The Greatest Story Ever Made Up.

Christian apologists like to point to nice stories in the Bible as its “real” message.   Jesus, being born in a manger, healing people or dying on the cross are nice.

But there is only one story popular enough to attract a $21 million planned tourist attraction.  It is the best “we got even with you”  story in the Bible.  It’s Noah’s ark.

According to the writer who has seen a mock up of the display, it will include life like human figures screeming for mercy.  Designers could have left this out, but they knew what they are  doing.

I was at a gathering where religion was discussed a couple of weeks ago when a minister complained about children’s Sunday School teaching materials featuring the Noah story.  “It is one of the cruelist  stories in the Bible. No wonder people ridicule us.” he said.

Unfortunatly for the good Pastor, it’s the story’s cruelness that makes it popular.  None of the nice stories kill sinners.

I’m not saying Christians are worse than other groups in this pleasure. Everyone enjoys it when their side wins.  The Noah’s ark display will offer Christians the chance to experience this great victory.

The story, of course, did not happen.  There is not enough water in the earth’s atomophere to float an ark. There wasn’t enough room for all the species of life on earth.

A great story is one people want to believe, that’s Noah.

Join in  our discussion on FaceBook at Red River Freethinkers.  Thanks.

112 Responses

  1. Henry

    Jon: “The story, of course, did not happen.”

    And atheists/agnostics/”freethinkers”/”agnostic-theists” say they don’t know. It sounds like Jon now knows.

    1. Demosthenes

      Henry : “say they don’t know.”

      You are right Henry, it is rather highly unlikely to have happened.

  2. entech

    Jon, it must be true “its in the book and the book don’t lie!” (who was the American comedian who used to say that all the time – someone Hay?)
    But it does become a problem when you have to take all the stories as true and then reconcile them. Thou shalt not kill, unless I tell you to? etc. and then then you kill everyone and their relatives and their animals – but save the little girls for yourselves.

    You can’t have it all ways, it can’t all be true and be reconciled with a just God, just ask Job. So when it comes to interpretation, to picking and choosing, who is qualified to do the choosing, Henry? Heaven forfend.

  3. Henry

    Jon: “There is not enough water in the earth’s atomophere to float an ark.”

    Maybe they had global warming. As Algore would say, the north pole icecap (otherwise known as sea ice) melted, and it raised the sea level.

    1. Dustin White

      Still not enough water. There is not enough water on the planet to flood the entire planet, whether or not it is frozen. Simply, a global flood is completely impossible, and there is actual evidence for such an event.

      1. Henry

        The global warming and Algore reference should have been a clue of absurdity pointing to humor. It was also a test. The exclusive reference to floating, melting sea ice causing sea level change should be a scientific red flag. Ice floating in water has no impact on water level. A melting icepack on land does (i.e. greenland and the antarctic). You were sleeping.

        More seriously, we do not know. You do not know. What was the contour of the earth at the time? Are you assuming the contour was statically the same as it is now? Where does the Bible say the water came from? What has to happen geologically for the water to come from the one particular source?

        1. Henry 10:58 “What was the contour of the earth at the time?”

          Just as some of us have thought. Henry is a flat earther. The earth was flat then, it still is. When police report someone missing, it’s because they fell off the edge. 🙂

        2. Dustin White

          I actually do know, or at least I know what is most probable. It really doesn’t matter what the contour of the Earth is. Unless it was completely flat, there is not enough water to flood the entire world. And even then, it wouldn’t be the massive flood that is described. We do know, according to the Bible account, that there were mountains during that time. To cover even the lowest peak of any mountain, still is not doable with the water in the world. It just isn’t possible.

          Of course though, the contour of the world would have changed, but that really doesn’t mean much here. Not to mention that geologically speaking, there is not a single record of such an event. If there was such a massive flood, there should be geological markings all over the world, but that simply is not the case.

          As for where the Bible says the water came from, really isn’t a logical explanation. It rose up from the Earth, and fell on the Earth. Now, assuming that there was enough water inside the Earth, and the geysers would be able to expel this amount of water, the gasses that go along with that would kill everything. Not to mention that the amount of water that would have been needed, that would have been trapped in the Earth, would have caused the entire Earth to basically act like quicksand. The saturation of the ground that would have been required for that amount of water simply is not possible.

          If it came from above, again, not a logical explanation. There has been the suggestion of this dome sort of construct, but if we assume that that broke, and all this water came plummeting to Earth, the humidity level that would be caused by such an act would actually make people lungs fill up with water and essentially they would drown. It simply isn’t possible.

          And even if we disregard the technicalities of how the water got here, there is the problem that there is no time in our past that all civilization seems to have been wiped out. If we look at the standard dating for the flood, we can look elsewhere in the world and see a variety of civilization flourishing. In fact, in pretty much any dating of this flood, we can see human life flourishing elsewhere, which does not appear to be interpreted by a global flood.

          So if we actually look at this from any logical position, it becomes clear that a global flood didn’t happen. And looking that the story from a literary perspective, it is clear that it was written as a myth (portions of the story are borrowed from other myths), and that it existed in multiple forms. It wasn’t ever meant to be taken literal, but instead, as myths do, portray a truth. To take it as a literal event, it completely takes away from the truth that was meant to be conveyed by the story.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            According to the USGS, a smooth earth, (sphere) would yeild a water depth of 1.6 miles. Look it up. There is plenty of allowance for some irregularities. A “mountain” in the Red River Valley could be nothing more than a hill or a bump elsewhere. That could be a matter of perspective, and translation. We broached this topic months ago, and Jon’s response was the same. He couldn’t even consider a “lumpy” sphere if I remember right. How “lumpy” would it be necessary to cover is a guess. How many lumps, and how big are the “lumps” is speculation. To him, mountins must be mountains according to his specifications. Not real consideration for the science of techtonics. It is said by geologists that the Appelachian mountains were as high as the Himalayan mountains, which were a shallow sea floor earlier. The Black Hills could be Lumps. I’ve read that Summit SD is the highest geographical spot between the Appalachians and the Black Hills. There is another lump for you. And then there are all the deep sea trenches. This considers the existing water.

          2. Henry

            “If there was such a massive flood, there should be geological markings all over the world, but that simply is not the case.

            Yes. Look around and take a geology course at the tri-college. Dr. Schwert would be an excellent resource. He and I may not agree on all things, but I am confident he could teach you a little bit about the local geology.

          3. Dustin White

            Wanna B Sure- A smooth Earth simply is not how the Earth was during the supposed time period of the flood though. We know this through the writings of other authors from around that time period, plus through what science tells us.

            And yes, there is a matter of perspective in the translation of words; however, the Hebrew here doesn’t signify a hill or a small bump. It is more than a hill or the like.

          4. Dustin White

            Henry- I’m sure Dr. Schwert could point out geological markers of a flood in the Red River Valley. If he couldn’t he should be fired. Even I, a non-professional, and one who has only taken introductory classes on the subject could do that. The reason is quite simple, because the Red River Valley floods quite often.

            However, finding geological markers of floods in areas that are known to flood quite regularly is not the same as finding flood markers of a massive flood all over the world. Completely different. And really, there are no such markers.

          5. Dustin 12:53 Interesting Henry should bring up Dr. Schwert. I know him and he has never said there are geological markers for a world wide flood. This phony reference to a world wide marker came up a couple of years ago here. Another poster claimed there was such evidence but no credible source was ever nailed down. That’s because it just could not have happened.

          6. Henry

            Jon, like I said, I don’t think Dr. Schwert and I would agree on some things. He did agree to give me a nice grade one time long ago, in a land far, far away. I referenced him because I respect him, even though he for the longest time was in error on one thing which I see he has now updated and corrected on his website.

            He could advise Dusty that we are living above an old inland seabed. Dusty may still be thinking of river flooding markers, though (“markers of floods in areas that are known to flood quite regularly”. I am content to let him think that.

          7. Wanna B Sure

            Dustin; Black hills 7244 ft at the highest peak, all else lesser . Mt. Rushmore 5725. Called mountains by any standard, or any peoples, Hebrew or not. Appalachians 6220. Summit Sd. 1700 ft. All bumps in an overview. I don’t know what timeframe they or the others were formed in relation to each other. The couteau, (Sisseton hills) goes all the way from Sd. ND border into Iowa. A glacial morane of a later date, as is the entire Cape Cod area. Much of the elevation of the US is not much more than 1000 ft. My only point is the mountains of today need not be the height of a much earlier earth, nor the deep sea trenches as deep. To assum that may be assuming too much. Then, there is the question if “world flood” was the then “known world”. We don’t know, and speculation on either side of the argument solves nothing. I don’t loose any sleep over it, but I do find it a bit amusing that there are those who assume the water would have to have been 30000 feet above the current sea level so as to cover Mt. Everest to debunk “the flood”, whatever it was. That is my main point.

          8. Henry

            We also have the Turtle Mountains in ND and a hill called White Butte. A mountain or hill is in the eye of the beholder.

    2. entech

      Actually it is thought that something like that is a candidate for the event that turned into your myth and magic.
      First up though you will have to admit that the world is more than 10,000 years old, not sure how you feel about that you are very circumspect about that sought of thing, guess it is more fun if you don’t leave yourself too open.

      The planet has changed in many ways over the millions of years it has existed, there was once a period known as snowball earth, when the ice caps reached almost to the equator, at this time so much water was bound up in the ice that sea levels were a lot lower, so much so that much of what now appear as short sea passages were at one time land bridges, or at least very short ‘hops’ across the water, like the Red Sea at Aden, you could have walked from Africa into Arabia, around the southern coastline and into the fertile crescent. At this time the Gulf (Persian, Middle East, Arabian whatever modern politics wants to call it) was probably a dry and fertile valley, a veritable paradise.

      One school of thought has it that the original Eden is now under the waters of the Gulf. The geography as described matches, four rivers and so on, as the ice melted the inhabitants of the valley were driven out by the rising sea water, it wasn’t God that drove humanity from the Garden it was The Flood.

      Further north it is thought that the Black Sea originally a fresh water glacial lake underwent a dramatic increase in size when then rising levels of the Mediterranean sea broke through. About 8000 years ago! There are a few other deluge stories around including the Mediterranean itself being flooded from the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar.

      Lots of catastrophic mega flood and catastrophic deluge stories from around the world, embedded in racial memory, all leading to an amalgamation of the all the myths into one Noah’s Ark. But that is appropriate as so much of your mythology is common throughout the region, all part of the magic you know. The similarities in Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian mythologies does not actually indicate that the Hebrew story borrowed from far and wide for their creation story, the brilliance and magic comes from the fact that these similarities were deliberately planted in order to make them more familiar and therefore more acceptable when the real thing came along.

      1. Stanta

        Entech….again, very few Christians are young earthers. Catholics aren’t and they comprise the largest group of Christians.

        1. entech

          Stan, I agree, Catholicism especially and Christians generally are not “young earth” people, scientific thought is much more realistic.
          I was talking to Henry and his “algore” and sea levels rising. Unfortunately a lot came in between, I really must get the indentation right or at least nominate the time and sender.

      2. Henry

        endwreck: “The planet has changed in many ways over the millions of years it has existed, there was once a period known as snowball earth, when the ice caps reached almost to the equator, at this time so much water was bound up in the ice that sea levels were a lot lower”

        No. Jon and Dusty don’t grant significant change to accomodate a worldwide flood. Therefore, you must be wrong.

        1. Dustin White

          I actually do grant significant change in the environment. However, there simply is no evidence for a worldwide flood. Even with the vast changes in the environment, there was never enough water.

          And even, lets just pretend now, there was. There is no geological evidence for such a world wide flood. If there was a world wide flood, what would be expected are geological markers throughout the entire world that pointed to such a flood. We don’t have that though.

          1. Henry

            Dusty: “Even with the vast changes in the environment, there was never enough water.”

            1.6 miles deep is not enough? Interesting.

            Dusty: “There is no geological evidence for such a world wide flood.”

            That is not true. There are specific issues not addressed by a worldwide flood for which there is no answer. However, much evidence of a flood is present in the world.

          2. Henry

            Already mentioned some evidence.

            But you should really follow the thread. Jon made the original claim. You piled on with your original 5:47. “Still not enough water.” In other words, really dusty.

            The balls in your court. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence from Jon’s original representation of fact or your piling on. Instead, you put the onus on others.

        2. entech

          More impeccable logic from “the creationist”. Equivalent to, I don’t agree, therefore you must be wrong.

          1. entech

            The first true thing you have said. It is indeed time for my nap, just home from lunch and my one glass of wine for the month, very sleepy. Not sure if the lunch is the cause of the sleepiness or your deadly boring repetition of old rubbish.

  4. Michael Ross

    “The story, of course, did not happen. There is not enough water in the earth’s atomophere to float an ark. There wasn’t enough room for all the species of life on earth.”
    At least some scientists disagree.

    A couple of articles to consider:

    Did Noah’s Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
    by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

    An ‘Impossible’ Task?
    by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

    Read and be wise.

    The question of putting all animals on earth on the ark was given to a freight company that loaded livestock on rail cars and they calculated that given the dementions of the ark given in Genesis that it was indeed possible.

    1. Michael 5:42 “At least some scientists diagree.”

      Michael–Please be a little more serious. These articles are from a creationist propaganda publication. They do not address the principle question, was there enough water to float an ark? Taking all the moisture known in the earths atmosphere and spreading it over the knows amount of earth surface yields 6-8″.

      1. Michael Ross

        Just deny any evidence that opposes your world view. Is that science? Science seeks the truth wherever it leads.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Creation isn’t the current topic. Water levels making “the flood” is. More diversion. Techtonics is a science.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            What makes all the mountains, what makes all the deep sea trenches? What essentially makes all “the ups and downs?- – – – Techtonics.

        1. entech

          Michael, as I have said before I often agree with you, but on this issue it is as close to certain as is possible that the converse is in fact true. The ICR and similar start with Gospel and young earth and seek to contradict anything that opposes their ideas. The scientific method, prone to mistakes as it is, and subject to revision as new information is found, science must always say this is the best we know at the moment and if observation and testing contradict an hypothesis the hypothesis is wrong – creationism is the opposite, we know and you are wrong.

    2. Dustin White

      Rail cars isn’t an ark. So I don’t see how this even makes any sense. There is also the issue of food storage. Even if we could put all of the animals on an ark (which simply is impossible seeing that there are billions of species of animals), the amount of food that would be required is astronomical.

  5. Dustin White

    Jon- I like the post. I am thankful though that there is a large movement away from reading such stories literally. The main problem I see though is that there are not enough people reading the mythology for the reason that it was written. It was to convey a truth, and I think it does that (plus, reading it as mythology allows one to see the horrible situation in a different manner. I really don’t understand why people would want to see the story literally though when it does make God seem to be so petty, remorseless, and cruel).

  6. Michael Ross

    “The story, of course, did not happen”
    If you can’t wrap your little pea -brain around it, it couldn’t have happened. That God created ex nihilo (out of nothing) you reject. That matter came into being by itself out of nothing, this you will except. That life came from non-life by itself, you have no problem with. You can’t explain matter from non-matter or life from non-life but you except it because you can, in your own mind, explain the world without God to whom you will one day give an account.

    1. Dustin White

      The creation account (or more accurately the first creation account in Genesis, as there are two conflicting accounts) actually doesn’t talk about creating something from nothing. It has long been accepted by scholars and theologians that Genesis depicts God creating everything from what was already there. This is based on a careful reading of the passage. As in, we have it said that when God was creating the heavens and Earth, the Earth was void. It is from this void that God begins separating the chaos from the order. If one really reads the account (which is mythological. Reading it literally takes away the beauty of the passage) God is using what is already there to form everything else.

      Also, your understanding of evolution, or more specifically, the origin of life, isn’t quite correct. The idea isn’t that life just popped into existence from nothing. Exactly how life first originated on Earth (or the building blocks of life) is debated. But life didn’t create itself, it evolves. It doesn’t come from non-life but is formed through chemical reactions, from the basic building blocks, and evolved. Now, that is an overly simplified explanation, but suffice it to say, the manner in which you are portraying the origin of life just isn’t correct.

      1. Stanta

        Dustin, the most basic cell requites 14 steps in the process of creating energy, leave one out it doesn’t happen. Besides that the first organism that could do that would then have to multiply somehow. Look into the inner cell of that most basic oragaism and see how many organals are required to make it work. Just the cell wall alone is complicated. It must contain the cell but let only the materials needed by the cell to enter and refuse material that would kill the cell. It must also allow the waste to exit. Even too much water or too little are controlled by the cell wall, too much it bursts, too little it collapses. And we are lead to believe that it was left to chance?

        As smart as we are we cannot create living cells from dead material through science.

        1. Dustin White

          As I posted elsewhere, I don’t think it has to be an either/or. I think you and I actually agree more on this (if I understand one of your later posts correctly). There could be a guiding hand in all of this. But a guiding hand doesn’t negate evolution, it just adds a theological implication to it. I think that is perfectly fine (as long as it doesn’t enter the science room).

      2. Stanta

        Dustin “It doesn’t come from non-life but is formed through chemical reactions” Chemicals are not alive. Chemical reactions are not alive. Some how life happened. Everything that lives today at some point started from dead chemicals. We have never been able to duplicate the process.

        1. Dustin White

          Stanta- Does it matter if we can’t duplicate the process? At the current projection, it will only be 10 years until we can actually do that (well less then that, but oh well). Just because we can’t do something doesn’t really mean much. For the longest time, humans could duplicate the process of flight, but that is quite different now.

          And when we really get down to it anyway, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Scientists will admit that they don’t know how the building blocks for life got here.

    2. entech

      Beautiful typo there Michael. That matter came into being by itself out of nothing, this you will except. But really quite appropriate, obviously you meant accept, not sure about Jon but I certainly do not accept that.

      I do not know where matter came from, nor how life came into existence. I think evolution explains pretty well how life changed and developed once it was in existence. I am inclined to the idea that “something” has always existed, I have never known anything else and can’t imagine “nothing”. I think cosmology explains the evolution of the universe from the initial moment, the big bang – bad expression and originally derogatory – we do not know what “banged” and as this event was the beginning, the genesis, of this universe there was nothing to bang and expand into, no time to say when it happened because time began when it happened.

      From the creation standpoint, a creator is needed and if this creation literally the start of everything from nothing this creator must external to space/time which only came into being at the moment of creation.

      From my standpoint I must explain something eternal and eternally changing, evolving and devolving, I cannot do this. I can visualise/imagine before the current universe a void, not exactly nothing, this void is a common paradigm in Eastern philosophy/religion, this is the state of existence before the Brahman woke from his sleep and gave a material form to the void in Hindu thought. Taoists don’t even try to explain, the void is where it starts and ends, where everything comes from and returns. A lot of eastern philosophy and religion speaks of things being incomprehensible, that when you try to explain you lose contact with what you are trying to explain, bit like Feynman talking about the quantum world – if you say you understand it, it is certain that you don’t.

      In opposition to the concept of a creator, a creator that exists outside of the universe, outside of space and time- where time as we know came into existence at the moment of creation and the creator “moves in mysterious way, his wonders to perform” (something I remember from schooldays), we have the void, everything there is, forever changing and unexplainable. Neither description is precise or satisfactory, both have the problem of a beginning point (who created the creator and so on). All I can say is I find a permanently existing “something”, something of which I am part, no matter how fleeting and transient, more plausible than the eternal creator, the uncreated first cause.

      You probably find my explanation silly and unsatisfactory, all I can say is that your alternative appears the same way to me.

      1. Michael Ross

        Thanks entech. I get home from work about 11:30 and am a bit tired and not too sharp. Not a great speller to begin with so I thank God I have you to correct me.

      2. Stanta

        Actually Entech, your explanation seems to cover the idea of a Creator pretty well. As yet we have to admit we know just the tinniest amount on how physics works. To think otherwise is to show hubris. The universe is more complicated then we even can comprehend, but we are still working on it. Christians and secular combine and sometimes together. After a slow start and some errors a few hundred yers ago the catholic Church has been on of the greatest contributors.

        1. entech

          Given enough time, an eternity perhaps 🙂 we will , perhaps, find out if reality is your eternity or mine.

          ps. Maybe more than the tiniest amount, but still a long way to go. Perhaps, between the non theist scientists and the Catholic scientist progress is being mad, the Catholic contribution to Cosmology is big.

          1. entech

            Henry, even a blind and blinkered creationists like you should have noticed that on this issue Stan and I are, mainly, in agreement.

            Your increasingly desperate attempts to be anything like relevant are letting you down badly.

          2. Henry

            Now you are changing your story. Your 12:17 alluded to being far apart. You are not only stuttering, but are confusing as well. That is ok. No problem.

  7. Another thought: I think back to the article I read recently by John MacArthur who wondered why Atheists have to constantly attack Christian beliefs….why are Atheists not comfortable in their own unbeleif? Is it that they have nagging guilt in them?
    Are they so uncertain about what they do NOT believe that they have to constantly rag on Christians? It is ludicrous. Atheists must be the most insecure persons on earth.

    1. Henry

      Kay: “Atheists not comfortable in their own unbeleif? Is it that they have nagging guilt in them?”

      Lacking the Comforter, they are uncontinent in their position. They appear to have their own personal hell in their unsettledness.

  8. Michael Ross

    Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation.
    (I’m sure they don’t know half what Jon, entech, and Dustin do)

    Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
    Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
    Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    Dr James Allan, Geneticist
    Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
    Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
    Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
    Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
    Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
    Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
    Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
    Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
    Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
    Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
    Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
    Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
    Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
    Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
    Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
    Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    Dr Bob Compton, DVM
    Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
    Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
    Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
    Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
    Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
    Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
    Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
    Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
    Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
    Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
    Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
    Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
    Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
    Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
    Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
    Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
    Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
    Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
    Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
    Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
    Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
    Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
    Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
    Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
    Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
    Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
    Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
    Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
    Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
    Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
    Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
    Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    Dr George F. Howe, Botany
    Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
    Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
    George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
    Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
    Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
    Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
    Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
    Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
    Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
    Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
    Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
    Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
    Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
    Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
    Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
    Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
    Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
    Dr Alan Love, Chemist
    Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
    Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
    Dr John McEwan, Chemist
    Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
    Dr David Menton, Anatomist
    Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
    Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
    Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
    Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
    Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
    Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
    Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
    Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
    Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
    Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
    Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
    Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
    Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
    Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
    Prof. Richard Porter
    Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
    Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
    Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
    Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
    Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
    Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
    Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
    Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
    Dr Ian Scott, Educator
    Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
    Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
    Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
    Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
    Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
    Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
    Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
    Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
    Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
    Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
    Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
    Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
    Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
    Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
    Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
    Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
    Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
    Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
    Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
    Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
    Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
    Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
    Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
    Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
    Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
    Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
    Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
    Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

    Discrimination against creation scientists
    Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
    Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
    Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
    Peer pressure and truth
    Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
    The not-so-Nobel decision
    The tyranny of ‘tolerance’

    Scientists of the past believed in a Creator

    Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.


    Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
    Culture Wars:
    1.Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
    2.Part 2: Ham vs Bacon

    Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
    Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
    Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
    John Wilkins (1614–1672)
    Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
    Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
    Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
    Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
    John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
    Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
    Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
    Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
    Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
    Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

    The Age of Newton
    Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
    John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
    William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
    Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
    John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
    John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
    William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
    John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
    Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
    Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
    Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
    Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
    William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
    James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
    John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
    John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

    Just Before Darwin
    The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
    Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
    William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
    Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
    Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
    John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
    Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
    Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
    Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
    John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
    Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
    Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
    Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
    Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
    David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
    William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
    William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
    Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
    Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
    John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
    Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
    Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

    Just After Darwin
    Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
    Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
    Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
    Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
    James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
    Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
    Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
    James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
    James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
    Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
    James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
    Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
    Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
    George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
    John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
    Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
    Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
    Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
    Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
    William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
    William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
    Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
    Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
    Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
    James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
    P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
    John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
    John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
    Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
    Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
    A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
    John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

    The Modern Period
    Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist (1919–2005)
    George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
    L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
    Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
    Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
    Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
    Dr Frank Marsh, Biology (1899–1992)
    Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
    Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
    William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
    William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
    Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
    Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
    Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
    Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
    Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (1928–1998)
    Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

    Scientists who are against the biblical view of creation
    A Who’s Who of Evolutionists
    What’s wrong with Bishop Spong?
    Q&A: Countering the Critics

    Other biographies and interviews of interest
    David Aikman, journalist
    Basil of Caesarea
    Hillmon Buckingham, Salvation Army Commissioner
    Calvin says: Genesis means what it says
    Steve Cardno, artist
    Lita Cosner, apologist, writer
    Betty Cuthbert, Olympic champion
    Buddy Davis, sculptor, singer
    Ralph DiCosimo, police officer at ‘ground zero’
    Pete Dobré, creationist photographer
    Shaun Doyle, Environmental Science
    Carol Drew, Creation photographer
    Chang-Sha Fang, plant scientist
    Jim Farquhar, geologist
    Sergei Golovin, geophysicist
    Russell Grigg , chemist, missionary and author
    David and Doreen Hart
    Johnny Hart, cartoonist
    Robert Jensen, photographer
    Dr Douglas Kelly, academic theologian
    Dan Lietha, cartoonist
    Dr George Lindsey, associate professor of science education
    Martin Lloyd-Jones, evangelist
    Prof. Marvin Lubenow, anthropology
    Luther on Evolution, and What was Martin Luther’s stand on Creation/Evolution? (Christian Answers Network)
    Lou Moss, photographer
    Michael Oard, atmospheric scientist
    Jules H Poirier, design engineer
    Gary Raymond, law enforcement
    Peter and Cathy Sparrow (Creation Bus)
    Prof. Hannington Enoch, zoologist, ‘The man who got me hunting down evolution!’ by David C.C. Watson, author of Myths and Miracles
    Lael Weinberger, law
    Dr John Whitcomb, theologian
    John Woodmorappe, geologist

    * Or recently deceased

    1. entech

      If there were enough space on the Internet we could probably list all those that do not agree.
      Are all of these people of the young earth flavour or do they include every scientist who is Christian, that God created everything is probably the most basic and fundamental christian belief, no creation – no nothing.

  9. Michael Ross

    Other things to remember:

    When Darwin published his “Origin of Species” in 1859 it was rejected by the scientific community and promoted by liberal theologians.

    There is the matter of tenure. If a scientist employed by a university comes out in support of creation he my lose his tenure and be unemployed.

    In junior collage I took a “concepts” class in science. A student asked what the instructor thought of the creation/evolution debate. He replied there were good arguments on both sides and that if you believed in creation you would get no argument from him. He was saying he believed in creation but could not come out and say so in that setting. I was not a Christian at the time but that stuck with me.

    There is no known mechanism for evolution and no transitional life forms and therefore should be taught as a theory and not a fact. Other theories, including creation, should also be presented.

    1. Dustin White

      The problem is that many want to make this an either/or situation instead of a both/and. The fact is, evolution occurred. The vast majority of scientists agree on this, regardless of theological views (and the list you previously pointed to really makes no difference, as the vast majority of those scientists have nothing to do with evolution. That would be like me taking a list of biologists and asking them what the best toothpaste is. They may be intelligent, but that isn’t their field of expertise, and thus, not experts on the subject. If we look at biologists, or other scientists directly involved in the study of evolution, the origins of universe, etc, you will find that 99.99% of them all agree that evolution is a fact).

      But that doesn’t mean that one can’t accept both. One can believe that God is the ultimate cause, and that God used evolution. There is nothing wrong with that. And really, that is the stance in which most Christians are now leaning, that both can exist. One can have a both/and viewpoint of the subject.

      And there are known mechanism for evolution, as well as a variety of transitional life forms. One mechanism that is quite obvious, and that is the survival of the fittest, as in, natural selection. Genetic drift is also another mechanism that has been observed. Mutation has also been observed. Each of these are observed mechanism for evolution. Transitional life forms have also been found. The Archaeopteryx is a great example of this. Even within human evolution, one can find a variety of transitional forms. Denying them does not make them go away.

      Finally, creation is not a scientific theory. It simply can not fall under science, as it is not science. Not to mention, which creation account would we even teach? Genesis contains 2 distinct accounts, and one can find various other account throughout the Old Testament. There are Native American accounts of creation. There are dozens of Hindu accounts of creation. Really, when we get down to it, there are hundreds of accounts of creation. So which ones should be taught?

      1. Henry

        Dusty: “The fact is, evolution occurred.”

        Evolution is too slow to get the job done in 4.54 billion years. Much too slow. Do you have some data confirming evolution progressed in this period of time, that is from single-cell organism to human being?

          1. Henry

            Dusty: “So how could you possibly say that it is too slow?”

            Time between changes in a given population.

            Dusty: “As for data, I will just give you an online source”

            No thanks. The “Introduction” material will not likely discuss what I am seeking. The best answer I have seen is by a poster named “T”, a fine teacher. He still came a little short, but did a fine job. Science should be skeptical. Most evolutionists don’t follow that track.

          2. entech

            Hindreek, there is an old Scottish expression that seems to apply to you and yours, (translated) it says, There as none so blind as those that will not see. Look past the ancient writings and see the real world.
            Science should be skeptical. Most evolutionists don’t follow that track. I would say that it is the case that while “some” evolutionists don’t follow the skeptical path all creationists don’t follow a path at all just a very narrow hole in the ‘sieve of scripture”.

        1. I took Bio 358, Organic Evolution, from a wonderful Christian prof who said he didn’t think anybody could have explained the complexities of evolution to a bunch of sheep-herders.

          1. Stanta

            Actually, that may explain why the Bible may be a little short on detail. It was written at a time when the education was woefully short of what we enjoy. The trouble is that many secularists don’t take that into account. They think what they have been taught was available at that time.

        2. Dustin White

          If it is just who believe in God, then I don’t see a problem in that. Similar to Grandma, I took an introduction Biology course from a lovely Christian woman.

        3. entech

          People like George Lemaitre and Gregor Mendel and more recently Guy Consolmagno of the Vatican Observatory demonstrate quite clearly that there does not have to be continual conflict, where agreement can be reached it must and should be reached.

          The constant rejection of reality and invented objections from young earth creationists does not help their cause.

    2. entech

      When the Jesus messiah first appeared he was rejected by the majority of his faith, probably still is. Is it relevant.

  10. Michael Ross

    “And there are known mechanism for evolution, as well as a variety of transitional life forms. One mechanism that is quite obvious, and that is the survival of the fittest, as in, natural selection. Genetic drift is also another mechanism that has been observed. Mutation has also been observed. Each of these are observed mechanism for evolution. Transitional life forms have also been found. The Archaeopteryx is a great example of this. Even within human evolution, one can find a variety of transitional forms. Denying them does not make them go away. ”

    This is all BS. These mechanisms are only changes within species not change from one species to another. Archaeopteryx was a flying dinosaur and not a transition to a bird anymore than a bat is a transition from a mouse to a bird. Give it up Dustin!

    1. Dustin White

      Calling it BS doesn’t make it go away either. The change from one species to another is a slow and gradual change that starts within one specie. The change from one specie to another is the culmination (and this isn’t always true) of the changes that occurred in one specie.

      As for Archaeopteryx, it is considered a transitional form. Now, the thing with transitional forms is that they still fit within a different classification.

  11. Michael Ross

    Fragments and imagination: Here is a responce I sumitted to a Forum editorial showing their ignorance. It was not published. Apparently the Forum doesn’t believe its readers want the other side and want them as ignorant as they. I thought it might appropriate here:

    The Forum (Sept. 24) felt compelled to assign “Leafy Spurge” to those “religionists” that hold to the orthodox Biblical belief of Jesus’ marital status from the New Testament. Spurge is a weed, a nuisance, something to be eradicated, pulled up or poisoned. The “religionists” referred to are those who are threatened by the “scholarship” of a Harvard professor who presented a paper hyping a scrap of papyrus supposedly from the 4th century in which Jesus spoke the words “My wife”. From this fragment we are to at least consider that Jesus was married (possibly to Mary Magdalene) and that the account of Christ’s earthly life from the four Gospels is not accurate. “And what if further research”, challenges the Forum, “changes the way generally accepted historical record views Jesus’ marital status? Will the faith collapse? We doubt it.” But “doubt” is exactly what the Forum and other secular media is attempting disseminate. In other words eradicate faith as one would do with weeds.

    This not a new tactic for modernists, humanists, atheists, or whatever you want to call them. Evolutionary “science” has long used fragments to attack the biblical account of creation found in Genesis. A piece of a skull, a leg bone, or other fragments have been presented as “evidence” of a missing link between apes and humans. Sensationalized when discovered but when they are proven as fully ape, fully human, or fully neither, the scientific establishment and the media look the other way. The most famous fragment was presented as “evidence” at the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. It consisted of one tooth. The imaginations of promoters went ape (pun intended) and constructed not only a whole transitional creature, but a whole race of creatures. Similarly, the discoverers of this scrap of papyrus, about the size of a business card, have constructed a whole new theology concerning the life of Christ .

    With the “missing links”, in many cases it took years to refute the claims of a transitional life form. The tooth was eventually properly indentified as that of an extinct pig. It took only days for the Jesus’ wife claim, through the use of the internet by checking blogs of more truthful theologians, linguists, and archeologists to expose the papyrus as a modern forgery. In fact, The Smithsonian has quickly cancelled a documentary on the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”.

    We may laugh at these pseudo scientists and scholars but it not funny. In fact it is sad and pathetic, the foolishness of man when he doesn’t listen to God. True scholarship will support the Bible as fully accurate and reliable in matters science, history, and salvation.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      As long as one dosen’t read something into it unnecessarily due to speculation and hyperliteralistic bias. One must also consider the various literary forms, context, culture, and customs, and be responsible in not making absolutes out of the unknowable. It is best to say “I don’t know” when one can’t know. Ego is an enemy of this.

    2. Not the old “missing link” argument! Creationists have used that one for so long… Plug one hole and two more open up, one on either side. And when science determines a fake or a mistake, isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that what science is supposed to do? Science starts with the questions and religion starts with the answers. If you try put “creationism,” and the floating of the arc, into the scientific realm you are bound to lose.

      1. entech

        A gradual change over time leading eventually to a different species is, to me, perfectly logical. The implication is that, being gradual, you would find the difference between mother and child very tiny, often none at all. Over many generations the differences will start to become apparent, there cannot be any possible missing link in evolution.

    3. Dustin White

      The problem here isn’t with the Forum. It is with you not actually doing proper research. This scrap of papyrus was not considered by anyone in the academic world to be evidence of anything regarding Jesus. The scholar who was responsible for the discovery was actually quite clear that it was not evidence that Jesus had a wife, only that maybe, according to this late tradition, that was so.

      And really, it only took about a week after the formal announcement for the religious scholarly community to show that this was nothing more than a forgery, which was regarded as a possibility from the beginning. In fact, if you look at the first releases of this news, it was stated that this may have been a forgery. No one was trying to create a new theology, as it was accepted from the very beginning that this may be a forgery, and it was never claimed to be authentic. If you read the scholar who actually discovered the fragment (and really, size really doesn’t matter here), she was very open and clear that this may be a forgery, from the very beginning. So most of what you are saying simply is wrong.

      Plus, no one was creating a new theology based on this. Those who accepted this as true were those who already believed Jesus had a wife, and they aren’t theologians or scholars. So your whole argument fails as it is greatly exaggerating what actually happened.

      The fact though that science in general checks itself, and keeps itself honest by exposing the mistakes that it makes, or by not making definite statements, shows that there is reason to trust it. Admitting mistake is key.

        1. Dustin White

          All due respect to Jon, but he isn’t a Bible scholar. He isn’t a theologian, or a reflection of the academic world on the subject.

          Now, I don’t know his arguments for why he thinks Jesus is married (and truth be told, I think it is a possibility), but I can say that they don’t reflect what is the consensus among theologians, or scholars on the subject.

          1. Dustin 1:14 A while back I did a blog on the possibility Jesus had a wife. It was at the time of the discussion about the papyrus now of questionalble validity referring to a possible wife. My argument was having a wife and fathering children was such a cultural norm at the time of Jesus it was unlikely such a person could have had a following as a bachelor.

            I continue to have doubts about the literal Biblical character, Jesus. I am sure there were preachers named Jesus. There is no record of a Nazareth. I have little reason to think the super natural acts attributed to the Jesus actually happened. But, I digress.

          2. Dustin White

            Jon- I think the basic idea that you put forth about Jesus having a wife is logical. I’m not sure how much study you have done in historical Jesus research, but through all of my study on it (and I have read probably all of the major scholars on the subject), only one suggests that Jesus was married (John Shelby Spong). Most just don’t really talk about it, and when they do, they do mention the ideas you presented, but then also argue that we simply don’t have enough information, and that there were example of other Jews from that time who were not married. The Essenes come to mind (even though there is debate about that as well).

            Personally, I don’t think it matters if Jesus was married, and I do see it as being more probable then not. But either way, Michael is blowing things way out of proportion.

            I would agree with the rest of what you said about Jesus. The supernatural events didn’t happen (or at least weren’t supernatural). But I would disagree with your statement on Nazareth. I think that would be an interesting discussion though.

  12. Michael Ross

    Believers in Darwinism in the United States have a major problem. Almost nobody thinks they are correct.

    In 1982, a total of 9% of the people surveyed by the Gallup organization said that they believed that man evolved over millions of years, and that God had nothing to do with the process. This is straight Darwinism. It is the theory of evolution through natural selection. In 2012, 15% of those surveyed said they held to this view. In other words, 153 years after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, the Darwinists have failed to persuade 85% of the American population of the truth of their position.

    This is the case, despite the fact that Darwinists have by law captured all of the public schools, the vast majority of the universities, and most of the media, which inclues captured Hollywood, the news networks, the publishing industry, and cable television. This has been the most concerted effort in government-financed, government-regulated propaganda in the history of the United States, and it has come a cropper. The overwhelming majority of Americans think that the theory is nonsense.

    Why have they failed? Because they have relied on the state to promote Darwinism and to defend it against rival views. Once any idea becomes dependent on federal money and federal law, its failure is guaranteed. Its promoters lose their ability to compete in the marketplace. Then the government pulls the subsidy.

    The main motivation of Darwinists has always been to elevate man as a replacement of God. What God is not allowed to do, namely, shape history, including cosmic history, in terms of His purposes, man is now said to be able to do, and therefore he has a responsibility to do it. It is the elevation of man as the new God that is the essence of Darwinism, not the doctrine of evolution. This is why Darwinism is a religion.

    1. entech

      Michael, Since when has what people believed had anything to do with what is factual.
      Does the fact that 99% of Saudi Arabia believe Mohammad was the last prophet and told the latest version of the true word of God make it true, because they say Jesus was a prophet, born of a virgin and all the rest – except that he was just a prophet and not divine make it so?

      1. Michael Ross

        No, we poor ignorant masses have no licience to think for ourselves. That’s what we have you arrogant academic elitists for. You are so afraid of the truth you don’t want it in the public discourse. What are you afraid of? You have all the evidence on your side. Why not let the creationist views be taught along with evolution. Will creation not be exposed as the myth you insist it is?

        1. entech

          Hey, I am just an engineer. Not academic, don’t teach, just try to learn.
          I always say because I don’t believe creationism is true, especially the young earth variation does not mean I am right. Conversely because you believe does not make it true.

          All I can be certain of is what seems the most reasonable and plausible to me and go with that.

          Is it possible that Islam is correct? Would you be happy if that were taught in schools? How about Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism? Satanism???

          Teach a good approach to analytical thinking, teach all the possible ideas and leave people to make up their own minds.

          1. Michael Ross

            “Is it possible that Islam is correct? Would you be happy if that were taught in schools? How about Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism? Satanism???”
            The answer here is that all education should be private and not taxpayer-funded. Then you can teach your kids that they are hairless apes and a cosmic accident and I will tech mine that they are created in the image and likeness of God. They are His by creation and if they are His by redemption they will live eternally with Him. As It stands now I must pay taxes so that your beliefs are taught exclusively and mine are outlawed. I object to this. Remember we didn’t have taxpayer funded education until the last part of the 19th century.

          2. entech

            Teach a good approach to analytical thinking, teach all the possible ideas and leave people to make up their own minds.
            This was all I really meant, as Rabbi Hillali said, the rest is commentary.

        2. Dustin White

          Michael- The reason why creationism should not be taught alongside evolution is because creationism is not science. It is theology. And it isn’t like creationism is completely forbidden. It can be taught in theological courses, as well as church. Should we there be a demand that evolution is taught in churches? I suspect you would have a problem with that.

          As for private education, you have the right to homeschool your child. However, the reason we have a public education system is because parents simply are not educated enough on the variety of subjects that are taught in school. The fact is, most of us do not have the education to teach our children all of the subject that are needed, nor the ones they are interested in.

          More so, unless one is taught about the variety in life, the various religions out there, the various other ideas out there, a person will not become responsible individuals. We live in a global world, and unless we have a global education, the only outcome is intolerance and hatred. Unless we gain an understanding of others, we will not understand ourselves fully, nor will we advance.

          Also, creationism is not outlawed. It is not permissible to teach it in a class that it doesn’t have any relevance for. As in, creationism is not science, so there is no reason to teach it in a science class. When it comes to a class on religion, teach it (as long as one is will to teach other ideas as well), because it is religion after all.

          1. Michael Ross

            Creationism can indeed be taught purely on a scientific basis apart from religious conotations. It is just coincidental that it points to a supernatural creator.

          2. entech

            Michael, what kind of creator can there be that is not supernatural? How can you have a creation without a creator? A creator is of necessity separate from its creation.
            Similarly Intelligent Design requires a designer separate from the design itself.
            Either a creator or a designer turn out to be synonyms for god. Even if you accept the argument, really a variation and rehash of the cosmological argument, that it should naturally lead to your God and yours alone cannot be warranted.

    2. Dustin White

      Darwinism really isn’t taught, nor is it a religion. The concept of evolution has greatly progressed since the time of Darwin. So to call it Darwinism only shows a lack of understanding on the subject.

      It also hardly elevates man as a replacement for God. The fact that one can accept evolution, and God would show that your conclusion simply is incorrect. Also, evolution does not shape history, nor does it try to. It simply is an explanation for the observed change, over a long period of time, that has occurred in various species.

      As for the study that you referenced, it has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. It has to do with the origin of man. And really, the poll is garbage as the results are quite skewed as the questioning simply was lacking. The results do not reflect reality as the answers were too narrow, which really didn’t allow for a full spectrum of answers, nor even for the most common answers. And again, it doesn’t talk about evolution anyway, simply with the origin of man. There is a difference.

      The vast majority of people accept evolution. Those who don’t, do so based not on the evidence, but because of blindly held religious beliefs that are accepted on faith and often intolerance.

      1. Demosthenes

        “The fact that one can accept evolution, and God would show that your conclusion simply is incorrect.”

        I would disagree, One can hold conflicting beliefs in their mind. i.e. Cognitive Dissonance. This is known, this doesn’t lend any “truth” though to either side.

        To “accept” both as true however is simple delusion. I fear when you talk like this that you are speaking of the existential god, which isn’t the same as the Christian god(s) but, knowing Christians they will label you a cult for a little while and then accept you into the fold. Or am I reading too much into your last few posts on this blog? to me it sounds like you are saying you believe but that it was a tool of the “god” character you speak of.

        1. Stanta

          Demo, the Catholic Church is of the opinion that evolution occurs, but it is guided by God. Science has still not been able to tell us how life was created.

        2. Dustin White

          How is accepting God, and evolution delusional? I think you’re simply wrong here by trying to define the Christian god by placing God in a box. The views on God vary quite a bit, so to say that what I’m saying isn’t reflective of the Christian God isn’t accurate.

          Many Christians accept that evolution is fact. At the same time, they believe that God is the first cause, as in, God set everything in motion, and evolution was just one of these things. I don’t see why that is delusional. It doesn’t disagree with science.

          1. Demosthenes

            “It doesn’t disagree with science.” Dustin, come now….

            This disagrees with Science explicitly. -> “they believe that God is the first cause”

            What do we call something in Science and Math for that matter, that is neither provable or unprovable?

            It is a belief formed by the society you grew up in not based in Science. You know that, I know that and that is why it is delusional. You can “accept” conflicting thoughts. You can’t use Science to prove or disprove the supernatural i.e. “god”…

            If you believe in the Christian god(s), you better be using his rule book. I you believe in a greater something that started it all that isn’t the same as the Christian god(s) nor is it a matter of Science.

    3. entech

      Darwinism originally included broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin’s work.
      The meaning of “Darwinism” has changed over time, and varies depending on context.[ In the United States, the term “Darwinism” is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.

    1. Dustin White

      Public Schools are in no way churches. Your attack here on the system only shows that you don’t understand the subject at hand enough.

Comments are closed.