the propaganda machine for this one is. Note how the mainstream media as usual effortlessly presents spculation as fact; the BBC, for example, states that 'The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature have been unveiled in the US.' But such a date is Evolutionist speculation, not established fact.

Here is some of the news coverage -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-at-a-glance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-missing-link-discovery
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6360606.ece

Here are some Biblical Creationist critiques -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link
http://creation.com/darwin-fossil-ida-hype
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/21/ida-real-story

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY CONFERENCE

2009-05-25T23:02:00.005+01:00

The 2009 Creation Research Society Conference will be 10th-11th July at the University of South Carolina Lancaster in the US.

More info -
http://creationresearch.org/events/conference_2009.htm

http://creationresearch.org/events/conference_2009_presenters.htm

NEW DOCUMENTARY ABOUT DARWIN FROM CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL

2009-05-05T20:48:00.019+01:00

(The young Charles Darwin from 'The Voyage That Shook the World'; photo by Steve Murray, courtesy CMI)

2009 being the 200th year since Darwin's birth and the150th anniversary of the publication of his book 'The Origin of Species', Creation Ministries International (CMI) has used the opportunity of these anniversaries to offer a critique of Darwin's work by producing a documentary called 'The Voyage That Shook The World'.

CMI says, "Structured around Darwin’s famous HMS Beagle voyage, it features stunning wildlife photography, period re-enactments and interviews with leading authorities from around the world. We made this 52min. documentary to the highest production standards utilizing media professionals so that it could be broadcast on general TV."

Haven't found it available to buy anywhere yet, but if I find somewhere I'll let you know. Until then, or until it is broadcast or you can catch it at a screening, here's some more info about it -

A 3 minute trailer is viewable on the CMI homepage -
http://creation.com/

More information about the documentary is available here -
http://creation.com/cmis-year-of-darwin-documentary

Production promotion sites -
http://www.fathom-media.com/thevoyage/

http://www.thevoyage.tv/

ARTICLE AT INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH - 'DARWIN'S WITHERING TREE OF LIFE'

2009-05-05T20:02:00.007+01:00

The May issue of the Institute for Creation Research's 'Acts & Facts' has a very interesting article concerning the subject of my post of Saturday 14 February, 'No Evidence At All The (Evolutionist) Tree Of Life Is A Reality'.

The article, by Brian Thomas and Frank Sherwin of the Institute, is titled 'Darwin's Withering Tree of Life' and is well worth a read -

http://www.icr.org/article/4597/

NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THE (EVOLUTIONIST) TREE OF LIFE IS A REALITY

2009-02-14T00:22:00.051Z

I have had a number of discussions with Evolutionists in various contexts, and one of the points they often make is that ‘there is just so much evidence’ in support of the theory, and they list different fields of research which have supposedly produced vast amounts of evidence in support of common ancestry of all life on earth, including molecular biology, and terms like ‘DNA’ or ‘genetics’ get mentioned as corroborating the theory of Evolution.

The ‘there is just so much evidence’ argument sounds, of course, hugely impressive unless one has taken the trouble of critically assessing the specific areas to see exactly what each supposedly contributes to the big picture.

Concerning the subject of DNA specifically, I have pointed out in discussion with Evolutionists that in fact molecular biology is a field that has produced some of the biggest problems for the theory precisely because it actually fails to corroborate the pattern of morphologically derived relationships which Evolutionists have sketched out in their ‘tree of life’.

But, of course, my being a Biblical Creationist, my comments were duly disregarded. How could I possibly know what I was talking about, right?

Biblical Creationists having been successfully caricatured in the public arena as ignorant, extreme and devious to varying degrees, the victims of Naturalistic propaganda consider themselves morally obligated to dismiss and deride everything we say simply on the basis that we question Evolutionism.

Thus, if someone such as myself says DNA does not corroborate the Evolutionist ‘tree of life’, it’s a ridiculous, ignorant and misleading thing to say. Well, it must be; I’m a Biblical Creationist. And everyone knows the evidence for Evolution just keeps piling up and up. Right? Well, that’s the propaganda, isn’t it. And how very successfully the propagandists dish it out. And how very readily the ‘free-thinking critical rationalists’, as they like to portray themselves, gulp it down.

Well, I was interested to discover an article from The Guardian from January of this year in which Evolutionists themselves confirmed exactly what my previous reading up on the matter from non-Evolutionist resources had indicated to be the case -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

I quote: 'modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading'; and: '"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.'

The DNA does not corroborate the pattern of morphologically derived relationships which Evolutionists have sketched out in their ‘tree of life’. Only this time it's Evolutionists saying it, so it must be proper science an' all. Not ridiculous, ignorant and misleading. Because, as everyone knows, Evolutionists don't say things that are ridiculous, ignorant and misleading.

Now, as is invariably the case, whilst their 'tree of life' is being 'politely buried', the fact that DNA does not corroborate the Evolutionists' morphologically derived 'tree of life' seems not to have hit the headlines at places like the BBC, who usually like to keep the public well informed about the latest discoveries about Evolution. Not newsworthy enough? "Our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change," said Michael Rose, the evolutionary biologist from the University of California. No news there then. But did you hear about who got knocked out of Strictly Come Dancing? In-depth and impartial coverage of the important issues from the BBC.

And, too, of course, as is the Evolutionist manner, the whole fundamental change in how biology is viewed does not require disregarding the idea of Evolution per se. No, it must just have happened some other way. More bushy than tree-like it seems is the novel new variation of those sturdy old scientific facts. Yes, not a tree of life, but a thicket of life, or a web of life. This is the new fact. Evolution, the propagandists have been declaring from the rooftops, is a fact, a FACT!! And the fact, it seems, has now changed from a tree to a web.

But was there not until recently just so much evidence for the Evolutionist tree of life? Well, welcome to the shady and nebulous world of Evolutionary theory.

Now, if I had told you that actually there never was any evidence for the Evolutionist tree of life anyway, would you have scoffed? Well, if you've an Evolutionist outlook then of course you would have, that's how your free-thinking, rational mind has been induced to react to anything which casts doubt on Evolutionary theory. But what if an Evolutionist told you there is no evidence for the Evolutionist tree of life? What then? Different frame of mind?

Again I quote from the article: '"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.'

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." That's exactly what Biblical Creationists have been saying for over a century. No evidence. But when an Evolutionist says it The Guardian writes an article about it, and without even a hint of derision. Marvellous.

But of course, the fact that this 'news' merely indicates that these evolutionary biologists misunderstood the history of life on earth all along does not mean they need to discount Evolutionary theory. No, no, a fundamental change in how biology is viewed does not mean anything quite as fundamental as that. What is meant, you see, is a fundamental change without any alteration to the basic notion, that kind of fundamental. No, the show must go on! Evolution is a fact, that's plain; all that's needed is a little fundamental tweaking, a few nudges et voila! there you have it - the latest contradictory evidence blends perfectly with all the previously established sturdy old facts. What a tangled web indeed.

Here's the New Scientist article -

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Other articles worth checking out on the matter -

Not Biblical Creationist:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

http://www.physorg.com/news92912140.html

Biblical Creationist:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5067

http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-withering-tree/

http://www.icr.org/article/4404/

RECOMMENDATION: BOOK - 'IN THE MINDS OF MEN'

2008-12-11T10:27:00.016Z

‘In The Minds of Men – Darwin and the New World Order’ by Ian T. Taylor, pub. TFE Publishing, ISBN 0-9691788-3-2

An informative, well written and fascinating historical review of the roots, rise and implications of Darwinism, this very useful book helps the reader to get to grips with some of the underlying issues pertaining to Evolutionary theory, and remains useful as an ongoing research tool because of the detail in various areas.

Taylor critiques the philosophical and speculative nature of dogmatic Evolutionist assertions, the nebulous scientific claims underlying them and the dedicated propaganda that has lain behind the popularisation of the Evolutionary fable.

It is a substantial work, carefully researched and referenced, and well illustrated too, running to a little under 500 pages in the third edition I have, (although I think up to the sixth edition, which might be a little longer, is now available).

Very highly recommended.

The book can read online at the Creationism.org site (also useful just for more specific information about the book's contents if thinking about purchasing it) -

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm

About the author –

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMa00bAboutAuthor.htm

For anyone wanting to purchase the book, it seems not to be the easiest book to get hold of, and can be a little pricey from some places, but it is certainly money very well spent for anyone serious about becoming informed about the reality behind Evolutionist propaganda. Editions may vary, but they seem to be basically the same in structure and most of the content. Obviously the most recent would be preferable for any detailed updates. Nevertheless, any edition would be very useful. Here are sites it seems still to be available from -

http://www.creationmoments.net/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=583

http://www.amazon.com/Minds-Men-Darwin-World-Order/dp/0969178824/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228991894&sr=1-7

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Minds-Men-Darwin-World-Order/dp/0969178891/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228989906&sr=1-11

And here are a couple of items of interest ensuing from the book. Some criticisms by a Don Lindsay (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/index.html) and then a response from Ian Taylor –

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/taylor.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_01.asp

WHAT IS MATERIALISM?

2008-09-02T22:35:00.008+01:00

Let’s look at some authoritative sources to help us identify a working definition of Materialism here for this blog. Where a source has supplied multiple entries relating to different meanings I’ve just cut straight to the pertinent one.

Britannica.com -

‘Materialism - in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.’

Merriam-WebsterOnline -

‘Materialism - a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.’

Penguin Consice English Dictionary -

‘A theory that only physical matter is real and that all processes and phenomena can be explained by reference to matter.’

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -
From the article ‘Physicalism’ (first published Feb 13, 2001)

‘Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical... The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical -- items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are wholly physical.

Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Historically, materialists held that everything was matter -- where matter was conceived as "an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist" (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). The reason for speaking of physicalism rather than materialism is to abstract away from this historical notion, which is usually thought of as too restrictive -- for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983).’

Okay, well, I’d love to get straight to analysing some points from these statements, but I’m not aiming to start critiquing Materialism right now in this post, just to establish a working definition.

But it is pertinent to the matter of terms and definitions to comment upon the point, arising from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article quoted above, that ‘Materialism’ is also known as ‘Physicalism’. It is worth being aware of this generally, of course, which is why I quoted the article, but, further, I would also make the point that the change to, or preference for, the term ‘Physicalism’ rather than ‘Materialism’, which the article speaks of, because the term ‘Materialism’ is supposedly too restrictive, is a perfect example of the ineffectual confusion of the philosophical mind. It is vacuous to assert that it is more accurate to describe anything of the material realm as being ‘physical’ rather than to describe it as being ‘material’.

If something is material, which is to say, of the material realm, then it is physical, which is to say, of the physical realm; and likewise, if something is physical, of the physical realm, then it is material, of the material realm; because the terms ‘material’ and ‘physical’ identify exactly the same thing.

Gravity, for example, is a material force; which is to say it is of the material realm; it is material in nature, and is thus empirically and/or mathematically measureable, or quantifiable. And you can say exactly the same thing by replacing the word ‘material’ with the word ‘physical’.

It makes no difference whether you describe gravity as a material force or a physical force, because the adjectives ‘material’ and ‘physical’ identify the same thing.

So, it’s worth being aware that Materialism is sometimes called Physicalism, but I shall continue calling it Materialism, as that is the more commonly recognised term, and is just as accurate.

Derived from the quotes above, then, our working definition of ‘Materialism’ is this –

‘Materialism is the philosophy which asserts that only matter exists, and that everything that occurs is dependent upon, caused by and explicable only with reference to matter.’

WHAT IS BARAMINOLOGY?

2008-08-02T21:13:00.016+01:00

Okay, well, this is pretty straightforward. Our working definition of this term is as follows -

'Baraminology is the Biblical Creationist approach to classifying, and identifying the historic biological relationships between, all forms of life on Earth in light of Biblical teaching about created kinds.'

(For more detailed information about Baraminology please see the following -

http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/kinds.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/classifying-life

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm)

USING EQUIVALENT CATEGORIES OF REFERENCE

2008-06-17T17:31:00.025+01:00

I have often come across, and been involved in, debates about science where people readily confuse categories of reference.

The general theory of biological Evolution (sometimes referred to as Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution), or Darwinism, for example, is contrasted against Biblical Creationism, or Creationism more generally.

But this is to employ a logical fallacy, confusing issues and confounding true debate.

This is because, concerning this blog's focus specifically, Biblical Creationism is a framework for assessing scientific data, whereas the general theory of biological Evolution, or Darwinism, is a proposition about the relationships of all living things.

The actual correct category equivalent for Biblical Creationism is Naturalism, which is also a framework for assessing scientific data.

And the actual correct category equivalent for the general theory of biological Evolution, or Darwinism, may now be readily identified as Baraminology, the Biblical Creationist approach to classifying and identifying the historic biological relationships between the various forms of life on Earth.

The chart at the top of this post identifies the equivalent categories of reference. Christianity is the reason for, and basis of, the framework of Biblical Creationism.

Atheism is the reason for, and basis of, the framework of Naturalism.

And because of these frameworks, and within them, specific propositions are put forwards concerning the historic biological relations of life on Earth, the Naturalistic proposition being Darwin's general theory of biological Evolution and the Biblical Creationist proposition being Baraminology.

And so it is evident that to compare or contrast Darwin's general theory of biological Evolution with Biblical Creationism is actually a logical fallacy; one which some might be happy to perpetuate, but a logical fallacy nonetheless. It is a mismatch of categories and is not conducive to making or clarifying pertinent points because the logical fallacy undermines true constructive discussion of the issues.

To be accurate and logical, biological Evolutionary theory should be compared with or contrasted to Baraminology; they are equivalent categories of terms of reference, and by comparing and contrasting within the equivalent categories pertinent points may be made, helping to maintain the logical integrity of any argument seeking to compare or contrast the differing views.

More generally, because Naturalistic ideas about the Universe, the Earth and the beginning of life on Earth also commonly incorporate a notion of natural evolution, even if not biological in nature, the term Evolution can be used in a more general sense to identify an entire Naturalistic outlook. Thus debates are sometimes described as being between Evolution and Creation; both terms identifying entire outlooks).

But as I say, if the history of biological relationships is specifically the subject under consideration then what I have stated above should be borne in mind.

One just needs to be careful to clarify precisely how terms are being used in various contexts.

[PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST WAS REVISED 15-2-10 TO (1) CLARIFY BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IS REFERRED TO IN THE MAIN POINT & (2) ACKNOWLEDGE THE ACCURACY OF THE MORE GENERAL MEANINGS OF TERMS IN THE ‘EVOLUTION-CREATION’ DEBATE]

WHAT IS NATURALISM?

2008-06-11T21:54:00.012+01:00

In terms of identifying a working definition, 'Naturalism' is something of an oddity in that it appears to have a reasonably long and fairly common usage which is just not recognised by common book dictionaries.

I have three dictionaries to hand here, the 2005 Pocket Oxford Dictionary (OED), the 2005 Collins English Dictionary and the 2004 Penguin Concise English Dictionary, and each recognises the artistic/literary usage, with something like the OED’s ‘an artistic or literary style based on the highly detailed and realistic description of daily life’, (although it should be noted, for those interested, that some sources recognise a distinction between 'Naturalism' and 'Realism', with the former being more an approach to subject than to style, with stories reflecting distinct philosophical doctrines by analysing character, motive, events etc as if the work of art were almost a scientific study of nature) but none of the dictionaries make any mention of the usage which means the philosophical exclusion of reference to the supernatural. But this usage of the term to mean philosophical exclusion of reference to the supernatural (by which I mean denying the validity of any supernatural framework of reference) has, as far as I can ascertain, been recognised and in reasonably common usage at least since the first half of the twentieth century.

But although common book dictionaries seem not to recognise this meaning, online dictionaries do.

The Merriam-WebsterOnline Dictionary 2008, for example, gives as its second definition for ‘Naturalism’ the following -

‘a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.’

And YourDictionary gives as its fourth definition -

‘Philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance.’

Okay, so that at least establishes the existence of that usage of the term.

Going into more detail, it is important to note that most persons of a philosophical bent would insist that the above definitions refer to what is called 'Philosophical Naturalism', or sometimes 'Metaphysical Naturalism', or 'Ontological Naturalism', which is a philosophical position which dogmatically asserts that Nature accounts for all phenomena, and that nothing beyond nature, nothing supernatural, exists; and they would insist that this is very different to something called 'Methodological Naturalism', which is sometimes described as the underlying principle of scientific enquiry, which asserts that no judgement need be made about whether the supernatural exists or not because for the study of nature only natural explanations need be, or should be, sought.

But in reality, the idea that there exists any significant distinction between Philosophical Naturalism and Methological Naturalism is but an ineffectual philosophical nicety without any real, substantive, or practical implications.

Philosophical Naturalism asserts the supernatural does not exist, while Methodlogical Naturalism merely disregards the question of whether or not the supernatural exists and acts in effect as if it does not.

In effect, then, there is no real difference between the two. In terms of substantive, significant, practical implications, both rule out reference to the supernatural. Thus, in reality, both constitute the same approach, the same framework, the same sphere of reference, and both permit only of the same answers, dogmatically excluding any reference to anything beyond Nature, no matter the evidence and no matter the endless fictions required in order to appear to have Naturalistic answers where there are none.

So, the meaning of the term 'Naturalism' is essentially in effect the idea that Nature is all there is, and that there is no valid explanatory framework other than is supplied by Nature; the idea, then, that Nature is all that is real and that if something exists then it must be explicable in natural terms.

Which is confirmed by a quote from the 'Statement on Naturalism' found on the website of The Center for Naturalism:

'Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it.'

'A single, natural world' clearly identifying the premise that there is only Nature, that only Nature can be said to exist.

So we have our working definition for this blog -

'Naturalism is the idea that Nature is all there is, that Nature is all that is real, that there is no other valid explanatory framework other than is supplied by Nature, and that if something exists then it must be explicable by reference to Nature alone.'

Okay, so there's our working definition. In other posts I will come to critique Naturalism in more detail, but for now, in view of what this working definition identifies Naturalism as being, let me ask you some questions for you to think about for now, and we'll come back to them later.

First, if Nature is all that exists, then from where do proponents of Naturalism derive any grounds for love, justice, mercy or conscience; what are the natural constitutions of these?

Second, how do you feel being considered to be the product of purely natural phenomena and fully and only explicable in terms of natural forces; do you think that accurately reflects what you are?

Third, do you think Naturalism provides a realistic and adequate basis for understanding your existence, or does the revelatory message of the Holy Bible actually make more sense in explaining the human condition?

In closing, it is worth bearing in mind that the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ repudiates Naturalism as wholly inadequate, completely false and utterly misleading.

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

2008-05-22T22:25:00.012+01:00

Yup, that’s me in the picture; downstairs in the cellar again, in my makeshift lab, playing around with whatever luminous, bubbling, hissy liquids I can lay my hands on. Only real science for me, thank-you very much!

But no, I think the closest I’ve ever been to anything resembling a lab was the science classroom way back in school. Just had to show you this ridiculously silly montage.

But moving on... concerning the more serious matter of establishing a working definition of ‘science’ to use in the blog, let’s see what my 2005 Pocket Oxford English Dictionary has to say:

‘n. 1: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2: an organised body of knowledge on any subject.’

Well, obviously, it’s not the more general second definition we’re looking at here, but the more specific first one dealing with study of the physical and natural world.

That seems straightforward enough, then. There’s our definition -

‘Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.’

Okay, now if you’ll excuse me, I have work to do. I’ll be in the cellar. For your own safety, do not enter!

WHAT IS ACCIDENTALISM?

2008-05-21T22:03:00.027+01:00

I thought perhaps I might have invented the term ‘Accidentalism’ until I did some research and found it already existed, albeit as a seemingly rarely used term.

It seems it has some very specific usages regarding, for example, medicine, or painting, but its general meaning, according to Webster’s Online Dictionary (because its not in my Pocket Oxford English Dictionary), is as follows:

‘Noun - 1. Accidental character or effect.’

And it is in this sense that I use the term ‘Accidentalism’ in referring to a belief system which attributes everything to accident.

‘Accident’, according to my 2005 Pocket Oxford English Dictionary (OED), being as follows:

‘n. 1: an unpleasant and unexpected event. 2: an event that happens by chance.’

And it is the second more general definition which is pertinent - ‘an event that happens by chance.’ And ‘chance’ being, again from the OED, and cutting straight to the pertinent definition:

‘n. 4: the way in which things happen without any obvious plan or cause.’

So, accidents are events that happen without any obvious plan or cause; i.e., according to Evolutionists and Naturalists: the Universe, the Earth, life, and all of life's great variety.

Accidentalism is a belief arising from the inherent inadequacies of Naturalistic philosophy, which philosophy asserts that Nature is all there is and that nothing exists above and beyond Nature.

Because of its atheistic basis, Naturalism dogmatically denies purpose in creation. It refuses logical arguments indicating purpose, and it ignores evidence of design in the natural world. Thus, Naturalism, whilst claiming to offer rational answers about the world, finds itself instead having to rely upon the intellectual inanity of Accidentalism.

So, dogmatically denying purpose, Naturalism must persistently resort to the notion of ‘randomness’, or ‘chance’ as it might be called, or ‘accident’, to explain the existence and character of the Universe, of the Earth, of life on Earth, and of the variety of life on Earth.

Evolutionist assumptions being rooted in Naturalism, if one looks beneath the surface of Evolutionism one finds that Accidentalism effectively describes the predominant Atheistic, Naturalistic and Evolutionist view of the Universe and of life on Earth.

The term ‘Accidentalism’ usually refers in practice, then, to the belief that billions of years ago Nothing suddenly, naturally and accidentally became Something; then this Something naturally and accidentally exploded into being the universe with its finely-tuned characteristics allowing the parameters for the conditions for biological life to exist; then, in this universe, there naturally and accidentally developed a planet on which occurred the even greater fine-tuning constituting those very conditions in which biological life could exist; then there naturally and accidentally occurred a particular combination of chemicals that were zapped by lightning which naturally and accidentally caused rudimentary biological life to occur; then this rudimentary biological life naturally and accidentally acquired the capacity to organise itself, replicate itself and develop in complexity; then this biological life naturally and accidentally persisted replicating itself and developing in organisation and complexity until all biological life on Earth that we see today had naturally and accidentally evolved through common biological ancestry.

Now, you will obviously have noticed in this belief system the recurrent notion of the accidental. Indeed, the whole belief system is underpinned by it, characterised by it, dependent upon it, so that the whole belief is verily constituted by reference to the notion of the accidental.

According to this belief, everything we see around us exists and is as it is because of the consistent influence of the accidental. Commonly regarded as an arbitrary factor in life, in Naturalistic and Evolutionistic belief, the accidental is transformed into the consistent and reliable mechanism by which the impossible persistently occurs.

Thus, Naturalism, whilst purporting to be rational in character, is forced, because of its dogmatic limitations, to resort to the intellectually untenable idea that that which is obviously purposefully designed has occurred naturally through a long, convoluted series of impossible accidents. Naturalism is forced by its inherent inadequacy to rely on the irrational, illogical, untenable, intellectual absurdity of Accidentalism.

Accidentalism is simply absurd, and it denies the evidences of the natural world and of logic, and thus has nothing to do with science. This is why in reality, beyond all the rhetoric about owning science, Naturalism shows itself to be the enemy of true science; it demands science be confined to the search for its own assertions, when its own assertions are dogmatically inadequate.

Now, Naturalists and Evolutionists sometimes say the term ‘accident’ is inappropriate, but actually, as we have seen, it is an entirely accurate description of precisely what they posit; an accident, to reiterate, being, as we saw in the OED, ‘an event that happens by chance’, and ‘chance’ being, again in the OED, ‘the way in which things happen without any obvious plan or cause.’

And there’s the central thrust of Evolutionism and Naturalism for you right there - things happen without any obvious plan or cause.

Any possibility of the existence of a prior plan or cause beyond Nature is exactly what the Naturalists must dogmatically deny. Thus for them, everything must be attributed to randomness, chance, accident; which explains Evolutionism’s reliance upon Accidentalism.

On this blog, then, I specifically employ the term ‘Accidentalism’, to mean the following –

‘The idea that persistent reference to accident adequately explains the existence and character of the Universe, of the Earth, of life on Earth, and of the variety of life on Earth.’

Accidentalism is the last refuge of the desperate Naturalist. They say they seek empirically based, rational answers; but because of the inherent inadequacy of their philosophy they end up actually offering no answers at all. Unable to provide any real explanations, they are forced in the end to resort to repeatedly answering the great questions of life with the same dismal nonsense; the same desperate answer that is effectively really a non-answer.

How and why has the Universe come to exist? It was an accident.

How and why has the Earth come to be? It was an accident.

How did life begin? It was an accident.

How has all the amazing variety of life on Earth come about? Accidentally.

How has man come to exist? Accidentally.

Is there any purpose to man’s existence? No, he is an accident.

For anyone truly seeking answers, Naturalistic philosophy merely comes across as somewhat dismissive and disinterested, as well as illogical in its dogmatic denial of the obvious. Indeed, the fact that, as we shall see in more detail in later posts, these accidents that Naturalists posit are naturally either scientifically, mathematically or logically impossible, goes to show how utterly irrational their philosophy renders them. For anyone seeking answers, it is very unsatisfactory. It all just falls a bit flat really.

DON'T TALK TO DAVID ATTENBOROUGH ABOUT THE BEAUTY AND WONDER OF THE NATURAL WORLD!

2008-05-17T18:27:00.049+01:00

I just recently read an interview, from the Jan/Feb 2008 edition of New Humanist magazine, with David Attenborough, the BBC’s famous television presenter of nature programmes, and dedicated Evolutionist, in which he repeated his stock response to people asking him about the evidence of design in nature.

‘He told me that he had been so pestered by those who saw a divine pattern in nature that he had now developed a stock response. “I tell them they ought occasionally to think less of beautiful things like hummingbirds and orchids and sunflowers and think of other, less attractive things. They might, for example, think of the parasitic worms that live only in the eyeballs of human beings. Think of that worm boring its way through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa. A worm that’s going to make him blind. Are you telling me that God or an intelligent designer created this worm that can live in no other way than in innocent child’s eyeball?”’

And indeed, a stock response it certainly is, appearing again and again in interviews with Attenborough. For example, at about the same time as the above interview came out an interview with Attenborough appeared in the BBC's Radio Times magazine, in its 26 Jan–1 Feb 2008 edition, this time conducted by Jeremy Paxman.

‘He occasionally gets letters from people who say how much they love his programmes, but want to know why, when he shows pictures of something as wonderful as hummingbirds, he doesn’t give credit to their Creator. He has drafted a standard reply, which asks why it is that people who suggest he should give credit to a Creator Lord always cite hummingbirds, butterflies of roses.

“On the other hand, I tend to think of an innocent little child sitting on the bank of a river in Africa, who’s got a worm boring through his eye that can render him blind before he’s eight. Now, presumably you think this Lord created this worm, just as he created the hummingbird. I find that rather tricky.”’

And the stock response appeared, too, when interviewed by Andrew Denton in 2003 for American broadcast network ABC’s programme ‘Enough Rope’. In response to a question about whether he ever got 'a sense of God's pattern', Attenborough gave his stock response -

'Well, if you ask…about that, then you see remarkable things like that earwig and you also see all very beautiful things like hummingbirds, orchids, and so on. But you also ought to think of the other, less attractive things. You ought to think of tapeworms. You ought to think of…well, think of a parasitic worm that lives only in the eyeballs of human beings, boring its way through them, in West Africa, for example, where it's common, turning people blind. So if you say, "I believe that God designed and created and brought into existence every single species that exists," then you've also got to say, "Well, he, at some stage, decided to bring into existence a worm that's going to turn people blind." Now, I find that very difficult to reconcile with notions about a merciful God. And I certainly find it difficult to believe that a God — superhuman, supreme power — would actually do that.'

But whilst Attenborough evidently feels his stock response adequately rebuffs any suggestion about design in nature, I suggest it is actually somewhat inadequate on a number of fronts.

Firstly, the response does not address the evidence of design in nature but merely presents Attenborough’s difficulty in reconciling belief in a creator with the existence of suffering in the world. And whilst Attenborough has difficulty with that, discussing it does not in itself address the evidence of design in nature.

Secondly, although Attenborough’s stock reply implies those raising the subject with him have given little or no thought to the matter of “less attractive things”, in reality Biblical Creationists have given, and continue to give, great thought to this very point. Indeed, the matter is specifically addressed by one of the tenets of Biblical Creationism; namely, reference to the Fall of Creation from glory to corruption.

The impression that critics of Naturalism simply do not think about these things but present some imbalanced idea about Nature’s beauty and wonder to the exclusion of its barbarity, is an impression which fails to accurately relay the true position of Biblical Creationism. So, Attenborough's stock reply not only fails to address the evidence of design but it also fails to take into account one of the main tenets of Biblical Creationism.

Thirdly, although Attenborough seems perfectly content to rely on his stock response to fend off suggestions about design in nature, one might consider whether it is the Biblical account or the Naturalistic account which offers the better explanation for the scenario he depicts in his stock response.

According to the Biblical account, God created all things perfect and good, but then biological deviation and imperfection, decay, corruption and suffering entered the world as consequences of the Fall.

But according to the Naturalistic account, the continent of Africa, the river, the boy and the worm are all accidents. The whole scenario is a purposeless cacophony of accidents.

I suggest that Attenborough's satisfaction with his stock reply is misplaced and that with further reflection it becomes evident that only the first of these accounts really offers logical coherence and intellectual integrity as a framework for investigating the natural world.

Fourthly, the first framework provides a reason to care about the boy; the second does not.

The Biblical account declares that the boy is made in God's image, and is thus special, and the Biblical teaching is that loving and caring for people are amongst man's obligations to God. But Naturalist belief declares the boy an accident without intrinsic meaning or worth in a purposeless world.

This is obviously no small point, especially considering Attenborough's presentation of the boy's suffering as a moral argument against God. Where has Attenborough's moral outrage come from, the dust?

Evolutionism is Accidentalist, it propounds purposelessness in nature. Without purpose there is no reason for things, things are meaningless. A purposeless Universe is a meaningless Universe; and in such a Universe, logically, people are meaningless.

When asked in the Radio Times interview whether he thinks there is a purpose to the world about us, Attenborough's reply was emphatic -

'"None whatsoever!" he exclaims, leaning forward and banging the table.'

That's a strong response - "None whatsoever!" But in a world with no purpose whatsoever there is no reason to care about the boy by the river in West Africa.

So, really, Attenborough is being fundamentally inconsistent by not applying his Evolutionistic belief in purposelessness when presenting his stock reply as a moral argument against God. Purpose made a sudden, fleeting appearance there. But where did it come from? In a world without purpose, where there is no reason to care about the boy, where has Attenborough's moral outrage come from? It is inconsistent with his Evolutionist profession. And if it comes not from the dust, then from elsewhere; above and beyond his professed framework; a place Attenborough denies exists.

Fifthly, whilst Attenborough suggests to those who so pester him that "they ought occasionally to think less of beautiful things like hummingbirds and orchids and sunflowers and think of other, less attractive things", he himself feels no qualms persistently enthusing about the beauty of the natural world.

In the Radio Times interview, for example, he is quoted as saying –

“But the birds of paradise in New Guinea, that was astonishing, too. There are some moments that are exciting because there’s an element of danger or an element of the unknown. And there are some moments that are exciting because you realise that you are in the presence of such incredible beauty. You’d be hard-pushed to find anything on this planet that is as beautiful as the bird of paradise. I was watching something that didn’t seem real.”

And the New Humanist interview relays the following -

‘But when he was confronted by the general human ignorance of the amazing beauty and diversity of the natural world, when he felt “enthralled almost to the point of ecstasy” by his own observations, he knew that he could have no other mission in life than spreading the news of that beauty and diversity to as many people as possible.’

Attenborough, then, has been enthralled by observing nature, driven almost ecstatic, felt it his mission in life to spread the news of that beauty, found it incredible, unreal. But to those who ask him about recognising a creator’s handiwork in the natural world, he suggests they “ought occasionally think less of beautiful things like hummingbirds and orchids and sunflowers and think of other, less attractive things.”

But if he can enthuse about the wonder and beauty of nature, then why cannot others too?

It rather appears he is being inconsistent in this too. He denies the strength of the very point that drove he himself into his life’s mission. When presented with the amazing beauty and wonder in nature by people who suggest a creator, he suggests they should think less about the beauty and more about the horror. When describing his own reactions to the natural world he’s all a-goggle at the amazing beauty.

Indeed he reportedly ‘knew that he could have no other mission in life than spreading the news of that beauty and diversity to as many people as possible.’ But when someone asks about the evidence of design, suddenly he doesn’t want to talk about the beauty and wonder anymore. After all that effort in his mission to spread the news of that beauty and diversity, suddenly too many people are thinking about it.

This comes over not only as somewhat inconsistent, but as evasive too. For indeed, he comes over as pretending that those pestering him have no case, and he does so simply by evading the point they make; the very same point, no less, that apparently drove him in his life’s mission; and the very same point he continues to make repeatedly himself.

Now, Attenborough comes across as a likeable enough chap, and his programmes are certainly very well made, and they provide some wonderful footage of the natural world about us, but nevertheless it is very telling that in response to questioning of his Naturalistic assumptions in the face of the beauty and wonder of nature, such a long-standing and world famous proponent of Evolutionism resorts by default to such an inadequate stock response.

I suggest such inadequacy in his response tells the story of a person of great intelligence who is very comfortable ignoring the evidence of the Creator in creation, and who finds it a nuisance to be reminded of the obvious implications of the evidence that is right in front of his nose. It is very sad to see. It is a perfect example of the Evolutionistic state of mind and the inability of its professed philosophy to provide adequate intellectual back-up when needed. An example of a likeable, intelligent, hard-working guy whose intellectual prowess has been completely blind-sided by a dogmatic refusal to acknowldge the truth of God.

Which ably demonstrates, of course, the crucial point that knowing the truth is not a matter of intellectual capacity, but of faith. As Scripture declares, from Proverbs 1 v7: 'The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.'

The question as to what the significance is of beauty and wonder will be addressed in another post.

(For those interested in some further research, here are a few articles making various points from a Biblical Creationist view about the consequences of the Fall -
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3772/)

WHAT IS BIBLICAL CREATIONISM?

2008-05-08T20:36:00.029+01:00

The term 'Biblical Creationism' can be used differently by different people, and I will come to discuss such differences in other posts. But here I will clarify what I mean by Biblical Creationism.

I use the term 'Biblical Creationism' to mean an approach to science which uses the teaching of the Holy Bible as the reliable framework for interpreting scientific data and directing scientific enquiry, instead of speculative philosophy as seen in Naturalism.

I hold that the term specifically identifies a scientific position, in the sense that it maintains a specific position about science. I describe myself fundamentally as a Christian; and because I am Christian, I believe in the Biblical teaching about the Creation, the Fall and the Flood; and it is in reference particularly to how I approach science that I would describe myself as Biblical Creationist.

I believe it is accurate to identify Biblical Creationism as the only truly Christian approach to science because the teaching of the Holy Bible permits of no other approach.

I recognise a distinction between Creationism generally, (which can have various, very different forms and assert various distinctive maxims), and Biblical Creationism, which is specifically an approach to science reliant upon the teaching of the Holy Bible for its foundational precepts.

I believe the Holy Bible is the word of God, that it is supremely authoritative, complete, sufficient, wholly reliable, inerrant and infallible.

God's word, then, being absolutely authoritative, Biblical Creationism, relying as it does upon God's word, is not theoretical. It is not a theory, is not a theoretical framework and does not provide a theoretical framework. The framework which Biblical Creationism provides, however, allows within it for theoretical postulates about the natural world.

As I employ the term, Biblical Creationism is specifically Christian because of its recognition of Jesus Christ as the Creator and its reliance upon New Testament teaching as well as Old Testament. The Holy Bible to which I refer consists of the 66 books of the New and Old Testaments.

And it is pertinent to point out that I advocate use of the King James Version of the Holy Bible as the word of God for the English-speaking peoples of the world.

These points established, here is the definition of Biblical Creationism that I use -

'Biblical Creationism is the Christian scientific position and is reliant upon the teaching of the Holy Bible to provide the framework for interpreting scientific data and directing scientific enquiry.'

The precepts of the framework are as follows –

1. The Earth, the Universe and all its constituent parts were created in six days by God approximately 4,000 BC.

2. God's creative work was miraculous, instantaneous, perfect, mature and good; and it remains subject to God and dependent upon him for its continued existence.

3. God's creative and sustaining work is impossible for us to understand; but the evident results lend themselves to scientific study.

4. Creation is structured and orderly and the natural world operates in normal circumstances within fixed parameters and according to natural laws; but this is not to deny God's sovereign, overriding intervention as he pleases.

5. Man (a generic term referring both to men and to women), being made in God's image, is not an animal and is distinct from all other forms of life on Earth.

6. Beneath man, different kinds of creatures were created separately according to their kind.

7. Because of the Fall, from glory into corruption, brought about by the sin of Adam and Eve, the Creation is now in bondage to corruption and decay, resulting in degradations, imperfections, illnesses, deformities, aging and death.

8. The worldwide Noahic Flood is, along with the events of the Creation week and the subsequent fall from glory, the third main reference point for the sciences.

WHAT IS EVOLUTION? (And an Evolutionist? And Evolutionism?)

2008-05-05T14:35:00.048+01:00

What does the term ‘Evolution’ refer to in regard to biological sciences?

The word ‘evolution’ has a more general usage, of course, meaning any development of anything over time by gradual steps; for example, in reference to the evolution of the car, or the evolution of the internet, or the evolution of a fashion house.

But here on this blog we are specifically considering the term ‘Evolution’ in the biological sense in reference to the theory of Evolution.

What does this term mean? What is this ‘Evolution’ exactly? How can ‘Evolution’ be described?

Well, to start with, let’s look at how some Evolutionists themselves describe Evolution.

On its website, London’s Natural History Museum describes Evolution in these ways -

'It is generally accepted that the astonishing diversity of life on our planet is the result of a process called evolution, which drives organisms to change gradually over time.'

'Evolution can loosely be defined as genetic change over time, but there is much more to it than that.'

'Evolution is driven by random changes in the genes of organisms, called mutations, and a complex process called natural selection.'

'Evolution is the process by which successive generations of organisms change. It is the reason we have many different species on the planet.

Evolution is driven by the fact all organisms have to struggle to survive long enough to reproduce in a world filled with predators, disease, and competition for resources.'

And the University of California Museum of Paleontology has a website (in collaboration with the National Center for for Science Education, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and the Geological Society of America) called ‘Understanding Evolution’, and they describe Evolution in these ways -

'Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.'

'Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.'

And listing the mechanisms of Evolutionary change they say:

'Each of these four processes is a basic mechanism of evolutionary change.

Mutation - A mutation could cause parents with genes for bright green coloration to have offspring with a gene for brown coloration. That would make the genes for brown beetles more frequent in the population.

Migration - Some individuals from a population of brown beetles might have joined a population of green beetles. That would make the genes for brown beetles more frequent in the green beetle population.

Genetic drift - Imagine that in one generation, two brown beetles happened to have four offspring survive to reproduce. Several green beetles were killed when someone stepped on them and had no offspring. The next generation would have a few more brown beetles than the previous generation — but just by chance. These chance changes from generation to generation are known as genetic drift.

Natural selection - Imagine that green beetles are easier for birds to spot (and hence, eat). Brown beetles are a little more likely to survive to produce offspring. They pass their genes for brown coloration on to their offspring. So in the next generation, brown beetles are more common than in the previous generation.

All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change.'

Okay, there we have some authoritative explanations of Evolution.

Let’s take one more, from a different kind of source this time, from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). I’m just using a regular 2005 Pocket OED. Here’s what it says –

‘n. 1: the process by which different kinds of living organism develop from earlier forms. 2: gradual development.’

And obviously it’s the first of these definitions we’re looking at – 'the process by which different kinds of living organism develop from earlier forms.'

Now then, let me take some specific details from what we’ve looked at above to form a more complete single composite definition for usage here that clearly establishes what I’m talking about, unless otherwise specified, when referring to Evolution -

‘Evolution is the process by which all life on Earth has developed, and develops, through common ancestry in descent with modification by random genetic mutation, migration and drift and by natural selection.’

And so too, then, also listed in the OED, an 'Evolutionist' is someone who believes in Evolution; and 'Evolutionism' refers to the Evolutionist's belief.

[And just a note on the illustration at the top of this post - Biblical Creationists point out that the sequence in the illustration depicts not established fact but speculative assessment of often questionable data to fit preconceived Evolutionist views.]

ACCIDENTALISM IS AN INTELLECTUAL ABSURDITY!

2008-05-02T00:39:00.018+01:00

A coffee table in the middle of a sitting room logically infers a table-maker; a house infers a builder; a painting, a painter; a gourmet meal, a chef; a car, an engineer; a timepiece, a watch-maker; a violin, an instrument-maker.

Yet to Accidentalists, something like a tiger, for example, infers a long, convoluted series of impossible accidents; as does a kingfisher, an apple tree, a dolphin or a man.

Indeed, to Accidentalists, the table-maker, the builder, the painter, the chef, the engineer, the watch-maker and the instrument-maker are themselves all the splendid results of a long, convoluted series of impossible accidents.

Accidentalism requires the suspension of logic.