Articles & Resources

Creationism: Let Students Hear Both Sides

Hartford Courant, January 27, 2000

The guest editorial "Where Earth Science is Heading", in the January 23rd edition of the Courant, offers a case study in the efforts of establishment evolutionists to suppress creationism. Recent actions of the state school boards of Kansas and other states are said to "...deny the information gathered on the history and age of the earth and its life..". This is a mischaracterization of the facts. The Kansas State School Board deleted those portions of proposed guidelines for teaching science which enthroned evolution as a "unifying principle in science". The teaching of evolution is not denied but rather it is allowed to be taught in a fair and open manner.

Establishment evolutionists insist on nothing less than the continued subjection of students to a one-sided presentation of the scientific evidences regarding earth's history. According to Dr. Turekian, questioning the scientific merits of evolution "..does not provide, in this day and age, a useful tension". Creationists disagree. We believe that in the interest of academic freedom and true scientific inquiry, students should not be prohibited from hearing contrary data and an alternative model for interpreting earth's history.

Creationists are not afraid to let students decide which historical framework, creation or evolution, best fits the available evidence and established scientific laws.

Jesus, Genesis, and Marriage

the Chronicle, Willimantic, Conn., January 19, 2000

The January 11th issue of The Chronicle contained two letters characterizing those who oppose same sex unions for Biblical reasons as un-Christian.   Both letters selectively emphasize Christ's love while ignoring his unwavering commitment to truth. These are not mutually exclusive.

Christians should follow the example of their Lord when he was asked to render judgement on a marriage controversy. (See Matthew 19) To settle the matter, he referred to the origin of marriage by quoting two verses from the book of Genesis.  First, "Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female?" By this we see that the Creator obviously intended for marriage to occur between
 a male and a female.

Next, Jesus quoted, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
Notice the man leaves his father and mother; not his mother and mother or his father and father.  Furthermore, God's design is for full union (two becoming one flesh) to occur when a man cleaves to his wife; not to his husband or male partner.

Jesus' grace and love did not conflict with his speaking the truth about God's plan for marriage. Those who profess him as Lord should imitate him by speaking the truth in love.

Origins of Racism

the Chronicle, Willimantic, Conn., June 4, 1999

Editor:

When pondering the origins and resilience of racism, it is instructive to consider the most blatant racist of the 20th century: Adolf Hitler. In "Mein Kampf," he wrote, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness... for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable."

Hitler's self-described "cruel," "ruthless" and "cold" application of what he considered nature's laws was inspired by Darwinian evolution. Darwin, however, had it wrong about the origin of the "races."

Variations between humans, finches, dogs, etc., are not characteristic of an upward progression of the species. Rather, variations within a species represent genetically poorer populations that have descended from original, perfectly created ancestors through natural or artificial selection. Thus, all humans have common ancestral parents, Adam and Eve.

Characteristics which we associate with certain ethnic groups were randomly mixed among their early descendants.  A momentous event, the Tower of Babel, split up the original gene pool, allowing particular features to concentrate in specific tribes (ethnic groups). None of the resulting tribes are genetically superior to the others. All are degenerate relative to their originally created ancestors.

If this biblical and scientifically compatible view of origins were to be instilled in our culture, racism would be dealt a mortal blow.

A Fossil Dating Overstatement

The Chronicle, Willimantic, Conn., Friday, April 30, 1999, p. 5

Editor:

The April 27 edition of the Chronicle carried an Associated Press article about the discovery of a new dinosaur species which contained the following overstatement: "The dating was done through volcanic ash known to be 98 million years old.

What can be "known" scientifically (assuming multiple samples yielded repeatable results) is the ratio of radiometric isotopes in the volcanic ash. To arrive at an age by extrapolation, at least three conditions were assumed which we cannot know to be true:

1. The sample initially contained only "parent" isotopes and no "daughter" isotopes;
2. for 98 million years, parent and/or daughter isotopes have not moved into or escaped out of the sample; and
3. For 98 million years, the decay rate from parent to daughter isotopes has been constant.

Using the same methodology and assumptions with numerous other natural processes yields maximum earth ages far less than those required by evolutionary dogma. These indicators are dismissed or ignored by the general scientific community because they do not fit into the evolutionary framework of earth history and thus are unfit for consideration.

Remarks on Gays Weren't Mean-Spirited

Hartford Courant, July 2, 1998

Editor:

The controversy surrounding recent remarks by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Majority Leader Richard Armey regarding homosexuality reveals how far society has drifted from its biblical foundation [Page 1, June 30, "Rhetoric On Gays Rekindles Republican Debate"].

Nothing in the offending statements advocated hate or mean-spiritedness, as some critics have alleged.

Both men simply stated that as Bible-believing Christians, they concurred with Scripture that homosexuality is wrong and harmful.

If , while pumping gas, I were to observe another person filling his car's radiator with gasoline, my knowledge of the owner's manual would compel me to warn my neighbor that his practice was dangerous and contrary to the manufacturer's instructions Wouldn't that be indicative of love and concern?

Is Meat Murder?

August 17, 1997

I would like to offer two perspectives on the Animal Defense League   and the "meat is murder" viewpoint.

First, from nature we observe animals eating other animals routinely.
Indeed, the entire Eco-system is based on predatory behavior.  Is the
intention of the Animal Defense League to stop wild animals from eating
each other?  From what I've seen on PBS documentaries, non-human meat eaters use crueler methods than our meat industry.  Why is it that when a human kills an animal it viewed as a moral evil but when an animal kills, it is viewed as natural and good?   Many in our society hold this double standard to some degree.

While observations from nature can provide justification for meat
consumption, they do not explain why so many humans are uncomfortable with slaughtering animals.  Here we need the perspective of Him who created all things and revealed Himself to us in the Bible.

In the original "very good" creation, there was no death.  Man and
animals were vegetarian (Genesis 1:29,30). Man rebelled against his
Creator (sinned) and death and suffering entered the world.  Violence
increased until God judged the earth with a world-wide flood.  This so
altered the planet and its living systems that God instructed Noah to
use animals as food (Genesis 9:2,3).

One day, God will restore the creation to its original perfection.  The
wolf will live with the lamb and leopard will lie down with the goat
(Isaiah 11:6).  Death, pain and suffering will cease (Revelation 21:4).

Animals for food is the temporary provision of our wise and loving
Creator for a fallen world. The well meaning people who abhor animal
killing should stop their futile opposition of nature's present order
and take comfort in God's promise of a restored creation.

It's the evidence that doesn't exist

the Chronicle, Willimantic, Conn., March 1, 1997

Editor:

I'd like to respond to [G. L.]*'s letter, "Flaws don't exist." His explanation for the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record isn't new; Charles Darwin used it in his book "The Origin of Species" in 1859. Darwin acknowledged that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record of his day was "the most obvious and serious objection which can be used against the theory (evolution)." Darwin cited the "imperfections" of the geological record and held out hope that as the fossil record was expanded the gaps would fill in.

In 1979, however, the curator of geology of the Field Museum in Chicago, David Raup, had this to say: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

In fact, the record is so "jerky" that one of America's most outspoken evolutionists, Steven Gould of Harvard, abandoned the Darwinian model in favor of his own theory, "punctuated equilibrium." This clever piece of mental gymnastics explains away the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record by saying evolution happened in "spurts;" too quickly to be captured in the fossil record. At the same time, evolutionary dogma teaches that we don't see living transitional forms today because evolution happens too slow for direct human observation.

Too quick to observe in the fossil record and too slow to be seen today. Could it be that evolution can't be observed because it  didn't and doesn't happen? The issue isn't that flaws exist but rather that the evidence doesn't exist.

[Author's name removed per author's request, 07/26/2001.]

    Morris, H; Parker, G. 1987. What is Creation Science?. El Cajon, CA: Master Books.

   Ham, K. 1987. The Lie, Evolution. El Cajon, CA: Master Books.

    Gish, D. 1993. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

Berntsen, G; 1999. The Creation Foundation for Science Education; $5.00 + S&H

Gish, D.; The Gish - Dolittle Debate

Berntsen, G; 1999. Science, Creation and Evolution, $10.00 + S&H

Receive Christ Today!

For great creationist web sites, see our Links page.

Revised: June 10, 2002.