Homeworks academic service


An account of the scientific case for creation by henry m morris

Copyright held by author Has no one explained to you. Morris The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters. Whitcomb The Bible must sit in judgment on science. Metaphysics belongs to those who start with Scripture. Of course, they'll be teaching evolution, but teaching why it's invalid and why it's foolish. That doesn't mean that there isn't a God or that one shouldn't believe in one.

It is just like saying that there is no place for a game of baseball in an opera house. The Case Against Creationism, Philip Kitcher respects the creationists' request that their theories be treated as science. Although Kitcher and others have conclusively shown that creationism is not science, it has been evident all along that creationism is nothing but a disguised form of fundamentalist Christianity. Ironically, the creationists themselves are the best source of evidence to prove this claim.

The Moody Institute of Science of Whittier, California, another source of creationist views, is also classified as a religious institute. When it comes to mailing permits, the creationists cannot hide their real identity. In public Moral Majority calls itself a political lobbying group, but the U. Postal Service knows its real identity for bulk mail purposes: To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

Finally we are an organization of Christian men and women of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

  • Morris The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters;
  • As Himmelfarb observes, he carefully refrained "from open pronouncements on religious matters;
  • So far Gish has failed to do so;
  • They have essentially replaced sotierology a doctrine of redemption with epistemology a doctrine of knowledge;
  • The quotation from Teilhard de Chardin is particularly misleading, even if it is used by prominent biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

One of the leading creationists, Henry M. Morris, has indeed written a book called The Bible Has the Answer, and in another book The Twilight of Evolution, he proclaims that "it is better to believe in the revealed word of God than any science or philosophy devised by man.

Another well-known evangelical, Harold Lindsell, echoes Morris' antiscientific bias: The article relates that one of his talks was entitled "Creation and Evangelism," and it also alleges that the teaching of evolution in Korean schools was the single most important obstacle in the way of South Korea becoming the "first truly Christian nation in the world.

Each issue of Acts and Facts is accompanied by a cover letter from Morris which is always evangelistic in tone and always signed "Sincerely, in Christ. And of course he always makes a pitch for money for "this urgently critical field of ministry" September, 1982 ; and he praises "the fine ministries of the creationist films" August, 1982 some of which incidentally, have found their way into some public school rooms.

  1. Why were not most of the birds 'exhausted,' since perching places would have been hard to find in the raging Deluge?
  2. And it is not just passively antireligious, but evolutionists are actively conspiring to undermine our Christian faith. Tautologies do not tell us anything new about natural things and events.
  3. If we share a common ancestry with chimps and gorillas, one would expect to find fossil remains of ape-like creatures which show an increase in brain size and other hominid characteristics. Gish's response to this particular transition is this.

In other cover letters Morris writes that the "learning and spreading of the testimony of creation are growing rapidly" March, 1982and he states that the "ICR's ministry is one of the most strategic in the Christian world today" December, 1981.

After being introduced to Morris through the quotations above, the reader should not be surprised to learn that his department is Christian apologetics. The way in which Morris' evangelism precludes anything that we can call science is seen most dramatically in one of his articles, "The Futile Search for Life in Space. He does this not on the basis of scientific evidence, but on the grounds of an a priori theological claim. Refusal to believe in God as Creator is the only reason for believing that life has evolved from nonlife on the Earth or anywhere else.

It is man on Earth who is the object of God's creative and redemptive work, a fact proved beyond a question when He became man on Earth Himself! Amino acids protein building blocks of life and pyrimidenes a class of chemical found in DNA and RNA have been found in meteorites.

In fact, RNA is known to synthesize spontaneously. About 50 such large molecules have been recorded, including aldehydes, esters, and alcohols familiar to organic chemists. While the creationists claim to know a priori what has happened in the universe, science is a posteriori--tentative, open-ended, and self-correcting. The evangelist has always been taken to be the epitome of the non-objective, nonscientific mind, and the creation evangelists are no exception.

Creationists and inerrantists in general abuse science in a subtle way which has not yet been recognized, and ironically, in a way which is identical to the way some scientists have.

There are some who believe that science is the answer to every question, and they often extend its methods and judgments into inappropriate areas.

This has been called "scientism," i.

Reward Yourself

This is a form of gnosticism as well and can be seen as the Greek hubris expressing itself in science. The ideologues of science make science a god, and this is precisely what some evangelicals are doing when they insist on complete scientific accuracy in the Bible and strict rationality in Christian doctrine.

In effect, science is their salvation, just as it is for scientism. Assuming an inerrant Bible, evangelical commentators systematically rationalize the biblical accounts so that they can be accepted by believers trained or impressed by science.

They have essentially replaced sotierology a doctrine of redemption with epistemology a doctrine of knowledge. They mistakenly believe, like all gnostic religions, that knowledge will somehow save them. The scientism of creationism has misled generations of innocent Christians who have been deceived about the proper status of scripture.

An especially poignant example of this is the case of Charles Larson, who led a campaign for the teaching of creationism in a Livermore, California school district. In a dramatic scene before PBS television cameras, Mr. Larson said that he would have to give up the Christian faith if the Genesis account of creation were not literally true. Larson should read an important interview in Christianity Today June 17, 1977 which featured two Christian biology professors at Gordon College.

This college is a member of the Christian College Consortium, whose science faculty teach either "progressive creationism" or "theistic evolution. This nonliteral reading of Genesis is a fundamental axiom of "progressive" creationism, that God creates over aeons of time. Haas also admits and tolerates the fact that conservative Christian scholars cannot agree on any one single interpretation of the biblical creation accounts.

Haas does not hide his reservations about Henry Morris and his followers: The basic insights he gave us into the evolutionary processes we recognize to be an extremely important historical development. Science must remain within the bounds of naturalistic explanations, and the religiously inclined person should not push science beyond these strictly prescribed limits. For example, a fiat creationist like Joseph Dillow uses supernaturalistic explanation on an ad hoc basis.

  • Whitcomb The Bible must sit in judgment on science;;;;
  • This is why we refer to divine creation as special i.

We have seen that after explaining away a solid sky-dome as incompatible with the inerrancy of Scripture, Dillow suggests that God miraculously holds the celestial ocean in place until God miraculously changes it into a vapor canopy. Evangelical scientists like Richard Wright and Jack Haas eschew this untenable method as not only unscientific but theologically unnecessary.

The standard creationist response to the foregoing arguments is that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism. Creationists do not appear to see the logical implication of such a claim: Henry Morris contends that both creation and evolution require faith, but Christians, he claims, have the highest order of faith. Contrary to the difficult, agonizing faith which we found in the Bible and the Christian fathers and reformers, Henry Morris' faith is "easy," fully cognitive, and objective.

There is an "overwhelming body of objective evidence" for a Creator God and "for the historicity of the person and work of Jesus Christ--including His bodily resurrection from the grave. Compared to the solid faith of the creationist, the faith of the evolutionist, according to Morris is weak and gullible.

He maintains that "the faith of the evolutionist and humanist is of another order altogether. His is a splendid faith indeed, a faith not dependent on anything so mundane as evidence or logic, but rather a faith strong in its child-like trust, relying wholly on omniscient Chance and omnipotent Matter to produce the complex systems and mighty energies of the universe. I have defined religious faith as cognitive recognition and personal trust in the transcendent source of our lives and the universe.

As we have seen in Chapter Nine, humanism certainly does not fulfill this definition, and evolutionary theory most definitely does not.

Because of its commitment to a definite value system, humanism could fall within a broader notion of religion, but evolution as a strict science is prevented from any explicit commitment to values. I have argued that a fairly narrow definition of religion is required for a successful interpretation of the First Amendment; otherwise, we will be forced to ban the teaching of many secular philosophies, including the world-view which includes capitalism and free market economics.

A creationist might possibly concede and reformulate the argument in this way: And it is not just passively antireligious, but evolutionists are actively conspiring to undermine our Christian faith. In his Twilight of Evolution, Henry Morris notes that rough evolutionary notions are behind all pagan philosophies. An account of the scientific case for creation by henry m morris is Satan "who has fathered this monstrous lie of evolution, for he is the father of lies. When one recognizes the satanic origin of evolution, then many otherwise confusing issues begin to come into focus.

Therefore, evolutionary theory can be antireligious only in the context of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. As we have seen, many Christians, especially those involved in process theology, believe that this pagan evolutionary view is the correct one.

Therefore a further qualification is necessary: Short of Morris' embarrassing Satan thesis, what would be needed to confirm this evolution-as-the-enemy-of-religion hypothesis?

First, one would have to assume that an archivist at the British Museum has discovered some of Charles Darwin's papers that contain hitherto unknown facts about Darwin's life goals. As a young student, our hypothetical Darwin secretly devoted his life to the promulgation of atheism and the destruction of religion, particularly Christianity. These papers also reveal that Darwin predicted that he would find scientific evidence that there is no God, that Jesus did not exist, that life came about as a result of an accident, and that human beings descended from apes.

The Scientific Case for Creation

Second, one would have to assume that the bylaws of all scientific organizations required the signing of a statement of "faith" in which the new member pledged himself to evolution, atheism, and the destruction of religion. Such associations would also have established a ministry for these specific antireligious purposes and would have raised money to finance such activities.

Furthermore, the National Association of Biology Teachers would have proposed several modes of indoctrinating the evolutionary "faith. I have created these options following the creationists' own "scientific biblical creationism," "scientific creationism," and "biblical creationism" respectively.

These scenarios are, of course, ludicrous.

  • The early church fathers thought that Satan had given communion to the Mithraists so as to test the faith of their congregations;
  • The ideologues of science make science a god, and this is precisely what some evangelicals are doing when they insist on complete scientific accuracy in the Bible and strict rationality in Christian doctrine.

Science is a method which operates within very tight constraints; it is not a metaphysics, a philosophy, nor a world-view. It must be neutral with regard to the nature of reality.

For example, many modern physicists, forming their own world-views outside of science proper, have rejected materialism. Indeed, thinkers such as Sir Arthur Eddington, Sir James Jeans, and Erwin Schroedinger have embraced mentalistic views, the very opposite of materialism. In his Mind and Matter Schroedinger uses philosophical argument, not science, to argue for his Hindu idealism.

The world's foremost brain physiologist, Sir John Eccles, is an orthodox Christian and accepts a mind-body dualism. It is well known that Einstein was most impressed with Spinoza's philosophy, which might be best described as "neutral monism.

The main problem with our Darwin scenario is that it contradicts all the facts we know about Darwin before the famous voyage of the Beagle. Darwin's scientific discoveries came about as all good science does and must: At this time he believed in "the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible. Nonetheless, he continued to have utmost respect for his wife's piety and he allowed his children to be baptized and confirmed.

  1. Archaeopteryx is a good example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds. Although Darwin characterized himself as a Liberal i.
  2. So that bean-shape comes from the instep of the dinosaur and... For example, many modern physicists, forming their own world-views outside of science proper, have rejected materialism.
  3. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot a temporary escape….
  4. Compared to the solid faith of the creationist, the faith of the evolutionist, according to Morris is weak and gullible. Why are bottom-dwelling marine invertebrates found at all levels of the strata?
  5. But when Marx asked Darwin if he could dedicate the English translation of Capital to him, Darwin refused most resolutely. If the principle of natural selection is a tautology, then it can have no explanatory power.

As Himmelfarb observes, he carefully refrained "from open pronouncements on religious matters. His evidence came from the biological realm, and that is where the focus of his original theories remained. In fact, the second edition of The Origin of Species contained in the last sentence this creationist assumption: