Dr. David Menton – If We Resemble Apes, Does That Mean We Evolved from Apes?

Anyone who has ever watched the monkeys and apes at a zoo couldn’t help but notice their resemblance to humans. By comparison, the bears in the zoo are not nearly as similar to humans as are the apes. Still, bears are warm-blooded mammals and thus are more similar to humans than are cold-blooded reptiles like the alligators. Alligators, however, do have legs and true lungs and thus are more similar to humans than are the fish. But even fish have bony vertebrae and thus are more similar to human than are the insects. And even insects are made up of many specialized cells and thus are more similar to humans than are the bacteria. Finally, all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction.

To continue reading Dr. Menton’s article, click here.

Please follow and like us:
0

Dr. David Menton – Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law? – or None of the Above?

I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn’t concern them because, after all, it’s “only a theory.” Presumably they think that the word “theory” means about the same thing as a “pipe dream.” But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory — or perhaps neither.

There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law — all at the same time!

To read the rest of Dr. Menton’s aricle, click here.

Please follow and like us:
0

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson – Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 3 of a Response to Chapter 2 of Adam and the Genome

In this series, we have been examining the scientific claims in the book Adam and the Genome.1 In our previous post, we began to evaluate the genetic claims that one of the authors, Dennis Venema, makes in chapter two. Today’s post continues this discussion.

At the beginning of chapter two, Venema begins an extended analogy between language and genetics. His purpose is to show that evolutionary change bears strong resemblance to language change. Since few people would have a problem with the latter, Venema builds on this foundation to argue for the former.

Specifically, Venema thinks that we can trace common ancestry among species in the same way that we can trace common ancestry among languages. In other words, Venema thinks that the pattern of genetic differences is strong evidence in support of evolution.

To read the rest of Dr. Jeanson’s article, click here.

Please follow and like us:
0

James Anderson – Why Did God Allow the Fall?

It’s a question that puzzles new converts and terrifies Sunday school teachers. Indeed, it’s a conundrum most of us have wrestled with, and for good reason. The fall of Adam wasn’t merely the first human sin. It was an act that was calamitous for the world and the human race. Because of the fall, “All mankind . . . lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q19).

Why would God permit such a tragic event, such an act of flagrant rebellion, in full knowledge of its horrific consequences?

A friend of mine quipped, “I can answer that one in three words: I don’t know!” Joking aside, his response does raise an important issue. Would it be a big problem if we didn’t have a good answer to that question? Would our inability to answer it give us any reason to doubt Christianity?

To read the rest of James Anderson’s article, click here

Please follow and like us:
0

Steve Ham – Is Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths?

All over the world we find cultural legends and myths that closely resemble certain accounts in Scripture, such as the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel accounts.

When faced with the question as to whether the Bible accurately records ancient history in Genesis 1–11 or was derived from some other “ancient” document, we first need to apply a solemn reminder. God’s Word has made the ultimate and justifiable claim for itself that none of these other ancient texts has made. The Bible repeatedly asserts to be the perfect Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; Psalm 19:7; 119:160). If the Bible borrowed from ancient mythologies, this claim would be called into question.

The Issue

All over the world we find cultural legends and myths that closely resemble certain accounts in Scripture, such as the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel accounts.1 Oftentimes, these accounts are used as an external confirmation of the credibility of Scripture.

Read the rest of Steve Ham’s article here.

Please follow and like us:
0

Michael Boling – Ethical Position Paper on Homosexuality

INTRODUCTION
The issue of whether scripture denounces the practice of homosexuality or whether such prohibitions are merely the concoction of fundamentalist sympathizers is increasingly a central point of discussion in today’s society. The question of biblical doctrine and ethical behavior in relation to the permissiveness of homosexuality within the church is at a crossroads. Many denominations are increasingly allowing openly homosexual church members to attain positions of leadership with little or no condemnation. It is evident there is a dilemma on how to approach this divisive and controversial issue from both a theological and ethical perspective. This paper will examine the efforts by the homosexual community to reframe the discussion away from its traditional biblical and societal moorings while demonstrating the clear biblical design for proper sexual relationships found in both the Old and New Testaments. It will be clearly shown Scripture teaches homosexual behavior violates God’s original design for love and sexuality while bringing to the fore the biblical doctrine that sexual conduct should be confined strictly within the boundaries of a covenant marriage relationship between a man and woman.

OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN FAVOR OF HOMOSEXUALITY
As noted by Professor Alex Montoya, “Much of the debate which has arisen over the issue of homosexuality comes from the approaches homosexual advocates have used in interpreting the Scriptures.” Supporters of the homosexual agenda, to include active homosexuals as well as clergy and increasingly denominational councils, have taken the position that homosexuality is not explicitly condemned in Scripture and thus should be tolerated. This attitude has resulted in not just the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle but also the ordination of homosexuals to positions of leadership in the church. Numerous scriptures have been utilized in the Old Testament to challenge the traditional orthodox position that homosexuality is defined in Scripture as sexual perversion. While not exhaustive, the following discussion outlines the major passages in the Old Testament appealed to by homosexual advocates as indicative of either Scripture’s ambivalence towards homosexual behavior or at a minimum, the cultural limitations of any laws in Scripture that may be viewed as denouncing homosexuality. Continue reading “Michael Boling – Ethical Position Paper on Homosexuality”

Please follow and like us:
0

Dr. David Menton – The Origin of Life

One of the most fundamental axioms of biology is that all life comes from preexisting life. Still, until the later part of the 19th century, life was believed to arise from nonliving matter by a process called “spontaneous generation.” Ancient Egyptians, for example, thought mice arose from the mud of the Nile. In 1600, J. B. Helmont even reported “proof” for the spontaneous generation of mice, claiming that if wheat, cheese, and soiled linen are placed together in a jar, mice will eventually appear! This idea of the spontaneous generation of life from nonlife was so deeply ingrained in biological thought that it took nearly 200 years of experimental evidence to completely disprove it.

In 1650, Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved that maggots come from living flies and not from lifeless meat as was widely believed. This was a serious blow to spontaneous generation, but when bacteria were later discovered, it was thought that at least microorganisms might arise from nonlife. This notion too was finally laid to rest in 1864 by the great scientist (and creationist) Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that bacteria can only come from living bacteria. When Pasteur reported his results before the French Academy, he confidently declared that “never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation arise from this mortal blow.” Pasteur never dreamed that the widely discredited evolutionary ideas of his contemporary, Charles Darwin, would one day become widely accepted by the scientific community, reviving once again the notion of spontaneous generation. In his book, The Origins of Life, evolutionist Cyril Ponnamperuma said,

It is, perhaps, ironic that we tell beginning students in biology about Pasteur’s experiments as the triumph of reason over mysticism yet we are coming back to spontaneous generation, albeit in a more refined and scientific sense, namely to chemical evolution.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Jean O’Micks – Further Evidence That Homo naledi Is Not a Member of the Human Holobaramin Based on Measurements of Vertebrae and Ribs

Introduction

In the wake of a detailed discussion within creationist circles about the baraminic status of Homo naledi (McLain 2017; O’Micks 2016a, b, c 2017; Wood 2016a, b 2017), more evidence has accumulated that H. naledi indeed is a member of the Australopithecus baramin, and is not human. These previous analyses of measurements on H. naledi’s cranium (Berger et al. 2015; Laird et al. 2017), foot (Harcourt-Smith et al. 2015), hand (Kivell et al. 2015), upper limb (Feuerriegel et al. 2017), and thigh (Marchi et al. 2017) show that H. naledi either shows continuity with members of the Australopithecus baramin, or that it is not continuous with members of the human holobaramin. Despite the initial conclusion that H. naledi was likely to be a member of the human holobaramin based on craniodental characteristics alone (O’Micks 2016a; Wood 2016a), the addition of post-cranial characters cast this conclusion into doubt (O’Micks 2016b).

The vertebral column is a major characteristic of vertebrates in general, and especially in hominoid primates. It is responsible for upright posture and bipedal locomotion. Non-human primates are stiff-backed, whereas hominoid primates have a more mobile lower back, adapted to lordosis and erect posture, required for bipedalism (Williams et al. 2016). African great apes have funnel-shaped thoraces, which are narrow at the top, and are wide or flaring at the bottom, with a relatively short lumbar column. On the other hand, humans have a barrel-shaped thorax with a wider upper ribcage, with a narrow waist, atop a relatively longer lumbar vertebral column. The ribcage of H. naledi is distally wide, like what we see in Australopithecus species (Berger 2015). Humans also have elongated hind limbs, which make bipedalism possible (Williams et al. 2017). In humans, the first seven ribs are true ribs, ribs eight to ten are false ribs, and eleven and twelve are floating ribs. The number of lumbar vertebrae also vary in primates between four and nine (Gebo 2014).

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Tim Chaffey – Creation: The Longest Week Ever?

For more than 200 years, Christians have been trying to reinterpret the six days of Creation in Genesis 1 to make them align with millions of years. But every attempt has a fatal flaw.

“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31).
“The sixth day.” What does that phrase mean to you? More than 200 years ago, Christians began to question whether this day truly was the sixth day, instead of the six millionth or six billionth day. They were responding to an idea, popularized in the late 1700s, that our planet and universe are much older than Scripture indicates. They wondered where millions of years might harmonize with the Bible. So they scrutinized Genesis 1 and reinterpreted the days of Creation Week in a variety of ways.

But they didn’t recognize that each of these attempts to insert long ages into Scripture had fatal flaws (even beyond the alarming fact that they tried to change the original intent of the language). Most notably, they place death, suffering, and disease long before Adam and Eve sinned.

Yet you will still hear varieties of these views. What are we to make of them? Is there any justification for changing the meaning of the Bible’s first chapter?

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Simon Turpin – The Creation of Adam: Unique Revelation or Ancient Myth?

Introduction

It is widely known that the early chapters of Genesis do not stand alone in the history of the ancient Near East (ANE). Other texts parallel the biblical account of creation and the existence of similarities between Genesis, and ANE literature has led critical scholars to conclude that Genesis was dependent upon the Mesopotamian texts.

Today, however, there are many professing evangelical scholars who argue that the early chapters of Genesis were influenced by these ANE myths.

The points of similarity between Genesis 1–2 and other ANE accounts have led these evangelical scholars to conclude that Genesis is not historical but “is an ancient Near Eastern form of science.” In other words the role of these texts in the ANE was, as John Walton explains, “like science in our modern world—it was their explanation of how the world came into being and how it worked. . . . Mythology is thus a window to culture.” The connection then, for these scholars, between the biblical and the ANE worlds is that, just as with ANE literature, so Genesis 1–2 helps us “see how Israelites thought about themselves, their world, and their God.”4The similarities then are associated with the fact that the biblical and ANE accounts “share a conceptual world,” which is why Genesis 1–2 is seen as “ancient cosmology.” The similarities between these ANE texts and Genesis 1–2 have convinced many of these scholars that Adam never existed or that he is anything other than the first human, who was supernaturally created. These scholars believe their view of Adam is based on careful analysis of the ANE context of Genesis 1–2. For example, after describing several ANE texts about the creation of man, such as Atrahasis and Gilgamesh Epics, Denis Lamoureux states,

Clearly, these last three examples of the de novo creation of humans are similar to Genesis 2:7, where the Lord acts like a craftsman and forms Adam from the dust of the ground…So what exactly am I saying about Adam? Adam’s existence is based ultimately on an accident conceptualization of human origins: de novo creation. To use technical terminology, Adam is the retrojective conclusion of an ancient taxonomy. And since ancient science does not align with physical reality, it follows that Adam never existed.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0