Pole Reversals

Back by popular demand- my creation science series. Just kidding, this is for you Geno, if you’re out there:).

Disclaimer: This is not an academic research paper. This is my personal blog in which I record my miscellaneous musings, thus the name of the blog. Having said that, I do read and few of my ideas originate with me. My main sources for learning about the magnetic field of the earth and pole reversals have been John Morris in his 3rd edition of The Young Earth, Charles Hapgood’s Path of the Pole (though I really love his Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings), and of course various articles and web pages on the internet.

In my last post on evidences for a young earth I mentioned the decreasing magnetic field of the earth. Since 1835 measurements of the magnetic field have been decreasing. The reason this is a strong argument for a young earth is because if we extrapolate backwards, we find that the magnetic field of the earth would have been too strong to sustain life even 20,000 years ago.

What I didn’t address at that time, but will now, is pole reversals and how they affect YEC (young earth creationism). In other words, does evidence of reversals of the earth’s polarity disprove or cause a problem for YEC? The answer is it depends on the nature of these pole reversals and there is mounting evidence that these pole reversals actually lend support to the young earth theory, rather than take away from it. The main issue, as I see it, is one of time. But before getting into pole reversals and their implications, let me attempt to explain the main theories about the earth’s magnetic field.

Traditionally, evolutionists have held to the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field which proposes a self-exciting movement in the core of the earth of molten iron and nickel, which in turn generates electric currents. Reversals, according to this theory, would occur when the fluid motions cause the electrical currents to slowly decay all the way down to zero and then build up again in the opposite orientation. This theory has the advantage of being able to postulate how the earth’s magnetic field could sustain itself over billions of years.

Creationists have traditionally held to the freely decaying electric current theory which proposes the earth’s magnetic field is generated by circulating electric currents in a rather stationary core fluid, decaying in intensity over time. This theory has the advantage of making sense with the measured decay of the earth’s magnetic field over the last 170 or so years. In other words, the decay we would expect due to electrical resistance according to the free decay theory, is in fact what we observe over the time of human history that the earth’s magnetic field has been measured.

Both theories also have drawbacks to them. The slow reversal rate (millions of years) proposed by the dynamo theory would have deadly effects on life for long periods of time (as the field approaches zero and then slowly moves away from zero in the opposite orientation). We know from “absolute” dating techniques that there is evidence of life dating back millions of years in the fossil record (of course YECs contest this “absolute” dating). In other words, the dynamo theory is not consistent with the geological record which shows life dating back beyond 700,000 years ago (when the most recent pole reversal is thought to have occurred). (Actually, some have proposed pole reversals as recently as 20,000 years ago which would present even more of a problem.) Another recent challenge for the dynamo theory has to do with the pole reversals of the sun. It was previously believed that the sun’s magnetic field was also a dynamo, but we now know the sun reverses its polarity every 11 years coinciding with its sunspot cycle. Field reversals of this extreme frequency and rapidity present a problem for the dynamo theory. There have also been recent reports of very rapid reversal events on earth that occurred during the time lava cooled (as little as 15 days).

The freely decaying field theory also has drawbacks. For one thing, archeological measurements show that the earth’s magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 AD compared to now. This is a bigger difference than can be accounted for by decay by electrical resistance alone, although in recent history (as long as the earth’s magnetic field has been measured) it does appear that decay follows simple electrical resistance. And of course if we propose a linear decay rate for the earth’s magnetic field then there is no room for polar reversals.

The revised decay theory, or dynamic decay theory, of the earth’s magnetic field takes cataclysmic events into consideration (such as the Biblical flood). It postulates that the flood provided the force to “break up the fountains of the deep” (Gen 7:11) which initiated fluid convection in the outer core. This strong magnetic flux would cause the entire earth’s magnetic field to reverse. “Continuing movement would cause continual rapid field reversals, which would be recorded in rocks being deposited on the earth’s surface.” (John Morris in The Young Earth 3rd edition p. 86) Morris goes on to explain that these rapid reversals within a decaying field use up its energy even more rapidly, contributing to and hastening the overall decay of the field. (Relate this back to the debate over the problem of excess free energy release during accelerated decay.)

So, the dynamic decay theory is consistent with recent historical observations of field decay, but also allows for multiple rapid reversals in polarity in the past due to some cataclysmic force in the past, like the Biblical flood, which caused shifting of continents and all sorts of other geological upheaval, as well.

Some of the problems of the dynamo theory have also been addressed by McFarlane’s alternative magnetic field theory based on electrodynamics. “He proposes a system of electronic cells in a crystalline metal core with hot spots of heavy metals releasing alpha and beta particles. Due to the high heat the alpha particles are unable to combine with the free electrons. ‘Consequently an electron current flow is produced and conditions are set up for the generation of current loops throughout the inner and outer core. ... magnetic fields are produced as a consequence, in accordance with the right hand rule of electromagnetic theory.’” (http://www.arizonaenergy.org/EarthEnergy/earth_magnetic_field_reversal.htm quoting from McFarlane’s article which I did not have access to, "Origin of the earth’s magnetic field" by Ernest McFarlane). An alternative pole reversal theory has also come out of this called the disorderly-flip theory. Rather than decline all the way to zero gauss, the disorderly flip theory proposes that the magnetic field would decline in a more disorderly way perhaps decreasing to 20% or so of the original field strength and then increasing in the opposite orientation. This would solve the problem of the evidence of life surviving pole reversals of the past. This also makes it a more optimistic view of pole reversals, since many believe we’re overdue for one.

It’s interesting to me that Hapgood’s classic work on polar shift and pole reversals was written to address major problems with evolutionary theory, especially natural selection. He believed his more cataclysmic view of pole reversals and subsequent climate and continental change could help to accelerate the time table of events needed to take place for natural selection to be a plausible theory.

While I am no expert in this field, it has been my observation that the young earth and old earth scientists have actually moved closer to one another on their theories of the earth’s magnetic field and of pole reversals. They still disagree to the dating/timing of everything, but their theories more closely resemble one another now than previously. The YECs believing the Biblical flood is the primary cataclysmic event in the past that set a series of pole reversals into effect. Evolutionists believing it was another unknown set of cataclysmic events.

It’s hard for me to imagine a series of catastrophes as great as the description of the flood of the Bible. The flood was not merely a big rain, but “the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” (Genesis 7:11) God declared ahead of time His intention to “destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” (Genesis 7:4) Does this leave us with a few questions? Yes. The main one being how did Noah and the others on the ark survive? Was it a pole reversal that didn’t go all the way to zero so that survival was possible? Did God supernaturally shield the passengers of the ark? I have no idea. It does seem to make sense though that we’ve seen a decline in large mammals coinciding with the decrease in the earth’s magnetic field that YECs would peg to the period after the flood. In other words, it helps explain why the dinosaurs became extinct.

We all have bias and preconceived notions. I have been honest with you from the beginning that my bias is I believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, not simply the recordings of mere man. If it comes down to it, I will believe the Bible over science, but I don’t believe it has come down to that. Scientific theories are just that, until proven otherwise. Once disproved, scientific theories are discarded, as the freely decaying electric current theory has been discarded by YECs in favor of the dynamic decay theory. Since none of us has actually journeyed to the center of the earth, and since none of us was alive 5,000 years ago (or 700,000 years ago for those who prefer that time scale), much of what we theorize about the earth’s origins and workings will remain just that, theory. But I love the words of Psalm 100, especially the last verse. “For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting, and His truth endures to all generations.”

Evidence for a Young Earth

Someone recently asked me what I felt the strongest evidence for a young earth is. It occurred to me that I may have given this person the impression that I find the RATE studies to be the strongest evidence for a young earth. I want to back up in this post and explain the purpose of the RATE studies that I’ve been summarizing for you.

There is much in nature that suggests that the earth is only thousands of years old. An abbreviated list is as follows:

1. Living fossils- “Living fossils” are plants and animals thought to be extinct for at least several million years. Animal examples include the tuatara and coelacanth. Plant examples include the Ginkgo, and Metasequoia. These “living fossils” appear in so-called ancient rocks but not in more recent beds. The unchanged nature of their forms and their continued living presence on the earth testify that little time has transpired since a catastrophic flood entombed their relatives.

2. Tall mountains- The very existence of mountain ranges argues for a young earth. Current estimates of soil erosion say the earth is eroding down at the rate of about one foot every 5-10,000 years. This means that one mile of erosion would occur every 25-50 million years. Mountainous areas would erode at rates above average. At this rate most mountain ranges would have eroded to foothills by now. Some would argue that mountains have pushed up several times, canceling out erosion, but the lower sedimentary beds do not attest to this.

3. River deltas- It has been estimated that the Mississippi river delta has grown an average of 262 feet each year. Using this figure, the Mississippi river delta is around 4,500 years old. The growth of the Po river delta can be traced by historical and archeological records. Again, using the size of the delta to estimate its age, the Po river is only several thousand years old.

4. Shrinking sun- According to estimated measurements of the sun spanning hundreds of years, our sun is shrinking at a rate that would have required it to be so big 1,000,000,000 years ago that life could not have been sustained on earth.

5. Receding moon- It has been estimated that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 2 inches per year. If our solar system was 4.5 billion years old, we would no longer be able to see the moon because it would have drifted out of sight long ago.

6. High oil and gas pressures- The high oil and gas pressures within relatively permeable rock imply the oil and gas were encased there less than 10,000 years ago.

7. Elements and sediment entering the oceans- The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. This discrepancy suggests the oceans must be much younger than 1 million years. And more than 16 billion tons of sediment is deposited in the oceans each year. Given enough time, the oceans would fill up, but before that happened, the land areas would erode down to sea level. Based on the presents rate of sedimentation in the oceans and consequent rise in sea level, the continents would lower to sea level within 15 million years.

8. Poynting-Robertson effect- The sun sweeps up an estimated 100,000 tons of space dust and debris each day. If our solar system was billions of years old, it should have been swept clean long ago! The persistence of space dust and micrometeoroids argues that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old.

9. Spin rate of earth- Current measurements suggest the earth’s spin is slowing by about 1 second per year. If the earth is billions of years old, the initial spin rate of the earth would have been too fast to support life.

10. Atmospheric helium- The amount of atmospheric helium requires the earth be less than 40,000 years old.

11. Short-term comets- Astronomers believe that short-term comets have a life-span of 1,500-10,000 years. We observed the death of 10 of these short-term comets in the last century. If the universe is billions of years old, these short-term comets should have died out eons ago.

12. Radiation of Jupiter and Saturn- Jupiter and Saturn radiate more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. It appears that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.

13. The decline of the earth’s magnetic field- The earth’s magnetic field has declined by 7% since 1835 when it was first measured. This suggests that the field loses half its strength every 1400 years. Working backwards, the earth must be younger than 10,000 years old because any older and the earth’s magnetic field would have been too strong to sustain life.

Perhaps I should devote a post to each of the above or perhaps the list itself is enough to make my point. Young earth creationists have much evidence that points to a young earth. But, for years evolutionary scientists have discounted the above by arguing that radioisotope dating trumps all other lines of evidence. Radioisotope dating has been held up as the irrefutable “clock” of the earth and purported to be inarguable evidence that the earth is billions of years old. What the RATE study has done is introduced doubt as to the proper reading of the clock of radioisotope dating. In other words, the burden is really not on the scientists in the RATE study to prove that there have been multiple episodes of accelerated decay in the past. All the scientists in the RATE study had to do is introduce evidence that suggests we’ve been reading the radioisotope clock incorrectly. And this, they’ve done. I’ve described their helium diffusion study, and their polonium radiohalo study. The RATE team also conducted 3 other studies over isochron dating, fission tracks, and C14 in diamonds that add weight to their theory of accelerated decay. But, let me reiterate this point. They do not have to prove that accelerated decay occurred or how it occurred. All they had to do is introduce doubt about the so-called infallible radioisotope dating method. And they have done this.

Let’s think about this for a moment as a courtroom drama. I'm the lawyer trying to defend the position of a young earth. The list I gave above is my list of witnesses that testify to a young earth. I call in my witnesses, one by one and they present a good case, albeit largely circumstantial. But then the lawyer for the other side, arguing in favor of an old earth, calls his star witness, radioisotope dating. It's just so impressive and persuasive and it enjoys serving as a professional witness. For years, those trying to defend the theory of a young earth have tried to discredit the main witness for the other side, radioisotope dating. But until now our attempts to discredit the witness of radioisotope dating have only been hearsay. What the RATE study has done is finally introduced scientific evidence to corrorborate the hearsay, which means it's no longer just hearsay. For the first time, doubt has been cast on the testimony of radioisotope dating. The RATE study has shown that it is quite possible that we've been reading the "clock" of radioisotope dating incorrectly.

Now, instead of discounting my witnesses above and just assuming they must all be wrong and radioisotope dating right, we can begin to take a more serious look at the evidence for a young earth. Which do I feel is the strongest evidence? This might be cheating, but I feel their strength is in their numbers. I didn't list all known evidences of a young earth, just a few of the most obvious. I feel the strongest argument in favor of a young earth, other than the Word of God which I believe is inerrant and infallible, is that there is so much evidence for a young earth.

At the end of the day, it does require a measure of faith to believe either view. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork." God has designed our world to give evidence of His greatness. I'm confident that in the years to come more and more evidence will come to light that corroborates the Biblical view of a young earth. And I count myself blessed to live in a time of such great scientific discovery that I can embrace both the Bible and science, without compromising either.

The Existence of Polonium Radiohalos Gives Evidence of a Young Earth

To review a little bit- radioisotope dating, which has long been an obstacle to creation scientists, assumes a constant rate of decay (uniformitarianism). Creation scientists have long theorized that there may have been one or more episodes of accelerated decay in the past, most likely during creation week, or possibly the flood of the Bible. These episodes of accelerated decay would allow for a billion years or more of radioactive decay to occur within a few thousand years. You see why the theory is attractive to creation scientists. The problem with this theory of accelerated decay is that according to mathematical models and our current understanding of physics, unimaginable amounts of energy would be released- so much so that life could not survive it- perhaps not even the planet. This conjures up images of a Doomsday scenario. Obviously, if episodes of accelerated decay really did occur at sometime in our past, it must not have given off the excess heat predicted by such models.

Until recently this was merely educated guessing among creation scientists, some of my friends would say more like wishful thinking. But in the last few years several co-operative studies have found evidence that supports not only this theory of accelerated decay, but also that the accelerated decay was accompanied by rapid cooling. I told you last time about data from a He diffusion study that is “consistent with at most a short, moderate pulse of heating during and just after the accelerated decay episode”. (Radioisotopes and the Age of the earth vol. II pp. 68-69) In other words, the data and model from the He diffusion study reinforces the theory that accelerated decay may have coincided with rapid cooling which prevented the Doomsday scenario we envision from occurring. The question remains how?

Some creation scientists hypothesize that God’s “stretching out the heavens” (mentioned 17 times in the Bible) is a description of the expansion of the cosmos, which if it occurred rapidly enough could have dissipated the excess heat given off by the accelerated radioactive decay. This is just a theory, but the exciting thing is that there has been some evidence that indeed suggests accelerated decay accompanied by rapid cooling. Not knowing the mechanism of the rapid cooling, does not negate the evidence that it appears to have occurred. Tonight I want to continue with a second study that has also found data suggestive of accelerated decay accompanied by rapid cooling.

Radiohalos are very small darkened spheres found within biotite and other minerals that are formed by alpha nuclear decay. The significance of radiohalos is that they are a physical historical record of the decay of radioisotopes over a period of time.

Polonium (Po) is a radioisotope that is in the decay chain of Uranium (U) 238. It takes at least 100 million years worth of decay to supply enough Po to generate the Po radiohalos observed. So what, that would support the theory of an old earth, right? Wrong. The interesting thing is that U and Po radiohalos have been found together in the same flakes of biotite suggesting simultaneous formation and Po has a very short half-life (micro seconds to months depending on which isotope). In order to explain the abundance of Po radiohalos, a lot of Po had to have been produced rapidly. This suggests a period of accelerated decay of U 238. “If 100 million years worth of U 238 decay had to have occurred while the Po radiohalos were forming, then this implies the U 238 decay had to have been grossly accelerated so that the 100 million years worth of U 238 decay could be fitted into the hours and days over which the Po isotopes accumulated in the radiocenters from which the Po radiohalos concurrently formed.” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth vol. II p. 153) In other words, given the millions of years scenario, the Po wouldn’t have hung around long enough to form radiohalos (half-life is too short).

What’s more, these radiohalos have been shown to have an annealing temperature of 150 degrees Celsius, above which they are obliterated and no longer visible. This means the radiohalos must have been formed, and have survived ever since, at temperatures below 150 degrees Celsius. “Therefore, the cooling of granites (in which the biotite with radiohalos was found) and the formation of radiohalos must be rapid and decay rates must be accelerated. So the rapid formation of granites and the Po radiohalos are a strong argument for a young earth.” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth vol II p 744)

The investigators talk a great deal in this article about the evidence these Po radiohalos provide of the Flood, but I’d rather wait and consider multiple lines of Flood evidence together. For now, I want to reiterate the findings that U and Po radiohalos found together suggest an epidode of accelerated nuclear decay, and the annealing temperature of 150 degrees Celsius proves that they have been preserved at a temperature below that since their formation. So, again, it appears that at least one episode of accelerated day has occurred and that it was not accompanied by the enormous release of heat that would be expected by accelerated nuclear decay. Any rise in temperature over 150 degrees Celsius would have obliterated the radiohalos, so the accelerated decay must have coincided with some type of rapid cooling that kept the biotite under 150 degrees Celsius. The investigators hypothesize that hydrothermal currents may have contributed to the cooling effect, but agree that it would not be enough to keep the biotite under 150 degrees. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that we now have a second line of evidence that accelerated radioactive decay occurred at least once in our past and that it coincided with a cooling effect that prevented our aforementioned Doomsday scenario. Given this evidence for one or more periods of accelerated decay, the age of the earth would be much younger than that estimated by radioisotope dating methods that assume a constant rate of decay. And remember, a young earth kills the theory of evolution.

Helium diffusion and the age of the earth

For those of you who normally follow my blog, you may have noticed we have some new visitors among us. I made a comment on Ray Comfort’s blog, Atheist Central, today and many of my new friends found me there and came over for a visit. I hope you’ll join me in welcoming them. They’ve given me an opportunity to put into practice 1 Peter 3:15.

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”

To God be the glory! Now, back to helium diffusion.

I want to encourage those of you who are interested in a more thorough discussion of Helium diffusion and its implications for the age of the earth to read Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth volume I pp. 344-351 and volume II pp. 25-95. I am not a geochemist or geophysicist so I’ll be highlighting the main findings of this study. You know where to go for more details.

There are a couple of things we need to understand before the results of this study will mean anything to us.

1. Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of U238 to Pb206. For every one U238 that decays to Pb206, 8 He atoms are emitted.

2. Helium is a lightweight gas that diffuses readily through solids. In fact, helium leakage is fast enough that it is often used to test laboratory vacuum systems. Because of the relatively fast rate of He diffusion, it would not be expected to be found in significant quantities in rocks of the earth’s crust, if the earth is billions of years old. Even if the earth were only a million years old, He wouldn’t be expected to exist to a great degree in rocks of the earth’s crust.

So, we know the ratio of helium atoms emitted per U-Pb parent-daughter couple and we know that helium diffuses rapidly through solids. This information combines to suggest that a high content of helium still trapped within rock under the surface of the earth supports the theory of a young earth.

The first part of this study actually took place 25 years ago when scientists recovered zircons (crystals found in granite) from deep bore holes in a biotite formation embedded in hot Precambrian basement granite rock estimated to be 1.5 billion years old using Pb-Pb radioisotope dating. Exciting finding number 1 was that they found He, lots more than would have been expected had it indeed had 1.5 billion years to diffuse.

1. High percentage of He retention supports the theory of a young earth. It was especially surprising since these zircons were microscopic (smaller diffusion distance) and obtained from a very hot, volcanic area (heat increases diffusion rates).

So, the zircons came from rock estimated to be 1.5 billion years old. Given this age, evolutionary scientists would expect most of the He to have escaped the small zircons by diffusion. This result suggests that 1.5 billions years worth of decay occurred over a much shorter period of time. One or more episodes of accelerated nuclear decay could explain this finding.

The recent part of the study consisted in coming up with a mathematical model that would fit the zircon data discussed above. An evolutionary model of constant decay did not fit the data, so the creation scientists wanted to establish a model that would fit the data and help to more accurately estimate the age of the zircons and the rock sample they were obtained from. This leads us to exciting finding number 2.

2. Using the rate of He diffusion to estimate the age of the earth, an age of 6,000 years +/- 2,000 years was obtained. So, Pb-Pb radioisotope dating estimates the sample at 1.5 billion years, but that age is inconsistent with the vast amounts of He still trapped within the zircons. And the He diffusion rate dating estimates the earth is 6,000 years old, but doesn’t explain the amount of Pb-Pb decay required to emit that much He. So, I reiterate, it appears that 1.5 billions of years worth of radioactive decay occurred over a period of 6,000 years. This reinforces the creation scientist’s hypothesis of one or more periods of accelerated decay having occurred in the past, most likely during creation week and the flood.

I touched on this last time, but many of my visiting friends still insist that the excess energy release (yes, of cataclysmic proportions) is a stumbling block for accelerated decay. I know I don’t need to remind them of this, but the massive energy release for a 6 day creation already gives us this problem. So, again this is familiar territory for a creation scientist. However, rapid expansion of the cosmos (“stretching out the heavens” which occurs in 17 verses of the Bible) could dissipate this heat. There is also some evidence that rapid cooling coincided with periods of accelerated decay. For instance, the data in the He diffusion study “imply that after the zircons acquired their He, they were never very much hotter than they are now, nor were they hot for very long… In other words, our data and model are consistent with at most a short, moderate pulse of heating during and just after the accelerated decay episode.” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth vol. II pp. 68-69) I’ll address another line of evidence for accelerated decay accompanied by rapid cooling in my next post, so stay tuned.

Creation Science Series: The Age of the Earth

The topic I want to begin with in our exam of evolution and creation science is the age of the earth. There are really only two theories about the age of the earth. Either the earth is relatively young, like between 6-10,000 years old, which fits into a Biblical framework, or it is very, very old, like around 5 billion years (evolutionary scientists estimate the age of the universe to be 10-20 billion years old), which evolutionary scientists feel is a reasonable amount of time for evolution to have run its course. The reason I want to start with the age of the earth is that it can be a game spoiler for evolution. A young earth sounds the death knoll for evolution, because there is no way that the random mutation and natural selection, thought to be the guiding principles of evolution, could have happened over just thousands or even millions of years. Evolution is about chance. Random chance. One random mutation that when combined with another random mutation over time confers a benefit which is then enhanced by another random mutation. Evolution’s best friends are time and chance. As Christians we don’t believe in chance, but atheists cling to it. However, chance without time is useless to the evolutionary scientist. If we can prove the earth is young, evolution as a theory must be discarded.

Radioisotope dating has long been a friend of evolutionary scientists because this technique has indicated that the rocks of the earth are very, very old. Several problems plague radioisotope dating though and make it difficult to accurately interpret the results. First let me explain the basics of radioisotope dating.

Radioactive isotopes (remember your periodic table from general chemistry class?) decay over time (give off energy) which causes the transformation of the parent isotope (starting one) to its daughter isotope. If we know the half-life (amount of time it takes for 50% of the parent isotope to decay into the daughter isotope) and we measure the amount of daughter isotope in a rock or fossil sample, we can estimate the age of the sample. Now back to the problems with this method of dating. There are two major assumptions in radioisotope dating.

1. The amount of daughter isotope present prior to decay (at the beginning) is assumed to be zero. The age estimates of the sample will be thrown off by the degree to which daughter isotope was present in the sample initially. The fact that we cannot know for certain the ratio of parent to daughter isotope before the decay process began means that we cannot be certain of our estimated age of the rock or fossil.

2. The second assumption of radioactive isotope dating is that of constant decay. In order to use the amount of daughter isotope in a sample and our knowledge of half-life to extrapolate the age of that sample, we have to assume a linear rate of decay.

The isochron method has been applied to help get around the first assumption, but there is no getting around the second assumption of radioisotope dating.

Creation scientists have long hypothesized that there could have been one or more periods of accelerated decay that could account for the “old” age estimates obtained by radioisotope dating. The problem has been, how to prove it. You see, accelerated decay is not without its own problems. Foremost of which is what to do with all that extra energy? When nuclear decay occurs, energy is given off. Accelerated decay would mean excess energy given off. Think energy emission of cataclysmic proportions here. (I’m envisioning all those destruction of the earth by meteor movies). Creation scientists already had problems with heat disposal. Creation and flood models simply have “too much geologic work being done in too short a time” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth vol 1 pp 369-70). At least we’re in familiar territory! Fortunately, there is a solution to the problem of excess heat disposal. An expanding cosmos. The type of rapid expansion of the cosmos envisioned over the first 3 days of creation and also also possibly during the Biblical flood could use up all this excess energy. In fact, the one process (decay) could be used to fuel the other. This made me smile. Could it be that God is green? (Please don’t use that to support cap and trade! It’s more of an endorsement for recycling energy, not taxing it.)

Now’s the point where I tell you I’m going to leave you hanging until tomorrow. There have been some very exciting breakthroughs by the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) study. I’m going to summarize several of their more important experiments for you over the next couple of posts. To whet your appetite I will tell you this. Accelerated decay would not have occurred without leaving its mark. Although we cannot absolutely verify that there was accelerated nuclear decay during creation week and the flood, any more than evolutionary scientists can tell you for certain that decay has been constant, there are traces that accelerated decay would have left behind. We can identify accelerated radioactive decay by the tracks it left behind in the same way we can know a deer has passed by where we see its tracks. Aren’t you just dying to know what evidence they’ve found for accelerated decay? You’ll just have to tune in tomorrow!

Your Questions about the Theories of Evolution and Creation

I ended my last post with a quote by Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist who has ever lived.

“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the seashore and diverting myself now and then in finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

You know, he’s the guy who invented Newtonian physics in order to explain the physical universe, and calculus along the way to describe the physics. This is what he’s most famous for, but he also wrote extensively on optics and other mathematical and scientific questions that had stumped scientists until Newton paused long enough to solve them. (My personal favorite of his writings is over his interpretation of the books of Daniel and Revelation. I’ve also read his chronology of ancient kingdoms, which read about how you’d think a history book written by a scientist would read- he was extremely methodical.)

Newton saw that despite all his accomplishments, there was a vast body of truth, of science that still lay undiscovered. Thanks to great men and women of science since Newton and the invention of modern tools of science such as the electron microscope and immunoassay techniques, we have now dipped into that “ocean of truth.” It is my intention that this series on creation science will review some of the modern discoveries of science that support the theory of creation, or intelligent design. I’m now moving away from my theological posts in which I examined the Scriptures and turning to science, so I will refer to creation as a theory from here on out.

I want to ask you another thought-provoking question. What do you think the best evidence is for evolution? I mean, let’s suppose for a moment that you are on a jury. Creation is under attack and on the defensive, while the prosecutors are evolutionists. What’s the prosecution’s best evidence? Even if you’re completely convinced about creation, what is the one weapon that evolutionists have that worries you? OK, if you’re not willing to admit to any doubt or worry whatsoever, what is the one icon of evolution you’d like to see debunked? If I don’t know the answer, I’ll look it up and read about it, but I’d like to know what you’re the most interested in learning about. Yes, I’ll still write about what I’m interested in, too. I’m twisted that way.

Want a sneak peak? My next creation science post will be about the age of the earth. Right now I’m reading about radioisotope dating and accelerated decay. I hope to have some interesting conclusions to share with you in a few days. I’ll share the different theories on the age of the earth and the evidence claimed by both sides. Then we’ll weigh the evidence together. By the way, science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science should be impartial, right? When a theory is shot down by overwhelming evidence that does not fit the theory, it should be thrown out. At least this is how it’s supposed to work. Thank you again for going on this journey with me. I just love learning through science about how great God is!

Is theistic evolution consistent with a Biblical worldview? part 2

I linked to my previous blog post, Is theistic evolution consistent with a Biblical worldview?, from my facebook page and let me tell you, the discussion was much more lively than in the comment section here (thank you Roan and Catherine for your words of encouragement!). Anyway, this debate has caused me to think a little deeper about these issues and I wanted to share some of that with you in this follow-up post.

Two other points I left out of my last post that I think are valid in arguing against theistic evolution are 1.) the repetition of “after its own kind” which is contrary to evolution which requires change across species and 2.) the order of creation is not consistent with evolutionary theory which says that life originated in the sea before land and that birds evolved from dinosaurs. But, the main thing I want to expose tonight is that this debate is really over another debate.

1. Theistic evolutionists take Genesis 1 as being figurative, rather than literal. They take it to be a poetic description of our origins, despite the lack of poetic language. So, they refute the difference I pointed out between 2 Peter 3:8 “one day is as a thousand years…” and Genesis 1 that does not have the wording for simile or metaphor (no like or as- not in the Hebrew, either.) They say it doesn’t matter, that it is obviously not to be taken literally.

2. Several exchanges later, my friend stated the following. “I would suggest that the Bible was written, collected, translated, and printed by fallible human beings who were struggling to describe the indescribable, with stories spread across many centuries. That’s why there are so many different translations, versions, books left out, books left in, retranslations as new sources are rediscovered… Such a work as this cannot be expected to be literal throughout, or even consistent, because the point is the message. The idea of literal history is very 20th-century, and doesn’t have much bearing on a book written before the fall of the Roman Empire. If the Bible says that clouds are green, am I to trust it over my own lying eyes?”

The Bible doesn’t say that clouds are green. As another of my friends pointed out, this is a slippery slope. So, you don’t believe Genesis 1 is literal. What about the ten commandments? What about the great commission? What about John 3:16? What about the resurrection? What about the return of Christ?

This might sound shocking to you, but if I didn’t believe the Bible was the actual Word of God, I wouldn’t spend so much time studying it. I mean, what would be the point? I’m not that big of a history buff. And I wouldn’t go to church, either. I’m anti-social by nature anyway, so why buck it?

“For the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

According to the above verse, the Bible is God’s Word and it is living. It’s not just a book written by a bunch of guys who had a spiritual encounter they wanted to share for posterity’s sake.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16

Again, the Bible is God-breathed and without it, we’re incomplete.

Our initial debate over creationism versus theistic evolution ended up as a debate over the inerrancy and infallibility of the Word of God.

3. My friend also had some interesting things to say about faith. “I don’t think faith in God increases if we believe that God created the world in 7, 24-hr long days. I think it instills, instead, an arrogance. A stronger faith means eliminating the safety net. This belief that the Bible is both inerrant and literal is a safety net; when something challenges your beliefs, you can fall back on, “I KNOW that this is so, because it’s in the Bible. My challenge to you is that if you really want faith, take that safety net away. Recognize that the Bible was written by flawed, fallible, sinful human beings…. Know that God allowed them to err when they wrote it, to let petty grievances creep in. Know that it is an essentially human creation. And then once you’ve done that, take your first step on the tightrope. For a minute, pretend that everything I said above is true. It scares you, doesn’t it?”

My response to my friend was that his version of faith sounds like blind faith and that’s what I thought creationists were accused of (confusing, isn’t it?)!

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

Substance. Evidence. That doesn’t sound like blind faith to me. God is not asking us to have a blind faith, but to look at history (don’t you love all those memorials God was always having the Israelites build and the feasts and holy days in remembrance of His mighty works of deliverance and provision for His chosen ones?) and to look around at nature and see that He is TRUSTWORTHY!

“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Hebrews 11:3

This is not blind faith. It’s faith in a God who has proven Himself time and again. And His people have always had short-term memory. How quickly we forget His mighty works and wondrous deeds, but the reminders are all around us.

My friend is right. Faith in a God who either could not or chose not to preserve His Word, but let it be corrupted by man so that it exists as “essentially a human creation”, is walking on a tightrope. It would scare the heck out of me. I’m so grateful that the Bible doesn’t call us to have that kind of faith. It seems to me that would reduce Christianity to a fairy tale. And I’m not really into fairy tales.

My friend is an honest thinker who has carried theistic evolution to its logical conclusion: the Bible is not really the inerrant Word of God, it's "essentially a human creation".

I used to be a fan of the X-Files in my college years. Its motto was, “The truth is out there.” I believe a more accurate statement would be, “The truth is in there”, in the Bible that is. I also believe that there has been no scientific discovery that contradicts God’s perfect, infallible Word. What is science, but the means of discovering God’s world? I love this famous quote by Sir Isaac Newton.

“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the seashore and diverting myself now and then in finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Is theistic evolution consistent with a Biblical worldview?

Is theistic evolution consistent with a Biblical worldview?

There have been many books written in answer to this question and I am only going to give you the couple of arguments that I think are the strongest. Check out the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis for a more thorough treatment of this topic. My purpose is to give my personal journey and convictions about what the Bible has to say about our origins.

1. What is a day? Catherine already commented on this argument, and it’s a very powerful one. For a Christian to believe that God used evolution to create life as we know it, he must accept that a day does not mean a literal 24 hour period. If a day means a day, as we know it, then the honest Christian must choose whom to believe, the Bible or the culture at large.

Why would anyone think a day could be defined as anything other than a day? This argument comes from 2 Peter 3:8 and is known as the day-age theory.

“But beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8

Let’s deal with this first then I’ll move on to why I think the Bible defines a day as a 24 hr period. In the verse above, Peter is talking about the faithfulness of God to keep His word and specifically that Jesus would return. I’ve often thought it interesting that Christ’s return is taught in Scripture as imminent, like it’s just around the corner, when in reality it’s been almost 2,000 years since He promised it. Peter is saying, don’t lose heart, Jesus will return, He will make new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness will dwell (v. 13). This may be hard for us to relate to, but Peter’s audience was suffering persecution and discouraged that Christ had not yet returned. So, that’s the context. Peter is not saying according to God one day equals one thousand years. He’s simply saying that your time is not God’s time and Jesus will return in His time. It may seem like you’re waiting forever, but according to His eternal perspective, the return of Christ is right around the corner.

Notice Peter says that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years”. I remember learning about simile and metaphor when I was in school. These literature devices are used to help us better understanding something unknown through comparison to something we already know. In this case, the thing Peter wants them to understand is that God’s timing is not the same as ours.

Even if Peter had said that one day was equal to 1,000 years, which he didn’t, is it enough? NO!!!!! Six thousand years is peanuts. Evolutionists tell us that we’re talking billions of years, not millions, for there to have been enough time possibly for life to have evolved. There is not one evolutionary scientist who will pretend that evolution could have happened over thousands of years, not even millions of years. So, where does that leave us? Back to the drawing board.

The reason I believe in a literal six day creation is because the Bible teaches it in Genesis 1.

“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:3-5

This same phrase, “so the evening and the morning were the _______ day” is repeated after the explanation of each day’s creation.

It is true that the Hebrew word yom can mean something other than a 24 hr period (like when I say I did such and such the other day and it may have been much longer ago than just a few days), though that is its first and most widely used definition. People have argued long and hard about the different meanings for the Hebrew word yom, but you cannot get around God’s qualifying definition. So that there would be no mistake about it, He tells us outright, “God called the light day”. Then just in case we weren’t paying attention, He tells us again, “so the evening and the morning were the first day.” Then He reminds us of what kind of day He’s talking about at the end of each day’s description by tacking that phrase, “so the evening and the morning were the ________ day” onto the end of it. In all, I count 7 times in Genesis 1 that day is defined as just a day.

Exodus 20:11 reaffirms this definition of day in the context of commanding Sabbath rest. “For in six days the Lord made heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Equal terms are being discussed here. Since God made the world in six days and then rested one day, so you shall work six days and then rest one day. The context and the use of the same vocabulary both testify that God created the world and everything in it in 6 literal days.

2. Did God leave any gaps in His description of creation?

The Gap theory has become very complicated, too much so for me to try to explain all the different gap theories out there. But, basically, the argument is that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis 1. And that gap could have been millions or even billions of years, or however much time contemporary evolutionary scientists feel could have been enough time for evolution to work (it keeps getting longer). I will direct you to a more thorough refutation of the gap theory, if this is something you’re into. I never found this argument attractive, because it makes no sense to me. If everything is “formless and void” at the beginning of verse 2, how could evolution have accounted for life in the gap after verse 1? This is where it gets complicated. To answer this question, gap theorists have invented a theory called ruin-and-reconstruction. (Does this sound familiar? Kind of like the whole flood thing, right? Just wait.) They theorize, and I emphasize theorize, that life evolved after God created the heavens and the earth (the Big Bang, no doubt) described in verse 1. The reason they do this is to try to explain the geological “evidence” for evolution. They believe the only way the geological strata of fossils can be explained is evolution, but they also want to believe in a literal 6 day creation. I commend them for wanting to accept God’s definition of a day, but their theory has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

If life evolved in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2, then how did the earth become formless and void by verse 2? To answer this they theorize that Lucifer’s fall must have occurred at this time and that this event must have been the cause of the ruin of the world.

If life evolved in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2, then Adam wasn’t the first man. Besides the obvious, why didn’t God record the creation of the first man and start there instead of waiting to start with Adam? (If this is the argument, why didn’t He just start the Bible with Noah?) 1 Corinthians 15:45 specifically states, “and so it is written, ‘The first man, Adam became a living being.’”

If life evolved in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2, and if this fits with the geological strata, then what evidence did the flood of the Bible leave behind? It didn’t leave one. Oh, so it must not have been a world-wide flood, or at least not a really big flood. So they support their “flood” at the expense of the Biblical flood.

If life evolved in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2, and if this fits with the geological record, then how is it that animals and humans were dying and killing before the fall? Oops. Now they’ve really done it. There’s no way around this one in my opinion. You have to really mess with theology at this point and either allow for a fall before the fall in Scripture, or argue that there was in fact, physical death prior to the fall.

Believing the gap theory involves WAY too much theorizing for my taste. I’m a simple person and like the obvious answer. The more theorizing that goes on, the more room for the introduction of errors into your theory that is built upon theory that is built on yet another theory. And what really gets me, is for Christians to buy the gap theory, they have to end up compromising so much Biblical doctrine to do it.

3. Is theistic evolution consistent with God speaking the world and life into existence? I’ve never heard anyone use this point before, but it’s something that I’ve enjoyed thinking about and wanted to share it with you. The language in Genesis is that of “God said” such and such. God spoke, “Let there be light” and there was light. It’s hard for us to imagine the power and authority of God, but we can try. At my house I’m prone to repeat to my children often that “delayed obedience is disobedience.” Oh, that my wish were their command, but alas, I’m not God. But God is God. Is it possible that God could have spoken and billions of years passed before “nature” answered? (This doesn’t even make sense since there was nothing, ex nihilo, but work with me.) The part I really love to think about is the power in that voice.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” John 1:1-3

God is doing the speaking, but the pre-incarnate Christ is the very Word and means by which everything is made. Isn’t that a cool thought? The second member of the Trinity is always the one reaching down to us, to make us, to live among us and die for us, and even now to encourage us and mature us as we study the Word. And lest the third person of the Trinity be left out of creation, it’s specifically mentioned as being there amid it all, hovering.

It seems to me that when God speaks, the universe obeys. We see this in the account of the flood, and when He sends plagues on Egypt, when He parts the Red Sea, and in about a thousand other miracles in the Bible. Why is it Christians have no problem believing God raised Jesus from the dead, but that He needed a little help in creating the world? Surely, He couldn’t have just spoken it into existence! It must have taken time, or there must have been a gap. I do not follow this line of thinking. My 3 yr old son's favorite Bible verse is, "Nothing is impossible with God." Luke 1:37

4. Theistic evolution steals God’s thunder.

Psalm 19:1-2 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.”

Even when you acknowledge that God did create the world, when you qualify that by saying He did so using evolution, you give partial credit to evolution, or time, or chance, or whatever, something besides God.

Psalm 8:3 “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained…”

Psalm 100:3 “Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us and not we ourselves…”

The result of pondering creation should lead the believer to praise God and marvel at His might and ingenuity. Somehow, I can’t see the following verses from Job making sense if God had started the process like a divine watchmaker, and then let it go to run its course via evolution.

Job 31:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; when I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; when I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come, but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!’”

These verses show God’s intimate ordination over every detail of creation. He was not disinterested, He did not step back. When God commanded the ocean, it obeyed immediately.

One of my favorite Psalms is 139. I won’t reprint all of it, but just a few of my favorite verses. “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.” (vs 13-14)

Any evolutionary scientist will tell you that first and foremost evolution depends on chance. Do the above verses sound like we came about by chance? I understand why people who do not know the Lord believe in evolution. What I do not and cannot understand is how someone who believes in God and His Word can also believe in evolution. There is no middle ground. Either we are here because God made us and put us here in the manner in which He describes in His Word, or the evolutionists are right and we are here by chance. Chance upon chance upon chance upon chance. Take your pick, but there is no Biblical grounds for evolution. The random nature of evolution defies everything in Scripture from beginning to end. God has carefully been at work on His masterpiece since the beginning of time. He deserves all the credit, all the praise, and all the glory.

At least, this is my opinion. What do you think?

Introduction to my Creation Science Series

I’m very excited to begin a new series tonight on creation science. Congratulations again to the ladies who guessed my topic! I want to begin by sharing my personal testimony of search and discovery in the field of creation science. Then I’ll attempt to explain why I think this field is so important today.

My 8th grade Earth Science teacher’s name was Dr. Wright. I remember her as being friendly enough if you agreed with her, but as I was to learn that year, I did not agree with her in one important area, that of the origin of our planet and of life, itself. I didn’t experience what I would call persecution, but I do remember her laughing at me and belittling me when I questioned her about evolution being theory and not established fact. I also remember that she had a PhD, which meant I wasn’t supposed to question her. In retrospect, teaching 8th grade Earth Science was probably not her dream job and that may have had something to do with her attitude toward me. After being ridiculed I went home to my parents and told them what I had experienced. I can’t remember what my mom said, but it probably made me feel lots better. She has no fear and wouldn’t have minded telling that lady off. But, my dad told me to just answer on my test according to the party line, but that we would start looking into this for ourselves. The first thing we did was read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Yes, I was in the 8th grade. And your point is? Next we listened to a series of tapes put out by the Institute for Creation Research. Thus began my interest in all things creation science.

I found my college and graduate school professors much more tolerant. I had some fun and lively discussions with my biology teacher in college, and in graduate school when I studied disciplines such as biochemistry and molecular biology, no one cared. I mean, I don’t remember how we got here ever being discussed. Although origins were not a part of my studies, I couldn’t help but have my beliefs in creation strengthened with every class in physiology, neural science, pharmacology, etc. Think about it. I was studying the human body on a cellular and molecular level. The complexity is phenomenal and has design written all over it. Instead of coming out of graduate school questioning my faith, I came out with my belief in a literal six day creation not only intact, but I was much more confident of it than when I started my quest in the 8th grade. And with every book I read on life, most recently about genetic mutations, I am able to praise God all the more for His wonderful creation.

You may be thinking at this point that you agree with me, so why should you spend time, energy, and brain cells studying creation science. Why can’t you just take the Bible’s word for it, or more accurately God's word for it? I do want you to take the Bible’s word for it, but I also want to encourage you to be ready to give a defense of your beliefs. Evolution has become a stumbling block to many who refuse to hear the gospel because they argue that if evolution is true, and they think it has been proven to be so, then God can’t exist and if God can’t exist then why should they listen to you share your faith. Also, my own faith in God has been strengthened as I’ve marveled at His awesome creation and as I’m always telling my kids, the more you know about God, the more you can praise Him.

Finally, I want to clarify a couple of terms and then ask you a thought-provoking question. When I speak of evolution, I’m referring to macroevolution, or the idea of change across species (protoplasm to tadpole to amphibian kind of stuff). I am not arguing against the reality of small changes within species, also referred to as microevolution. Microevolution has nothing to do with origins, and I’ll probably discuss later that these changes actually point to a shrinking genome, not a growing one.

And finally, I want to ask you to a question which will lead me into my next post. Do you think it is a viable option for Christians to believe in evolution? I held this position once, myself (before Dr. Wright caused me to search out what I believed) and I know many Christians who hold this view still. What I mean to ask is, is theistic evolution consistent with the Bible? Has God told us how He created the world (yes I know the Bible’s not a science textbook, thank goodness!), or has He left it up to debate? Did God use evolution to create the world? There, I think I’ve rephrased it enough so that you know what I’m asking you to think about. After I get some interaction from you, I’ll post the next installment. And by the way, thank you for going on this little journey with me!

Why I believe God over Darwin

When asked to theorize in the absence of hard data Sherlock Holmes objected. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Does this sound familiar? What's the first thing that popped into your mind when you read that description of poor deduction? This is one of many reasons that we choose to homeschool our children.

Charles Darwin cannot be faulted for his careful field observations made prior to our knowledge of molecular biology. But, herein lies the problem with formulating theories in the absence of hard data. He could not have imagined the complexity of life that has been uncovered in recent years. Also, he assumed the existence of transitional forms. Again, rather than formulating a theory around data, he held to his theory and argued that these "missing links" just hadn't been found, yet. It's been over 100 years since his death, and there are still no transitional forms that have held up under scrutiny.

I love the end of Psalm 100, "His mercy is everlasting and His truth endures to all generations." The Bible has held up much better than Darwin's theory and it's been around for much longer! The Bible and Darwin's theory do have one thing in common, though. They have both spawned religions. That's right, Darwin's theory of macroevolution (the theory that gradual beneficial mutations are selected for and eventually result in a change across species), is a religion whose advocates cling to it in a blind faith, desperate to deny the existance of a God that requires submission and worship.

Richard Dawkins, one such "man of faith", in The Blind Watchmaker defines Biology as "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He goes on to argue (again with no data) that it is natural selection that gives this illusion of design. Watching him deny God so vehemently in Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed betrayed the degree of emotion invested in his "belief system". I'm reminded of God's rhetorical questions to Job in ch 38. I wonder if God will ask Dr. Dawkins questions such as these one day in the not-so-distant future? (I have a feeling God will not interrogate Dr. Dawkins so tenderly as He did Job who was after all a righteous man.)

v4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me if you have understanding.
v5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
v6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
v7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
v8 Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
v9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
v10 When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors;
v11 When I said, 'This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!'
v12 Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
v13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?

There's really no good place to stop until the end of the book, but I'll let you pick it up from here in your Bible.

We are truly blessed among God's people to live during a time of scientific discovery that shines light on the blemishes in Darwin's theory, but finds no fault with the Word of God (how could it?).


Stay tuned for some great book giveaways. I have one copy of Behe's Darwin's Black Box, one or two copies of Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, and one or two copies of The Lie by Ken Ham. More on this great giveaway in an upcoming post.

intelligent design

creationism