Evolution

Creation Ministries Creation 2015 International Superconference

October, 2015

Dr. Dan Reynolds attended the recent Creation Superconference held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina July 13-17. Dr. Reynolds has provided us a summary of each of the sessions at the conference.

My wife, Cassie, and I recently spent a week in Myrtle Beach where I attended 19 of 20 talks on creation and related topics given at the Creation Ministry International (CMI) Creation 2015 Family Superconference. Cassie, while supporting my interest in creation, only attended one session and spent the rest of her time sewing on her portable sewing machine in our hotel room! The conference was held at the Springmaid Beach Resort located right next to the ocean. The accommodations, food, and staff were excellent. Mornings and evenings were filled with talks while afternoons had options for free time, a tour of a nearby aquarium with Dr. Robert Carter of CMI, or playing chess with Jonathan Sarfati, former chess champion of New Zealand. And as usual, there was an extensive bookstore offering hundreds of books and videos, often at reduced prices. I came home with a couple of bags full!

Carbon-14 in Dinosaur Bones Challenges Evolution Theory and Supports Genesis Flood Account

August, 2015

Zugzwang (German for “compulsion to move,” pronounced [ˈtsuːktsvaŋ]) is a situation found in chess and other games wherein one player is put at a disadvantage because they must make a move when they would prefer to pass and not to move. The fact that the player is compelled to move means that his position will become significantly weaker. A player is said to be “in zugzwang” when any possible move will worsen his position1 (see Figure 1, for example).

Fig 1

Figure 1 – According to Glen Flear, Black is in zugswang because black must move and will eventually lose the game.2

Faith and Science: Friends or Foes

October, 2014

My wife, Cassie, and I went on a three week trip to the northwest this past July and August.1 During the Alaskan cruise portion of our trip, we attended an intelligent design (ID) conference sponsored by the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org) entitled “Faith and Science: Friends or Foes?” Afterwards we visited Mount Saint Helens in Washington, then Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. As you can imagine, the scenery was beautiful.

The purpose of this article is to communicate the content of the talks given during the ID conference based on the notes I took. Occasionally, I will comment on the speaker’s thoughts. These comments will appear in italics and prefixed with the word ”comment.” 2

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

June, 2014

Reprinted with permission from Creation Ministries International, 24 March 2000.

The article and links to additional information referred to in this article can be obtained at: http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoax-it-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link

With all the publicity about the Archaeoraptor fiasco (see Archaeoraptor Hoax Update - National Geographic Recants!), some have recalled the 1986 claim by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe that Archaeopteryx is a forgery. 1 Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous of the alleged transitional forms promoted by evolutionists. This is probably why some anti-Darwinians are keen to dismiss it as a forgery.

What Was Archaeopteryx?

January, 2014

The following article is reprinted from the Center for Scientific Creation, www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ117.html#wp1365100. It comes from the Frequently Asked Questions part of the book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walter T. Brown.

Compy

If dinosaurs (or, as some evolutionists assert, reptiles) evolved into birds, thousands of types of animals should have been more birdlike than dinosaurs and yet more dinosaur-like than birds. Evolutionists claim Archaeopteryx (ark-ee-OP-ta-riks) is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds. Of the few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks. Some say the seven main Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world.

Archaeopteryx means ancient (archae) wing (pteryx). But the story behind this alleged half-dinosaur, half-bird is much more interesting than its fancy, scientific-sounding name or the details of its bones. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory. 

Review of Stephen Meyer's New Book Darwin's Doubt

October, 2013

Darwin's Doubt: the Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design is Stephen Meyer's sequel to his previous book Signature in the Cell. 1

Published earlier this year, Darwin’s Doubt at the time of this writing is #1 on Amazon.com in the categories of organic evolution, paleontology, and creationism and #745 overall (out of more than one million books). Meyer has a doctorate in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University, bachelor’s degrees in physics and geology and is the director of the Discovery Institute, the flagship organization for the Intelligent Design movement.

Darwin’s Doubt investigates the rapid appearance of animal phyla at the base of the geologic record known as the Cambrian Explosion from the point of view of biological information. Meyer documents the Cambrian Explosion and discusses the various explanations that have been put forth to explain it from Darwin’s time until now.2

Fossils and Genetics: a Deadly Duo for Transitional Species and for Darwin's Theory

June, 2013
Figure 1 - Artist's conception of Archaeopteryx

In his foundational work, generally known as "The Origin of Species," but seldom (for obvious reasons) cited by its full title, "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life," Charles Darwin proposed a bold test for his theory when he said:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” 1

But to Darwin’s credit, in making that statement, he was acknowledging a fundamental truth of the scientific method: that is, that in order to be testable, a scientific theory must make precise predictions as to what would be revealed by further examination of the relevant data.

The Origin of Information in Biology

May, 2013

The greatest challenge for evolutionary biology is to account for the information found in codes in DNA, RNA, proteins, and more recently in the epigenome.1 The mutation/selection mechanism of neo-Darwinism, although still taught in biology textbooks, has been shown inadequate by creation and intelligent design scientists. Indeed, even some leading evolutionists are seeking alternative mechanisms such as self-organization. Much evidence has been found against neo-Darwinism (and all related stochastic processes) and for intelligent design (ID) in recent years. Intelligent design advocates have found ways to detect design. Much evidence has been found against the macroevolution of Homo sapiens and for the biblical origin of mankind.

Evolutionists must account for the origin of life, the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record, living fossils, the lack of transitional forms, the origin of sexuality, the origin of consciousness, the origin of information in macroevolution, the origin of irreducibly complex molecular machines, convergent evolution, and the information found in the epigenome.

Evolution - a Proven Fact?

November, 2011

... there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, ...1

Is this actually true? You may have read, or heard, such claims about evolution: that it is a fact, that it is proven beyond doubt, and perhaps even that anyone who questions the truth of evolution is either uneducated, ignorant, deluded, or perhaps just not that bright.

Yet, it seems there should be a place in science where it is OK to question accepted beliefs and, while not rejecting them “out-of-hand” with no reason, to subject them to the standard of proof. In other words, there ought not to be any “sacred cows” allowed in science. Facts ought to take precedence over theories. Ideally, this might be the case. In reality, at least in history, it seems to have not always been the case.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Evolution