FreeTruth

It seems the theory of "Common Descent" is in serious trouble. The journal New Scientist has released an article titled "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life." The article candidly discusses the tremendous obstacle faced by evolutionary biologists who try to use DNA to construct trees showing hypothetical evolutionary relationships. According to the article, "the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."

"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

I suppose it's no wonder that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) steadfastly opposes any critical analysis of the evidence for evolution. The deeper the research goes, the more difficult it becomes to prop up the theory of common descent; and evolution doesn't work without common descent. In addition, the molecular trees (based on DNA) and the morphological trees (based on anatomical traits) do not resemble each other as they should. The alternative explanation, and the one that seems increasingly to fit the DNA evidence, is common design. But, Mother Nature forbid it! We cannot let this tidbit leak out to the school children!

And so, when this debate comes into public view, scientists "put on a united front and hold to the bluff that there are no weaknesses in their position." (Salvo Magazine, Summer 2009).

Recently the Texas Board of Education adopted science standards that require students to "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, including "common ancestry." The National Academy of Sciences would be horrified at the prospect, but still, imagine... an new generation of students who are permitted to analyze evidence once again. There is still hope for science education in the good old USA! Way to go Texas...

(Full Story in Salvo Magazine, Summer 2009 Issue)

Labels: Apologetics, Culture War, Guest Post, Intelligent Design

It rained all day last Friday. I was at my desk much of the day, and found myself glancing often through the window... at millions and millions of raindrops.

Ever since pastor Tim used the following illustration in his sermon, I have looked at rain with a new sense of wonder. What follows below should end the debate between those who think the universe is randomly ordered, and those who believe in Intelligent Design. Check this out; copy it off, and have your children bring it to school for an interesting discussion in the science classroom!

"But as for me, I would seek God, And I would place my cause before God; Who does great and unsearchable things, Wonders without number. He gives rain on the earth, And sends water on the fields." (Job 5:8-10)

Is rain a great and unsearchable wonder wrought by God?

Picture yourself as a farmer in the Near East, far from any lake or stream. A few wells keep the family and animals supplied with water. But if the crops are to grow and the family is to be fed from month to month, water has to come on the fields from another source.

From where?

Well, the sky.

The sky? Water will come out of the clear blue sky?

Well, not exactly. Water will have to be carried in the sky from the Mediterranean Sea, over several hundred miles and then be poured out from the sky onto the fields.

Carried? How much does it weigh?

Well, if one inch of rain falls on one square mile of farmland during the night, that would be 27,878,400 cubic feet of water, which is 206,300,160 gallons, which is 1,650,501,280 pounds of water.

That's heavy. So how does it get up in the sky and stay up there if it's so heavy?

Well, it gets up there by evaporation.

Really? That's a nice word. What's it mean?

It means that the water sort of stops being water for a while so it can go up and not down.

I see. Then how does it get down?

Well, condensation happens.

What's that?

The water starts becoming water again by gathering around little dust particles between .00001 and .0001 centimeters wide. That's small.

What about the salt?

Salt?

Yes, the Mediterranean Sea is salt water. That would kill the crops. What about the salt?

Well, the salt has to be taken out.

Oh. So the sky picks up a billion pounds of water from the sea and takes out the salt and then carries it for three hundred miles and then dumps it on the farm?

Well it doesn't dump it. If it dumped a billion pounds of water on the farm, the wheat would be crushed. So the sky dribbles the billion pounds of water down in little drops. And they have to be big enough to fall for one mile or so without evaporating, and small enough to keep from crushing the wheat stalks.

How do all these microscopic specks of water that weigh a billion pounds get heavy enough to fall (if that's the way to ask the question)?

Well, it's called coalescence.

What's that?

It means the specks of water start bumping into each other and join up and get bigger. And when they are big enough, they fall.

Just like that?

Well, not exactly, because they would just bounce off each other instead of joining up, if there were no electric field present.

What?

Never mind. Take my word for it.

I think, instead, I will just take Job's word for it. I still don't see why drops ever get to the ground, because if they start falling as soon as they are heavier than air, they would be too small not to evaporate on the way down, but if they wait to come down, what holds them up till they are big enough not to evaporate? Yes, I am sure there is a name for that too. But I am satisfied now that, by any name, this is a great and unsearchable thing that God has done. I think I should be thankful - lots more thankful than I am.”

John Piper:
The Godward Life

Labels: Dependence on God, Guest Post, Intelligent Design

When my son brought home his 7th grade Life Sciences text book, I was astounded by the following excerpt:

"Could life have arisen from non-living things on early Earth, even though it does not occur on Earth today? The answer is yes."

Since there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this assertion, I must conclude that the authors of this text-book make this statement "by faith." Faith in a presuppositional framework called "Scientific Naturalism" which insists that there is a materialistic, mechanistic cause for every observable phenomenon. This is philosophical position (materialism), not a scientific conclusion.

Is there any evidence that life began from nothing? "The answer is no!" The scientific evidence we have to date clearly shows that life cannot arise from non-living matter. The Miller-Urey experiments from the 1950's which seemed to hint that it might just be possible are now considered irrelevant by the scientific community. No one can say with any certainty what the atmosphere of early earth was like, or what the "primordial soup" consisted of... unless, of course, they are speaking by faith. Clearly, this text book statement is a "leap of faith."

What the authors, and science educators are really saying is this: "Hey kids, we have no proof that life can arise on its own (in fact, we have proof that it can't), but that doesn't matter! We believe that it simply must have come about on its own, because, you see, unlike the great scientific minds of past centuries, we cannot leave any room for the possibility of a Creator, or any kind of intelligence behind this marvellous world we live in."

This is one parent who is completely annoyed with this kind of double-standard in public education. Will someone please remind these educators that faith is strictly forbidden in the public school classroom!

Labels: Apologetics, Culture War, Guest Post, Intelligent Design