Category Archives: Science

Relating to Science

CIB: Like Superman with no Kryptonite Weakness

Posted on by — Leave a reply

Super CIB - Creation Information Barrier

“To what can I compare this generation?” Said Jesus (Matt 11.16) preparing to use a simile as an illustration of what the people of his day were like. In the same vein, to what can I compare the power of the Creation Information Barrier evidence/argument/truth compared to other arguments in support of the necessity of a supernatural intelligence in the creation of life when discussing the origin of life? Superman, I think, is appropriate.

Superman, with all his powers, is clearly the most powerful superhero. He is so powerful in fact, that they had to give him a weakness just to make a way to have a story line without Superman defeating the villain in the first few seconds of a fight. Because a fight between Superman and a human is like a fight between a 150,000 pound sauropod dinosaur and, not a human (as in the graphic below) but, a mouse. It is simply no contest.

Sauropod and human - size comparison

Humans compared to Sauropods

Continue Reading

Q11 – Why are Christians so stuck on believing their Bibles instead of science?

Posted on by

Science Research

We now consider the question, “Why are Christians so stuck on believing their Bibles instead of science.” This is a false dichotomy because Christians do not reject all science. The question either reveals a profound ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific process or implicitly denies that science, by its very nature, is constantly rejecting things as false that were previously thought to be true. Tenets, previously accepted as good science one day, can be rejected as foolish and obsolete the next.

Regarding the nature of God, the question reveals either ignorance concerning God or a denial of the nature of God and the Bible. God is omniscient. He has perfect knowledge (John 21.17, Heb 4.13). He never learns anything because he already knows everything. The Bible is the word of God, breathed out from the omniscient God (2 Tim 3.16) and all it affirms is true (Ps 119.160). Therefore, as expected of knowledge coming from God who is perfect in knowledge, the Bible is wholly true and without error in all it affirms. This is known as the doctrine of inerrancy. Continue Reading

The “But You’re Not a Scientist” Fallacy

Posted on by

Skeptic

“But you’re not a scientist…”

The “… but you’re not a scientist” fallacy is an often-used ploy by evolutionists to try to disqualify any critique or observation about evolution (or actually any scientific discipline) that is not presented from what they consider to be a qualified evolutionist. Typically “qualified” means someone with a PhD in some evolutionary field like evolutionary biology. Without it, the objection goes, you’re not qualified to make any critiques or point out any problems with evolutionary theory. Continue Reading

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 2: Critique and Cuts

Posted on by

Supernova SN1987a

As noted in part 1 of this article, distant starlight has been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young earth. A serious charge. So I thought it would be helpful to identify the best answer to this “best” charge against creation. A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by scientists who happen to also be creationists.  We briefly examined the popular ones in the previous article.  Now that we’ve completed an overview of possible solutions, we’ll get to the meat of the matter: identifying which theory or theories both have a possibility of working, and surviving the principle of Occam’s razor. So without further ado: Continue Reading

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 1: Contenders

Posted on by

The Milkyway from the International Space Station

Distant starlight: It’s been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young universe.[1] Why is that? Because Big Bang Theorists, secularists and anyone who believes in an ancient universe believe they have an iron clad case against a young universe with regard to distant starlight. The argument goes like this.

The Problem

We can see stars hundreds of thousands, millions even billions of light years away.  Take the Andromeda galaxy – 2.5 million light years away. A supernova was observed in that galaxy. That implies the light took 2.5 million years to get to earth. But if the earth (and indeed the entire universe) is only 6,000 years old. How can we see Andromeda or the supernova? Using standard understandings and formulas, there hasn’t been enough time for the light to get here from Andromeda. Yet we can see it. On the face of it that suggests that the earth is at least 2.5 million years old – much older than the 6,000 years that Biblical creationists claim for the universe. And the problem only gets worse for more distant stars. This is indeed an acknowledged problem. Continue Reading

More Questions for Question Evolution Day

Posted on by

Question Evolution Day is February 12

Theoretical physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku said,

“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”[1]

Real operational science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. Which of course excludes Darwinian evolution, since it is neither testable, reproducible nor falsifiable – at least it can’t be falsified to the satisfaction of Darwinists. Nevertheless in the scientific spirit of inquiry it is good to examine what many believe to be the “science” of evolution.  Creation.com and The Question Evolution Project have established February 12 – Darwin’s birthday – as Question Evolution Day. A day to inquire about and question a theory many erroneously think has been established as a “fact” due to the incessant cheerleading by its advocates.[2]

Creation Ministries International has published an excellent article titled “15 Questions for Evolutionists” that covers well many of the unanswered challenges to evolutionary theory. Also for your consideration: a few years back Buzzfeed did a “listicle” featuring creationists asking questions that are either problematic for evolution or supportive of creation. The questions sought to expose a problem with evolutionary theory, but were asked in a manner that made them easy to refute, so I wrote an article to fine tune the questions called “Refining the Questions for Question Evolution day.” It’s in the spirit of these articles that I offer a few more questions (and challenges to evolutionists) for Question Evolution Day. Continue Reading

Testimony of the Golden Gate: Bridges, Body Parts and Intelligent Design

Posted on by

The Golden Gate Bridge

I enjoy looking for evidences of the Creator imprinted on his creation when I travel. This past summer we had the opportunity of visiting San Francisco where we saw the awe inspiring Golden Gate bridge and I snapped the above picture.  I was also reminded of the Creator – in an indirect way. Obviously God didn’t directly build the bridge – but the bridge is a reminder of the design inherent in His creation. Let me explain. It is abundantly evident that the Golden Gate bridge is intelligently designed. But beyond that, not only is it intelligently designed,  it’s clear it is also irreducibly complex. And irreducible complexity is an undeniable evidence of intelligent design..

Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box, and defined it this way: Continue Reading

Is three tier flat earth cosmology getting short shrift from Biblical Creationists?

Posted on by

Heaven Earth and Seas of the Ancient 3 Tier Universe Cosmology

In response to my previous article “What Might Einstein Think About Flat Earth Theories” (posted on the Creation Club site)

Dean writes:

The flat earth society is the source for the absurd idea that the earth is “pancake shaped” and it is “accelerating upward” in order to replace gravity. The Biblical Three Tier Cosmology model makes no such claim. I am still looking for Biblical young earth creation ministries to honestly address the Biblical flat earth model. I keep finding articles like this that misrepresent the majority on other side.

The Bible teaches us that the earth is not in any motion and is at rest on a foundation with pillars and a cornerstone. All experiments designed to demonstrate earth’s motion have failed.

The Copernicus/Pythagoras model IS the Big Bang/Evolution model promoted by young earth creationists. It has no Biblical support whatsoever

You seem to value Einstein as a scientist even though this is his real resume:
Proven theories – 0
Patents – 0
Discoveries – 0
Inventions – 0

The response I wrote (below) is a bit long for a comment, so I present it here instead.  Also for the reader’s reference – depicted above – the Three Tier Cosmology model Dean refers to consisting of Heavens, Earth and Seas.[1]  Note that : Continue Reading

Can you find what you deny exists? Three Guarantees

Posted on by

Teapot on a cone

I recently read an article by Jonathan Witt –  science writer and co-author of “Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design” which describes bioengineer Matti Leisola’s (the other co-author) gradual rejection of Darwinism and embrace of intelligent design. In his article titled “A Father, an Atheist Son, and a Darwin Heretic” Witt describes the attempt of a father to get his son – a scientist and an atheist – to consider the claims of intelligent design by reading Witt’s and Leisola’s book “Heretic.”

The son rejects even reading the book with a number of excuses: Continue Reading

Multiverse thinking: though magical doesn’t exclude God’s existence – it proves it

Posted on by

The multiverse – a product of magical thinking.

Many physicists  have begun to cloak themselves in what they hope is the  protective garment of the theory of the multiverse to protect them from the deluge of evidence that the universe is finely tuned.  As I point out in my previous article, that the universe is finely tuned is not a question:

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” [physicist Andrei] Linde says.


Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea.  …

 

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse.[1]

Continue Reading