CREATION SCIENCE & OXYMORONS

Home | Back


I know what your thinking . . . "The Perihelion has just gotten too liberal for me and how dare he call me a moron who resembles an ox." Actually I had an article published last month in a local newspaper with a distribution of close to 50,000 papers delivered to all the homes in our neighborhood. Potentially well over 100,000 people could have read it! One of the editorialists for the paper wrote an article in September. I've first included excerpts of his article for you to read. I felt God convicting me to respond & figured I could do so in a letter to the editor which needed to be 300 words or less. When I finished, it was over 900 words! (That won't surprise those of you who regularly read the Perihelion.) I spoke with the editor and he seemed pleased to include the whole article as a counter point! He even added the title "The Leap toward Truth." The article ended up being the longest in the whole paper! I have gotten positive calls and comments from people I don't even know! My article, which follows his, has a couple variations from the original. Next months oxymoron: How can we study the history of Prehistoric man.

THE EVOLUTION OF CREATION: CREATION SCIENCE IS AN OXYMORON

by Allen Polk Hemphill

So the State of Kansas Board of Education (sic) has ruled that Creation and Evolution should be treated as co-equal "theories."

Perhaps the theory that the earth is flat will also be given equal status. Flat-Earthers Arise! Here is your chance.

The Republican candidates are falling all over themselves trying the do the "Texas Two-Step" around the issue, lest they anger a tiny but vocal minority of Christians . . . But everyone should take the opportunity to go on the Internet and do a search on "Creation Science." I have done so, and have not laughed so hard since I last read a PJ O'Rourk book . . . Actually, I have no problem with someone reading the Bible in school. I managed to spend three years in a Catholic military school, with daily classes in catechism, a daily Mass and all the rest without believing a word I heard . . . But I do care what is taught in a science class, because there is not a scientific debate between Creationism and Evolution, there is only a religious debate. Fundamental Christians are welcome to believe any foolish thing they wish, but they need to leave science alone.

Counterpoint: The Leap Towards Truth

CREATION VS. EVOLUTION OR "FLAT-EARTH VS. ROUND-EARTH"???

by Larry Bubb

It is interesting that the "flat-earth" theory would be used as an example to show that the Creation theory should not be taught in public schools. I have researched and discovered that the vast majority of people, as well as nearly every Cartographer (mapmaker) believed the earth was flat in the 1400's. I have also read journals of some who believed the earth was round, contrary to popular belief, because of writings in the Bible like Isaiah 40:22 which talk about the "circle of the earth." I can imagine some ridiculing or even laughing at those 'religious nuts' for "foolishly believing some outdated scriptures written before the time of Jesus Christ." As it turned out, those scriptures were scientifically correct. It's easy to make fun of or label someone a 'flat-earther' or 'Republican' or 'Christian' and set up some 'straw man' argument without really dealing with the facts of the issue.

Why should we fear teaching any scientific evidence that points to a God that created the human race. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard and one of the nation's most prominent modern evolutionists, writes about the "Cambrian explosion, during which all but one modern phylum of animal life made a first appearance in the fossil record . . . the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes . . . The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." Indeed, no one has ever found fossilized ancestors to even one of these highly complex Cambrian invertebrates, nor any transitional forms linking these creatures to each other or to a common ancestor. Evidence like this and the puzzling status of the fairly recent Vendian fossils have led paleontologists like Mikhail Fedonkin to write, "We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species."

I remember thinking it humorous that evolutionists, unable to explain the sudden appearance of fossils and the lack of gradual transitions, decided to call it the 'Cambrian explosion.' It sounds a lot like the book of Genesis (Beginnings) in the Bible. For those of you not aware of the language of the Bible in Genesis, the Hebrew word often translated 'day' is 'Yom.' This word often means 'an extended period of time' or 'age.' In fact, the word can not be limited to only a 24 hour day as the sun and moon (by which we judge our 24 hour days) were not created, according to Genesis, until the 4th 'day' or 'extended period of time.' I simply point this out to show that long scientific time tables do not contradict the Bible. (I add for Perihelion readers that I totally believe God could have created everything in six 24 hour days. The earth may only appear to be millions of years old just like a Doctor could have examined Adam and concluded he was in his 20s when actually he may have only been a week old on this planet.)

My goal in writing is not to persuade anyone to believe in Creationism, but merely to show that there is scientific evidence that supports the theory that God created the species. I use the word 'theory' on purpose because to prove anything as scientific fact, it must be verifiable and able to be 'recreated' in a laboratory or through experiments. Since the origin of the species and the universe obviously can not be reproduced in a laboratory, to be semantically and scientifically accurate, one must describe the origin of the species through either Creationism or Evolution as a theory. Since neither can be accurately labeled as a scientifically verifiable fact we must look at the evidence and make some logical conclusions.

Once again, before labeling me as one of those "foolish Christians believing anything they wish," I want to point out that I did graduate #1 in my University and began with a major in Math and Chemistry minor. This is not to convince any one that I am right but merely to say that there are many well learned and intelligent men, including evolutionists and atheists, whom I could quote who have objectively examined the scientific record and come to the conclusion that creation by a Supreme Being was much more logical than a random explosion from nothingness into chance existence. In fact, Sir Fred Hoyle from Cambridge, one of the world's greatest mathematicians and astronomers, made a study of the possibility of a cell coming into existence anywhere in the entire history of the universe. He discovered the chances were 10 to the 40 thousandth power or in terms of probability, zero chance. Atheist Hoyle concluded, "The only way that life can possibly exist is that it was created by an infinite intelligence whom you may wish to call God." Creationism and Macroevolution both take a 'leap of faith.' The question becomes which is the greater leap and which is the Truth!

QUOTE OF THE MILLENNIUM

"I have given up on everything else. I have found it to be the only way to really know Christ and to experience the mighty power that brought him back to life again and to find out what it means to suffer and to die with him. So whatever it takes, I will be the one who lives in the fresh newness of life of those who are alive from the dead." - Cassie Bernall (Written just a short time before she was shot to death at Columbine HS for saying, "Yes, I believe in God" on April 20, 1999)


Home | Back