.

by the Rev. Graeme Craig, Moderator, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)

.

A variety of false religions, philosophies and teachings are attacking the Gospel today. One of these is modern-day historical science. Both the disciplines of historical biology – that is to say the study of evolution – and historical geology teach much that is mere pseudoscience – assertions that are not genuine science. Despite the claims of many scientists and the media, it can easily be shown that much that passes for historical science is not truly scientific at all but dangerous pseudoscience. It is a danger not only to the Church and individuals, but to science and society at large.

Outside the Church many consider such claims to be utterly bizarre. Within the Church some see them as bringing the Gospel into disrepute or feel the subject is not very spiritual. However, such thinking is shallow and betrays a lack of faithfulness to Jesus Christ, our great Prophet and King. It is a biblical principle that all truth is God’s truth and has its origin in him. He is the God of truth who cannot lie. He has revealed the true origin of the universe in his Word and it is the duty of everyone everywhere to believe and profess it. Moreover, the One who spoke in the Scriptures, has also revealed himself in creation. David could sing “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1-3. The hand prints of the Creator must therefore be consistent with the Creator’s voice speaking in the Scriptures. Sadly, for many years, there has been a tendency to accommodate Scripture to mainstream historical science, rather than seeing it for what it is, dangerous pseudoscience. Even some of the great heros of Church history have failed us. The result has been disastrous as well as dishonouring to Christ. The truth of God as Creator is being vociferously attacked today by many including Richard Dawkins. It is therefore the duty of the Christian and the Church to resist error. Luther’s words at the time of the reformation are equally applicable today. He said “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest expression every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however, boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.” We shall therefore consider why today’s historical science deserves to be called pseudo-science and why it is dangerous and must be resisted.

.

Much which passes for historical Science is modern-day pseudoscience

What is science?

Today, there is a common perception that science has the ability to answer all of man’s questions. Many speak as if science has exposed God as a hoax. Some even look to it for meaning and morals in life. How foolish. Those who speak this way, betray the fact that they do not really know what science is. This is not surprising, given the failure among many scientists themselves to remember the limits of scientific knowledge or even consider the influence preconceptions can have on the results of scientific thought. The first thing that must be considered is the question, “What is science?” Science has been defined as ‘the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena’. Thus scientists produce results through observation and experiments which are repeatable. These lead to the production of general laws and theories which are viewed as objective knowledge but are open to falsification. In this way many useful scientific discoveries have been made. It put man on the moon and has provided medicines to protect people’s health. However, when it comes to the study of origins, whether in Biology or Geology, an often-overlooked problem is encountered. Origins has to do with unobservable and unrepeatable past events. During the creation period, there was no one present (apart from the Creator) to observe or record what happened. It was an unrepeatable past event. Thus, while today’s observations may produce general laws about what is happening now and could have happened in the past, they cannot tell us what did happen. To counter this, some scientists speak of the principle of uniformity, which views present-day processes as the key to the past. However, this is a philosophical assumption and is not objective scientific knowledge. Thus evolution as an explanation of origins presupposes various beliefs. When it comes to Geology, the same lack of objectivity is evident. The only objective scientific facts are the location, nature and composition of the rocks and associated fossils. How they got there and their age are matters of  interpretation which depend on the assumptions and presuppositions of the geologist. Geology cannot therefore give objective scientific support to the theory of evolution or speak infallibly about things which no one saw occurring. Thus, despite the claims of many geologists and evolutionary biologists, the assertion that the earth is millions of years old and that “goo to you” evolution has actually occurred, is based on philosophical assumption and dogma, not on objective scientific knowledge. Whilst Christians who take the history of the Genesis narrative seriously readily acknowledge that their investigation of origins are shaped by their belief in a historical, 6 x 24 hour day creation, many old-earth and evolutionary scientists don’t even realise they have presuppositions in the first place.

This does not mean, however, that the study of origins is impossible or that observational science has nothing to say about origins. It can be used to assess whether the historical inferences made by creationists and evolutionists are tenable. When this is done creation is seen to be a much more reliable explanation of origins whilst evolutionary Biology and old-earth Geology are seen to be merely pseudoscience or science fiction.

Evolution is pseudoscience

Many biologists assert that all living organisms alive today have evolved from more primitive organisms, and that somehow, billions of years ago, life arose spontaneously of its own self in a ‘primordial soup’. The facts, however, do not support such an idea, but rather point to God’s creative actions. That evolution is mere pseudoscience can be shown from a few strands of evidence.

Evidence from Fossils

Despite the exaggerations of evolutionists and the media, there are too many gaps in the fossil record to back up evolution. Under the old-earth timescale, the major animal groups all appear suddenly in the fossil record without any intermediate forms. Over the years, various types of fish have been suggested as evolutionary intermediaries between fish and the first tetrapods, the four-footed land animals.

Coelacanth, Tiktaalik and Panderrichthys, all allegedly dated around 380 million years old, have been suggested as intermediaries because, it was suggested, the multiple digits at the end of the bony part of their pectoral fin was thought to be similar to digits on tetrapod limbs. However, even allowing for a similarity, it is a long way from a few digits on the end of a fin to the sort of limb required for walking.

Moreover, when a live Coelacanth was caught off Madagascar in 1938, it was observed that its so called limbs were actually used for the deft manoeuvring of its fins. The digits had nothing to do with walking. Only wishful thinking could turn it into the missing link between fish and tetrapods. Interestingly, there are many examples of the discovery of living fossils like the Coelacanth – live animals once presumed extinct which have shown no evolutionary development over what is allegedly hundreds of millions of years. This suggests that evolution does not actually happen.

Whether it be tetrapod, horse or human evolution, the fact that fossils can be lined up which look similar to provide a hoped for line of descent proves nothing. There are no missing links, just finished products re-arranged to produce the appearance of lineage and descent. Just because apes have some features similar to humans is no proof of evolution from an ape like ancestor. The changes required are vast. The human knee joint is a masterful piece of engineering enabling the femur and fibula/tibia to lock into place in an upright position. An ape cannot walk upright because it has no such knee joint and is not designed to do so!

Evidence from DNA

When it comes to DNA, the amazingly sophisticated genetic code and information at the heart of life, the laws of physics, chemistry and information theory are against its formation without a Creator. Evolutionists are at a loss to even begin to come up with a credible explanation for its origin. They are not being objective scientists when they demand that we accept that DNA arose by chance.

Evidence from Mutations

Genetic mutations together with natural selection are allegedly the driving force behind evolution. However, recent research has discovered that such is the nature and frequency of genetic mutations that within a relatively short space of time (100,000 years maximum), the decay and degeneration of our genetic code would lead to the extinction of the human race. In other words, there is no time for evolution to occur. All mutations are essentially damaging, even although they may occasionally provide beneficial side effects. They cause, amongst other things, cancer and ageing. “All multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.” Thus “evolutions’s engine, when properly understood, becomes, evolution’s end.”

A recent study in The Open Evolution Journal observed that like computer programs, living organisms have built-in error detection and error correction systems for the copying and transmission of their DNA. These systems are required to maintain the information’s integrity, which would otherwise be eroded by constantly accumulating random mutations. Evolution, however, requires various genetic alterations which the mutation repair mechanisms guard against. Thus for evolution to proceed, mutation protection would have to be switched off, yet if this occurs, errors quickly build up and wreck the system. This “mutation protection paradox” exposes the unjustified pseudoscientific claims of evolutionists, but is no paradox to those who believe in creation.

Much historical Geology is pseudoscience

Most geologists claim the earth is 4.6 billion years old and adhere to uniformitarianism, the principle that the observation of present geological processes provides the key to past earth history. However, many of their pseudoscientific theories and explanations are actually contradicted by field observations and laboratory experiments. Three brief examples will show this.

Granite Formation

Traditionally it has been assumed that granite melts slowly and then rises through the earth’s crust as a diaper or molten balloon-shaped mass of magma until after a long time it eventually solidifies. Yet writing in 2005 in The Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association Vol.116, old-earth geologist Prof. John Clemens, has shown that magma production, transportation and solidification occurs very quickly, almost instantaneously. He claimed that the idea that the earth is 4.6 billion years old had “a psychological effect of tempting one to consider geological processes as slow and continuous. After all, there is all that time to fill” and concluded that granite production belongs with an increasing number of geological processes that were “catastrophic in their suddenness”. This accords with what young-earth creationists have been saying for years.

Mud Deposition

For many years geologists have thought that extremely fine clay particles suspended in water are so light, that even if some were to flocculate (clump together), any turbulence in the water would keep them in suspension, preventing their deposition. Thus they assumed very long periods of tranquil water were required for the deposition of mud and shale. However a recent study published in the journal Science Vol.318, 2007 has indicated that mud can actually be deposited from rapidly flowing waters. The lead researcher stated “All you have to do is look around. After the creek on our university’s campus floods, you can see ripples on the sidewalks once the waters have subsided. Closely examined, these ripples consist of mud.” After conducting experiments in a flume tank to simulate natural conditions, they concluded that mud was settling and moving along the bottom of the flume (producing ripples) “at flow velocities that are much higher than anyone thought would have been expected.” Flow rates sufficient to move much larger sand grains still allowed for the deposition of mud layers. It now appears that conventional geologists may have to reappraise their thinking on how many sedimentary rock types are formed. Flood geologists have long challenging the flawed, pseudoscientific interpretations of geologists. Once more the observed evidence favours the geological paradigm of a Noachic flood.

Flat Gaps in Sedimentary Rock Layers

Throughout the world there are places, such as the Grand Canyon, where successive layers of sedimentary rock have been laid one on top of another. Often these flat rock bands can be traced over vast areas. According to uniformitarian geologists, these rocks were laid down successively over hundreds of millions of years. One problem, however, is the presence of flat gaps, called paraconformities, in the rock record where sediment representing millions of years is said to be  missing. If sediment was not being deposited, then erosion would be expected to have take place. In some areas, there are clear erosional surfaces and contact between one rock group and another. One example is the Torridonian Sandstone of Northwest Scotland which overlies Lewisian Gneiss. However, in the Grand Canyon there are assumed flat gaps allegedly representing from 10 million to 100 million years, where there is no obvious erosional contact and geologists often have difficulty identifying the boundary between strata which are allegedly of vastly different ages. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of any gap, other than on the basis of uniformitarian assumptions, it does not appear to the geologists that the proposed millions of years never occurred. Many of the flat gaps are not localised but extend over vast areas. The uniformitarian explanation does not work. The evidence, if reinterpreted in terms of a Noachic flood model, fits much better.

Much which passes for historical Science is dangerous pseudoscience

A danger to Science

If evolutionary biology and much historical geology are mere pseudoscience, then it follows that they are dangerous. This danger is not only to spiritual things which they contradict, but to science itself.

Firstly, it undermines the rational basis of science. It is not rational to demand that science must conform to unprovable presuppositions. In no other field would this be allowed, yet scientific materialism holds sway under the guise of being scientific. There is tendency to define science as “a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena.” This excludes the possibility of Intelligent Design or a Creator because of its presuppositions. As Dr Scott Todd put it “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Nature, 30/9/1999. This is madness. No wonder G.K Chesterton could say that Darwinism is “an attack upon thought itself.”

Secondly, it leads to the arrogant rejection of any scientific endeavour which refuses to accept the presuppositions of scientific materialism. This was admirably revealed in the documentary film Exposed, which revealed the prejudice and at times, persecution meted out to those who reject the prevailing view in favour of Intelligent Design or Creationism. That this should occur to researchers in historical science is not unsurprising, but often those castigated and attacked are involved in fields of observational science far removed from historical science. Those who do this in defence of pseudoscience never consider that it may be their critics’ scientific training that has made them aware of how unscientific historical science is.

Thirdly, it leads to the squandering of precious research resources. If the opening premise of an argument is flawed, truth will never be discovered. For 200 years uniformitarianism has held sway amongst geologists. Over the last fifty years, the creationist movement has exposed much of their reasoning as flawed, pointing out that most of the sedimentary rocks seen today can better be explained in terms of catastrophe, the Genesis Flood. Only recently have unbelieving geologists begun to recognise that some geological features, such as the English Channel, have been formed due to catastrophic flooding. There are many other examples. However, of more concern is the effect of evolutionism. Much biological, medical and even psychological research is conducted on the premise that evolution has occurred. The results will be flawed because the starting point is wrong. For example, the usefulness of the human appendix was ignored for years because it was presumed to be a vestigial organ.

A danger to the Church

Were the errors of historical scientists limited to scientific research, the discussion could be left to the scientific community. However, their claims directly challenge theology and therefore the Church. Scripture unequivocally indicates that “It pleased God … for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.” CoF IV.ss1. However, on the basis of a pseudoscience riddled with presuppositions, Christians have been challenged to reject the plain teaching of Scripture in order to accommodate the so called teachings of science. “The Bible is not”, so we are told, “a scientific manual. It only spoke to men in their own times using concepts familiar to them.” Granted this is generally true, the statements are irrelevant. Scripture is the Creator’s revelation to man who knows about creation, not through his own concepts and thinking, but because God has made him to know he is a creature and has explained something of his work in his Word. Many, however, have allowed their view of the authority of Scripture to be subtly undermined in the face of a godless pseudoscience. For them, rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself, it must be twisted to fit the latest views of science – which themselves are open to change.

This undermining of the authority of Scripture affects more than the opening chapters of Genesis. Throughout Scripture, a literal six-day creation, with a literal Adam and Eve, in a literal paradise is assumed. As R.L. Dabney stated in 1851, “The position to which they consign God’s word is that of a handmaid, dependent for the validity of the construction to be put upon its words, on their (the scientists’) permission. Now this we boldly assert, is intrinsic rationalism…..exalting the conclusions of the human understanding over the sure word of prophecy.” It is little wonder that during the 19th century, the Scottish Church largely capitulated to rationalism and liberalism, when even its great leaders often failed to see this. We are reaping the bitter harvest of their failure. The lesson of that failure is that the Church needs to assert the full authority of Scripture in all that it teaches and asserts, however unpopular this may prove. Whether it be in lifestyle, origins, the place of women in Church and society or how the Church worships, loyalty and love to Christ our Prophet demands complete submission to the authority of his infallible and inerrant Word. Indeed the Church’s welfare demands it; not to maintain its authority will lead to the grieving of the Holy Spirit and the withdrawal of his influence in the Church. Without him, individual Congregations and Denominations will soon cease to exist as true Churches of Christ.

It is also a fact that today in Britain militant atheism is attacking the Church, especially in the area of origins. Only a robust defence of the Scripture doctrine of creation and with it the exposure of historical pseudoscience, will meet the enemy and repel him. All other compromise positions on origins are unsatisfactory, weak and undermine the foundational truths of Scripture.

A danger to individuals

If historical pseudoscience is a danger to the Church it follows that it is also a danger to individuals. Those outside the Church are vulnerable to being taken in by pseudoscience and thus failing to see their own danger as sinful creatures accountable to their Maker, Sustainer, Lawgiver and Judge. In evangelism we must be able to give a robust reason for the hope that is within us, showing people where they have come from and where they are heading unless they repent. Paul’s method at Athens must be ours. We must make known the God who is unknown to the present generation and call them to repentance.

Those brought up within the Church are also in danger unless they come to Christ. In the nurturing of our covenant children both everyone involved needs to ensure the Church’s youth are enabled to resist dangerous pseudoscience and the anti-Christian world-view associated with it. For too long our own Church failed. In recent years things have changed, but are equipping our youth as they should be? For how long will parents tolerate handing over their precious children to be taught in a godless secularized education committed to pseudoscience? The sooner the Church and individuals embrace the concept of a thoroughly Christian education, the stronger the Church will become.

A danger to society

The pseudoscience that endangers individuals, also endangers society, for no man is an island. .  Evolutionist Daniel Dennett likened Darwin’s evolutionary idea to a “universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old land-marks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”  This, it would appear, includes any ethical and moral system it encounters, for behaviour and morality must be read in the light of darwinian evolution.  Such transformed  morality, is, as can be shown, not a real (or objective) morality at all.  Indeed, evolutionism tends to the abandonment of any search for morality and meaning in life, something many evolutionary advocates desire.

There is also a tendency to use it to explain human behaviour and justify immorality (even rape). However, as Phillip Skell noted in The Scientist (29.08.05), “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centred and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behaviour, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

It is beyond doubt that the Eugenics movement which sprang up in the late 19th Century gained an influence it did not deserve through the respectability and authority of science and its promotion by a small cabal of committed darwinists. This gave rise in the 20th Century to the racism and anti-Semitism of the Nazi era. Although the view “that black people were closer in evolutionary scale to apes than white people is seen by scientists as ghastly mistake” its traces remain today. Nobel Laureate James Watson was quoted in The Times in October 2007 as saying “[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” This was explained in evolutionary terms. Indeed he spoke of the reasonableness of abortion being used to enable mothers to chose various characteristics of their children, including sexual orientation. This is already happening in children with potentially minor birth defects. The same thinking has apparently motivated some mass killers, including those involved in Columbine High School Massacre in 1999.

G.K. Chesterton said “Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.”

It is therefore little surprise to note that one author has written of the “the historical fact that Darwinism has been the most significant contributing cause in the de-christianisation of the west.” This is not to deny the natural depravity of man’s heart. However, it must be recognised that the Devil uses various strategies to blind the hearts of men to the truth, and major success in the west has been achieved through the pseudoscience of evolutionism and historical geology.

Conclusion

Given such an attack on reason and the Church, individuals and society, there is a need for Christians today to stand against the virulent attacks of dangerous pseudoscience. The Scripture of truth is being attacked vigorously by those who foolishly adhere to historical pseudoscience. The Church herself, has for too long tried to compromise and has allowed the authority of scripture to be undermined in the face of what was perceived to be truth, but is in reality, unprovable assumptions. What is required is not an accommodation of Scripture to the latest fads and assertions of unbelieving pseudoscience, but adherence to the truth and the bringing of every thought into submission to Christ. For the good of perishing sinners, for the good of the Church and for the good of society, we must hold fast the plain teaching of Scripture and reject the oppositions of science falsely so called.

—————————————————————-

Moderator: the Rev. Graeme Craig

.

Graeme Craig was born in Paisley in 1964 and was educated at Dundee University and the Free Church College, Edinburgh. Prior to being called in 2009 to the key congregation of Stornoway he was minister on the Ardnamurchan peninsula and later in Lochalsh & Glenshiel where he also took responsibility for Genelg and Arnisdale.

In the struggles which engulfed the Free Church in the years prior to 2000 Mr. Craig, although at that time a relatively junior minister, played a pivotal support rôle for those loyal to the constitutional position of the historic Free Church of Scotland, ensuring that those of them who were members of Assembly had ready access to accurate and relevant information. In recognition of the abilities shown during that critical period, when the Free Church divided in January 2000 Mr. Craig was appointed Assistant Clerk of the General Assembly of the Free Church (Continuing).

He is married (1989) to Roberta, a languages graduate from Rathfriland, Co. Down, Northern Ireland, and they have eight children aged from four to twenty.

Perhaps unusually for a minister, Mr. Craig has an honours degree in Geology and, contrary to some public perceptions of geologists, has a special interest in “young earth creationism” and the creation-evolution debate. Very much opposed to the secular, scientific materialism agenda being promoted through the education system and the media, he occasionally writes exposing the folly of such things. He sees many of society’s problems due to the rejection of biblical truth and the acceptance of pseudo-science, pseudopsychology and false relativistic morality. He believes that the Church needs to recover confidence and point this out in world.

In his youth a keen badminton player, he now has little opportunity for it in his busy life. He continues, however to pursue his longstanding interest in singing. With a wry sense of humour he admits to enjoying arguing and being pedantic, characteristics allegedly common among Assembly Clerks.

Mr. Craig comes to the Moderatorial Chair much younger than most, but with a vast range of experience and very wide respect.

Rev. John MacLeod, Senior Press Officer and Principal Clerk of Assembly

by Dr. Terry Mortenson – Answers Magazine – Answers in Genesis – June 3, 2010

For thousands of years Christians have faced the danger of being deceived by Satan (2 Corinthians 11:3). Sometimes in the process of defending the Christian faith, respected Christian leaders have unknowingly compromised with error.

Surprising examples include founders of modern fundamentalism.

Continued at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n3/fundamental-compromise

.

.

by Dr. Terry Mortenson – Answers in Genesis – U.S.  – May 31, 2010

Many people think that Bible scholars and other Christian leaders or educators who accept millions of years and hold to the gap theory or day-age view or framework hypothesis or a localized Noachian Flood do so because of careful attention to the Biblical text in the original languages.¹

Continued on: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/31/why-dont-many-christian-leaders-and-scholars

.

…..

.

by Dr. Grady S. McMurtry – Full-time International Creation Emissary, Biblical Scientific Creationist, Apologist, and Director of Creation Worldview Ministries – a missionary association taking the truths of biblical foundations to the Church, both domestic and foreign, and to the secular world — an evangelistic and discipling ministry seeking to bring salvation and maturity in Jesus Christ, by lifting Him up that He might draw all people unto Himself.

.

The unsubstantiated, unfounded and unprovable theories of evolution are believed by ardent followers whose faith would make the faith of most Christians pale by comparison. Evolutionists believe in evolution in spite of any logic, facts or scientific evidence that may be provided to them demonstrating that evolution theories are not true. For evolutionists, evolution is a religion and they are “very religious in all respects.” (Acts 17:22)

.

.

Evolutionists believe in evolution because they chose to believe in evolution!

.

What is the definition of the word religion? The definitions of the word would fill volumes. The spectrum of definitions goes from sharply specific to meaningless generality. In 1974, the Webster’s Dictionary defined the word religion as: “A commitment or devotion to a faith; or, an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” In a general way, we may say that a religion is all physically unverifiable beliefs which attempt to answer the questions: Where did life come from? What is life’s purpose? What is life’s final destiny? How should people behave while they are here?

.

Ultimately, the word religion refers to the foundational worldview of the individual believer; it dictates their attitudes, thoughts, habits, behaviors, actions, emotions and characteristics.

.

The Apostle Paul [and I] stipulate that evolutionists are “very religious in all respects.” (Acts 17:22) To prove that point, please read the following quotes from devout evolutionists.

.

[Dr. Mary Leakey (February 6, 1913 – December 9, 1996) was a British archaeologist and anthropologist; wife of Dr. Louis Leakey, mother of Dr. Richard Leakey, mother-in-law of Dr. Meave Leakey - all adamant believers and researchers trying to prove human evolution.]

.

.
“All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.”
.

Dr. Mary Leakey, Associated Press, Dec. 10, 1996.
.
.

Evolutionists want to incorrectly define science as being only that which is naturalistic, mechanistic and random.

.

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” [Emphasis added]
.
Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999.
.
.

Evolutionists know that what they teach is wrong, and they do not know what is correct.

.

“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …” [Emphasis added]
.
Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders.
.
.
“We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record.” [Emphasis added]
.
Gould, Stephen J., “The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology,” Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7.
.
.
“In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be ‘wrong.’ A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” [Emphasis added]
.
Kemp, Tom S., “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67.
.
.
“Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological life spans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for non-evolution. … The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution).” [Emphasis added]
.
Gould, Stephen J., “Cordelia’s Dilemma,” Natural History, 1993, p. 15.
.
.
“Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. … That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself … prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. … The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.” [Emphasis added]
.
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46.
.
.

Evolutionists reject the truth of what is contained in the ground, because it contradicts their faith, their “religion.”

.

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. … Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.” [Emphasis added]
.
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
.
.
“In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” [Emphasis added]
.
Ridley, Mark, “Who doubts evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.
.
.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” [Emphasis added]
.
Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.
.
.
“Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion … it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. … Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.” [Emphasis added]
.
Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.
.
.
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” [Emphasis added]
.
Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
.
.
“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?… we must … admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” [Emphasis added]
.
H. J. Lipson, “A physicist looks at evolution” Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
.

.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [Emphasis added]
.
Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.
.

.

Charles Darwin knew of the problematic fossil record and wrote about it in his most famous book.

.

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?” (p.139)

.

“Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (p. 143)

.

“But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (p. 144)

.

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.” (p. 149)

.

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (p. 230) [Emphasis added]

.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859
.
.
“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” [Emphasis added]
.
Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980,pp.179-181.
.
.
“Many evolutionary biologists since Darwin’s time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, without transitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared.” [Emphasis added]
.
Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.
.
.
“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” [Emphasis added]
.
Dr. David M. Raup (U. of Chicago – Field Museum), “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.
.
.
“The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” [Emphasis added]
.
Newsweek, November 3, 1980.
.
.
“Honest” evolutionists do exist, and they are willing to admit the problems in the various evolutionary theories; even if they are not willing to change from an acceptance of evolution to an acceptance of creation.

.

I admired one such evolutionist, the late Dr. Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998), a lifelong evolutionist, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London. He staggered his evolutionary colleagues by expressing serious doubts about the theory of evolution in a November 5, 1981 lecture presented to the Systematics Discussion Group at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Although lengthy, the following extract from his comments is accurate and enlightening:

.

“… I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization.”

.

“For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’”

.

“That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long …”

.

“… I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?’”

.

“I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: ‘Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.’”

.

“…It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that’s all we know about it … about eighteen months ago … I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.”

.

Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the “pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm” was “‘… not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none’” and suggested “… It must seem to you that I’m either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.”

.

“… Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal? … I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge - I think it has been positively anti-knowledge.”

.

“… What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any? … It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven’t yet heard it.”

.

“Well, here we all are with all our shelves full of books on evolution. We’ve all read tons of them, and most of us have written one or two. And how could it be that we’ve done all that, we’ve read these books and learned nothing from them? And how could I have worked on evolution for twenty years, and learned nothing from it?”

.

“… There is some sort of a revolution going on in evolutionary theory at the moment … It concerns the possible mechanisms that are responsible for the transformation … natural selection is under fire, and we hear a rash of new and alternative theories …”

.

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those “‘…holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,’” Patterson countered, “That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: ‘Yes it has … we know it has taken place.’”

.

“… Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here …”

.
“…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics …” [Emphasis added]
.
.

Any knowledgeable evolutionist knows that the lack of physical evidence is their biggest problem.

.

Darwin struggled with the issue of the total lack of evidence to support his theory. As noted earlier, his famous book is full of references to the void of physical evidence. Fossils certainly exist in the ground, but they are simply the remains of animals, plants and human beings that once existed. Fossils cannot tell you when they lived, how they lived or what chemicals were in them when they died.

.
“Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” [Emphasis added]
.
Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

.
.
“What I did say was that there are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever … No paleontologist writing in English (R. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 1988), French (J. Chaline, “Modalites, rythmes, mecanismes de l’evolution biologique: gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues?,” reprinted in Editions du CNRS, 1983), or German (V. Fahlbusch, “Makroevolution, Punktualismus,” in Palaontologie 57, 1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict. There may be excellent reasons for the conflict; it may in time be exposed as an artifact. But nothing is to be gained by suggesting that what is a fact in plain sight is nothing of the sort.” [Emphasis added]
.
David Berlinski, A Tour of the Calculus, Pantheon Books, New York, 1995, p. 28.
.
.

Where did the arthropods come from?

.

According to the late Marxist and preeminent evolutionary propagandist Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, arthropods are the largest animal group.

.
“As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms – either living or in the fossil record . . .”
.
Osorio, Bacon & Whitington, American Scientist, May/June 1997, p. 244.
.
.

Where did all the fish come from?

.

“Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound . . .”
.
Long, J. O., The Rise of Fishes, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1995, p. 30.
.
.
“The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms.”
.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 126
.
.
“Both these groups [bony and cartilaginous] appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this.” [Emphasis added]
.
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 53
.
.

Where did all the birds come from?

.

“The true origin of birds is still up in the air.”

.

Alan Feduccia, New Scientist, 16 December 2000, p. 25.

.
“In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these [sixty-nine living families of Passeriformes] … appeared.” [Emphasis added]
.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 386
.
.
“Of all the classes of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record.” [Emphasis added]
.
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 236.
.
.

Where did all the whales come from?

.
“. . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists.”
.
Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996.
.
.
“As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living [the supposed evolution of cows into whales], ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which whales came is exceedingly difficult.”
.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 486
.
.
“Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.”
.
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392
.
.

Where did all the amphibians come from?

.

“Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved.” [Emphasis added]
.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 195
.

.
“This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this.” [Emphasis added]
.
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. pp. 84-85
.
.

Where did all the snakes come from?

.

“The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem.” [Emphasis added]
.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 318
.
.
“Unfortunately, the fossil history of snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution.” [Emphasis added]
.
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 154
.
.

Where did all the turtles come from?

.

“Turtles are so different from any other reptile that their peculiarities are practically useless as a guide for distinguishing among potential ancestors, and the origin of turtles remains one of the great unanswered questions of evolutionary biology … the possible choices for the original turtle span almost the entire range of reptiles, living and extinct.” [Emphasis added]
.
Orenstein, R., Turtles, Tortoises & Terrapins: Survivors in Armor, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, p. 26, 2001.
.
.

Where did the flowering plants come from?

.

“The origin of the angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” [Emphasis added]
.
Patterson, Williams and Humphries, 1993 Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 24:153-188
.

Where did eyes come from?

.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.
.
.

Where did people come from?

.

Dr. Richard Leakey, discoverer of Skull 1470 (Homo habilis), one of world’s foremost paleo-anthropologists,said in a PBS documentary in 1990:

.
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.” [Emphasis added]
.

.
Dr. Donald Johanson, discoverer of “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis), wrote:
“No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on.”
.
Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy – the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286.
.
.
“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
.
Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
.
.
“Unfortunately, the fossil record for hominids [the half-human pre-humans] and pongids [the ape family] is almost totally blank between four and eight million years ago – an irresistible tabula rasa [an erased tablet; a clean slate] on which to inscribe belief, preconception, and personal opinion.” [Emphasis added]
.
A. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” in Natural History, August 1979, pp. 86, 88.

.
.

“The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table.” [Emphasis added]
.
New Scientist, 20 May, 1982.
.
.
Perhaps one of the most revealing statements concerning the supposed evolution of human beings from apes was made during an interview of Dr. Richard Leakey after the discovery of Skull 1470. In an interview for the National Geographic Magazine he said:

.
“Scientific explanation is challenged on the basis of observation, not of whim or fancy. ‘Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man,’ asserts anthropologist, [Dr.] Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. ‘It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. . . . (it) leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.’” [Emphasis added]
.
National Geographic, June 1973, Vol. 143, No. 6, p. 819.
.
.
Similar truth and confusion abounds amongst those who believe in the evolution of human beings.

.
“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other.”
.
Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex-New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227
.
.
“There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how Homo sapiens emerged.”
.
Takahata, Molecular Anthropology, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1995, p. 355
.
.
“The australopithecines known over the last several decades … Are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism … All this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks . . .” [Emphasis added]
.
Charles Oxnard (Professor of anatomy and leading expert on australopithecine fossils), “The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates,” 1984, p. 332.
.
.
“The fossils provide much more discouragement than support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for ‘evolution,’ and then ignore all the difficulties.” [Emphasis added]
.
Philip Johnson (Graduate of Harvard U., Law Professor at U. of California, Berkeley), Darwin on Trial, 1991, p. 84
.
.
“Most textbooks avoid showing comprehensive tables of the discovered human fossils – doing so exposes the contradictions.” [Emphasis added]
.
James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, p. 106.
.
.
In 1978, Dr. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote a book entitled People of the Lake. Although over 30 years old, most of their statements would require little change if written today. These quotes give some excellent insights into their faith-based belief in the evolution of human beings. The following are excerpts from the book:

.

Pg. 17 “If someone went to the trouble of collecting together into one room all of the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between 5 and 1 million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out. And, if that were not bad enough, a not unusually commodious shoebox would be more than sufficient to accommodate the hominid fossil finds of between 15 and 6 million years ago!

.

[Today, it would take three tables and two shoeboxes. That is not a lot of evidence.]

.

Yet with a confidence that may strike the uninitiated as something close to supernatural – if not to plain madness – prehistorians can now construct a view of human origins that is anything but crude, and may even bear some resemblance to the truth!”

.

[That really strikes confidence into the reader.]

.

Pg. 19 “What the fossils tell us directly, of course, is what our ancestors and their close relatives looked like. Or rather, to be more accurate, they give us some clues about the physical appearance of early hominids, because until someone is lucky enough to come across a complete skeleton of one of our ancestors, much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork.”

.

[Pure inference, guesswork?]

.

Pg. 20 “The human mind has shown itself to be particularly fertile for generating notions about the nature of mankind, but only when those notions are subject to the scrutiny of different scientific disciplines can the more fanciful theories be weeded out. In learning about hominid history we have to be imaginative, but not fanciful, the inputs and caveats offered by the psychologists, taphonomists, and others create the right condition in which to be responsibly imaginative.”

.

[Well, after all, who would want to be irresponsibly imaginative?]

.

Pg. 26 “The last of these, Ramapithecus, a small creature (perhaps close to three feet tall), is currently favorite as the first true hominid.”

.

[Ramapithecus is now considered to be an extinct pygmy chimpanzee and no longer in the supposed line leading to humans; but, it was hot stuff in 1978.]

.

Pg. 27 “Now, if we are absolutely honest, we have to admit that we know nothing about Ramapithecus; we don’t know what it looked like; we don’t know what it did; and naturally, we don’t know how it did it! But with the aid of jaw and tooth fragments and one or two bits and pieces from arms and legs, all of which represents a couple of dozen individuals, we can make some guesses, more or less inspired.”

.

[Shouldn’t we be asking by whom or what they are being inspired?]

.

Pg. 45 “Because, for several reasons, the period between 8 and about 4 million years ago is a fossil void, we can only guess what our ancestors were up to then. Nevertheless, the structure of human evolution is clear: . . .” [Emphasis added]

.

[No reasons are specified and when did a void constitute absolute proof?]

.

Pg. 169 “During the past few million years human brains have enlarged, but they must have increased in internal complexity too. . . There can never be any direct evidence to support this statement.” [Emphasis added]

.

[Finally a statement that we can all agree on: “There can never be any direct evidence to support this statement.”]

.

.

Where did life come from?

.

Dr. Paul Davies [staunch evolutionist] was once described by the Washington Times as “the best science writer on either side of the Atlantic.”

.
“Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” [Emphasis added]
.
Dr. Paul Davies, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, Sydney. New Scientist 179(2403);32 12 July, 2003.
.
.
Previously, he had written:

.
“… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.”
.
Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27-30, 1999; p. 28.
.
.

What have other evolutionists said about the origin of life?

.

“The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago. There is no record of the event.” [Emphasis added]
.
Biology The Unity and Diversity of Life, Wadsworth 1992 p. 300.
.
.
Going all the way back to 1952, Dr. Richard Goldschimdt, the inventor of “The Hopeful Monster Theory” wrote:

.
“Practically all orders and families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.”
.
Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, January 1952, p. 97.
.
.
Today, we know that all phyla are found starting in the Cambrian [supposedly 488 to 542 supposed millions of years ago]. There are no transitions from one phylum to another phylum to be found in the ground.

.
“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown.”
.
Dr. A. G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 2003 (fossil section).
.
.

Evolution is accepted by its adherents on a purely philosophical basis, not a scientific basis.

.

There is no scientific basis for the evolution of nonliving material into living organisms, nor for living organisms to change from one “kind” into another “kind.”

.
“Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more – it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow – this is what evolution is.” [Emphasis added]
.
Jesuit Priest Fr. Pierre T. de Chardin, as quoted by F. J. Ayala, Journal of Heredity 68:3-10 (1977); and, as quoted in Mankind Evolving, Theodosius Dobzhansky (Yale), March, 1962.
.
.
Physicist and information theorist, Dr. Hubert P. Yockey wrote:

.
“Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.” [Emphasis added]
.
Yockey, H. P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377-398, 1977.
.
.
Noted science journalist, author and anthropologist Roger Lewin wrote the following two comments:

.
“It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions.” “Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions.” [Emphasis added]
.
Lewin, Roger. As quoted in Bones of Contention, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987, p. 68.
.
.
“The problem is that because we know the ‘end of the story’ (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end.” [Emphasis added]
.
Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988, p. 22.
.
.

Evolution is believed in by its adherents, in spite of the fact that to believe in evolution you have to have incredible faith.

.

“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur … or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” [Emphasis added]
.
D. M. S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123, p. 233 (1929).
.
.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
.

Sir Arthur Keith as quoted in Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen?, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, p. 73.
.
.
“…there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate.” [Emphasis added]
.
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991, p. 28.
.
.
The late Canadian entomologist William R. Thompson, FRS, was asked by J. M. Dent & Sons to write the Introduction to its 1967 Everyman’s Library edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

.
“Darwin considered that the doctrine of the Origin of living forms by descent with modification, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was, for him, of absolutely major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. … Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favour of the theory. … It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given. … This was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin. Another is the elusive character of the Darwinian argument. Every characteristic of organisms is maintained in existence because it has survival value. But this value relates to the struggle for existence. Therefore we are not obliged to commit ourselves in regard to the meaning of differences between individuals or species since the possessor of a particular modification may be, in the race for life, moving up or falling behind. On the other hand, we can commit ourselves if we like, since it is impossible to disprove our statement. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.” [Emphasis added]
.
Thompson, W. R., “Introduction,” in Darwin, C. R., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Sixth Edition, 1872, Everyman’s Library, J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967, reprint, p. xi.
.
.

Evolutionary philosophy is accepted dogmatically by religious faith!

.

“…One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task [i.e., of explaining how life began by chance, editor] to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are – as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” [Emphasis added]
.
George Wald, Scientific American, vol. 191, August 1954, p. 46.
.
.
“When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” [Emphasis added]
.
George Wald, (Harvard University evolutionary biochemist and Nobel Laureate), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.
.
.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”
.

Matthews, L. H. Introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”
.
.
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all … If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” [Emphasis added]
.
H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution.” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, May 1980, p. 138.
.
.
“It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact … Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction.” [Emphasis added]
.
Paul Lemoine, Director of the National Museum of Natural History; editor, French Encyclopedia, Societe de Gestion de L’Encyclopedie Francaise, Volume 5, circa 1957.
.
.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” [Emphasis added]

.

Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 43.

.

.

Sir Dr. Karl Popper was one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century. He was known for repudiating the classical observationalist account of the scientific method and advancing empirical falsification in its place. He wrote: “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

.

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission wrote:

.
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” “[Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.” [Emphasis added]
.
Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B.
.
.
“I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary – ‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc. – thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” [Emphasis added]
.
Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, New York: Croom Helm, 1987, p. 422.
.
.

Consensus is not the same as truth. Consensus is not data, and it is not the same as a scientific fact!

.

Michael Crichton, the novelist and science fiction writer of Jurassic Park fame, and I disagree adamantly about many things. He did, however, have an appreciation for the importance of dissenting views within the scientific community and was a keen observer of how some in the scientific community use rhetoric to quash minority scientific viewpoints. He wrote:

.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

.

“Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. …”

.

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” [Emphasis added]
.
Michael Crichton, “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.
.
.

The acceptance of evolution is in order to promote a religious agenda!

.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint – and Mr. Gish [Dr. Duane Gish] is but one of many to make it – the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” [Emphasis added]
.
Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the Florida State University
www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion
.
.
“The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process.” [Emphasis added]
.
Julian Huxley, Evolution and Genetics, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955.
.
.
“It is essential for UNESCO to adopt an evolutionary approach . . . the general philosophy of UNESCO should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background. . . . Thus the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness.” [Emphasis added]
.
Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1946).
.
.
“Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.” [Emphasis added]
.
Huxley, Julian “Introduction” in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, New York, Mentor Books 1958 479 p. 409.
.
.
“The myth is to the savage what, to a fully believing Christian, is the biblical story of Creation, of the Fall, of the Redemption by Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross.” [Emphasis added]
.
Malinowski, Bronislaw Magic, Science and Religion and other Essays. Boston, The FreePress, 1948, p. 78.
.
.
“Man’s worldview today is dominated by the knowledge that the universe, the stars, the earth and all living things have evolved through a long history that was not foreordained or programmed.” [Emphasis added]
.
Ernst Mayer, “Evolution,” Scientific American 239 (Sept. 1978): 47.
.
.
“I am taking a new look at the Darwinian revolution of 1859, perhaps the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind. It not only eliminated man’s anthropocentrism, but affected every metaphysical and ethical concept, if consistently applied.” [Emphasis added]
.
Ernst Mayer, “The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution,” Science 176 (June 2, 1972): 981.
.
.
Darwinism is promoted by some of the largest “scientific institutions,” such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS USA). They shove the naturalistic agenda down the throats of people and call it science.

.

The NAS USA declares: “The meaning of science must involve only natural things and processes.”

.

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption… The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves… For myself… the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation… sexual… [and] political.” [Emphasis added]
.
Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World), Ends and Means, 1937, p. 273.
.
.

Their acceptance of evolution as religion is a total commitment!

.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science [evolutionary science] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.” [Italics in the original] [Emphasis added]
.
Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
.
.
Dr. Will Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell Univ., teacher of evolution wrote:
.
“ … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”

.

“… belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

.
“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” [Emphasis added]
.
Provine, W. B., Origins Research 16(1):9, 1994.
.
.

The Religion of Evolution is at war with the Religion of Christianity!

.

“The conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution … Nay the two laws are at war with each other …” [Emphasis added]
.
Keith, Sir Arthur. Evolution and Ethics (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons), 1947, p. 72.
.
.
No one understood this better that Richard Bozarth writing in the American Atheist.

.

“These ‘creation-science’ textbooks, if allowed in our schools, can only serve to increase that mental anguish by teaching that the Genesis gibberish is a legitimate scientific theory.”

.
“Christianity is – must be! totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul against the theory of evolution.” [Emphasis added]

.
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19

.

.
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

.

“Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.”

.

“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”

.

“It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.” [Emphasis added]
.
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
.
.

The war is being fought vigorously in the school classroom.

.

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These [sic] teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level – preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new – the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.” [Emphasis added]
.
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
.
.
Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said:

.
“In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.” [Emphasis added]
.
Taylor, F.S., Geology changes the outlook; in: Ideas and Beliefs of the Victorians, Sylvan Press Ltd, London, p. 195, (one of a series of talks broadcast on BBC radio), 1949.
.
.

Christians have been and always will be at war with evolution!

.

Throughout the 2,000 years of the Churches’ existence Christians have fought the atheist evolutionary worldview. The Apostle Paul fought it in Romans 1:16-32, and Acts 17:16-34. The Apostle Peter fought it 2 Peter 3:3-7. Martin Luther fought at the time of the Reformation:

.
“I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God’s word becomes corrupt. Because of this we can see what kind of people they become in the universities and what they are like now. Nobody is to blame for this except the pope, the bishops, and the prelates, who are all charged with training young people. The universities only ought to turn out men who are experts in the Holy Scriptures, men who can become bishops and priests, and stand in the front line against heretics, the devil, and all the world. But where do you find that? I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell.” [Emphasis added]
.
Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520,” trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. James Atkinson, The Christian in Society, I (Luther’s Works, ed. James Atkinson, vol. 44), p. 207 (1966)
.

.

More recently the great C. S. Lewis wrote:

.
“There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and here I will mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It is like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I cannot trust my own thinking, of course I cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism and therefore the reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought or anything else: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” [Emphasis added]
.
Lewis, C. S. The Case for Christianity. Macmillan. New York: New York. 1943.
.
.
.
So, then, how are we to live our lives? Mark 12:28-31

.

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

.

The Difference Between Christian

Conservation and Environmental Terrorism

.

by Dr. Grady S. McMurtry, Creation Worldview Ministries

.

Environmental Issues and the Christian

God made man and gave him the mandates of dominion and stewardship over the earth. Today, environmental terrorists are attempting to convince everyone that unless we abandon our cars and stop further economic growth we will all perish and the earth with us. Are environmental terrorists to be believed? Is the earth heating up; is there an Ozone Hole; and, do we need to lock away all our natural resources so as not to allow those mean capitalists to get their greedy little hands on them? Is the Green Movement truly concerned about the environment or is it just the new home of Communism? What is the correct Christian response to be to all these allegations? Should Christians be preservationists or conservationists?

.

Exactly What Did God Give Man When He Gave the Mandates of Dominion and Stewardship?

Dominion may be termed a Creation Ordinance or a creation command. The word dominion (radah) means: to have dominion, to rule, to have authority over, to subjugate, to administer, to take care of and to have superintendence. It does not mean: to rule with an iron fist, to lord it over in a tyrannical manner, to needlessly destroy nor to exploit.

The word dominion as it is used in Genesis means to exercise dominion under God’s supervision; following God’s direction and example. For example, God states that the principle of the Sabbath rest is to be extended to all areas of His creation. In Leviticus 25:1-7, the Sabbath rest applies to the earth and the agricultural land. In Deuteronomy 25:4, the Sabbath rest applies to the animals. In Exodus 20:8-11, the Sabbath rest applies to mankind.

Profit

Our God is a God of profit. The word “profit” when used of God doesn’t mean money. God doesn’t need money; He owns everything anyway. God’s use of the word “profit” means that He expects a return for effort, while denying exploitation or profit for profit’s sake. This kind of profit is to be for the glory of God and the good of His creation. The dominion mandate provides for the derivation of benefit while also being consistent with the second major Biblical principle, that of stewardship.

Stewardship

What is a steward? A steward is one who is paid to manage the estate or property belonging to another. A steward is one who is held accountable for his wise or unwise management of that property by the owner. Who is the Owner? According to Psalm 24:1, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.” Stewardship then is the act of being a steward accountable to God, and God expects us to be good stewards. (II Corinthians 5:9 and Psalms 8:6) Stewardship, however, is not preservation, it is positive purposeful management. (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) Even Christ’s death on the cross, a destructive act if only looked at on the surface, was required to usher in redemption. Stewardship is purposeful both now and in the future. It avoids the short term quick fix which yields long term disaster. An example would be the previous widespread sale and use of DDT without the consideration of the long term effects upon the worldwide environment. DDT caused the near extinction of the American Bald Eagle, the Brown Pelican and many other species of birds and fish.

Stewardship requires industry and toil. (Genesis 2:15) Man was to work in the Garden of Eden and care for it. When God put Adam in the Garden He made him the head horticulturist in charge of it. God illustrated industriousness in working six days during the Creation Week to give us an example, a type of how we were to live our lives. God condemns haste and waste. (Proverbs 6:6-11 and Matthew 25:26) In 1960, the schools were teaching “The Solution to Pollution is Dilution.” In God’s perspective “The Solution to Pollution is Prevention.”

Stewardship incorporates preventive maintenance and routine maintenance. Preventive maintenance is making sure that we do not intentionally put long term toxic chemicals into our world. Routine maintenance is the task of keeping balances between providing for human needs and the short term abuse or exploitation of our God given resources. Immunization from disease is a good example of maintenance. No one would argue that immunization against the spread of infectious diseases isn’t a good idea. Likewise, the reforestation of trees after timber harvest is wise maintenance.

Stewardship includes the prevention of waste. Waste usually results from bad management and irresponsibility, and ultimately, directly from sin. God does not waste a single thing. (Romans 8:28 and Ephesians 1:11) Prevention of waste requires hard work and energy. The prevention of waste, the minimizing of waste and the recycling of waste require effort.

Stewardship is personal. Our one and only absolute responsibility is to be faithful. (I Corinthians 4:2) We are to be faithful regardless of the amount with which we are entrusted. (Matthew 25:14-30) We are to be faithful with all with which we have been entrusted. (Romans 14:10-12, II Corinthians 5:9-10 and I Corinthians 3:12-14) Our reward is not based on the quantity of our profit; but upon our faithfulness, commitment and diligence in handling what we have been given to steward.

There are four benefits that a person receives for their faithful stewardship. First, they receive a more intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. (Matthew 25:21) Second, it develops character. Third, by understanding our position as stewards we can develop true contentment. Fourth, faithful stewardship yields financial order in your family and long term economic stability. On the other hand, the consequences of unfaithful stewardship are to be found in Luke 16:1-15.

How can you develop your mind in the area of good stewardship, or any other area for that matter? This can be accomplished by working through the outline that follows:

1. We condition our minds, in this case with the Word of God.

2. This leads to mental assent; we are to think in obedience to God.

3. We make a decision to change our thoughts to His thoughts.

4. Through repeated thought, we form a habit.

5. Through regular habit, we develop a pattern of thought.

6. From a pattern of thought, we develop an attitude.

7. From an attitude, we develop a consistent set of actions.

8. Our consistent actions become a firm behavior.

.

Are the Environmental Terrorists Correct About the Various Environmental Issues?

Ozone Hole

Is there an Ozone Hole over South America created by Freon pollution? No. There is no “hole” in the atmosphere, only a thinning, depletion or “dip” which occurs every spring in the Antarctic and is filled back in after about six weeks. This event has been happening every spring over South America for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It is caused when the concentration of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs or Freon-type products) builds up during the cold winter night and in the spring, the warmth of the sun returning to the southern hemisphere, starts a chemical reaction in which CFCs and Ozone combine using up large quantities of Ozone. After about six weeks this depletion is filled back in through natural processes which produce Ozone and the problem is resolved until the next year.

The great fear which Ozone depletion brings with it is that without Ozone we are all unprotected from the very harmful UV radiation which comes to us from the sun. Without Ozone we will most assuredly die. Therefore, it would be critical to the world if Ozone levels did reach zero.

Recent research shows, however, that the UV radiation levels around the world have dropped not increased, in recent years. Surprisingly, this drop has been due to the “protective layer” of industrial wastes in the atmosphere, in the form of sulfur dioxide aerosols and others, which have been added to the atmosphere by man. These industrial wastes have caused sunlight to bounce off the top of the layer back into outer space and have caused the earth below to cool.

Besides, Freon and other CFCs are also made in nature, not just by men. CFCs are produced by macroalgae, marine invertebrates and volcanoes. Most of the CFCs, a full 80%, are manufactured by volcanoes. Can you legislate against volcanoes? Would you like to guess where one of the world’s largest CFCs producing volcanoes is? Right! It is under the “hole” at the south end of Chile . Do you think that there could be any coincidence?

It is estimated that we are going to spend One Trillion Dollars in the next few years for nothing, except to placate the consciences of environmental terrorists! Is it worth spending One Trillion Dollars to prevent only 20% of the entire world’s production of CFCs? Environmental terrorists are not the only ones with a motive, either. Could there be a profit motive for Du Pont, whose patent ran out on Freon, to want Freon R-12 banned off the market and their new replacement product, Suva R-134, to take its place?

Global Warming

Is the earth heating up? Are we all going to die from this heat causing the world to become a large desert? If we don’t stop using our cars will we as a society survive the coming holocaust? What is the truth?

The truth is that water moisture in the atmosphere is responsible for 98% of all global warming. This warming is caused when heat coming in from the sun is trapped in the atmosphere by the water moisture suspended in the atmosphere. Only 2% of global warming is caused by sunlight being trapped by the other “greenhouse gases.”

The earth is not warming up, it is cooling off! We all know that the earth is hot on the inside, very hot. The earth is like a white hot coal taken out of a bar-b-que pit and set aside to cool off. Eventually that coal will go stone cold to the center. We are not alive today because of the heat coming in from the sun everyday, but because of the heat coming in from the sun everyday and the heat passing by us on the way out everyday. The earth has a net loss of heat each day. This has been scientifically proven by satellite readings of the heat loss of the earth. When you take the incoming solar heat, and subtract the total radiation of heat from inside the earth into outer space, the net loss is the huge amount of 10¹² calories per second. Even a schoolchild may reason that out.

There is a second reason to know that the earth is cooling down, not warming up. The ejection of sulfur dioxides and ash from approximately 600 active volcanoes causes solar radiation to be reflected back into outer space and causes the earth to cool rapidly. This has been thoroughly documented in recent years by research data measured during the eruptions of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, Mexico’s El Chichon in 1982 and the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In January of 1992, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote that “the cooling effect of sulfur emissions may have offset a significant part of the greenhouse warming in the northern hemisphere during the past several decades.” Satellite measurements have shown earth temperatures dropping while surface measurements, taken by humans, have indicated a temperature rise. Could it be that there is a human bias in the “expected” results which the satellites do not have?

Agenda

What is the environmental terrorist’s agenda? The Green Movement is the new home of global socialism/communism. What the communists could not do through their military and political machinery they are now accomplishing through economic means. What they could not accomplish through brute force, they are now trying to accomplish by locking up the natural resources needed for capitalism to survive. As an example, they are against both pesticides and the use of biotechnology to increase crop yields, yet these things have tripled crop production since the end of WW II.

Environmental terrorists are attempting to lock away natural resources, supposedly “preserving” them for the future with the noble goal of protecting animal and plant species and their habitat But, this is actually an attempt to stop capitalism by removing the necessary resources for economic growth. Their main purpose is the abolition of personal property rights, which along with freedom of religion and speech, were primary reasons our forefathers founded the United States . Their final goal is the confiscation of all personal property because only the “government knows best,” not “The Father knows best.”

.

What Is the Difference Between Environmental Terrorist Preservation and Christian Conservation?

“Preservation” means to preserve a biological system exactly as it is now and to protect it from human intervention of any kind. An excellent example of this would be the legislation which set up the National Park Service. The National Park system preserves land that it owns in its pristine state so that future generations may see these great natural wonders. The National Park system then builds as few roads and trails as possible in order to prevent people from seeing these great natural wonders. It allows fires to burn out of control destroying these great natural wonders because fire is “natural.” This happened several years ago when the National Park system refused to stop a relatively small fire which developed near Yellowstone National Park . Before the bureaucrats could mobilize themselves, they allowed 1,000,000 acres of Yellowstone National Park to burn to the ground.

How does one “preserve” a living system anyway? Is it possible or even desirable to “preserve” your baby as he was at, say, six months of age? The only way to “preserve” a living system, to keep it exactly the way it is at any given time, is to kill it and stick it in a bottle of alcohol! Living systems cannot be preserved; it is impossible! The preservation of trees today will never guarantee that these same trees will be seen by our grandchildren.

Living systems, such as a forest, are dynamic, ever-changing entities. There is a life cycle through which all forests will go. Bare ground is first covered by wild flowers and grasses. These are replaced by shrubs and fast growing conifers, like pines. Eventually, broadleaf hardwood trees, such as oak and hickory, will grow under the pines and will replace the pines. The hardwoods will continue to control the site until they die from old age. Once the hardwoods die off, the ground will once again be open and will be covered by grasses. This cycle will repeat itself as long as the world turns. It is God’s plan.

You cannot preserve a biological system. You may only manage it for Someone else!

Christian Conservation

Christian Conservation means to work with a long term view and multiple goals for the wise use of natural resources; to prevent waste, to maximize benefit, to stress the wise use of renewable resources.

An excellent secular example of this would be the legislation which set up the National Forest Service. The Forest Service manages the lands entrusted to it by the American people. The Forest Service plans for the multiple use of all the resources which it controls, allowing for hunting, fishing, camping, tourism, wildlife management and sustained yield timber production. Anything which would destroy these resources is dealt with quickly, such as putting out forest fires.

You cannot preserve a biological system; you can only kill it or conserve it. Conservation management by the Forest Service increases the total amount of wildlife and trees occupying the land, as well as their visibility and use by the public. The Forest Service attempts to exercise dominion and stewardship over the lands and resources entrusted to it.

.

What Should the Christian Position Be on Preservation Versus Conservation?

Preservation is an ungodly principle which promotes man-centered philosophies. No one can create something which is greater than themselves. No human is capable of perfectly planning ahead and foreseeing all the environmental consequences of his actions. No one may lock up biological systems and reasonably expect them to stay the way they were at the time of preservation.

Christian Conservation is the Godly use of all the natural resources which God has entrusted unto us. It is not locking away the resources so that no one may use them as the unfaithful servant did. It is taking dominion and stewardship over that part of the creation which the Creator has given to us and giving it back to Him with an increase as our offering of thanksgiving for Who He is and what He means to us. Christians should favor good stewardship of all our God given natural resources, and need not fear the destruction of our planet, as the nonbelievers do. Jesus said that there would be Christians here to greet Him when He returns!

For further information on this subject I would recommend reading the following:

• Climate of Fear by Thomas Gale Moore, Cato Institute, 1998.
• Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, 1993.
• In a Dark Wood by Alston Chase, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1995.
• The Redwood National Park: A Case Study in Legislative Compromise by Grady S. McMurtry, SUNY, Syracuse, NY, 1972.
• The True State of the Planet by Ronald Bailey, Free Press, 1995.
• The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate by S. Fred Singer, The Independent Institute, 1998.
• The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Billing, Jr., Cato Institute, 2000.
• Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, edited by Ronald Bailey, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Prima Publishing, 2002.
• Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists by Peter, Huber, Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 1999.
• Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, 2004.
• Challenging Environmental Mythology: Wrestling Zeus by Jack W. Dini, Scitech, Publishing, 2003.

.

——————————————–

Creation Worldview Ministries (CWM) is a missionary association taking the truths of biblical foundations to the Church, both domestic and foreign, and to the secular world. CWM is an evangelistic and discipling ministry seeking to bring salvation and maturity in Jesus Christ, by lifting Him up that He might draw all people unto Himself.

The purpose of CWM is to provide biblical and scientific seminars in churches and public forums, i.e. universities, radio and TV broadcasts, etc.; to provide a resource center for information distribution, education, consulting, missionary evangelism and discipleship concerning the truths of biblical foundations, especially Biblical Scientific Creationism; to be a part of the revitalization of classical Christian intellectual activity for the preservation, promotion and propagation of a Christian Biblical World View.

CWM additionally makes secular presentations to promote intellectual honesty, circumspect views and critical thinking concerning the question of origins.

http://www.creationworldview.org

.

Global Warming? Absolutely No Truth To It!

.

by Dr. Grady S. McMurtry, Creation Worldview Ministries

.

I have been studying the Global Warming/Global Cooling controversy since the 1960s. Even when I was an evolutionist scientist and teacher, I knew that neither was true. I am completely convinced that the controversy is 100% politically motivated and not based on good science. The promoters of either view are either extreme socialists or extreme communists. Their sole primary purpose in promoting either view is to destroy Christian capitalism and replace it with extreme socialism/communism based upon the religion of Secular Humanism. Those who advance this agenda want to force us into bigger government, higher taxes, and loss of all personal freedoms, liberties and property rights. I have wanted to write on this subject for many years, but felt that the time was not right. I want to equip every partner of this ministry with the information to destroy every argument that is used to promote this anti-Christian agenda.

Is “Global Warming” or “Global Cooling” a reality?

Is the earth heating up? Are we all going to die from this heat, causing the world to become a large desert? If we don’t stop using our cars, will we as a society survive the coming holocaust? What is the truth?Our awesome Creator God has much to say in the Bible about global weather and climate change from the time of creation 6,000 years ago, to the present time, and even in the future. Many Christians have failed to think of these Biblical Scriptures when trying to evaluate whether or not they should be concerned about these issues. In addition, there is a massive amount of solid science that refutes any claim that “Global Warming” or “Global Cooling” are true.

God promises that the earth cannot and will not be destroyed by Man: Genesis 8:22

The promotion of “Global Warming” is purely a political agenda of the Far-Left. These people may be accurately classified as Environmental Terrorists. It is believed in even though such a belief is irrational. Note this quote attributed to the former Democratic Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and the environmental policy.” [Emphasis added] (Fumento, Michael, Science Under Siege, 1993)

Further proof of the twisted philosophical reasoning of Environmental Terrorists is provided by “Global Warming” advocate Dr. Stephen Schneider. He is Professor, Department of Biological Sciences; Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for International Studies; Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy; Co-Director, Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources Stanford University; and, founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change.

In the October, 1989 issue of Discover magazine, he wrote:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

He wants to be both effective and honest, a noble goal; however, when it comes to promoting “Global Warming” he is quite willing to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

This article could be filled with just such quotes, but space does not allow this. Thus, as a third and final example of the mental state of the current “crop” of Environmental Terrorists, I submit this irrational, illogical, unreasonable and unscientific statement by one of the “head gurus” of Environmental Terrorism, none other than Mr. Al Gore:

“We are dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth’s environment that we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.” [Emphasis added] The Introduction to An Inconvenient Truth, 2006

God promises that the earth cannot and will not be destroyed by Man: Psalm 148:5-6

Is “Global Warming” True?

No! We are simply experiencing normal weather and climate fluctuations.

We are living at the end of the “20th Century Warm Period.” The “20th Century Warm Period” followed a time called “The Little Ice Age” that lasted from approximately 1250-1300 through 1850-1900. Prior to “The Little Ice Age,” the earth experienced a period referred to as the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP) or “Medieval Climate Optimum.” The earth was significantly warmer during the MWP than it is today!

Even evolutionary climatologists have proven scientifically that the earth has experienced three periods of time much warmer than today’s warming trend. The various periods of warm and cold, that have been named, have been determined to be approximately:

The Minoan Warm Period – 1450 to 1250 BC

The Roman Warm Period – 250 BC to AD 1

The Dark Ages Cold Period – AD 1 to AD 800

The Medieval Warm Period – AD 800 to AD 1200

The Little Ice Age – AD 1250 to AD 1900

The 20th Century Warm – AD 1900 to AD 2010

Source: Grootes, P.M. (et. al.), “Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores,” Nature, 366 1993, pp. 552-4.

What is the historical evidence?

We have significant historical evidence with which to trace the major fluctuations in climate change over the past few millennia. These sources include, but are not limited to:

The thousands of years of records of the Nile floods

The 1st-century Roman wine production in England

The thousands of museum paintings that portray sunnier skies during the Medieval Warm Period

The thousands of museum paintings that portray the cloudier skies during the Little Ice Age

The physical evidence from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, ancient tree rings, polar ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalactites and stalagmites, glaciers, etc.

These and many other sources illustrate that the earth has had periods of climate much warmer than today.

God promises that Man cannot change the weather: Ecclesiastes 1:5-10

Is there scientific consensus that “Global Warming” is true?

NO! Consensus is not the same as truth. Consensus is not data, and it is not the same as a scientific fact.

NO! Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, former lead author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC), wrote about global warming: “… the consensus was reached before the research had begun.”

NO! The current promotion of the global warming scare is purely a far left political agenda.

NO! “Global Warming” is simply the new home of socialism and communism.

NO! The earth’s temperature has been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years because of well established and documented variations in solar activity. These are:

The Schwabe Cycle: Sunspot activity follows an eleven year cycle that causes the sun’s temperature to fluctuate up and down 0.1%.

The Gleissberg Cycle: A cycle every 75 to 90 years.

The Suess Cycle: A cycle every 200 to 500 years.

The Bond Cycle: A cycle every 1,100 to 1,500 years.

NO! Dr. Timothy Patterson, Canadian geologist, wrote in the Canadian Financial Post, June 20, 2007:

“Climate stability has never been a feature of planet earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were lower.”

NO! Dr. Bert Bolin, Swedish meteorologist, for eight years the Chairman of the UN IPCC, noted: “The climate issue is not ‘settled’; it is both uncertain and incomplete.”

NO! Dr. Dennis Bray, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physiology, University of Cambridge, submitted the following to Science for publication on December 22, 2004 (but not accepted):

“The most recent survey [2004] of climate scientists … found that while there had been a move towards acceptance of [man-made] global warming, only 9.4% of respondents ‘strongly agree’ that climate change is mostly the result of [man-made] sources. A similar proportion ‘strongly disagree.’ Furthermore, only 22.8% of respondents ‘strongly agree’ that the [UN] International Panel on Climate Change reports accurately reflect a consensus within climate science.” [Emphasis added]

NO! In an “open letter” to the Canadian Government entitled “Open Kyoto to Debate,” published in the Canadian National Post in 2006, 60 scientists said:

“When the public comes to understand that there is no ’consensus’ among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.” [Emphasis added]

NO! Dr. Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, wrote:

“[Al] Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commending public attention.” [Emphasis added]

NO! As reported in PRNewswire-USNewswire, Washington, DC, September 12, 2007:

An analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen warmings similar to ours, 2) present Modern Warming is linked strongly to the variations in the sun’s irradiance.

The list of these scientists may be found in the recent Avery and Singer book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

The public needs to understand that there is no consensus among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change.

Is there scientific consensus that “Global Warming” is true?

NO! Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all research papers on climate change published between 2004 and February 2007. The results were submitted to the scientific journal Energy and Environment.

NO! Of the 528 papers, only 38 (7%) strongly endorsed consensus. The total for implied endorsement was 45%.

NO! Only 32 papers (6%) strongly rejected consensus.

NO! However, 254 papers (49%) were neutral, neither accepting nor rejecting consensus.

NO! Only 1 paper (0.2%) made any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

NO! THIS IS NOT CONSENSUS!

Avery and Singer note: “… we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1,470 years (plus or minus 500) … The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.”

Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” – Is there any truth in it?

NO! The first casualty in this Environmental Terrorist movie is truth.

NO! The movie is full of half lies, lies and total misinformation.

Al Gore claimed that the drying up of Lake Chad was an example of global warming.

What is the truth?

The watersheds that feed Lake Chad – once the size of Vermont but now the size of Rhode Island – have been desiccated by drought since the mid-20th century. The reduction in the size of the Lake is a direct result of population increase, irrigation for agriculture, overgrazing and regional climate variability.

The Aral Sea dried up because the Russian government diverted 75% of the water going into it in order to irrigate agricultural lands.

Al Gore claimed that the disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change.

What is the truth?

Mt. Kilimanjaro is colder today than in 1970.

Studies reported in the journals Science in 2003; International Journal of Climatology in 2004; and, Journal of Geophysical Research in 2004 concluded that the snow cap of Mt. Kilimanjaro has been shrinking since 1880, the end of “The Little Ice Age,” because the forest around the mountain have been cut down, thus reducing the humidity needed to build the snow pack, and there has been a short term increase in solar heating.

Al Gore claimed that Hurricane Katrina was a direct result of global warming.

What is the truth?

It is impossible to link an individual hurricane to any type of weather or climate change. Single storms cannot be used to determine large scale long term changes. (Three strikes and you are out?)

The Environmental Terrorists are not primarily focused on the consequences of climate change. They are primarily interested in growing an industry that makes them very rich, very powerful and very famous.

Al Gore referenced the “Little Ice Age,” but not the Medieval Warm Period (“Medieval Optimum”) that preceded it.

Al Gore claimed that “… if you look at the hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record, they have all occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was 2005.” [Emphasis added]

What is the truth?

Actually, 1998 was perhaps the hottest year on record; however, since then ground temperatures have remained stable. In a similar way, ocean temperatures have not increased.

Dr. Bob Carter, noted that: “the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK), [show] that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase.”

[“There IS a problem with global warming … it stopped in 1998,” Daily Telegraph (UK), April 9, 2006.]

It should be noted that Al Gore used the extreme Canadian and United Kingdom predictions of temperature increases of 14.4 F and 5.4 F by the year 2100.

Al Gore did not use the lower increase of 1.8 F predicted by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other modelers at The National Center for Policy Analysis found the NCAR model is far more sophisticated than the Canadian or UK models. The measured rate is only 0.17 C/decade (0.306 F/decade) for the past 37 years.

If the earth is warming because of human action; why are the polar ice caps on Mars getting smaller, at the same time? Might not this indicate that an increase in solar activity was responsible and that any warming on earth was not due to human action?

Al Gore claimed sea-level would rise up to 20 feet [7 meters] because of melting ice in either Western Antarctica or Greenland. A significant length of his film was devoted to showing alarming predictions of flooding in major coastal population centers, specifically Florida, San Francisco, New York, Bangladesh, China and the Netherlands.

What is the truth?

Even the far-left UN IPCC has reported that: “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” The UN IPCC predicts that sea-level will rise only about 38.5 cm [15 inches] by 2100.

“[a] 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations, including the U.S. NAS, actually estimates a worst-case scenario of 35 inches.”

[P. Stanway, “An Inconvenient Truth for Gore,” Edmonton Sun, July 7, 2006]

Question: If sea-levels are rising rapidly, why is the Maldives Island government lobbying the European Union to help fund ocean front development there?

Melting sea ice does not raise sea-level (it lowers it); only ice melting off the land will raise sea-level. Ocean levels have been rising for centuries. Each year on average, 1 cubic mile (4 cubic Km) of Juvenile Water is added to the earth’s surface through geothermal events [volcanoes, mineral springs]. NASA found that the net ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica would raise sea-level 0.002 inches (0.05 mm)/year between 1992 and 2002: or, 2 inches (five cm)/1,000 years.

Greenland was about 1 C (1.8 F) warmer in 1925 than it is today. Yet this was only about 75 years after we came out of “The Little Ice Age.”

What is the truth?

Erik the Red sailed to uninhabited Greenland in 982 AD. Showing an intuitive flair for PR, Erik sent back word of a bountiful “green land” in order to entice others to follow him and colonize the southwestern tip of the island. Those Nordic settlements survived for nearly 500 years until disappearing at the beginning of the Little Ice Age.

An international team of scientists has drilled deep into the Greenland ice sheet and found DNA of spiders and trees. This indicates that Greenland’s ice is less susceptible to meltdown than had been predicted by computer models of climate change. “This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures.” [Emphasis added]

[Willerslev, Eske, evolutionary biologist, University of Copenhagen, Science, July 6, 2007]

An article reporting on ice core samples taken from 1.2 miles [2 Km] down (underneath the bottom of the ice cap) in Greenland found: “that the area [had once been] populated by diverse forests made up of alders, spruce, pine, and members of the yew family. Living in the trees and on the forest floor was a wide variety of insect life, including beetles, flies, spiders, butterflies and moths.” [Science, July 6, 2007, vol. 317, p. 11.]

Environmental Terrorists claim that the Polar Bears are dying from “global warming.” The truth is that Polar Bear populations are growing where it is getting warmer, and getting smaller where it is getting colder.

[Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Canadian Polar Bear Biologist, Depart. of the Environment, Gov. of Nunavut]

Grey Whale populations are also increasing in the warmer Arctic waters.

[J. Kay, San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, June 28, 2006]

Dr. Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service said: “Swimming 100 miles is not a big deal for a polar bear, especially a fat one.” [Emphasis added]

Al Gore claimed in his movie that Polar Bears were dying as a direct result of global warming.

What is the truth?

The four dead polar bears shown in the movie died when they were unexpectedly caught by a severe storm.

Al Gore claimed in his movie that some Pacific atolls had to be evacuated because of rising sea water levels.

What is the truth?

Pacific atolls have not been evacuated because of “rising” sea levels.

At a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill, Syun-Ichi Akasofu said that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.”

[Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director of the International Arctic Research Center, Fairbanks, AK, April 2007]

The Antarctic ice cap is not melting away. It is growing in its’ total amount of ice, only the surface area is changing.

“The net ice balance in Antarctica is positive; it is gaining ice.” Antarctica “will contribute to reduction in sea level because it is gaining ice … The net ice balance in Greenland is very close to neutral. … There have been three periods in the last 2,000 years in which Alaska was as warm as it is now.”

[Dr. Michaels, Climatologist] [Emphasis added]

The oceans have been cooling on average for the past 4,500 years; since the end of Noah’s Flood.

Al Gore claimed in his movie that glaciers around the world were all receding because of global warming.

The Upsala Glacier in Patagonia is retreating; however, 30 miles (50 km) away, the Perito Moreno Glacier is advancing. In fact, nearby medium-sized glaciers are stable and large-sized glaciers are advancing rapidly.

Pio XI, the largest glacier in South America is advancing very quickly.

The reason that glaciers are melting in some parts of the Andes: “climatic change in the Venezuelan Andes is linked to changes in solar activity during the Little Ice Age” and “… solar variability is the primary underlying cause of the glacier fluctuations.” [Emphasis added] [Dr. P. J. Polissar, “Solar Modulation of Little Ice Age Climate in the Tropical Andes,” June 1, 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA]

Hint: It is variations in the Sun’s temperature, not Man-made global warming, that is causing fluctuations in the glaciers!

“Glaciers are advancing in the European Arctic. These are episodic events. The Arctic does occasionally get warmer and colder. Climate change is the norm. If you want something to worry about, it would be if the climate were static. It would be like a person being dead.” [Emphasis added]

[Dr. Richard Lindzen]

For every glacier that is receding, there is one that is advancing.

Concerning consensus on “global warming” Al Gore stated, “A survey of more than 928 scientific papers in respected journals shows 100 % agreement.”

First, if there were “more than 928,” just how many were there?

Second, the 928 papers Gore mentioned were not unanimous on the issue at hand.

Third, the 928 papers were carefully hand selected and represented less than 10% of the over 11,000 relevant papers published during that time frame (1993-2006).

Al Gore claimed in his movie that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas that causes “Global Warming.”

Actually, temperature rise comes first, and then this causes Carbon Dioxide increases as more plants grow, and warmer oceans release more Carbon Dioxide than colder oceans.

NOAA has found no statistical increase in hurricanes, only the normal 40 to 50 year hurricane cycle. The increase in damages to man-made structures is due to humans continuing to build more and more buildings along coastlines and on known flood plains.

Al Gore claimed that hurricanes were continuously getting stronger and more frequent because of global warming.

The US National Hurricane Center found that 1941-1950 was the most active hurricane decade on record. Two-thirds of the largest hurricanes to hit the US between 1851 and 2004 occurred prior to 1950. Between 1961 and 2000 the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the US fell significantly.

God uses weather to judge those who are His. [Amos 4:7]

In 2005, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, made three points:

1) There is no established connection between greenhouse gases and the number of hurricanes.

2) Any future changes in hurricanes will be small and within normal variations.

3) The politics of linking hurricanes to global warming threatens to undermine support for legitimate climate research.

The Twentieth Century is neither unprecedented in its warmth nor historically aberrant.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, November 2005, pp. 1571-75

Al Gore claimed in his movie that global warming was going to stop the Gulf Stream from flowing.

What is the truth?

In order for the Gulf Stream to stop flowing, the earth would have to stop rotating! Such claims are extreme hyperbole used to promote the irrational belief system of Environmental Terrorists, like Mr. Gore.

Al Gore claimed in his movie that drought was increasing worldwide and that deserts were getting bigger because of global warming. But, since the mid-1980s, the Sahara Desert has been receding along its southern border as more rain has fallen because of “global warming.”

Al Gore claimed in his movie that “The debate is over … The scientific consensus has settled the issue of global warming.” This is obviously a false claim; there is no such consensus among scientists. The debate is contentious and going strong.

In his movie, Al Gore gave lengthy tribute to his Harvard science professor, Dr. Roger Revelle, for enchanting him with the concepts of carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. However, Dr. Revelle has utterly rejected Al Gore’s global warming extremism.

Al Gore claims to be pro-science. However, as Vice President of the US he fired any scientist in the federal government who dared to question even the most extremist pro-greenhouse doomsayers.

(National Review editorial, June 1994.)

Al Gore smears anyone who disagrees with him by calling them “pseudo-scientists,” accusing them of being bought off by the energy industry. Nothing could be further from the truth! Many competent scientists, many of them evolutionists, disagree with Gore about “global warming.”

Even Patrick Moore, the co-founder of the radically left environmental group Greenpeace, now says that we should be considering going back to clean nuclear energy.

It was the Clinton-Gore administration that, without Congressional approval, declared America’s largest deposit of clean, low-sulfur coal in southern Utah to be part of a national monument and off-limits to mining.

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook [a global warming proponent], Professor Emeritus of Geology, Western Washington University, gave remarks about Gore’s film to the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in 2007. He said that Gore’s film has: “… a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Gore claimed that: “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift similar to this” threatened change.

Dr. Easterbrook showed a slide of temperature trends for the supposed past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 major swings, including the Medieval Warm Period. He noted that these swings were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

In the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Richard Lindzen accused Gore of “shrill alarmism.”

Al Gore claimed in his movie that global warming was causing the spreading of infectious diseases, such as malaria, around the world. He implied that because of this, we were all going to die.

Dr. Paul Reiter is the Director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. In the International Herald Tribune, January, 2007, Dr. Reiter faulted Gore’s portrayal of global warming as responsible for spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the[se] unsubstantiated claims. We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen made this prophetic statement:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.” [Emphasis added]

Al Gore claimed in his movie that temperatures were at their highest level in 1,000 years.

The National Academy of Sciences USA reported that the current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1300, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the Medieval Warm Period. (NAS report, June, 2006)

to get the desired results.

How can environmental terrorists predict climate and weather conditions 20, 50 or 100 years from now, when these models cannot predict if it will rain next Thursday? More than 30 major computer climate models exist; no two agree on the results.

In the 1990s, “global warming” coincided with the closing of thousands of temperature reporting stations, mostly in the colder parts of Russia. If you leave out temperatures from the colder parts of the world, the average will obviously go up. [From 1989 through 2000, about two-thirds of the world’s temperature recording stations were closed, mostly in the former USSR. At the same time, the average global temperature, for the decade of 1990-2000, went up about two-thirds of a degree C.]

Weather stations in poorer countries are maintained differently than in wealthier countries. The “global mean surface temperature” means about as much as the “global mean telephone number.”

Global warming may produce the counter-effect of global cooling. Global warming would produce more evaporation leading to increases in rain, snow and perhaps trigger a sudden new ice age.

What Is The Historically Correct Perspective?

The earth was significantly warmer thousands of years ago. Many dinosaur fossils have been found recently near the South Pole. Dinosaur bones and tracks have been found on Svalbard (north of Norway); on the North Slope of Alaska; in northern Canada from the Yukon Territory to the Queen Elizabeth Islands; and, in central Siberia.

In 1883, fossil Breadfruit leaves and fruit were found in western Greenland. Breadfruit only grows between temperatures of 59 to 101 F (+15 to +38 C).

The Medieval Warm Period was produced by a “solar maximum” that occurs in roughly 1,000-1,500 year cycles. From 1350 AD to 1850 AD we had the “Little Ice Age,” Frost Fairs on the frozen River Thames, and in 1816 “The Year Without Summer.”

Another solar warm cycle began around 1850 and we are at the end of it now, with a cooling trend to be expected soon.

In 1999, Duck-billed dinosaur bones were found on the North Slope of Alaska. A duck-bill dinosaur tooth was recently found on James Ross Island. Eight types of dinosaurs have now been found on the North Slope in Alaska. All eight have also been found at lower latitudes.

In 2004, cores of the Alpha Ridge (bottom of the Arctic Ocean) proved that in the past the water temperature had been 59 to 68 F (+15 to +20 C).

At this time, the Southern Hemisphere is cooling and the Northern Hemisphere is warming slightly.

At this time, the Antarctic is getting measurably colder! At the South Pole temperatures have fallen since 1957.

During the American Dust Bowl, people were talking about global warming, but the temperatures were dropping.

In 1895, the New York Times newspaper warned of a coming new ice age. Subsequently, it ran these five headlines:

The sinking of the RMS Titanic had a supposed link to a coming new ice age. On October 7, 1912, the New York Times headline was: “Prof. Schmidt Warns us of an Encroaching Ice Age”

Sept. 18, 1924: “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”

March 27, 1933: “America in Longest Warming Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise”

May 21, 1975: “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”

Dec. 27, 2005: “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming”

Wait a minute. If in 1895 and 1924 we had signs of a coming ice age, how in 1933 could we have the longest warming period since 1776; and, how could temperatures have been rising for 25 straight years (since 1908)? The first answer is simple. We had just come out of the Little Ice Age. The second answer is that this was the political agenda of Environmental Terrorists 90 years ago.

On April 11, 2007, Dr. Plimer (Geology Professor at Adelaide U.) spoke to the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: “When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate.” [Emphasis added]

In 1801, British astronomer William Herschel reported that when sunspots were numerous, grain prices fell; when sunspots were few, grain prices rose.

In 2001, a study of cloud cover over the USA from 1900 to 1987, found that average cloud cover increased and decreased in lock step with the sun’s 11-year sunspot cycle. The most plausible cause, they said: changes in the UV light the sun delivers to the stratosphere.

The amount of cosmic rays that reach deep into the atmosphere change the amount of cloud cover. The valve controlling the flow of cosmic rays from deep in space is the sun’s magnetic field. The sun’s magnetic field fluctuates in direct proportion to the fluctuating strength of solar sunspot activity.

Clouds can cool the earth, or clouds can heat the earth. Depending on how thick and how high or low they are in altitude: low clouds cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into outer space; high clouds act as a blanket and trap heat in the atmosphere.

Peak periods of sunspot activity deliver more sunlight to the top of the atmosphere than minimum periods of sunspot activity. During swings in sunspot cycles, the largest change is in UV light.

Much of this UV light is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere (6 to 30 miles up). The rise and fall of UV light alters the amount of heat-trapping ozone. Instead of warming the troposphere (0 to 6 miles up), changes in solar UV output redistribute heat, cold, rain, etc. Clearly, it is the sun that is driving weather and climate fluctuations.

1970 – Birth of the Modern Environmental Terrorist Movement

The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970.

The EPA was formed in July, 1970.

The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970.

The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972.

The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973.

The environmental extremists of the 1960s and 1970s now hold powerful political positions and their ideas permeate public policy.

Since 1970, a flood of environmental propaganda and eco-myths have followed:

Hairspray is depleting the Ozone!

The internal (infernal) combustion engine is evil!

Technology contaminates the environment!

Capitalism is evil, evil, evil!

Humans are unnatural and a cancer on the land!

To the true blue environmental terrorist the issue is their irrational religion.

Friends of the Earth International (2007): “[T]he Earth is a creation to be honored and respected as our Mother.”

Their religion drives them into a form of insanity. For example:

Researchers in Norway claim that their national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting over 2,000 kilos (over two tons) of carbon dioxide per year. (Spiegel, August 21, 2007)

But, Australian scientists are very happy because kangaroos produce almost no methane. (Fox News, December 6, 2007)

The environmental terrorist group, Optimum Population Trust, insists that children are the greatest threat to the planet; that parents should have one less child in order to stop global warming and save the planet. (The Australian, March 7, 2007)

In the 1970’s these Environmental Terrorists, and their ilk, told us boldly that we were about to enter the “Twilight Zone of Humanity” because we were heading irrevocably into the next “Ice Age.”

1974 Global Cooling Disaster Remembered

In 1974, Time magazine warned its readers that the world may be on the verge of a catastrophic climate disaster: Global Cooling! Time reported a three decade-long cooling and other “weather aberrations.”

In 1974, Time magazine, a University of Toronto climatologist [referring to global cooling] said:

“I don’t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.” [Emphasis added]

On July 24, 1974, Time magazine published an article entitled: “Another Ice Age?” The first paragraph included:

“… However widely the weather varies … when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatologically Cassandra’s are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” [Emphasis added]

The last paragraph of the article was:

“Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climate balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.” [Emphasis added]

1975 Global Cooling Disaster Remembered

In Science Digest, 1975, Douglas Colligan wrote: “[T]he world’s climatologists are agreed. … Once the freeze starts, it will be too late.” [Emphasis added]

In 1975, Newsweek warned: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production … The drop in food production could begin quite soon. … The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” [Emphasis added]

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek magazine printed an article entitled “The Cooling World” in which it quoted the National Academy of Sciences, USA:

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.”

In 2006, US Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, commented on Fox News that the current global warming climate scare had no more basis in reality than the last climate scare (Global Cooling 1954-1980).

“This whole concept of another Ice Age is probably the greatest single hoax ever perpetuated on the American people … And it was until this thing [meaning the current scare over “global warming”] came along.” [Emphasis added]

1976 Global Cooling Disaster Remembered

In 1976, Newsweek warned that because of global cooling: “… this trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

Back in 1954, Fortune, had published an article saying: “Despite all you may have read, heard, or imagined, it’s been growing cooler – not warmer – since the Thirties.” [Emphasis added]

In 1976, Lowell Ponte wrote in The Cooling:

“It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with … Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”

While using poor science and grossly overstated, he gives us the essence of the concern that Environmental Terrorists had about “Global Cooling” in 1976.

2006 Global Cooling Disaster Predicted?

In November 2006, the Russian Academy of Science warned about the ice age returning.

What Is The Historically Correct Perspective?

What causes climate changes?

In the September 2006 New Scientist they wrote that it was: “prolonged lulls in the sun’s activity – the sunspots and dramatic flares that are driven by its powerful magnetic field.” [Emphasis added]

The “sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” [Emphasis added]

Svensmark, H. and E. Friis-Christiensen, The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing, Danish National Space Center Scientific Report, March 2007

With apologies to the Democratic Party pundit, James Carville, maybe: “It’s the sun, stupid.”

What Are The Facts About Recent Global Temperatures?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has accurate US temperature measurements from 1895 to 2008. Things got warmer from 1895 to the 1940s. The steepest trend was from 1910 to 1935. This was before significant use of fossil fuels. The US cooled for the next three and a half decades, sparking the “global cooling” panic that ended in the late-1970s.

The rate of warming from 1910 to 1934 (a period of limited fossil fuel use) is steeper than the rate of warming from 1975 to 1998 (a period of significant fossil fuel consumption).

1934 and 1998 were the two hottest years on record: 1934 was the height of the Dust Bowl and 1998 was an extreme El Nino spike. From 1975 to 1998, the country warmed. During that time, fossil fuel consumption went up and solar heating increased because of an increase in sun activity.

There has been a slight cooling trend since 1998 despite fossil fuel consumption increases in China and India. In 2007, the U.S. absorbed more CO2 than it emitted, while the EU countries emission of CO2 has gone up steadily since the Kyoto Protocol was signed.

In summary, according to environmental terrorists:

From 1895-1930: We Experienced Catastrophic Natural Global Cooling

From 1930-1954: We Experienced Catastrophic Natural Global Warming

From 1954-1980: We Experienced Catastrophic Man-made Global Cooling

From 1980-2008: We Experienced Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming

NOTE: They change their opinion in 25 to 35 year cycles!

Man is not in charge of the climate and the weather. God is in charge of the weather!

“… for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5:45

What Are Some The Potential Benefits If Global Warming Were True?

1) The fabled Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific would become a reality cutting shipping time in half. In August, 2005, the Russian ship Akademik Fyodorov, became the first ship to cross the North Pole without the use of an icebreaker.

2) If Arctic ice melted significantly, 25% of the earth’s oil and natural gas reserves would become available for extraction.

3) Less Arctic ice would open new fishing grounds and tourist destinations.

In 2001, Russia applied to the UN to annex one half of the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole, as a part of Russian territory based on the new ability to map the ocean floor. In 2007, two Russian research submarines attempted to plant flags on the Arctic Ocean floor in a bid to further the Russian claim to the North Pole as a part of their sovereign territory.

4) Melting icebergs calved from glaciers release nutrients yielding a five fold increase in phytoplankton and higher predators out to a distance of 2.3 miles. (Science News, July 7, 2007, Vol. 172, p. 13)

5) Perhaps the Vikings could reestablish their settlements in Greenland that they had to abandon 600 years ago at the beginning of the “Little Ice Age.”

6) Cold kills while heat kills less often. According to the UK Department of Health, if the southern UK warmed by 3 C by 2050, then 2,000 more would die from summer heat waves while 20,000 fewer would die from cold in the winter.

7) If the temperature in Canada were to rise only about 3 F, the wheat growing area would reach as far north as Hudson Bay, and grapevines could be cultivated in southern Canada.

8 ) If the Earth were warming, more water would be evaporating, producing more rain for food crops and timber production; and, producing more snow that would rebuild the polar ice caps; and, more glaciers would be advancing.

9) If the Earth were warming, there would be longer growing seasons and warmer winter nights.

Every global warming period of the past has produced a net increase in economic and social benefits!

“Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease.” [Emphasis added]

(Avery, Dennis and S. Fred Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years)

What Actually Causes Global Warming?

1) Natural processes such as sunlight, heat released by volcanoes and the heat released by radioactive decay in the earth’s crust.

2) The four solar cycles; combined with the increase and decrease in sun spots and the increase and decrease in the sun’s magnetic field.

“Humans have long known since the invention of the telescope that the earth’s climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space – amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.” [Emphasis added]

(Avery, Dennis and S. Fred Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years)

3) The Earth’s wobble and eccentric orbit exposes the surface to varying amounts of heat at different periods of time.

4) Snow and ice reflect heat, but water absorbs it.

5) A clear sky allows solar heating of surfaces.

6) Land use changes, natural or Man-made.

7) The older the Sun gets, the hotter it burns!

8 ) Surface temperatures rise in city areas as more asphalt and cement are poured in those areas. (Atmospheric temperatures are not increasing!)

9) “Greenhouse Gases,” such as naturally occurring water vapor (70%), CO2 (26%), methane (9%), ozone (7%) and nitrous oxide have a warming effect. CO2 is NOT a major “Greenhouse Gas,” it is a natural by-product of human beings and animals; it is released by plants upon death! Nitrous oxide is produced by microbes in the soil; methane is produced in swamps, bogs, rice paddies, cows and human beings.

“Greenhouse gases” are necessary for life to exist on earth, without them we would freeze to death!

Man-made combustion of fuels causes only 2% of the greenhouse gases that keep our atmosphere habitable – the other 98% are produced by purely natural causes!

THE WORLD NEEDS MORE CO2!

“‘There will be significant cooling very soon,’ asserted solar scientist David Archibald at the ‘Greener Skies 2008’ conference designed to persuade the airline industry to cut back on production of greenhouse gases to fight global warming. Archibald asserted climate change is mostly dictated by solar cycles, not CO2 levels, and he warned they should figure ways of increasing CO2 output. ‘In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century. There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful … CO2 is not even a little bit bad it’s wholly beneficial.’” [Emphasis added] (World Net Daily April 03, 2008)

What Actually Causes “Global Cooling”?

1) Volcanic eruptions: In 1991-1992 Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines, cooled the earth 1.26 F (0.7 C) in only one year. The eruption dumped between 20 and 30 megatons of sulphur dioxide (SO2), other aerosols and gases into the atmosphere. These aerosols and gases encircled the earth between the tropics in only three months, blocking out and reflecting heat and light back into outer space. In addition, there was a loss of 15% of the Ozone Layer to record lows in 1992-1993.

2) Dust Storms: During the American Dust Bowl (1930 to 1938), the dust blocked out 15% of sunlight and dropped the temperature 1.8 F (1 C). The American Dust Bowl was caused by an extended El Nino.

3) The Variations of the Earth’s Orbit: The earth’s orbit isn’t a perfect circle; therefore the earth is slightly closer and or further from the sun at different times.

4) Smoke from Forest Fires: Whether started by natural causes (lightening strikes) or the activity of human beings, large quantities of  aerosols and gases are injected into the atmosphere by forest fires.

5) The Earth is Cooling Down: The earth is radiating more heat into outer space every day than it receives from the sun. The center core temperature of the earth is 13,000 F (7,200 C). The earth has consistently lost heat since it was created.

6) Variations in Solar Activity: The sun is not a totally uniform heat source. The sun undergoes periodic increases and decreases in sunspot activity and magnetic field activity! These variations have a direct, significant and demonstrable effect on weather and climate changes on earth.

Nature Is Not Pristine!

Volcanic eruptions are perhaps the worst “offenders.” Here is a quick review of some of the record holders:

1) The eruption of the volcano Laki, in Iceland, in 1783 is considered to be Britain’s forgotten disaster. The event was catastrophic. The volcano spewed out such a large amount of sulphur dioxide and sulfuric acid that Britain was enveloped in a thick smog and the sun was described as “covered like it was soaked in blood.” The naturalist Gilbert White said it was “unlike anything known within the memory of man.” The poet William Cowper lamented in the summer of 1783 that, “such multitudes are indisposed by fevers in this country that farmers have difficulty gathering their harvest, the labourers having been almost every day carried out of the field incapable of work and many die.”

The eruption lasted for weeks and covered much of Western Europe. About one third of the population of Iceland died. Recent research by Dr. John Grattan of Aberystwyth University, Wales, has established that it was the greatest natural disaster in modern British history.

2) The eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815 killed 92,000 people, hundreds of thousands of animals, spewed ash up to 800 miles away, and produced “The Year Without Summer” in 1816.

3) The eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau (Krakatoa), in 1883, produced “The Sound Heard ‘Round The World.” The sound of the eruption was heard in downtown London, England. The eruption killed 36,000 people.

Nature Is Not Pristine!

High winds are powerful, destructive and polluting.

On November 13, 1970, a hurricane hit Bangladesh: killing between 500,000 and one million people.

On March 18, 1925, a tornado touched down from southeastern Missouri, passing through southern Illinois and lifting up in southwestern Indiana staying on the ground for 219 miles. The result was that 625 people died, 2,000 more were injured and there was $1.7 billion in property damages (in 2007 dollars).

Nature Is Not Pristine!

Floods are powerful, destructive and polluting.

In 1887, the Huang He (Yellow River) in China flooded: between 900,000 and two million people died.

In 1931, the Huang He flooded: 1 to 3.7 million people died.

Nature Is Not Pristine!

Earthquakes are powerful, destructive and polluting.

In 1556, the earthquake in Shensi, China, killed 830,000 people.

On Boxing Day, December 26, 2004, an earthquake measuring between 9.1 and 9.3 occurred off the coast of Southwestern Indonesia killing over 230,000 people in 11 countries. The earthquake released 9,560 giga-tons (9.56 billion tons) of TNT energy (equivalent to 550 million times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima), or about 370 years of energy use in the United States at 2005 levels. Between 3,300 ft. and 16,500 ft. under water, it lifted a section of land 600 miles long upward 13 to 16 feet and sliding it 33 feet sideways.

Therefore, the question must be asked: “If volcanoes, winds, floods and earthquakes can accomplish so much in so little time, why is supposed human activity receiving the full blame for supposed and unproven global warming?”

One volcanic eruption may release more toxic gases in a given year than all human activity in that same year. Perhaps the blame is placed on human beings because you cannot tax nor legislate against a volcano or an earthquake. Could it be that the promotion of left-wing politics is the real reason that the truth is being withheld from the general population?

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back! On July 10, 2007, it snowed in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for the first time since June 22, 1918 = 89 YEARS!

“The Northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades. The snow cover is the greatest since 1966. … the one exception – Western Europe, which had, until the weekend of Feb. 16–17 when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and Southern China, the US and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of the snow.”

“Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reported the heaviest snow falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.”

(Feb. 18 2008 London Daily Express)

At the same time; Athens News reported that a raging snow storm blanketed most of Greece, plunging the country into subzero freezing temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill in the wider Athens area, ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses were closed.

Are the world’s ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just “scare mongering” by the advocates of global warming?

It is scare mongering! The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. The report reveals that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million sq. miles in Jan. 2007 to just 1.5 million sq. miles in October 2007 are almost back to their original condition.

The Feb. 18 2008 London Daily Express report showed that there is nearly one third more ice in Antarctica than usual; challenging global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments against global warming!

GLOBAL COOLING CONTINUES!

The Maldives are not drowning and sea levels are not rising according to Swedish geophysicist, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (March 28, 2009). He is Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, and an expert on sea levels. He said that the alarming warnings of Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC are “the greatest lie ever told. … the sea is not rising. It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” He was asked to be an expert reviewer of the last two UN IPCC reports and was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one.”

On March 9, 2009, England’s Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the industrial west must send funds to the poor drowning people of the Maldives. The plea was totally unnecessary. Mörner reminds us of a real problem – the climate change debate has been hijacked by politicians and journalists.

The Antarctic Ice Cap is growing according to satellite imaging by the British Antarctic Survey (May 2/3, 2009). The Antarctic Sea Ice is growing by approximately 100,000 sq km (39,000 sq mi) per decade for the last 30 years. Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division’s glaciology program, commented that there was no indication the Antarctic ice cap was melting. Given that 90% of the world’s ice is in the Antarctic this is even more important. The May report noted that the temp trend in the Antarctic has been “Cooling 0.45 degrees per decade.”

Australian Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett (responsible for Antarctica) claimed the breakup of the Wilkins Ice Shelf would cause sea-level rises of 6 m (20ft) by the end of the century, and that ice was melting across the continent. However, the photo used in support of his view was taken 13 months earlier (March 2008) and recent studies have revealed the ice is increasing. Some of his colleagues were annoyed at him for “weighing into the climate change debate with exaggerated claims;” and, Craig Emerson, Minister for Small Business has “cast doubt on the assertion that scientific evidence was conclusive for a catastrophic meltdown of the polar ice caps if global warming was not curtailed.” Hopefully this crack in political solidarity may let in some more truth that may hopefully restrain politicians from taxing people to solve a problem that doesn’t exist!

If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death!

——————————————–

Creation Worldview Ministries (CWM) is a missionary association taking the truths of biblical foundations to the Church, both domestic and foreign, and to the secular world. CWM is an evangelistic and discipling ministry seeking to bring salvation and maturity in Jesus Christ, by lifting Him up that He might draw all people unto Himself.

The purpose of CWM is to provide biblical and scientific seminars in churches and public forums, i.e. universities, radio and TV broadcasts, etc.; to provide a resource center for information distribution, education, consulting, missionary evangelism and discipleship concerning the truths of biblical foundations, especially Biblical Scientific Creationism; to be a part of the revitalization of classical Christian intellectual activity for the preservation, promotion and propagation of a Christian Biblical World View.

CWM additionally makes secular presentations to promote intellectual honesty, circumspect views and critical thinking concerning the question of origins.

http://www.creationworldview.org