1) normal (operational, laboratory) science, and
2) origins or historical science.

Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of

A) causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause within temporal processes) and
B) analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

Laboratory Sciences will always tend to question evolutionary assumptions. This is so because Laboratory Science takes place in the present, not only with bench testing but also with statistics. [Recommended reading for Laboratory Scientists. Callum G. Fraser, Biological Variation: From Principle to Practice, Washington, 2001; The book deals with clinical laboratory science. Subtitles: The Nature of Biological Variation; Quality Specifications; Changes in Serial Results; The Utility of Population-Based Reference Values; Other Uses of Data on Biological Variation; Data on Components of Biological Variation; Quality Specifications for Precision, Bias, and Total Error Allowable.]

There was only one ice age which resulted from warmer oceans. It affected the northern hemisphere of EurAsia and America. England was under an ice sheet to about London, the northern half of Ireland was covered, all of Scandinavia, northern Germany, a tongue of ice to about Nantes and the Loire River, back up to about Longt. 4°E & Lat. 51°N judging by the mountains, in a line along the Lippe River, to the Saale River, to Dresden, along the northern Czech border to Krakau. In America all of Canada except the western slopes of the Rockies were under ice which came down to about the Columbia River in Washington, in a northern bow over to the Dakotas, down toward St. Louis, with an uncovered island in Wisconsin (between Minneapolis and Davenport), and then up in a craggy line toward Main. - If the oceans were 85° F (29° C), copious rainstorms and strong winds would have affected these areas until ocean waters gradually cooled over a 500 year period for all the ice to melt away in the following 200 years. Today deep ocean temperature is about 39°F. The aftermath of the Great Flood in the days of Noah brought on a series of colder summers (av. Temp 20-40°F lower than now in northern Canada and Europe) due to atmospheric particles uplifted by many violent, volcanic eruptions since the Great Flood affected the crust of the earth in many places. That means summers were shorter and snow and ice did not melt bringing on the Ice Age. The important fact which has been recently recognized is the evidence that "the ice sheet on Antarctica formed rather quickly. The evidence also shows that the rising of high mountains and `Green House Effect' cannot produce an ice age. Jagged mountains the size of the Alps have been found entombed in Antarctica's ice, giving new clues about the vast ice sheet that will raise world sea levels if even a fraction of it melts, scientists say. . . . "The surprising thing was that not only is this mountain range the size of the Alps, but it looks quite similar to the (European) Alps, with high peaks and valleys," said Fausto Ferraccioli, a geophysicist at the British Antarctic Survey who took part in the research. He told Reuters that the mountains would probably have been ground down almost flat if the ice sheet had formed slowly. But the presence of jagged peaks might mean the ice formed quickly, burying a landscape under up to 4 km of ice." [AiG; See the article here]
In general, evolutionary assumptions have not been helpful in explaining what we see. - Why was the ocean so warm after the Flood? Because the Bible says, ". . . all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." ... "and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (Our high Mtns are post Flood) And God remembered Noah, and . . . the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained." See Genesis 7 and 8.
We can understand today that copious quantities of water from below, having been heated by the temperatures present beneath, heated the oceans much like we see hot water even now at Yellowstone park. Indian Ocean, Atlantic and Pacific Mid-ocean rifts upheavals formed mountain chains and caused giant earthquakes. Huge inland lakes on the continents laid down layers upon layers, carved rivers and canyons by using a lot of water in a short time. Probably by 1500 to 1200 BC the ice would have been melted or in a few spots rapidly diminishing. This was the time of cave paintings, the large woolly mammoths, saber toothed tigers, woolly rhinos, giant elk and many creatures. As the volcanic events slowed, the oceans cooled during the Ice Age and less evaporation took place. This led to less moisture in the air for snow and rain allowing warmer inland climate and thawing the ice sheets everywhere. Within about a 200 year period the Ice Age had disappeared. With warmer summers, woolly animals had a harder time and also less food as large stretches of land had changes in vegetation. This, as well as huge dust storms, caused the dying of these large animals like the woolly mammoths in Siberia.
That such an Ice Age is of a much more recent time than long age models theorize is shown by the fact that the higher peaks like Mt. Kilimandsharo (5963 meters, Long. ca. 37°E, Lat. 2°S) had an ice cap within the 1960's but not much (if any) left today. It shows that the melting of glaciers today is just the result of the oceans and the earth are coming back to more normal temperatures like they used to be. Since only summers cooler by 20 to 40°F can produce an Ice Age, and since those temperatures developed only once, there was only one Ice Age. All the phenomena in the world, geological features and man's history can be explained much better by this short age model. As we said, the world's human population today, is the result of about 4300 years of marrying and having children, not tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years of human presence on earth. - This earth will last just a little longer until Jesus comes again to close the chapter of sin for all time to come. His advent will end all suffering, all unbelief, all sickness, heart aches and death.
Cave Dwellers
Many young people, as was I, are interested in the lore surrounding cave dwellers. Who were they? Obviously they were the generations following the time of Noah and his sons. This family, by the watch care of God, survived the great calamity this world ever saw. But the sins which led to the great Flood were not let go out of the lives of people. They again began to use their intelligence and skills to work against the purposes of God. The punishment this time was not a flood, however, but the introduction of languages among the tribes. This forced them to separate and spread out over all the earth. Those hiking toward the northern parts, soon encountered the great ice shelf forming. But big game was plentiful and they settled down in the beautiful valleys and forests everywhere. Some of these tribes are known today under various names like Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon men, etc. But the Ice Age just began and in time it changed drastically temperatures and living conditions. The people living further north needed each summer to provide shelter, clothing and plenty of food for the long winter months. In time they discovered caves in which they could find shelter from the cold and storms of winter. While hunting or even living in these caves, they left signs of their presence and times. Not yet having been able to produce clay pots or metal wares, they relied on heating stones as hot as they could before putting them in shallow, round, rock carved soup container to heat up their meal. They spend much time in preparing their winter food supplies of dried fish, meat, fruits and vegetables. They also needed large amounts of fire wood, fury deer skins for clothing and bear skins for warm coats and bedding. Cutting, sewing, shaping various items took many hands and skills to be performed by all members of a village. Since most of them came from those who had been around that tower construction at Babel, they believed in all kinds of self-conjured gods to explain the strange things they encountered in life. Some of them sank into deep paganism which caused great heart ache with no way out. Once large population groups had cast aside faith in the only true God, their life would be one based on fear. Now only those who paid attention to the Holy Spirit empowered good motivations in their life could enjoy a measure of peace. The post flood world was rocked by many earthquakes and volcanic events for a lengthy period. All this added to their calling upon the gods in pagan ways. Some tribes were more violent than others. Death and disease also claimed many lives. Life was not easy. Only the summer months seemed to lift the depression caused by long months with little warmth and sunshine. No doubt those tribes having gone to the southern lands, had their own problems as the African continent so well illustrated when northern people learned of their way of life many centuries later.
Killing large animals for a living will bring a measure of brutality into peoples lifes. It is unnatural to kill. Only suppression of feelings of revolt against such acts can sustain such a life. Murder and acts of violence are easier for those who engage in the killing creatures who want to live just as much as people do. The long shadow of death hung for millennia over creatures and man. The art and weapons, living conditions and tools of those days testify to a way of life which must have seen much sorrow. Only the occasional good deeds of perceptive, seeking people could bring a glimmer of joy and hope. Sometimes this would arouse the anger of leaders who wanted to rule over the lives of all their subjects and they would find means and methods to seek those out harboring a gentle spirit and sacrifice them to their pagan gods to ensure that their selfish power would never be challenged. This way it came about that some tribes left behind a legacy of rudimentary subsistence and strange cultural habits. The vast majority of people all around the world, had forgotten God because fathers forgot or neglected to pass on the accounts of the true God to their sons. Once that knowledge is disrupted in just one or two generations, their is only loss of noble, selfless qualities in man ahead.
Let us be glad today that we have the knowledge of the only true God still calling us to a life with Him. Let us not heed the call of those who would bring back the fear of rulers in people. Men who want to force their views on all those around them. Let us not exchange faith in the living Creator God with false religion and any pagan sentiments.

Of course we know that many of these successful churches do serve God as best they know, and God does overlook times of ignorance, but they all have Bibles and with that no excuse that they cannot know. That is why ministers of the gospel carry a heavy burden. If they teach their flock a tainted gospel, they are held responsible for it. The Bible says,

"And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." Exodus 4:14,15.
So we know God is with His preachers, if they speak His Words. The Bible says, "The truth shall make you free." (Jh. 8:32). That means anything untrue does not make you free. So it is important to find out for yourself why the Creator God is upheld in Genesis but not in Exodus 20, verses 8 to 11.

Be warned, if you only take the explanation of someone else on these words, you may be fed untruth. And `no', I am not trying to nitpick, I am just a messenger. The links will show you that all the apostels kept God's Law to the letter all their lives. It will show you that the New Testament does not teach a new Decalogue. Your own Bible in your house, learn from it alone. But I love Ken Ham, so does the Lord, for he is earnest in trying to bring the truth and nothing but the truth and some day he too, will keep God's Sabbath holy while still on earth. That I believe and pray for. [A Concordance helps to find parallel texts.]

Giant Tropical Forest Found in Illinios

According to Sara Goudarzi of `National Geographic News' (April 24, 2007), a giant rain forest was discovered in a coal mine near Danville, eastern Illinois.

The experts knew right away how this entire forest ended up underground in a coal mine - you guessed it - by a giant earthquake which caused the entire four square mile area to drop below sea level, get buried nice and neatly at such an early age. `Scientists' (coal miners?) also found intact giant insects like dragonflies the size of sea-gulls and nine foot long millipedes before in other locations. However in the Danville site, so far, they found only "a few insect parts", according to Scott D. Elrick, geologist with the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS).

Looking in the proverbial "Darwinian Book of Ages," investigators knew these fossils were 300 million years old.

Never mind what would happen when 4 square miles drop rapidly below sea level in Illinois, a gaping hole in the ground covered up without a trace on the surface during those 300 million years. No word was recorded on any true transitional species found so far (nor ever will be). The report states, "there were a huge number of plant fossils and not just fern impressions but monster tree trunks." It continues, "Imagine going into the Oregon forest today, flattening everything down, covering it with sediment, and then being able to examine the preserved forest from below."

Well, how about checking out the surface area of the coal mines near Danville for signs of such a sedimentary fill in. There certainly should be a circle of evidence for such an event, even after 300 million years. Will they do it?

"The discovery's sheer size provides an unprecedented view of ancient forest life," commented Kirk Johnson, the chief curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, who was not involved in the study.

"The key thing here is that [the study team] looked at a huge area," Johnson said. "Fossil forests don't typically preserve that much area at all."

Of course not when they are deposited in a huge flood.

"You might get a few trunks or a small area, but by taking advantage of extensive coal mines, these men were able to look at one forest over a thousand hectares of area," said Johnson.

Actually such finds in coal mines have been made before, all around the world, they are not rare. They testify to a world wide, catalysmic flood recorded in the Book of Genesis. They help us understand that further West, a graveyard of bones could be found in the Utah Dinosaur Monument, albeit not in a deep coal mine. Actually, it is very hard for us today to envision an event like the Noachian Flood. It was a convulsion the forces of which are not understood today and we must humbly acknowledge that we can just make cursory observations and try to make sense of them and for the rest rely on what scripture reveals.

You ought to realize that to introduce such a misnomer (`evolution vs creationism) tends to vilify, degrade belief in special creation by referring to it as an "-ism," as opposed to the supposed factuality of "evolution" (no "-ism"). Of course, both semantic mistakes are commonly made by the media, politicians, and many others.

Suppose someone wants to talk about three ways of knowing (epistemology) by stating them to be:

Based on that, here is our question in response:

In the last five rows of the table, we notice that labels marked as science are represented as essentially neutral between religion and materialism, or equally disinterested in both. Yet there is one key issue where science, according to many evolutonists, sides with materialism: row four, the question of whether supernatural powers intervene. Thus, according to their definition, science is naturalistic and rules out supernatural intervention.

But what does this mean for a Christian, since Scripture is quite clear that God has "intervened" (to say the least!) numerous times in history? According to humanistic, evolutionistic, atheistic perspectives, Christians must essentially lie to themselves in order to understand science according to their definitions? Presumably these would also expect Christians to reject the Resurrection as well - that whenever science conflicted with religion, science would supercede, and religious scientists would push their religious stories into a "parable" interpretation.

But what is it about the scientific method that requires the absence of any supernatural intervention? Why can evolutionistic defenders be neutral on the question of supernatural intervention, particularly if the facts point in that direction? Why must they restrict the ability of science to indicate design?

(Also, note that in the table it is claimed that science does not include revelation or personal states of being - yet, as we saw above, the assumptions science is based on must be rooted in one or both of these categories.)

Some evolutionistic defenders then may arrogantly assert, science "beats revelation all to heck" in terms of being right about the world. Yet revelation is often an authoritative account of untestable history. When it comes to unrepeatable events and design, revelation does way better than science.[60]

Are Scientists "All a Bunch of Atheists"?

Continuing to hammer this point, Evolutionistic defenders may propose three tenets defining "special creationism"—that God created:

everything in its present form

"kinds" of organisms with limited genetic variation

(usually) everything at one time

Defenders may accurately illustrate our outlook by explaining, "cats and dogs would not have a common carnivore ancestor" in the creation model. That is true; we believe modern cats and dogs are each from a unique created kind (the cat kind and dog kind, of course!). We believe this is based squarely on the evidence: observational science confirms breeding and genetic variation within the cat kind, and likewise within the dog kind, but there is no evidence of a cat–dog transitional form / common ancestor.

Next, defenders may attempt to tackle the creationist allegation that "scientists are all a bunch of atheists." Of course, that allegation is itself an allegation, since we point out that many scientists are young-earth creationists and even more question Darwin. What we (and other creationists) have claimed is that evolutionary belief is itself a (presupposed) religion that both often leads to atheism (or, at least, agnosticism) and is more often accepted by atheists. After all, how can anyone so confidently "know" creation "did not happen" without believing first there is not a god who could have created? We also point to many who have lost their faith because of evolution (vs. very few who report a stronger faith after accepting Darwinism), as well as to evolutionists themselves who have discussed how evolution confirmed their atheism. Of note is Richard Dawkins, who claimed Darwin's theory made it possible for the first time to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." And, of course, Darwin himself was skeptical of God.

But in this example, an evolutionistic defender pulled up a table showing survey results of individuals asked about their belief in a deity, with scientists' answers broken down separately. They glossed over the data, pointing out that a fraction of scientists report that they do believe in God - which is true, of course - though noticeably ignored was the clear fact that a plurality of scientists answered atheistically, in stark contrast to the results of the survey group as a whole.

Varieties of "creationism"

Evolutionistic defenders then may bring up or show slides illustrating the flat-earth and geocentric ideas and attributes them to creationists. That is usually when no-God minded audiences laugh. This is frustrating to creationists since these views don't apply to them and most young-earth creationists, yet many evolutionistic minded readers do not know that, although they should.

To illustrate these views, they may present a spectrum of views. On one end may be "CREATION"; on the other, "EVOLUTION." Along the way, there may be a variety of views listed. Beginning with the end of the spectrum closer to creation there may be . . .

flat-earth

geocentric

young-earth creationism

old-earth creationism (of which she noted and briefly explained the of Day-Age, Gap [Ruin/restoration], and Progressive Creationism)

Theistic evolutionists

Materialists

(Interestingly, all the views listed are about science, except for materialism, which they often try to argue is not! Also, this spectrum inaccurately portrays flat-earthers and geocentrists as "more" creationistic.)

Splitting materialistic hairs

"Materialism, or naturalism if you will, is the idea" of those at the far right of the spectrum, evolutionistic defenders would say, and they may illustrate their beliefs by quoting Richard Dawkins assertion that there is nothing but "blind, pitiless indifference" in the universe. However, they also may point out that there are two kinds of materialism/naturalism: methodological materialism and philosophical materialism.

According to such defenders, methodological materialism means that, whether you are religious or not, you stick to the rules "when playing the game of science," ruling out any supernatural explanations. On the other hand, philosophical materialism means you rule the supernatural out completely, all of the time.

But, again, what gives evolutionistic defenders the right to define science as materialistic for Christians? Would not their restriction effectively force Christian scientists to either lie or place their beliefs in an artificial "parable" box? And what about science requiring a fundamental adherence to methodological naturalism?

In short, why play the materialistic edition of the "game of science" at all - or listen to those who are - especially if you're a Christian? It is no different than playing the "game" of philosophy by starting at the outset to rule out God. Academic disciplines that start without acknowledging God, let alone those that reject God from the beginning get-go, should be held as suspect by Christians.

(Keep in mind, that this methodological materialism is one of the "philosophical assumptions" that evolutionists are building their model of science on; it is no less a presupposed axiom than the Word of God is.)

The educational front

Evolutionistic defenders then may ask why teachers can, for example, teach about enzymes without saying, "and God had nothing to do with it," implying that creationists only reject methodological materialism when it comes to origins.

Although they may not wait for an audience response, creationists would gladly answer by explaining that Christians are never materialistic; however, we do believe God set up a universe that runs according to natural laws most of the time. When God tells us He overrode the laws He created (such as in Scripture), we can acknowledge the miracle without deciding that nature is therefore arbitrary, just as a computer engineer can override his own programming without invalidating it entirely.

"Equal opportunity" science?

"I would like science to be an 'equal-opportunity' epistemology," evolutionistic defenders may claim. They may show a powerpoint slide which shows an image with the word "science" at the bottom, and pictures of Richard Dawkins and (theistic evolutionist) Francis Collins above, on the left and right, respectively. Arrows pointed from "science" to each individual, while they explain, "[Science] can be used to support either view," then add, "but leave it out" as a line separated "science" from the two men's images.

In other words, you can believe whatever you want to believe - except when it comes to origins! No wonder such defenders laud Christians who "accommodate" evolution; since they play the evolutionists version of the game of science by "parable-izing" (one might say "paralyzing") their religious beliefs. Otherwise, how can such defenders expect their model of science to be usable by theists when they define it as eliminating the supernatural from the start? The creationist's conclusion from such a lecture would be straightforward: science and religion can peacefully coexist, as long as religion bows to science whenever they conflict. Evolutionists will say, that people advocating `Inteligent Design' and creationism can influence school boards and the public because of "the low level of scientific literacy in the American public." Actually the opposite is true, it is the low level of scientific literacy that makes people think that evolution is true. [Ken Ham, AiG]

The Q&A: "You've Gotta Feel Sorry for These Guys"

After such a presentation, often accompanied by enthusiastic applause of the audience, evolutionistic defenders may take questions. Such questions may be very interesting and cover several topics. Questioners amy also represent various viewpoints.

(Note: as with such a particular lecture, the questions and answers are paraphrased, except when noted by quotation marks. After each paraphrased Q&A, a creationist comments.)

Q: In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that science can and does say something about whether there is a god, through probability arguments, and thus the hypothesis that there is a god must be either right or wrong. Therefore, science does not give "equal opportunity" to atheism and theism. What do you think?

ED (evolutionistic defender): I would choose a different form of argument for that question. I agree with Dawkins's probability arguments, but science can't prove them. Ultimately there are two kinds of people: people who believe in some sort of immaterial reality, and people who don't; the latter are fewer in number. It just comes down to "what makes the most sense to you." I've known atheist evolutionists who have become young-earth creationists and vice versa, but "all have had some sort of emotional experience" and response that changed their mind.

The ED is right in pointing out that science cannot prove Dawkins's arguments, though Dawkins would respond that he is merely saying "the god hypothesis" is improbable. And remember the ED's earlier claim that creation is "less probable" than evolution? If what the ED said about Dawkins is true, then science likewise can't prove the ED's only earlier conjecture about creation being "less probable."

What is also interesting is the ED's comment that it comes down to "what makes the most sense to you" and an "emotional experience" to choose between theism and atheism, and between creation and evolution. Since these presuppositions form the basis for one's ideas regarding science, it seems the ED would agree that, ultimately, creation/evolution is not a scientific question, but rather a religious question rooted in one's presuppositions.

Q: Couldn't philosophical materialism be considered a religion?

ED: It's rather a belief about non-religion.

We've long said that secular humanism and evolution are as religious as Christianity and creation. They are all presupposed philosophical beliefs about the origin, meaning, morality, and ultimate result of life. And do not just take our word for it - read about proposed concepts for worshipping science or `scientific alternatives to religion' too!

Q: What's the difference between creationism and intelligent design?

ED: Creationism is basically young-earth creationism, of which intelligent design is a subset in the sense that "everything in intelligent design preexisted in young-earth creationism," but many claims in creation science are ignored by intelligent design (e.g., age of earth, Noachian flood).

First, the ED's comment strangely ignored old-earth creationism, though the ED perhaps accurately understands that many old-earth views are closer to theistic evolution than creation. As for the ED's comments on intelligent design, he/her is right that intelligent design is, in a way, a sort of stripped-down version of creationism that removes the "religious" content and focuses solely on showing design, not on pointing people to the Designer; although one could also reasonably argue that biblical young-earth creationism is a subset of ID, in that it limits the designer to being only one possibility.

Q: There is a kind of knowledge not on your chart: conceptual knowledge (e.g., mathematics, knowledge of infinity). Without that form of knowledge we must use religion or relativism for morality.

ED: "I keep falling into this trap of thinking of things evolutionarily, and that's what you see."

In other words, the questioner challenged the ED's original three-fold model of epistemology that had sections for authority, personal states of being, and science, with the valid point that mathematics doesn't fit in any of those areas of knowledge. But the ED'ss response was confusing.

Q: Judge Jones concluded intelligent design was merely a camouflage. Can you comment on role of DNA used as gold standard to show common descent, etc.

ED: "Creationists are very concerned with the amount of variation within created kinds," mainly because the number of animals that had to be on the Ark is at stake - e.g., how many kinds were there? "The Ark fills up really, really fast if kinds are species. You would fill up the Ark with beetles." But after the Ark lands, life radiates into what we see today. "You have to kind of feel sorry for these guys," because they need a fair amount of genetic variability. Plus, the degree of genetic variation between four-legged animals is greater than between orangutan and humans. "That Makes you wonder what Noah's family would have looked like!" So take my word for it, evolution shows that the earth is billions of years old.

The ED fell back on old canards, such as suggesting that Noah had to take beetles on the Ark (he didn't), or that kinds could be species. But remember: the diversity of life we see today is due to the loss of genetic information, not a gain, so it is not so difficult to imagine how the descendants of the creatures on the Ark gave rise to the diversity of life we see today. So we see that evolution cannot work by natural selection or mutation because those processes only lose genetic information whereas evolution requires that it must gain information to make out of an onion a happy human being. So we see that it is true that you cannot turn "cat" into "dog" genetic information by losing it. Therefore, `natural selection' is not the same as evolution.

So, as creationists, those who believe in God as the creator of everything, we know according to history (the Bible) that everything we see was created in six days, and that God says, take My Word for it. What then is the best evidence that the world is young? Since we realize that, when we ask about the age of something we are really not asking a science question, instead, we are asking a history question. We are asking, when did something occur or come about and the best way to answer a history question is to consult a history book. As an example, if you own a button from the shirt of George Washington, first President of the United States of America, and you go to have it scientifically dated and th result comes out, 3.7 million years you know from recorded history books he did not live that long ago. So do not feel offended when people challenge the Bible in a similar way. What we find in our world today is that those perusaded by their faith in evolution say that `the earth is billions of years old; take my word for it!' ... while creationists say, `the earth was created in 6 days, take God's Word for it.' This is the basic issue.

Q: Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has suggested that the definition of science should include supernatural. What is your response?

ED: "It doesn't get us any place to say that God did it." Chalking something up to design would be problematic because we wouldn't be able to distinguish between various creators.

This common anti-creation argument is one some or many creationists always failed to understand. First of all, what would it matter if an answer "didn't get us any place" if it was nevertheless the right answer? Or would a wrong answer be better because it got us somewhere? Second, we disagree that evidence for design doesn't get us anywhere; the robust creation model, for instance, encompasses fields of scientific research made possible by accepting the creation/design paradigm. We can learn a great deal about the world around us and the Designer by studying nature.[70]

As for distinguishing between potential creators, this is a common argument of Richard Dawkins. One of his stock responses to theistic arguments is to ask, "which god" and fill in the names of, e.g., Scandinavian deities.) But actually, on this point, we agree with Scott and Dawkins: one of the problems of the Intelligent Design Movement is that while it does a very good job of showing examples of design, it stops short of identifying the Designer. For that, we need the special revelation of God's Word.

The irony is that the "designer uncertainty" of the Intelligent Design Movement actually seems to destroy the evolutionist argument that it is religion in camouflage. In other words, by asking "which designer," evolutionists prove that the Intelligent Design Movement doesn't teach any religion; after all, the designer "could be" an extraterrestrial.

Q: What about the idea that there are actually two worldviews or paradigms, evolutionist and creationist, and each explains the science? Creationists have long said that there are certain things, like oil and diamonds, that don't take a long time to form, whereas evolutionists say these things take millions or billions of years to form. But now we read about scientists making such things in the lab in a very short period of time.

ED: There is "a lot of literature out there" on why young-earth evidence is wrong, such as that the canyon carved so quickly at Mt. St. Helens (Sunday, May 18, 1980) was unconsolidated ash.

Notice that the ED did not respond to the examples given, but rather gave one strawman example of creationists implying that Mt. St. Helens canyon formations are exactly analogous to Noachian-formed ones (the point being that both canyons were formed by catastrophic processes, and that both were made in not-fully consolidated rock). Meanwhile, there's plenty of other evidence supporting a young earth. Our main point, however, is not that evolutionists don't interpret the facts in support of long ages; it's that each camp must make assumptions about the past - e.g., rates of sedimentation - in order to extrapolate an age for the earth.

Q: What is it about American society that makes disbelief in evolution so common?

ED:: "Oh my." There are historical and cultural reasons, such as the dissident foundation of the United States, including the congregationalism and the "bring your own theology idea of religion" that came as part of a backlash against established European churches. Scriptural fundamentalism was developed and adhered to much more strongly in the U.S. than in Europe.

There is also poor college-level teaching of evolution, especially to future high school teachers - the "trickle down" of bad teaching - and the decentralized, politicized educational system of the U.S. that allows the "noisiest" people to get their curriculum accepted. We wouldn't think of allowing reproductive health education to be based on street wisdom, would we?

Creationists agree that the church in the U.S. has maintained a higher regard for Scripture than the church in some European countries - though that is not necessarily saying a lot. The creation movement has been blessed with opportunities to speak and distribute information around the world, but especially in the U.S.

But the ED is wrong to imply that the U.S. educational system has allowed creationist curricula to be put in place; her organization combats any curricula that even questions Darwinism! She may spin it as "street wisdom" and the pushing of the "noisiest"; it can just as easily be presented as a strong movement for academic freedom in the U.S.!

Conclusions

Crationists would leave such a lecture only more convinced that, at its heart, evolution and materialistic science are rooted in presupposed secular humanism, which rules out a Creator from the start. The ED, and others too, are happy to say that religion and science can get along, but only if Christians "play the game" of science their way by setting up materialism as the authority over Scripture.

[30] It's important to differentiate testable, observable natural selection—which was a scientific hypothesis propounded and accepted by creationists before Darwin and still accepted by creationists today—from "molecules-to-man" evolution. Actually the `fossil record' is the cemetery of the great Flood.

[40] Actually, as Bible-believing creationists, we believe that all reasoning is ultimately circular, because as fallible beings, humans must make certain assumptions before reasoning—such as the assumption that reasoning is possible.

[50] We do acknowledge that God can suspend His general scientific laws, hence, miracles; however, this does not mean creation scientists resort to "miracle!" unless there is a preponderance of evidence against natural explanation.

[60] As we noted earlier in the article, however, the authoritativeness of the revelation does come into play; a fallible crime witness's word means much less than the infallible Word of the Creator.

[70] My guess would be that many evolutionists might counter-respond, "But the creation model has to force science into the pre-existing biblical paradigm; creationists can't follow the evidence wherever it leads." However, evidence doesn't speak for itself; it has to be interpreted. An "ancient" fossil is therefore interpreted/forced by evolutionists into the pre-existing Darwinian paradigm; evolutionists can't follow the evidence wherever it leads, either.

When reading the scientific literature, it is critical to remember that there are two different definitions of evolution. The first is "change in the genetic makeup of a population over time." Many times studies which fall into this group are not inconsistent with a biblical creation worldview. Creatures certainly can appear to have changed, but the type of changes do not suggest that they came from a different species or that they are on their way to becoming a different specie. Ironically, this type of evolutionary research is critical to further developing the creation model and understanding speciation (changes within a kind). This pattern of creative change has been demonstrated scientifically.
The second definition of evolution includes the idea that "all life on earth arose from a common ancestor." This second definition obviously contradicts the biblical testimony that all living things were created by God according to their kind. Those promoting the "common ancestor" concept blur the two definitions of evolution to make it appear that scientific studies support the atheistic evolutionary worldview. It is important to realize that the evolutionary worldview requires a specific type of change not predicted by the creation model. It requires that the overall pattern of mutational change be creative, adding information for new organs and structures. Furthermore, only naturalistic processes can be invoked for the formation of this information. This pattern of creative changes has not been demonstrated scientifically.

Unlike the theory of evolution, the Bible teaches devolution - which explains many phenomena observed on earth; that is, in the beginning God created a perfect and finished world to which nothing could be added to improvement. When sin entered this world, things began to go from bad to worse. Ultimately, sin will destroy our world until one day this earth will be reduced to what it was before creation, "without form and void."

The first location

This was found by a paleontologist by the name of Earl Douglas in 1909. He was digging in the north-east corner of Utah when he found what is today called the "Dinosaur National Monument." It shows a jumble of all sizes of dinosaur bones intermixed even with a group of clams called unioid bivalves. Answers in Genesis reports, "The evidence shows that not only were they deposited in an unlikely place (among land animals), but they were buried very rapidly. When these clams die, their two shells normally come undone within days. However, in this unearthed mass burial, we see that many are still fully intact.

The clams and the dinosaurs were swept into the violent currents of the floodwaters, carried to their final destination and then buried in sediment, where they hardened in time, preserving the remains of these once-living creatures. The subsequent folding of these rock layers and their erosion was likewise very rapid towards the end of the Flood event."

The second location

Now compare this article to the one posted in Yahoo [100] July 31, 2008. In this article the amazing discovery of caves containing water in the driest place of Chile's `Atacama Desert' (ca. W67.5, S23.3) are discussed and how explorers found another, smaller cave, where, in their words, "Another discovery yesterday left the researchers just shaking their heads.

In a different cave in the same region, they found animal remains. Lots of them.

"We found hundreds of thousands of bones and skulls eroding out of the cave walls," Wynne wrote in his blog. "So, we've renamed this small cave Cuevita de Huesos (or Small Cave of the Bones)."

The researchers had to climb about 13 feet up to find a walkable passage.

"This is where we found all the bones mixed in with tree branches," Wynne wrote.

It's not clear if the animals were dumped into the cave by prehistoric people or if perhaps they were trapped by a flood. After all, the expedition is related to figuring out the thermal signatures of Mars caves, and the finding was made just this week.

"Whatever the mechanism for their deposition, this find was incredibly cool and rather exhilarating," Wynne said. Pete [Polsgrove] and I had a blast marveling over the extent of this deposition as well as discussing what could have possibly led to the deposition of these bones."

Comments: These finds are very interesting indeed, especially when compared. It is too early to say much, but it is a striking report and the Chile bone deposits seem to be similar to those in Utah. They were laid down in large numbers, in a jumble, in a flood - albeit, in the days of Noah.

By NICHOLAS PAPHITIS, Associated Press Writer

See here.

[0100] See the Yahoo report here: "//http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080731/
sc_livescience/incrediblediscoveriesmadeinremotecaves//".