More on Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

(See David Carvers comment on the previous posting)

Anyone who asserts, as Bruce Waltke does, that the overwhelming evidence from science supports evolution theory does not know what scientific evidence is. True, at the present time, the overwhelming concensus from the academic world parrots that opinion. If concensus is taken as evidence, Waltke is right for the time being. But if evidences from science only are the criteria, he is dead wrong.

Evolutionists perform all kinds of good science in areas peripheral to the central iissue, like genetics, cell function, plant and animal behavior, and similarities in morphology. But at its core, evolution theory is simply guesswork, minus persuasive scientific data. Many studies from good science surround evolution theory and this is used as a persuasive front, leading unwary followers to assume that the core assumptions must be scientifically established as well. They are not, not by any means.

If data exists supporting evolution using rigid, scientific protocol, where is it? I have seen nothng that is not far more sensibly explained by creation. Morphological similarites, whether on the molecular level or the macro level, only prove, as creationists often affirm, that they have a common Designer.

A major weakness in creationist arguments comes from a superficial reading of Genesis with the conclusion that God created planet earth and the stellar heavens less than ten thousand years ago. It is no wonder that many scientists turn off at that point and it enables them to take the absolutely underwhelming evidence for evolution and make it seem credible. Bruce Waltke's tragedy should alert us all to the power of "strong delusion" at this terminus of history.

- Gorman Gray

Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

Last month renowned Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary. In a March 24 release of an interview from 2009 Waltke stated:

"...if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

This statement came as a shock to many of us. The Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Hugh Ross' research, and Young Earth Creationists unite in proving the fallacies of Darwinian evolution.

This announcement from Waltke is another indication of the need for sound, biblical exegesis of Genesis one that harmonizes with valid scientific observation. We believe that Young Biosphere Creationism (as explained in The Age of the Universe book) accomplishes these objectives. May we each use our intellectual and spiritual gifts productively to defend and teach the Who and how of origins.

Age of the Earth/ Age of the Biosphere

My friend, Dr. Jackson, answered a query about the age of the earth this way:

"Dr J. I have a teacher who thinks God created the world but used evolution so the world is millions of years old. How do creationists refute that? What evidence do we have? Does it matter how old Earth is? Ok thanks so much. God bless! - Jessica G."

"Jessica, we've got dino bones with blood still in them. They've gotta be only 4000 years old. pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html We found a group of WW2 warplanes 275 feet inside a glacier that's moved miles in just decades not eons. Glaciers grow faster than they are telling us. http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm Cave stalactites don't take "millions" of yrs, either. Just look up— next time you drive under a stone bridge that --is not-- millions of years old—you'll see them there anyway. The problem is ... how do --evo's-- get off saying Earth --is-- billions old?? Keep thinking. Dr J" - POINTS OF ORIGINS with Dr. Jackson Creation Truth Foundation www.CreationTruth.com

We agree with young earth creation apologists, but call attention to the distinction between the older age of our planet's mineral base and the relatively recent creation of the biosphere. (This latter creation is described in Genesis chapter 1). We believe that the undefined age of the universe model fits a literal exegesis of the Genesis account, allows for the observational evidence of astronomy, yet defends the recent origin of earth's biosphere and the divine creation of all living things.

- posted by J. Woodward

Critique of Smithsonian's "Human Evolution" Exhibit

John Woodward writes:

My friend, G. Charles Jackson, a Creation Science lecturer, sent me this tip:

"Intelligent Design theorist Casey Luskin, does an excellent job reviewing the displays at the Smithsonian Museum's newest exhibit on "Human Evolution." Enjoy the link. They've included the infamously admitted non-link "Ardi" and disqualified hybrid "Toumai" in their list of missing-link "proofs" of evolution." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/smithsonians_new_human_origins.html

I imagine the exhibit didn't randomly assemble itself... :-)

Creation Conference 2010

I am hoping to attend this event in N.C. Let us pray for God's blessing on it and opportunities to advocate Young Biosphere Creationism.

"Wednesday, June 9 – Sunday, June 13

Lifeway Ridgecrest Conference Center near Asheville, NC

THE ATHEISTS ARE ON THE MARCH LIKE NEVER BEFORE! Why? Because creation is also being discussed like never before, and they are worried! This series of lectures and activities will equip you and your children with the necessary tools and information to dramatically affect this world for Christ.

Schedule: This five day conference has over 20 sessions including a Q & A panel, a special forum on distant starlight, and a geology excursion to nearby Linville caverns and a broad range of presentations on the creation/evolution issues.

This may be the most comprehensive and important conference held in 2010.

Gary Bates

CEO
Creation Ministries International (US)
PO Box 350, Powder Springs, GA 30127

Phone: 1-800-616-1264 Ext. 205

Online: www.Creation2010.com"