Answers in Genesis Articles

An Analysis of the Dodwell Hypothesis

Wed, 15 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT

I examine the Dodwell hypothesis, that the earth underwent a catastrophic impact in 2345 BC that altered its axial tilt and then gradually recovered by about 1850. I identify problems with the selection and handling of certain ancient and medieval data. With the elimination of questionable data, a discrepancy may remain between ancient measurements of the earth’s tilt and our modern understanding of how the tilt has varied over time. This discrepancy, if real, does not demand the sort of catastrophe suggested by Dodwell, so there is doubt that this event occurred. If there were some abrupt change in the earth’s tilt in the past, the available data are not sufficient to fix the date of that event with any precision.

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Discussion: A Response to Darek Isaacs

Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Introduction

The January 2013 ARJ paper Is There a Dominion Mandate? generated some responses, published here with a reply by the author, linked below:

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Discussion papers:

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Response

A Response to Hennigan, Kulikovsky, and McDurmon (Darek Isaacs)

I appreciate Darek Isaacs’s paper (Isaacs 2013), because his alternative position causes both deeper reflection and discussion about a topic important to me. I have spent the better part of my life in the outdoors; camping, hiking, backpacking, and teaching wilderness survival skills. As a wildlife ecologist I have handled animals from flying squirrels to bats; bullfrogs to rattlesnakes; and wolves to bears, so I do not speak as one who is “insulated behind the nonbiting pages of books and non-lethal pixels of computer screens” (Isaacs 2013, p. 4). Mr. Isaacs and I have many points of agreement and he does a thorough job outlining the major theological issues below:

God created all things very good.
Adam was given dominion over the animal kind and they recognized that dominion.
The overall biblical meaning of dominion (Hebrew: rādâ) is accurate.
That God did not command us to command.
There was no struggle with the Creation prior to the Fall because God made everything “very good.”
The struggle man has with nature is a consequence of the Fall.
Our relationships with creatures have negatively changed since the Fall.
Messiah claimed victory at the Cross and for those who give their life to him; they are transferred from the dominion of death to the dominion of Messiah.
Satan has limited control on this planet but greater is He that is in us (as believers) than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4).
That through faith in Messiah, it is possible to operate within His Dominion.

Where Mr. Isaacs and I disagree is his position that the dominion mandate is no longer applicable, especially with unbelievers, and his narrow application of the word “dominion.” I can only speak for myself, but I have never understood dominion as humans having complete victory and domination in this world or that creatures must bow in submission to mankind. In my opinion, this is an extremely narrow application of rādâ and therefore the plethora of examples used to bolster his argument is only relevant if his narrow definition is correct. I agree that Adam’s (man’s) dominion and relationship with both animals and the environment have negatively changed drastically since the Fall. But the changed relationships do not necessarily mean that ruling over the creatures of the earth is no longer applicable for today. Within the biblical definition of the word, having dominion or prevailing can be argued at a larger scale than discussing how animals or natural disasters kill individual people. There is no question that when I work with animals, I need to play by their rules, so that I don’t get hurt and I don’t hurt them. But with the proper safety procedures and human technology even the most dangerous creatures, like the polar bear or tiger, can be completely subdued so that their general health can be appraised and/or radio collars applied.

Part of his argument was to be cautious with regard to what it means to be made in God’s image and likeness. It is true that exploring that concept has been pondered by people for centuries, because God does not detail all that bearing His image entails. However, it is possible to compare and contrast God’s revealed attributes with men. As image bearers of Christ, isn’t it consistent, with finite human dominion, that people can spend time thinking, care for the people and creatures that share this planet, have eternal spirits, imagine abstract ideas, design and create useful tools from those ideas, and then use those tools to safely (for both animal and researcher) render a polar bear, elephant, or lion incapable of harming them? Why would an ecologist go to these lengths with an animal? It is because they care about them. Why do they care? In most cases it is because man’s ungodly dominion has globally affected their well-being, including the biggest and strongest. It is probable that man has been a primary factor in the extinction of many creatures that once walked the earth. If we have the technological know-how and power to affect the very existence of creatures and ecosystems on the planet, we also have the power to help them. Is that not considered limited dominion (ruling or prevailing)? Depending on how you look at the outcome (that is, causing extinction or bringing back animals from extinction) the bigger picture shows a broader definition of rādâ as a prevailing over the survival outcome of a particular species or ecosystem, and would seem apropos here. These activities happen every day and mostly by people who are unbelievers.

Why would the following not be considered examples of dominion, both good and bad?

With the proper understanding and management techniques, ecologists can prevail over the death and disease of unhealthy forests and make them productive and healthy again.
In countries with proper medical treatment, human research has produced medicines that have prevailed against many scourges of history like malaria, small pox, and yellow fever that wiped out people by the millions. As image bearers does this not reflect God’s compassion and desire to minimize suffering in a fallen world?
Many environmental naturalists think humans are the scourge of the globe because they detrimentally prevail over many organisms and cause global endangerment, extinction, and pollution events. They see an unfair advantage in mankind and are worried that we will destroy the planet.
Communities have harnessed energy from the sun, waterfalls, oil, natural gas, and geothermic activity in order to provide easy access to energy for people. This form of energy has helped people prevail against the hardships and heartaches of living in squalid, post-Fall survival conditions, where only fire was used as a heat, cooking, and light source.
Many communities have eliminated wild animal threats and have tamed the local environment enough to be mostly safe for children to play in.
There is no question that parasitism (long-term relationships between two separate organisms resulting in one being harmed while the other benefits) is a constant agricultural battle when trying to produce healthy crops. But long-term mutual relationships where both organisms benefit are far more common, such as the soil dwelling mycorrhizal fungus relationships with plants. Researchers have learned to use these relationships in order to bioremediate lands destroyed by chemical pollution (Hennigan 2009).

The purpose of this response is not to provide an exhaustive rebuttal but to bring a biblical balance to the definition of dominion as applied in today’s world. Man is definitely unique to this planet, and whether he knows it or not, can wreak great havoc or great good on a global scale. This is consistent, not with an absolute or infinite dominion, but limited dominion as image bearers of God.

The purpose of the church is to love one another in unity and to reflect that love to the unbelievers around us. In my experience one of the most difficult people groups to reach include the evolutionary, environmental naturalists. They see a problem with man’s dominion over the planet, and are genuinely concerned with how man’s power has the capability of wreaking extinctions and other havoc on a global scale. What an opportunity it is for biblical creation researchers, who are believers in Christ, to share the biblical basis for man’s place on earth with these unbelievers. As we mirror the Creator and rule (while understanding our limitations) let us do it for the purposes of bringing increasing order, vitality, fruitfulness, and diversity to the earth, for the glory of God.

References

Hennigan T. 2009. Toward an understanding of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Answers Research Journal 2:21–27. Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/toward-understanding-arbuscular-mycorrhizal-fungi.

Isaacs, D. 2013. Is there a dominion mandate? Answers Research Journal 6: 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/dominion-mandate.

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Discussion: In Defense of Human Dominion

Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT

This paper offers a detailed rebuttal of Darek Isaacs’s criticisms of my recently published paper “Human Dominion and Reproduction” (Kulikovsky 2012). The paper demonstrates that Isaacs has confused concepts and mischaracterized my position to the point that his critique amounts to a straw man argument.

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Discussion: The Dominion Mandate: Yesterday, Today, and Forever

Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The dominion mandate was established by God both as the appointment of mankind to a position of authority in the earth and as a direct imperative actively to exercise that dominion. This status and project were both marred and rendered difficult by the dominion of sin and death after Adam’s fall, but they were not eradicated. The mandate is restored and renewed in the dominion of Christ, believers in Christ share in that dominion, and that dominion shall be accomplished while Christ reigns from His throne in heaven.

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Reply: A Response to Hennigan, Kulikovsky, and McDurmon

Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Darek Isaacs responds to the challenges to his paper, “Is there a dominion mandate?” This discussion explores the differences between blessings and commandments in light of how their distinctions would impact the understanding of the so-called dominion mandate. This discussion explores the nature of reproduction and how the outcome of reproduction is a result of the blessing of the womb, and not a result of obeying a command to multiply. Isaacs presents views that reject the idea that modern medicines, buildings, and technologies are a demonstration of the Adamic dominion, but rather such responses to an adverse environment are signs that man’s rule and authority is not being recognized and defense mechanisms need to be built as a result. Ultimately, Isaacs argues that the Adamic dominion is defunct, and dominion has been given to the Messiah.

A Response to Peter Enns’s Attack on Biblical Creationism

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

This paper overviews the recent work of Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam, examining the implications of Enns’s conclusions for the topics of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, human origins, and the exegesis of the biblical text. Included in this overview is a discussion of Enns’s theological and philosophical assumptions that impinge upon his conclusions, as well as the published concerns that prominent biblical scholars have expressed relating to those conclusions. This paper contends that the views expounded in The Evolution of Adam are flawed at a foundational level, and aims to show that Enns’s incarnational model of Scripture is theologically unsound, that his presupposed view of the origin of humanity is scientifically unwarranted, and that his understanding of the purpose and meaning of the Creation account in both Genesis and Paul’s interpretation of Genesis is biblically unsubstantiated.

Did Death of any Kind Exist Before the Fall?

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Death is a sad reality that is ever present in our world, leaving behind tremendous pain and suffering. Tragically, many people shake a fist at God when faced with the loss of a loved one and are left without adequate answers from the church as to death’s existence. Unfortunately, an assumption has crept into the church which sees death as a natural part of our existence and as something that we have to put up with as opposed to it being an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26) that came into God’s very good creation.

This paper will argue that the biblical understanding of death, whether animal or human, physical or spiritual, views it to be a consequence of man’s disobedience towards his Creator and an intrusion into His “very good” creation.

Evangelical Commentaries on the Days of Creation in Genesis One

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The length of the days of creation in Genesis 1 is a question today that generates much controversy. Both inside and outside the church, people mock the idea of God creating the world in six 24-hour days. Over the last 200 years Christian scholars have gone out of their way to try to find ways to fit the idea of millions of years of evolution into the text of Genesis 1 and today the majority of evangelical commentators on Genesis follow suit in their interpretation of the text. This paper will evaluate and critique six commentaries and the reasons they give for not taking the days of creation literally. While these commentaries are a great help in many ways, their stance on the days of creation is hindering the church’s witness in a world dominated by evolutionary thinking.

German and American Eugenics in the Pre-World War 1 Era

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Before the traumatic devastation of the Nazi genocides, eugenics theory was widely accepted by both German and American scientists, especially in the pre-World War 1 era. Modern eugenics originated in the work and theories of Francis Galton in the late nineteenth century. Its later policy implementation was determined by both the amount of private wealth and the degree of governmental centrality in America, Germany, and other nations. As American eugenics experienced a rapid rate of development and implementation, German “hygienists” soon began to promote their own eugenics programs.

Although intellectual and practical connections existed between the ideas discussed in both United States of America and Germany, differences in cultural circumstances, including political, journalistic, and education-related opportunities, impacted eugenic progress. Ultimately, while there is not sufficient justification to fault one nation alone, the extent to which American eugenics was successfully implemented heavily influenced the German interest and experimentation in their emerging theory of eugenics.

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Since the original 2005 report for the chimpanzee (chimp) genome assembly (5X rough draft), an additional one-fold redundant coverage has been added. Using the new 6X chimpanzee assembly, a sequential comparison to the human genome was performed on an individual chromosome basis. The chimpanzee chromosomes, were sliced into new individual query files of varying string lengths and then queried against their human chromosome homolog using the BLASTN algorithm. Using this approach, queries could be optimized for each chromosome irrespective of gene/feature linear order. Non-DNA letters (gap filling ‘N’s) were stripped from the query data and excluded from the analyses. The definition of similarity for each chromosome was the amount (percent) of optimally aligned chimp DNA. This definition was considered to be conservative because it did not include the amount of human DNA absent in chimp nor did it include chimp DNA that was not aligned to the human genome assembly (unanchored sequence contigs).

For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.

A Further Examination of the Gospel in the Stars

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT

The gospel in the stars is a popular topic with many recent creationists. In an earlier paper, I examined some problems with this thesis. Since that earlier publication, the primary source on the subject has become available, allowing this much more detailed examination. In this current study, I identify many problems with the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions made with the gospel in the stars thesis. The etymologies of terms and names are questionable at best and most likely are simply wrong. The biblical arguments are poor, and some conclusions are contrary to biblical principles. While well intended, the gospel in the stars is fraught with problems, and Christians are discouraged from using it.

An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Biosystematics is in great flux today because of the plethora of genetic research continually shedding light on organism relationships. Despite the large amount of data being published, the challenge is having enough knowledge about genetics to draw conclusions regarding the biological history of organisms and their taxonomy. Despite these uncertainties, an initial attempt to count and identify biblical kinds in amphibian orders Caudata and Gymnophiona were estimated using current information and several key assumptions and guidelines. They include focusing on monophyly based on morphological and genetic characters, maintaining taxonomic stability, relying on authors who demonstrate expertise in systematics, considering the usefulness and general acceptance of nomenclature, using hybridization data as evidence that organisms are of the same kind, identifying the cognitum, and using statistical baraminology as a tool to assess holistic continuity and discontinuity amongst and between organisms. With the above parameters, and current systematics data from extant amphibians, the initial conclusions suggest that Noah had 53 extant Caudate kinds and one extant Gymnophionan kind on the Ark.

An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Is There a Dominion Mandate?

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

This paper discusses the concept of the dominion mandate. It examines the key passages of Scripture in which the dominion mandate has found its origin. It explores the observational evidence of man’s interaction with nature and questions if there is any true dominion that can be observed. It then proceeds to examine the Bible for evidence of the original dominion of Adam being extant and offers a rebuttal to the idea of a dominion mandate with a counter position.

Evolutionary Psychology: Why It Fails as a Science and Is Dangerous

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Evolutionary psychology is accepted as the fulfillment of Darwin’s vision that psychology will one day be based on a new foundation. Evolutionary psychology is consequently portrayed as an explanatory science and the key to unlocking the mystery of where we came from, how we arrived at our current state, and what defines who we are. This paper demonstrates that evolutionary psychology fails as an explanatory science and why it is dangerous. Of first importance is to understand how evolutionary psychologists think about and approach the study of human psychology. The second part focuses on four problem areas for evolutionists, and shows that evolutionary psychology cannot explain consciousness, the self, free choice, and human nature. It then shows that science has not succeeded in confirming its commitment to physicalism. Finally, it shows why evolutionary psychology is the anti-thesis of a biblical understanding of origins and the nature of human beings. Christians and the public at large cannot afford to accept what they are being told about themselves from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.