Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don’t know and where the uncertainties lie.

Sure, but then they say,

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth’s warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

Good heavens, it turns out they are defending the fake but accurate document pack, which felled a Darwin lobbyist recently! And there was no uncertainty. The top document was a fake.

Anyway, the fact that the vast majority of scientists are in no doubt about something means nothing in the long run. Stephen Hawking recounts this story about Albert Einstein:

His theories came under attack; an anti-Einstein organization was even set up. One man was convicted of inciting others to murder Einstein (and fined a mere six dollars). But Einstein was phlegmatic: when a book was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he retorted, “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”‘

Recently, Einstein’s claim that nothing could travel faster than light has been under attack, but if Einstein wanted to know the facts, he had nothing to fear from the evidence, and does not need a lobby in his favour.

I find I am getting these sorts of questions more and more.  When reporters hear us give confident answers about the creation/evolution/age-of-the earth issues, then they resort to asking about the Bible and the laws in the Old Testament, thinking they are pointing out that we really don’t believe the Bible, because if we did, we should be obeying all those laws detailed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, etc.

The first thing I said to him was, “Well Christians don’t sacrifice animals like the Jews did—because Christ’s death and Resurrection changed all that.  As the Scripture states, ‘who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.’ (Hebrews 7:27).”  I then went on to explain that we are under the New Covenant (a new legal agreement, if you will), not the Old Covenant as given to the Jews.

I must admit, it is difficult to explain this in summary form to a reporter on the phone—but here is the essence of what I also explained:

The laws of the Old Testament, sometimes called the Old Covenant or the Law, were made up of over 600 rules and restrictions. If one rule was broken, the person was as guilty as if all were broken (James 2:10). But Christ’s death and Resurrection have made them obsolete. The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:25 that “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (i.e. the Law). The author of Hebrews sums up the issue of the Law, writing, “In speaking of a new covenant, he [Christ] makes the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

The sacrifice of animals and the priesthood were all types and shadows that pointed to Christ. We no longer need animal sacrifices because through His death and Resurrection, He secured an eternal redemption,” something that the blood of animals could never do (Hebrews 9:12). We live in a world where not even one person is righteous (Romans 3:19), so we could never keep the 600+ laws of the Old Covenant perfectly! But Christ came to earth, kept the Law to perfection, died in our place, and was resurrected not only to give us salvation, but also to free us from the Old Covenant and establish a new one—a covenant based on His atoning blood (Luke 22:20).

Please pray for wisdom as we attempt to answer the many questions we receive from the media and the public as a whole.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

In “All machine and no ghost?” (New Statesman, February 20, 2012), Colin McGinn writes,

Some modern philosophers pride themselves on their “naturalism” but real naturalism begins with a proper perspective on our specifically human intelligence. Palaeoanthropologists have taught us that the human brain gradually evolved from ancestral brains, particularly in concert with practical toolmaking, centring on the anatomy of the human hand. This history shaped and constrained the form of intelligence now housed in our skulls (as the lifestyle of other species form their set of cognitive skills). What chance is there that an intelligence geared to making stone tools and grounded in the contingent peculiarities of the human hand can aspire to uncover all the mysteries of the universe? Can omniscience spring from an opposable thumb? It seems unlikely, so why presume that the mysteries of consciousness will be revealed to a thumb-shaped brain like ours?

The “mysterianism” I advocate is really nothing more than the acknowledgment that human intelligence is a local, contingent, temporal, practical and expendable feature of life on earth – an incremental adaptation based on earlier forms of intelligence that no one would regard as faintly omniscient. The current state of the philosophy of mind, from my point of view, is just a reflection of one evolutionary time-slice of a particular bipedal species on a particular humid planet at this fleeting moment in cosmic history – as is everything else about the human animal. There is more ignorance in it than knowledge.

His summary of the various positions misses the mark on dualism: Dualism is focused – as a science should be – on how consciousness interacts with the environment. Other positions are focused on denying one or another aspect of the encounter.

Here, on materialist physicist Larry Krauss.

“In modern parlance—following Leibniz’s lead—the problem of the mystery of existence is most often expressed by means of the formula: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This phrase also forms the subtitle to Krauss’s book.

Put like that, the idea does not seem so difficult to grasp. In fact, it can be reduced to three little words:

Why not nothing?

Nevertheless, Krauss doesn’t get it. He titles one of his chapters “Nothing is something.” What does he mean by this? More.

If you answer “no it is not morally wrong,” imagine further a group of humans. On the materialist view, a human is just a jumped up hairless ape. Is it morally wrong for a human male to force a human female to have sex with him against her will? If you answer “yes, it is morally wrong,” I certainly agree with you. But please explain why on the materialist view it is not wrong for a hairy ape to force a female to have sex with him, but it is wrong for a hairless ape to force a female to have sex with him.

Statement 1. Designers often leave behind objectively discernible indicia of design in the things they design.

Statement 2. Some aspects of living things exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design.

Logical conclusion. Therefore, the best explanation for the existence of the aspects of living things that exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design is that they were in fact designed.

In a comment to a prior post lastyearon says the ID project is “meaningless.” That is a powerful charge to make; therefore it is incumbent upon lastyearon to prove his case. That, in turn, is a very tall order, because statement 1 is obviously true, and everyone agrees that statement 2 at least appears to be true. Finally, the conclusion is a perfectly valid logical inference following from the truth of statements 1 and 2. Let us examine these claims.

Everyone agrees that statement 1 is true. Entire scientific disciplines (archeology, forensics, cryptology) rest on that being the case. The truth of the proposition is practically self-evident. What are these indicia of design? Certainly two such indicia are specified complex information and irreducible complexity.

As for statement 2, even atheistic naturalists such as Dawkins, Crick, Dennett, Huxley, and Simpson admit that living things appear to have been designed for a purpose:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York; Norton, 1986), 1.

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (1988; reprint, London: Penguin: 1990), 138-139.

“At first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words ‘as if.’ As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.” Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action (1953; reprint, Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK: Penguin, 1963), 16.

Evolution itself seems to be such a mindless and cruel thing. How can such heartless culling produce the magnificent designs that we see around us? It seems just about impossible that such a simple mechanical sieve could produce such amazing design in the biosphere . . . First I want to remind you of what Francis Crick called Orgel’s Second Rule. ‘Evolution is cleverer than you are.’ Now what Crick meant by this jape, of course, was that again and again and again evolutionists, molecular biologists, biologists in general, see some aspect of nature which seems to them to be sort of pointless or daft or doesn’t make much sense – and then they later discover it’s in fact an exquisitely ingenious design – it is a brilliant piece of design – that’s what Francis Crick means by Orgel’s Second Rule . . . What you have to understand is that the process itself has no foresight; it’s entirely mechanical; has no purpose – but it just happens that that very process dredges up, discovers, again and again and again, the most wonderfully brilliant designs – and these designs have a rationale. We can make sense of them. We can reverse-engineer them, and understand why they are the wonderful designs they are.

Daniel C. Dennett, speech celebrating the 30th anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, London, March 16, 2006; full text of speech available on the web at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html
accessed May 27, 2006

A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervading in nature, in the general structure of animals and plants, in the mechanisms of their various organs, and in the give and take of their relationships with each other. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.

George Gaylord Simpson, ‘‘The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature,” Scientific Monthly (June 1947): 481.

Finally, the logical conclusion follows from the truth of the two premises. This is simple enough. “X” appears to be fit within Class “A” because it is in fact a member of Class “A” and not Class “B.” Indeed, it seems obvious that when any given thing appears to fit squarely within a class of things, the burden of proving that it is not in that class should be on those who deny it. In the case of the appearance of design in nature – which everyone on both sides admits – the burden should be on those who deny design, not the other way around. Be that as it may, certainly one valid inference from the appearance of design is that design in fact happened.

In summary, therefore, all reasonable Darwinists agree that statement 1 is true. Moreover, all reasonable Darwinists should agree that if statements 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The only matter dividing Darwinists and ID proponents lies in the Darwinists’ denial of the truth of the second statement.

Let’s look at that statement again:

Statement 2. Some aspects of living things exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design.

As we have seen, a Darwinist would modify this statement as follows (modifications indicated by capitals):

Statement 2. Some aspects of living things APPEAR TO exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design. THIS APPEARANCE, HOWEVER, IS AN ILLUSION, BECAUSE CHANCE AND NECESSITY HAVE MIMICKED DESIGN.

ID, then, is the project of demonstrating that the appearance of design in living things is the product of actual design; and Darwinism is the project of demonstrating that the appearance of design in living things is an illusion.

The challenge ID poses to Darwinism is daunting, because Darwinists have yet to demonstrate in a non-question begging way that the appearance of design is false. On the other hand, ID proponents have demonstrated beyond doubt that complex specified information and irreducible complexity are beyond the ken of chance or necessity and the combination of the two.

Where, then, are we left with lastyearon’s charge? It turns out that the charge is so absurd. What is meaningless about investigating whether the appearance of design is real or an illusion? Lastyearon’s ideological blinders have left him literally unable to see the obvious absurdity of his statement.

“The fresh taphonomic perspective of SCFs provides the only direct evidence for sophisticated particle-handling in larger-bodied Cambrian arthropods. This characteristically crustacean-type ecology at the interface of micro- and macroscopic nutrient cycling has otherwise been loosely inferred from overall body form and the proxy record of phytoplankton diversification. The detailed adaptations described here represent the acme of Cambrian differentiation within appendages, an alternative (and potentially correlative) measure of evolving arthropod complexity to the larger-scale tagmosis that has been the focus of previous studies. In part, the new fossils reinforce a picture of early origination and subsequent conservation in crustacean form and function.”

Fossil branchiopod-type limbs from the Middle Cambrian Deadwood Formation. (for detailed explanation and the PNAS source, go to Figure 3 here)

Branchiopod-type mandibles have been recovered that have overall shapes and ornamentation that are “conspicuously similar to those of branchiopod crustaceans”. There are “striking similarities” with mandibles of “various extant anostracan branchiopods”. These body parts are considered to be “adapted for enhanced food-grinding efficiency”. The inference from the size of these parts is that these organisms had a body size of at least 10-15 mm and formed part of a more complex ecosystem than is normally envisaged for the Cambrian:

“The presence in the first and second morphotypes of a moderately sized posterior tooth and an asymmetric “tooth-groove” system points to an ecology of mixed benthic scraping and suspension feeding, as opposed to more exclusive predation or suspension feeding.”

Some of the most beautifully preserved body parts are the filter plates of branchiopods that are essentially odern in form. Together with other material, the authors have reconstructed the branchiopod crustacean.

It has “a long series of filtering thoracic appendages, [and] an overall body length of at least several millimeters is likely for the more articulated arrays, although a centimetric body size is suggested by isolated filters constructed from substantially larger setae. A mixed scraping/filtering ecology (rather than a wholly planktic mode of life) is suggested by the juxtaposition of filter plates and saw-toothed armatures.”

Copepod-type mandibles have been recovered where there are many “close matches” with living species.

“In particular, the prominent projecting seta is comparable in form and position to the potentially homologous “dorsal seta” (sometimes a pair of setae) found in every major order of nonparasitic copepods [i.e., Calanoida, Cyclopoida, Platycopioida, Misophrioida, Harpacticoida and Mormonilloida.”

Ostracod-type mandibles closely resemble those belonging to both ostracod subgroups – the Myodocopa and Podocopa.

“The complexity and form of the gnathal edge appear to be shared in particular with halocyprid myodocopes, some of which express a similar suite of characters including a raised toothed blade with adjacent long setae, an intermediate region with a hook-shaped spine, and a protruding grinding surface.”

In their discussion, the researchers draw attention to the important evidences of modernity in the fossil material. It is customary to refer to stem-group and crown-group organisms, with the latter representing life forms that have reached a mature phase of evolutionary development.

“[t]he Deadwood fossils risk being assigned to inappropriately derived positions because of their “modern” appearance but disarticulated condition. Therefore, we conservatively assign them to comparatively inclusive clades, identifying crown groups via a synapomorphy shared with a subset of the crown (. . .) Taken together, our results provide unambiguous evidence for a substantial branching by the Late Cambrian of within-crown (pan)crustacean lineages – a largely cryptic component of the Cambrian “explosion”.”

The distinction between stem-group and crown-group forms draws heavily on the presupposition of evolutionary transformation from simpler “primitive” precursors. However, there are many evidences that are not a comfortable fit within this theoretical framework. The Deadwood assemblage is a case in point. All the groups identified demonstrate modernity of form extending back to the Middle Cambrian. Evidence for stem-group characters does not exist. Sophisticated structures are apparent in the first appearance of these organisms.

“In part, the new fossils reinforce a picture of early origination and subsequent conservation in crustacean form and function.”

Interestingly, this research points to an ecological (rather than an evolutionary) theoretical framework for understanding the fossil data. The authors refer to an “unanticipated ecologic turnover”. This is from their concluding paragraph:

“At the same time, however, the small carbonaceous record provides evidence for unanticipated ecologic turnover. In the modern oceans, branchiopods are represented by a just a few species of small, secondarily marine cladocerans; larger forms, comparable in size to those of the Deadwood (up to ~15 mm or more) and Mount Cap (~50 mm), are now entirely nonmarine. Furthermore, modern free-living copepods are almost all much smaller than the ~5- to 10-mm (plus) Deadwood taxon. In the modern world, visual predators – especially teleost fish – drive down body size in planktic freshwater crustacean communities and strongly constrain the complex behaviors and distribution patterns of krill, a group that shares with the Cambrian branchiopods the attributes of centimetric body size, marine habitat, and (by convergence) thoracic filtering. Significantly, the Deadwood and Mount Cap fossils reveal a contrasting pattern of crustacean distribution in the comparatively “unescalated” Cambrian biosphere.”

The scenario, then, is one of adaptation to changing environments, where organisms are affected by environmental factors (including predation). The adaptations do not result in evolutionary novelties, but to changes in size, lifestyles and ability to thrive in waters of different salinity. These changes are not surprising, given the phenomenon of phenotypic plasticity. If some want to describe this as “evolution”, then they should note that they are working with a concept that does not begin to explain the origin of branchiopods, copepods and ostracods.

Exceptionally preserved crustaceans from western Canada reveal a cryptic Cambrian radiation
Thomas H. P. Harvey, Maria I. Velez, and Nicholas J. Butterfield
PNAS, Published online before print January 17, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1115244109

Abstract: The early history of crustaceans is obscured by strong biases in fossil preservation, but a previously overlooked taphonomic mode yields important complementary insights. Here we describe diverse crustacean appendages of Middle and Late Cambrian age from shallow-marine mudstones of the Deadwood Formation in western Canada. The fossils occur as flattened and fragmentary carbonaceous cuticles but provide a suite of phylogenetic and ecological data by virtue of their detailed preservation. In addition to an unprecedented range of complex, largely articulated filtering limbs, we identify at least four distinct types of mandible. Together, these fossils provide the earliest evidence for crown-group branchiopods and total-group copepods and ostracods, extending the respective ranges of these clades back from the Devonian, Pennsylvanian, and Ordovician. Detailed similarities with living forms demonstrate the early origins and subsequent conservation of various complex food-handling adaptations, including a directional mandibular asymmetry that has persisted through half a billion years of evolution. At the same time, the Deadwood fossils indicate profound secular changes in crustacean ecology in terms of body size and environmental distribution. The earliest radiation of crustaceans is largely cryptic in the fossil record, but “small carbonaceous fossils” reveal organisms of surprisingly modern aspect operating in an unfamiliar biosphere.

See also:

Butterfield, N. J. and Harvey, T. H. P. (2012) Small carbonaceous fossils (SCFs): a new measure of early Paleozoic paleobiology. Geology, 40(1). 71-74.

Their father, a pastor, died at the hands of Communist authorities in Romania in the 1980s, but his children have carried on his evangelistic efforts. Florentin and Pavel are with a missionary group called Vision Outreach Romania (VOR). Florentin spoke to our staff last year in chapel, and he shared how he is using biblical apologetics in his evangelism.

Here is a photo of Florentin and Pavel taken with me inside the museum’s Noah’s Cafe.

Pavel (left) and his brother Florentin (right) with me in the museum’s Noah’s Café.

These brothers are absolutely passionate about reaching their countrymen and people in neighboring countries with the gospel. Here is one reason why.

They are two of seven children. Their father’s suffering at the hands of Communist oppressors in the 1970s and 1980s was somewhat similar to what was experienced by the world’s most famous Romanian preacher, Richard Wurmbrand—author of the bestseller Tortured for Christ and founder of Voice of the Martyrs. Pastor Clipa, however, did not have the kind of prison stay that Wurmbrand had. That’s because Pastor Clipa had seven children, and authorities did not want to have the father, the breadwinner, to be taken away to prison and away from his job and thus have the state take care of eight people that he would have to leave behind. So here’s what the Romanian secret police did. They detained Pastor Clipa in the evenings at a jail (and often in the early morning), where he was subject to many beatings. He would then be brought home so he could get a bite to eat and then get ready to go to work so he could earn money for the family. After work, he returned into custody. Incredible.

The beatings suffered by Pastor Clipa took their toll, and he died of internal injuries at the age of 42, leaving a widow and their several children. All seven children love the Lord today, and are involved in various evangelistic outreaches throughout Romania and neighboring countries. Their mother, now in her 60s, does not look back with bitterness on how her husband and family were so mistreated under Communist rule (Romania became free over 20 years ago).

Interestingly, in their visit with us, both Pavel and Florentin indicated that opposition to their evangelistic work no longer comes from the government, but from the church—the Orthodox church (which is so powerful in the country). Compromise in the church regarding biblical authority does not just exist in America; it’s a major problem in this once-Communist nation of Romania.

Find out more about Florentin, Pavel, and VOR—including their outreach camps for children and teens—at www.charis.ro. We appreciate the prominence given to our AiG website and Creation Museum on the right side of the homepage.

A Great Camp

This past weekend, Steve Ham had the opportunity of being a part of the “Signs of Life” winter retreat youth camp, with the theme “With Every Heartbeat,” in Lake Michiwana, Michigan. He reports the following:

It was a true privilege to be with a group of pastors from smaller churches who pooled resources to bring their youth together for equipping in the Word of God. The theme of the camp was around giving our all for Christ, and messages were given from various pastors and myself. The idea behind this camp came from Pastor Eric Mock who has a passion to really equip youth with the truth in God’s Word and point them to the sufficiency for life in Jesus Christ and train them to serve in the church. The electives were all centered around training the youth for serving in the church including teaching young men to preach. It was a joy to be a part of the final session of the camp that was totally youth led based on the training they had received during the weekend.

A Great Strategy: Pastor Eric combined with other pastors who are running two camps per year. One winter camp based on equipping youth to serve, and then a summer camp based on equipping youth to defend their faith. The summer camp is based around the teaching of the Creation Museum and is actually held at the Creation Museum. The more I have seen this in action the more I have been impressed with this wonderful combination of growing spiritual maturity alongside growing biblical foundations in such a strategic way.

A Great Game: During the camp we played a game whereby the youth had to smuggle Bibles (toothpicks) past agents (the adults) to get them to their contact for distribution. If the adults caught the youth, they had to be able to explain the gospel to them and answer questions in order to be let go. It was great for me to see how many of the youth were able not only to give a good description of the gospel but also defend it. It was also great to be able to help some of them with answers and teach them apologetics in such a practical manner.

Here is a photo taken at the youth camp.

“Signs of Life” Winter Retreat

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Michael Flannery, (yes, him, the sympathetic Wallace biographer) writes to say,

Recently the fur was flying between Jerry Coyne and Alex Tsakiris at Skeptiko (imagine that!). While I don’t normally follow that site, my name and my work on Wallace came up and I was invited to reply to some errors and dismissive comments made by Dr. Coyne.

[Here’s Flannery’s reply:]

Coyne, dismissive of my book and Wallace’s contributions, insisted that the famed co-discoverer of natural selection never used biogeography as an argument in support of evolution and claimed that Darwin deserves preeminence in this regard, an assertion I find unsupportable by substantial historical evidence.

There appear to be only two possible reasons for Wallace’s conspicuous absence in Coyne’s book:

1. the author is ignorant of Wallace’s contributions in biogeography, or
2. Wallace doesn’t serve the author’s polemical purposes.

Aw look, Flannery, it’s the usual Darwin bullshout: “You can have facts, just give me Darwin.”

The American Bar Association is kicking off its 2012 tech show with an address by… Ben Stein. Yes, who better to celebrate the march of technological progress and innovation than a leading defender of intelligent design? Who better to celebrate rigorous intellectual discourse than a man who misquotes Darwin and fakes speeches to college audiences?

Aw come on! The no-design folk are into multiverses where anything and its opposite may be true. That’s why the design folk will simply inherit science, the way a boy may inherit the family garage business because his brother is in chronic crack rehab.

Admittedly, the boy who inherited the business may not be a whiz. But he is a licenced mechanic who would pass random narcotics screening. Which brother would you trust your car to?

Multiverses are to science what crack is to an addict.

As for misquoting Darwin, whatta laff! Darwin is now a cult in biology. He is lauded for his supposed involvement in messes he prudently stepped around, like origin of life. And you can’t quote the guy accurately without being accused of misquoting him – if it makes him look bad – by his devoted zealots. All at a time when new discoveries about how evolution really happens, when it does (horizontal gene transfer, jumping genes, epigenetics, etc.), are leaving Darwinism in the dust, except as a crackpot cult with court-enforced entry into the school system.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allan at Brains on Purpose

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Every experimentalist makes a lot of errors, he just hopes to have caught the major ones before he goes to print. This one escaped notice for just long enough. It is forgiveable, but the OPERA collaboration is on notice not to do it twice.

The nagging feeling is that they may have already known about this error, but ignored it because of the increase in attention and funding it provided. Then when the funding was secured, the “mistake” was revealed. That is to say, if you know that the Swiss are going to take their accelerator down for a year or two, and you won’t be collecting any more data, the reasonable thing to do is to take the equipment apart and reassemble it for the next experiment. But if you are taking it apart, why would you notice a loose connection that you were removing anyway? Wouldn’t that imply you were assembling it? It seems a tad too coincidental to be finding this problem now, and at this spot.

It’s disquieting to think that that is why they might have behaved so well about the science.

Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I challenge you to give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID.

There were prompt short answers that immediately followed the just linked:

UB: A demonstration that inanimate matter can physically establish the relationships required for information to be recorded and transferred.

Joe: Demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter- ie demonstrate that a living organism is reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance.

A little later, responding to the wider point being raised by LYO, EA said:

Your comment about “no substance” doesn’t make any sense. What is non-substantive about asking whether design exists and whether it can be reliably detected? That is a perfectly reasonable, objective, scientific question. It is done all the time in archaeology, forensics, IP litigation, etc. Are you seriously claiming that detection of design in these areas is lacking all substance? You are still hung up on this ID=creationism meme that you can’t seem to get free of. It is very simple. No-one is trying to trick you. Think about it. I let you use your own definition of creationism and I’ve clearly responded to your definition of creationism and conclusively shown that ID does not equal creationism, so stop repeating the old business that it does.

I think, however, that something more is needed, as LYO’s comment is unfortunately a very representative example of a pattern of objections we see here at UD and elsewhere. So, we need to deal with the underlying pattern of thinking and behaviour that is reflected in this challenge, including, the issue of irresponsibility that it surfaces. Accordingly, I have commented:

_____________________

>>Have you ever taken time to skim either my note linked through my handle or the IOSE course [start here on], or even the definition of ID or the weak argument correctives in the resources tab in this and every UD page? Or, have you ever read the NWE article on ID — the Wiki one is a blatant hatchet job.

You ask (studiously avoiding a fairly direct answer here at 35 above, yesterday afternoon addressed to you):

I challenge you [EA] to give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID.

Let’s outline a simple, easily done test that would blow up the whole design theory edifice if a single credible positive result would emerge: random generation of functionally specific text beyond 500 – 1,000 bits, through the infinite monkeys experiment.

This would break the inference to design as best empirically grounded explanation; on observing complex, specified information.

Or using the log reduced Chi expression (cf here at UD for how it can be deduced — a thread with some 400 comments),

Chi_500 = Ip*S – 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold.

If a known random source were to produce a clear case of FSCI, it would break the design inference as an inductive generalisation backed up by analysis of configuration spaces and the “needle in a haystack” limitations of blind search.

Here is Wiki, testifying against general ideological interest on the actual results of such to date:

The [infinite monkeys] theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation.

One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[25]

A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d…

In short, spaces of 10^50 configs have been successfully searched for islands of function based on random walks.

Such spaces, however, are 1 in 10^100 of the scope at the 500 bit solar system threshold identified. The scope of the observed cosmos level threshold of 1000 bits is 10^150 beyond that threshold.

The blind search challenge issue should be clear enough. Save of course to those blinded by the sort of polarising talking points and question-begging materialist a prioris we have been highlighting and correcting all along.

Now, the funny thing is, none of what was just pointed out again should be news to you, it has been on the table over and over for the past year or so. So, you are speaking that which is false, in the teeth of easily accessible correction.

You need to pause and ask yourself seriously: why.

I will give you my impression on trying — again — to dialogue with you: I get the very strong impression that you have swallowed whole the characterisation of ID made by agenda-driven enemies with a track record of disrespect for truth and fairness. So you seem to be deaf and blind to corrective evidence.

On fair comment, as at now, you come across as one here to push talking points, not to actually seriously interact in light of evidence.

Indeed, some of the strawman caricatures you have pushed in the teeth of evident correction (which you give no signs of seriously interacting with) come across as willfully slanderous to the point where you may be guilty of propagating lies you should know are falsehoods put in wanton disregard for truth and fairness, in the hope that they will be seen as true.

Do you really want to be like that?

Please, think again.>>

______________________

The confidently issued “challenge” by LYO is plainly premised on suppression of easily accessible and fairly clear evidence to the contrary.

The interesting question, is why is it that — in the teeth of direct evidence to the contrary — LYO and so many others have locked themselves into the belief and assertion that design theory is empty of meaning, has no substantial claims, is not open to empirical testing and falsification, and is in effect “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”

It seems that what is going on is that we are dealing with a case of the effect of the swallowed absurdity: if we can be led to believe an absurd claim, we will often reject contrary evidence precisely because it cuts across what we have become committed to. And of course it is then ever so tempting to project that it is those who try to correct who are blind to the “obvious” truth.

So, let us draw attention once again to the basic fact, so we can fix it in our minds: Design theory makes the general empirical prediction — per induction on many cases and per the infinite monkeys/needle in the haystack type analysis –  that, reliably, complex specified information, especially functionally specific, complex information (and particularly, digitally coded information) will be the product of intelligence. Empirically refute this, and design theory will collapse, just like, thermodynamics would collapse if a perpetual motion machine could be demonstrated.

In this light, it will be interesting to see how LYO and ilk explain how they are so confidently making patently false claims like the above, when they have repeatedly been pointed to easily accessible corrective evidence. Design theory is empirically falsifiable, and it is not creationism in a cheap tuxedo. And, oh, yes, ID actually can be defined, thusly:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection . . . .

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences . . . .

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Can we, then, at least lay the strawman distortions of ID to rest, in our further discussions? END

Pastor Dahlstrom asserts that the word “create” in Genesis 1 does not mean to make something but rather to take something that’s already in existence and to make it “functional.” He claims that God is bringing the “dysfunctional universe” into something functional. While he says that God created all the universe, he claims Genesis 1 is only concerned with the “functional” aspect, not the material aspect. He says Genesis 1 is about bringing order out of chaos. (Earlier in the sermon, he recommends John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One.)  He is obviously regurgitating the position taken by John Walton from Wheaton College, and we have written about this before (see this blog post).

John Walton in his book The Lost World of Genesis One writes the following about order and chaos in relation to the Flood:

It has already been suggested that the boat in Mesopotamian accounts may have served as a floating shrine. In its dimensions, the Genesis ark is much more realistic for a boat, though conceptually it may also represent a sanctuary where order is maintained floating on a sea of resurgent chaos. In this sense the Mesopotamian ark appears as a physical representation of a sanctuary, while the Genesis ark appears as a functional representation of a sanctuary. Creation both in the Bible and in the ancient Near East entailed deity bringing order while pushing back chaos. . . . The forces of chaos were most consistently represented in the cosmic waters. In this sense, the flood represents a reversal of creation. This is more the case in the biblical account than in the ancient Near Eastern accounts, for in the latter there is no textual representation of re-creation. (p. 322)

Read more about this issue at this blog post.

Pastor Dahlstrom, who promotes Walton’s ideas, is the author of  The Colors of Hope: Becoming People of Mercy, Justice, and Love and  02: Breathing New Life into Faith, both of which deal with the Christian life and walk. Dahlstrom earned his MDiv at Talbot Seminary and runs a blog called Fibonacci Faith.

Regardless of what John Walton claims, I argue that after reading his book and other writings of his, there is no doubt in my mind he had developed his ideas about Genesis to accommodate the supposed millions of years of earth history. And as I often say, the teaching of millions of years is really the pagan religion of this age that attempts to explain life without God and that even Evangelical pastors can be caught up in this darkness.

Why do we continue to inform you about such pastors and academics who promote these ideas that we claim compromise God’s Word? Well, even though I don’t want to question the Christian leaders’ commitment to the Lord, to me the compromise with the secular world is really summed up in this verse of Scripture:

For you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them. (Ephesians 5:8–11)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

We picked up the NRB award yesterday for Best Ministry Website. We are honored and blessed to receive the award considering there are so many NRB members with quality websites. Our talented web team, led by VP Dan Zordel, was greatly encouraged by this special recognition.

At the convention, we passed out demo CDs of our new 60 second radio program (to launch in May).

Here are some photos from the NRB convention.

AiG VP Dan Zordel, me, and Dr. Frank Wright of the NRB.

Dr. Wright and I videotaped an interview, where we talked about the “Best Website Award” plus the progress of the Ark Encounter.

A couple of ladies dropped by our large booth in the NRB expo hall and wanted my advice on … well, smart phones! A staff member joked with me that I had missed my calling—working as a sales associate at Best Buy!

Being interviewed for an American Family Radio program—the host was back at the AFR studios in Tupelo, Mississippi. (By the way, please pray for its ailing VP and AiG friend, Marvin Sanders.)

Talking with Luiza, a reporter for the Christian Post news website, at our booth.

An interview with Dennis Page of KCBI, a large Christian radio station in Dallas.

Talking with long-time friend Dave Young, VP of Blount Communications, whose six radio stations cover a large part of New England (and have hosted me in the past for an AiG seminar).

The convention started with some sad news. Outgoing NRB chairman Bill Skelton passed away the day before the convention started. Bill was the right-hand man for the late Pastor Adrian Rogers and his well-known ministry “Love Worth Finding.” He and his wife Barbara (photo below) were keen Creation Museum supporters—they toured in 2010 and we appreciated their friendship. See NRB Chairman Visits. Please keep Barbara in your prayers.

Last, here’s a photo of Pastor Jim Scudder of Chicago interviewing me for his TV program Victory in Grace.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

After my first message on the Sunday morning—in which I covered the topic of the relevance/importance of the book of Genesis and the decay of cultures—the pastor gave a powerful challenge to the congregation. To me, his challenge was refreshing. I say this because the pastor really understood the nature of the message I gave. He challenged the congregation concerning how they are teaching their children/families and that they needed to commit to pass on that spiritual legacy to the next generation.

The reason I was so pleased is because in many churches, the leaders often give what I would call the standard “altar call.” Pastor Gary Simons of Cornerstone Bible Fellowship really understood the “Already Gone” message. So many young adults are leaving the church, and many young people still going to church are “already gone” in their minds, and they are ready to leave when they become adults.

Here is a photo of some of those people who stood together to take up the challenge given by the pastor to do their best to train up the next generation to stand uncompromisingly on God’s Word and to be able to defend the faith.

I selected the audio of his challenge, and I urge you to listen to it—it will encourage you. And to me, it is a great lesson for other Christian leaders to help them understand the types of challenges that need to be given to families today.

Listen here.

One of the church members who sent me the audio file wrote the following:

Thanks again for coming to our small Island and blessing us with solid teaching. I especially appreciated it as I work with the young people in our church and I know that they are trying to keep afloat in the difficult situations they find themselves in at school—it is the hardest thing they deal with in their lives and most of them don’t make it—they give in to the pressure and live defeated lives spiritually. I am convinced we are not giving them enough help to survive the school system.

You can listen to all the talks I gave in Bermuda on the church’s website.

You can find out more about the church at www.cornerstone.bm.

Pastor Simons also wrote a follow-up news item about my visit to the island.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Well, as you know, the vision for the Creation Museum expanded much over the years to be what it is today. But that meeting in Buddy and Kay’s log cabin was an integral part of the Lord bringing special people together so this facility would be realized.

At that time in Buddy and Kay’s cabin, I saw a guitar hanging on the wall and found out Buddy could play it and sing! I asked Buddy to sing a song, and after some coaxing, he did. He sang “He Makes Dreams Out of Nothing.” After hearing it, I said to Buddy, “I want you to sing that song at the opening of the Creation Museum.” And that is exactly what happened on Memorial Day weekend in 2007.

At the AiG staff chapel this past week, I had the privilege of giving Buddy his 15-year service award—15 years as a staff member of AiG. Here is a photo of Buddy as I explained how Buddy came on staff and his role in the vision of the Creation Museum:

I then presented Buddy with his 15-year service award (we make presentations to staff at 5, 10, and 15 years). Here is Buddy as I present him with this award:

I asked Buddy to sing the song “He Makes Dreams Out of Nothing” as a reminder of that special time nearly 18 years ago.

Birthdays

Also, we celebrated two special birthdays at the same staff chapel. Charlie Mills (who works in shipping and also with Creation Museum guest services) turned 70, so for this milestone we presented him with a gift certificate to the AiG bookstore.

Renee Looy, wife of Mark Looy (a co-founder of AiG), turned 55, so all the staff joined in singing happy birthday to the both of them.

It’s the Economy, Stupid!

Well, sorry for that blunt headline. It was suggested by our outreach department so that it would grab your attention (it’s a phrase heard a lot in the past 20 years in politics) and let you know about a special event—and the “economical” savings you can enjoy if you act soon. Here’s what else our outreach dept. had to say:

As Christians we know that the most important investments are not economic ones but eternal investing that really matter. For families, this summer offers a little of both worlds: eternal investment in strengthening the faith of your family as well as a great economic value to your pocket book.

The “Proclaiming the Faith” family conference in Branson, Missouri—July, 16–20, 2012—will offer great teaching, family fun, and economic value. In fact this year’s conference pricing is less than our 2007 Answers family camp! If you register before April 11 and take advantage of the “early-bird” pricing, an adult registration is 35 percent less, and a family of four is 30 percent less than it was in 2007! That’s great news in the these tough economic times!

This makes the 2012 “Proclaiming the Faith” family conference a great value even in challenging times.

Add in the fact of superb speakers including Ken Ham, Todd Friel, Mark Spence, and many others along with special music from John Elliott and our own Buddy Davis; this is a great family value with eternal dividends.

Register today for Proclaiming the Faith and enjoy a week in Branson that last a lifetime.

I recall that over 2,500 people attended our Branson conference last time. With all the family attractions in the area plus the Bible-upholding teaching at our national event, our last conference became a wonderful vacation for hundreds of families. See  www.proclaimingthefaith.org and sign up now.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

After a day of biblical teaching especially for women by well-known speakers like Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG and Mary Mohler, conference attendees can relax and enjoy a special evening of Christ-centered theater. Geri shared with me that: “I think women in general really struggle with the issue of forgiveness.  The enemy loves to bring up the past. I have been portraying Gomer, a woman who is forgiven and loved, for eight  years now, and it still brings me to tears when I get to the end where Hosea buys her back.  That is what Christ did for me, even when I didn’t deserve His mercy. ”

Geri added: “Come and be prepared to experience God’s love in a deeply personal way during the Thursday evening session as we present The Story of Gomer.

Register for our early-bird discount by February 29 and you will save 15%. And you will save an additional $10 per person when registering as a group from the same church. Go to www.answersforwomen.org.

Premier Christian Film Festival

Several years ago Doug Phillips and his team at Vision Forum Ministries launched what has now become the premier Christian film festival in the world. Next week in San Antonio, Texas, over 2,500 Christians will converge just blocks from the famous Alamo in central Texas to take part in the “San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival” (SAICFF).

One of our ministry VPs, Dale Mason, shared with me that: “This exclusively Christian-worldview festival features entries from a wide variety of Christian filmmakers, in wide-ranging areas, including; feature films, documentaries, Creation films, Great Commission films, short films, promotional media, commercial advertisements, and even a very special category exclusively for Young Filmmakers. SAICFF ends with a gala awards ceremony with thousands in attendance at the historic Cockrell Theater on Saturday evening, February 25.”

Answers in Genesis is blessed to have five different productions reach the semi-finalist level. But Dale informs me “the field of competing films is truly stiff! We have already seen several of the dozens of other films which have also made semi-finalist level, and I assure you there are a number that are top-notch—as good as what you would see on PBS and in a few cases even at the movie theater!”

There is still time to plan to attend the film festival, and even the popular three-day film academy that precedes the festival. (The academy itself will be attended by about 500 zealous–amateur and professional—producers, directors, actors and writers.) Dale tells me this is an amazing event for Christians who are looking for contacts, encouragement, and to learn from people who are top-level in the field.

Here is a listing of the AiG productions that are in the running for an award. Check here to see the full list and images of the films that have progressed to semi-finalist status!

• Check This Out six short animated films (Creation, Short Film)
• Foundations: One Blood One Race featuring me (Documentary, Creation)
• I Dig Dinosaurs featuring Buddy Davis (Documentary, Creation)
• Answers Bible Curriculum three-minute informational video (Promotional Media)
• Gold Rush VBS (Promotional Media)

I praise the Lord for people like Doug Philips who had the vision for such an important festival for Christians.

In Nashville

I am in Nashville, Tennessee, for the next few days for the National Religious Broadcasters Convention. We are being blessed with a major national award from the NRB (it’s made up of 1,200 media ministries). I will send updates on this to my Facebook, including the kind of special award AiG is receiving.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

To coincide with the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) convention that will be held in Nashville, Tennessee, on Saturday through Tuesday, AiG will be releasing samples of our new 60-second radio spot to replace the current 90-second one. This is a somewhat different style to our current program to give it a very fresh sound. Although it will probably still be tweaked a little, I thought you might enjoy listening to the ten sample new programs that will be given out at the coming NRB convention this weekend.

You can listen to the ten 60-second sample programs below:

1. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-1.mp3
2. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-2.mp3
3. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-3.mp3
4. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-4.mp3
5. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-5.mp3
6. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-6.mp3
7. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-7.mp3
8. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-8.mp3
9. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-9.mp3
10. http://media.answersingenesis.org/Blog/radio-program-10.mp3

I would urge you to find out if your local Christian station carries this program—if not you can encourage them to do so. You can find out more about how to obtain the program by  emailing us;  the phone number is (859) 727-5405.

Also, some people will pay to sponsor this program on a local commercial Christian or secular station.

By the way, at the NRB convention, AiG will be receiving the award for the best Christian website!

Noah’s Ark Update

This week, AiG sent out a news release about the Noah’s Ark project (Ark Encounter) and the exciting news that we have now closed on the final property, so we can continue the move ahead as the Lord leads. You can find out more about this by reading the news release on the front page.

Also, check out our recently modified Ark Encounter website, with a well-produced video on the project right there on the landing page of the site.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

These are the same people who are largely behind efforts to stop students even hearing evidence against evolution in the classroom or being allowed to hear the Bible’s account of history. As they attack our Creation Museum by attempting to crash an on-line poll, these atheists have shown their disdain for Christianity. Let me explain.

A travel website—Budget Travel (which is also a magazine)—sent out an email stating the following:

In 2011 we picked 15 places every kid should see before 15 from Ellis Island to Redwood National Park. Now it’s time to revisit that list with your input! What makes a monument worthy of inclusion? It needs to be fun, educational, and especially magical through the eyes of a child. Of course, it should be enjoyable for parents too. Submit your nomination and vote on existing nominations to move them higher in the list. Voting closes on February 21, at which time we’ll doour homework on your favorites and put together the new list. Check back in March for the results!

People did nominate the Creation Museum in huge numbers. It was not only in the top five picks when I viewed it, but the museum actually had the largest number of votes. However, atheists found out about this poll. Here is what one of them said.

Keep the Children Out of Here … The website Budget Travel is taking nominations for a list of “15 places every kid should see before 15” — they’ll eventually feature their list (culled from the nominations) in the magazine of the same name.Currently at the top of the list? The Creation Museum … Of all the places kids ought to visit at a young age, the Creation Museum should be faaaaaaar down on the list. It’s much more entertaining when you’re older and know enough about how the world works to realize the whole thing’s a sham. So go vote for the current #2, the US Space & Rocket Center in Alabama. All you have to do is click on the Thumbs Up sign next to the site’s name. In fact, go vote for anything so that the museum gets kicked off the list. Then tell your friends to vote, too …

Not surprisingly, as atheists (who have no interest in this travel website at all except to attack the Creation Museum) crashed this poll, the US Space & Rocket Center votes escalated (and by the way, this may be a good place to take kids). The sad thing is, a number of those voting for this center are not so much voting for the rocket facility as they are actually voting against the Creation Museum—all because of their intolerant atheist religion. So the atheists are ruining this poll. Granted, it is not a scientific poll as statistical researchers would do; nonetheless, such polls can be an interesting indicator.

Then another atheist (a university professor with the University of Minnesota-Morris), who is so committed to his atheist religion that he arrogantly blasphemes and vehemently attacks Christians, also attempted to rally his “religious atheist” devotees (yes, atheism is a religion—it’s a whole worldview) to vote against the Creation Museum. He stated the following:

This is an awful poll: it’s trying to build a list of 15 Places Kids Should See Before 15, and here are the top 5 so far:

#1:U.S. Space and Rocket Center, AL
#2:Creation Museum, KY
#3:Smithsonian Museum of American History, DC
#4:Alabama Space and Rocket Center, AL
#5:Yellowstone National Park, WY

The Creation “Museum” was at #1 earlier, but it has begun to slide downward. How about pushing it further? There is the problem that there are so many options that it’ll be hard to focus and knock out the Creation “Museum” — it has 700 votes already — so you might want to peruse the list and vote for any choice that has a chance at passing it by.

What is interesting is that when you view the several initial comments made about the Creation Museum at this travel website, they are overwhelming positive … until they suddenly turn very negative, and it was right when the evolutionist anti-museum campaign kicked in!

Also, we know that an atheist camp for young people has been nominated by a web visitor and added to the Budget Travel attraction list, but a camp does not really qualify in this listing of attractions and landmarks.

Also, some of the atheists obviously listed names to mock/spoof the Creation Museum (the website, though, has since removed these) and also dilute votes from the real Creation Museum. Here are a few names that were used.

• Creation Musuem, KY (note the slight misspelling, designed to draw unwary web voters away from the real listing and keeping its tally low)
• Creatard Museum, KY
• Creeashun Muzm, KY
• Crustacean Museum, KY

Here is the link to the travel website where people vote for attractions.

Here are the links to the two atheist websites. However, I urge you not to go to these links, as I have to warn you they often use foul language, blasphemy, sexually explicit content, etc.—best not to even go to them (and I haven’t made the links active for those reasons).

• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/02/14/keep-the-children-out-of-here/
• http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

It’s a reminder that we are engaged in a spiritual battle for hearts and minds.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken