Category Archives: Science

The Gap – Not the Store

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

For almost 200 years, well-meaning theologians have attempted to defend the veracity of the Bible against the current scientific discoveries that cast doubt on the truth of God’s word. Rather than taking a firm stand for what the Bible plainly teaches, they try to find ways to reconcile what the Bible says with what scientists say by way of compromises. One such popular compromise is known as the Gap Theory.

Because many theologians have been duped into believing that scientists have proven that the earth is billions of years old (4.5 billion to be precise), they need to find a place in Scripture to account for that vast amount of time. They recognize that biblical chronology only accounts for approximately 6000 years of earth history. They face a dilemma. How do they remain faithful to a literal interpretation of biblical creation and still maintain good rapport with the scientific community? They solve the problem by placing a gap of unknown time between verses one and two of Genesis 1.

However, with what does one fill a gap of billions of years while maintaining some credible ties to Scripture? According to Hugh Ross (who has his own issues with a young earth), “A few Bible scholars of the seventeenth century, wishing to establish the timing of Satan’s fall and the angels’ rebellion, had proposed a narrative gap (hence, a time gap of unspecified duration) between the creation of the universe (“the heavens and the earth” of Genesis 1:1) and the events of the creation week (Genesis 1:3-27) … Eighteenth century advocates of this view placed the gap precisely between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, suggesting that Earth began, perhaps eons ago, as the abode of angels who ravaged and ruined it when they fell.”[1]

Genesis 1:1 refers to God’s initial perfect creation. Everything that God made was beautiful, there was no sin anywhere. Verse two, on the other hand, assumes that a great catastrophe occurred that caused the earth to become in a chaotic state through the judgment of God. According to the Gap Theory, the formless and void state, as recorded in Genesis 1:2, is in direct contrast to the perfect initial creation. Something happened between the first two verses of Genesis to cause the earth to become desolate and uninhabitable after having been made perfect. Those holding the Gap Theory contend that this state of ruin could have possibly lasted millions of years … The judgment is usually spoken of as a flood because of the statement of Genesis 1:2 – the earth was covered by water. This judgment is also known as the Luciferic flood named after the angel who became the devil. The cause for the judgment is usually given as the rebellion of Satan or some pre-Adamic race that sinned. All of the inhabitants of the earth were judged by God, leaving behind fossil remains.”[2]

When one reads the text of Genesis 1:1-2 and following verses giving the words their normal meaning in their normal context, it becomes obvious that much imaginative speculation must take place to insert millions or billions of years between verses one and two. From where did these ideas originate?

According to Dr. John D. Morris, “This particular compromise didn’t just appear; it’s been around at least since the early 1800s when old-Earth ideas were floated by James Hutton and Charles Lyell. Many theologians, under the mistaken impression that scientists had proved it, rushed to incorporate an old Earth into Scripture, hoping to maintain credibility with secular scientists”[3]

Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1876) “was a Scottish geologist who demonstrated the power of existing natural causes in explaining Earth history. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology (1830-33 and later editions), which presented for a wide public audience the idea that the Earth was shaped by the same natural processes still in operation today, operating at similar intensities … The combination of evidence and eloquence in Principles convinced a wide range of readers of the significance of ‘deep time’ for understanding the Earth and environment … Building on the innovative work of James Hutton and his follower John Playfair, Lyell favoured an indefinitely long age for the Earth, despite evidence suggesting an old but finite age.”[4]

Confronted with such “evidence,” theologians quickly came to the Bible’s rescue. “Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science … From 1814, gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers, who attributed the concept to the 17th-century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius.”[5] Chalmers’ “view was popularized by the Plymouth Brethren writer G. H. Pember in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages in 1876.”[6] “It gained widespread attention when a ‘second creative act’ was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.”[7]

Others came along later like Harry Rimmer (1890-1952). Rimmer “was an American evangelist and creationist. He is most prominent as a defender of creationism in the United States, a fundamentalist leader and writer of anti-evolution publications. He was the founder and President of the Science Research Bureau, Incorporated, a corporation set in Los Angeles, California, whose purpose he established as to prove the veracity of the Bible through studies of biology, paleontology and anthropology.”[8]

Surprisingly, many who profess to defend the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible still hold to the Gap Theory and an old earth. One that I closely follow for his teachings on end-times prophecy is Gary Stearman of “Prophecy Watchers” based in Norman, Oklahoma.[9] In all other respects, Stearman is an excellent Bible teacher, but in this one area, he stumbles. He is not the only one. Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum founder of Ariel Ministrires[10] and excellent O.T. scholar says,

I do believe there is a gap of time between verses 1 and 2, but we must be very careful not to ascribe a gap there for the wrong reasons as people have done so often. They have also used it as a convenient place to fit in such things as the geological ages, the fossil record, dinosaur space, and the like. I do not believe the gap allows for dinosaur space because the Bible teaches that there was not any kind of physical death until Adam’s Fall. Rather, the gap is there for only one reason, the fall of Satan that will, in turn, account for the chaos described in verse 2. Hence, the gap need not be very long at all.[11]

Since so many respected theologians defend the Gap Theory, is there any biblical support for their position? As stated before, those who hold to the Gap Theory have been convinced by secular geologists that the earth is billions of years old based on their interpretation of the geologic column, the fossil record, and radiometric dating. Another factor that often comes into play is the distant starlight problem. Faced with these challenges, their inability to respond intellectually, and their strong conviction of the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word, they try to accommodate God’s Word to fit what the secular scientists are saying. In a word, they compromise.

Genesis 1 records creation in six 24-hour days and Gap theorists defend this position. However, biblical chronology, beginning with Genesis 5, limits the age of the earth to only about 6000 years. So how does one account for the 4.5 billion year age of the earth that secular scientists claim? Gap theorists found a way to squeeze billions of years between verse one and verse two of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:2 says, “And the earth was without form, and void…” The Hebrew word translated “was” is hâyâh. Strong’s defines hâyâh as to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary). Gap theorists interpret hâyâh as “became;” therefore, “And the earth became formless and void.” Furthermore, the Hebrew words translated “without form and void” are tôhû (to lie waste; a desolation, formlessness, confusion, unreality) and bôhû (emptiness, void, waste, or ruin). According to the Gap Theory, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), for an unspecified length of time and then the earth became tôhû and bôhû. God created a perfect world, and then the earth became tôhû and bôhû. What happened?

Rather than to simply admit they do not know what happened, they look to Scripture to fill the Gap. Ken Ham quotes, Weston W. Fields in his book, Unformed and Unfilled (page 7), “In the far distant, dateless past God created a perfect heaven and perfect earth. Satan was ruler of the earth, which was peopled by a race of ‘men’ without any souls. Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a Garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth God’s judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the wafer of 1:2), and then a global ice age when the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed. All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today date from this ‘Lucifer’s Flood’ and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth today.”[12]

They had to fill the gap with something, but all their attempts to reconcile Scripture to science amount to nothing more than conjecture and speculation.  For example, the idea of “soulless men” is inconsistent with God’s character and the notion of “Lucifer’s Flood” finds no biblical support. Their appeal to Scripture with regard to Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 does have some merit as they do speak of Satan’s fall. However, neither of these passages gives any hint of time, other than to imply that Satan’s fall occurred early on after Creation. “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God…” (Ezekiel 28:13) According to Genesis 2:8, God planted the Garden of Eden on Day Six for Adam’s habitation; therefore this cannot refer to some unknown past.

One major hermeneutical problem with the Gap Theory is with the translation of the Hebrew verb hâyâh. “When this word [be] is printed in italics in the common English version, there is no corresponding word in the original text; when it occurs in common type [i.e., not italicized], it is generally the representative of hayah, havah, hava, “to be” in Hebrew.”[13] Sometimes hâyâh is translated “become or became” for ease of reading more than anything else. For example, Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). In this case, “became” could just as easily be translated “was” and it would still make perfect sense. As soon as God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, the man was a living soul. So the Gap theorists do not have a Hebraic leg to stand on in translating hâyâh as “became.”

Another problem with the theory is that the conjunction at the beginning of the sentence (Hebrew vav or waw) is an indication of the continuation of what came before. Had the Author (God) desired to show a break in events, He could have used the conjunction ‘âz (“then”) as in Genesis 4:26, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” The grammar in Genesis 1:2 gives no indication of a break in thought. There is no grammatical “gap.”[14]

Then comes the matter of the earth being “without form and void” – tôhû and bôhû. We have seen that the earth did not “become” tôhû and bôhû, but rather that it “was” tôhû and bôhû. In Verse 1, God created the universe with all its elements: time (the beginning), space (the heavens), and matter/energy (the earth). At this point, the “earth” (matter/energy) was formless and empty. God had not shaped it into anything yet. The second half of Verse 2 informs us that God at this point started shaping the raw materials. We find no hint of destruction and reconstruction in these verses.

In spite of their well-intentioned effort to reconcile the Genesis creation account with modern science, Gap theorists unwittingly create some serious theological problems. First of all, the Gap Theory calls God’s integrity into question. God’s assessment of His finished work would have to be found faulty. “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). Sin, death, and destruction in some unknown past do not qualify as a good creation, much less a “very good” creation.

Secondly, sin did not enter the world through Adam as the Bible claims (Romans 5:12) because it was present at Satan’s fall. Furthermore, death could not be the result of sin if death was already in the world.

Thirdly, the death penalty for (Romans 6:23) sin makes no sense when death preceded Adam’s sin.

Fourthly, if sin and death preceded Adam, then Jesus dying to pay the wages of sin for man seems pointless.

I grew up as a poor preacher’s kid. The greatest lesson my dad ever taught me was that the Bible was true and faithful even when it is difficult to understand. Whether we understand it completely or not, we can trust it to be true. God’s Word does not need to be reconciled to man’s way of thinking. Man’s thinking needs to be reconciled to God’s Word. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Later on, the Apostle Paul says something very similar. “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). Gap theorists forget this principle; they sway to the “strength” of fallen men rather than hold fast to the “foolishness” of the pure Word of God.

Notes:


[1]  Hugh Ross, “Closing the Gap: A Scientist’s Response to the Gap Theory” – https://www.reasons.org/explore/publications/facts-for-faith/read/facts-for-faith/2001/01/01/closing-the-gap-a-scientist-s-response-to-the-gap-theory

[2]  Don Stewart, “What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)” – https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_654.cfm

[3]  John D. Morris, Ph.D., “How Does Old Earth Thinking Affect One’s View of Scripture’s Reliability?” – https://www.icr.org/article/how-does-old-earth-thinking-affect-ones-view-scrip

[4]  “Charles Lyell” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

[5]  “Gap Creationism” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

[6]  Hank Hanegraaff, “The Gap Theory of Genesis 1:2 by Lee Irons” – https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/bible-answer-man/read/articles/the-gap-theory-of-genesis-12-by-lee-irons-16836.html

[7]  “Gap Creationism” – Wikipedia

[8]  “Harry Rimmer” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Rimmer

[9]  Gary Stearman, Prophecy Wathers – https://prophecywatchers.com/gary-stearman/

[10]  http://www.Ariel.org/

[11]  Arnold Fructenbaum, “THE SEVEN DAYS OF CREATION: GENESIS 1:1 – 2:3”, p.10, article available in PDF format from the Ariel Ministries website.

[12]  Kenneth Ham, “Closing the Gap” – https://www.icr.org/article/closing-gap

[13]  Robert Young,  Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing, 1970), 73.

[14]  Ernesto E. Carrasco, “No Gap” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/10/18/no-gap/

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Origins, Religion, Satan, Science, Theology

Artificial Fertilization

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. (John 6:33)

I received the following question last week, and, even though this is not the kind of question I typically respond to, I thought I should at least make an effort to give an answer. The inquirer asked:

Is Artificial Insemination right or wrong? Are there scriptures that can be used to either support or be against it? As Africa is working on catching up with the west, these are some of the Issues so foreign in our culture, but we have to deal with, much more deal with rightly especially for those who profess to be followers of Christ.

Although this individual asked specifically about artificial insemination, there are several methods for treating infertility problems. The writer seemed concerned for those who are followers of Christ, so my response assumed the context of a married, heterosexual, couple. There are moral issues for homosexual couples using these methods to produce children that I do not care to address since I have covered those matters in previous posts. [1],[2],[3],[4]  Therefore, my response addresses Christian concerns.

The most common method of artificial fertilization is intrauterine insemination. This method takes sperm from the husband, by a variety of means, and injects it into the wife’s uterus when she is ovulating. Except for the fact that this circumvents God’s design for childbearing, the redeeming factor is that the couple is husband and wife. Sometimes, for one reason or another, the husband cannot produce sperm. In this case, the couple may be tempted to find a sperm donor. Finding a donor who is not the husband, I think, goes far beyond the will of God, as I will explain later.

The Bible does not have anything to say about artificial fertilization. Obviously, such techniques did not exist when the Bible was written. However, there are principles taught in the Bible that should guide the believer (through the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit) in determining what is right or wrong about this procedure. Ultimately, it is a matter of conscience for the individuals undergoing the procedure.

A second method of artificial fertilization is in vitro fertilization. This method takes ovum from the wife, and the technicians inject them with sperm from the husband resulting in several fertilized eggs – zygotes. This procedure is often used because, for one reason or another, the wife has trouble getting pregnant. The technicians then place the fertilized eggs in the mother’s uterus in hopes that at least one will “take.”

Some things a Christian couple should think about when considering undergoing any of these procedures. (1) The Bible repeatedly asserts that God is the One who gives life. Only God gives life, so the life resulting from artificial fertilization is God-given albeit through human intervention. Humans cannot give or create life – only God does that. (2) Often, in the process of in vitro fertilization, extra embryos are created in the procedure for use at a later time, if the first attempt fails. Sometimes the procedure results in multiple births. Often, not all of the embryos resulting from the procedure are used, and the question arises of what to do with the unused embryos. At some point, someone must decide what to do with the remaining embryos – either keep them or destroy them. Here is where the real problem arises. Those embryos are tiny, not-fully-formed yet 100%, human beings. They are life that God has created; therefore, only God has the right to take that life. When that life is destroyed by man, the act, from God’s perspective, is murder (Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 20:13).

From my perspective, the problem of infertility should be left to God. We have many examples in Scripture where couples were infertile for many years until the time God chose, so that He might be glorified. Some examples are Abraham and Sara (Genesis 21), Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 25:21), Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 30), Manoah and wife (parents of Samson – Judges 13), the Shunammite woman and her husband (2 Kings 4), Zacharias and Elisabeth (parents of John the Baptist – Luke 1:5-25). Therefore, I think it best to leave the matter in God’s hands. He is the One that “gives” children (Psalm 127:3). He has His reasons for giving or withholding children from a couple, and ultimately, He knows best.

I do not believe that we should meddle in God’s business. However, a Christian couple struggling with infertility needs to take the matter before the Lord before making such a serious, life-altering decision. Remember the trouble that resulted when Abraham and Sara tried to help God out by using Hagar to produce an heir. The problems from that failed plan plague Israel to this very day! Rachel tried to solve her infertility problem by giving her handmaid to Jacob, then Leah followed suit and did the same. When we examine Jacob’s life, it is anything but blissful! Things usually do not turn out well when we presume to help God out in matters that rightly belong to Him. It is always best to leave such things up to God. God has His reason for blessing some couples with children and not blessing others. The matter is best left to His discretion.

Notes:


[1]  “Born Gay” https://erniecarrasco.com/2018/07/15/born-gay/

[2]  “Reclaiming the Rainbow” https://erniecarrasco.com/2017/07/23/reclaiming-the-rainbow/

[3]  “The Rainbow”  https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/07/05/the-rainbow/

[4]  “Adam & Steve or Bev & Eve?”  https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/05/03/adam-steve-or-bev-eve/

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Current Events, Pro-life, Science, Theology

Born Gay

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

The notion that people are “born gay” is based on a flawed and biased study done in 1991 by researcher, Simon LeVay.[1]

LeVay’s study also had numerous technical problems. For instance, his samples included 19 brains of gays who died of AIDS and 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown. He assumed the 16 were heterosexual, even though 5 had died of AIDS. More importantly, although LeVay argued that a small INAH3 “caused” homosexuality, some of the gays had an INAH3 that was larger than the average size of the INAH3 of the “heterosexuals,” and some of the “heterosexuals” had an INAH3 that was smaller than those of gays. So some of his gays “should” have been heterosexual and vice-versa.[2]

INAH-3 is the short form for the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, and is the sexually dimorphic nucleus of humans. The INAH-3 is significantly larger in males than in females regardless of age and larger in heterosexual males than in homosexual males and heterosexual females. Homologues of the INAH-3 have been observed taking a direct role in sexual behavior in rhesus monkeys, sheep, and rats.[3]

LeVay himself was a practicing homosexual, hence the bias in the study. The study’s findings were inconclusive and would be otherwise considered unscientific in its methods, but because some the homosexual men’s brains displayed this “abnormality,” the study was published as proof that gay men are born that way. However, Johns Hopkins recently came out with an article showing that there is no evidence for this claim.[4]

Aside from the science, the Bible rejects the notion of people “born gay.” God does not create a person to naturally do what He has denounced as an “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5; Jude 1:7, et al.). No one can accuse God of making him/her that way (James 1:13-14). Homosexuality and all other forms of sexual perversions (sex outside of marriage, adultery, incest, etc.) is sin. Humans are sinners by choice, not by God’s design (Genesis 3), and because there is always a choice, God always provides a way out (1 Corinthians 10:13). People sin willingly, and homosexuality is no different from any other sin.

Discrimination against homosexuals is no different from discrimination against people based on their ethnicity. Looking at it biblically, all people are created equal before God (Acts 17:26). Homosexuality is an act and a choice (like any other sin). A person’s ethnicity is not a choice, but no matter what the ethnicity, all people are “born” sinners. There is nothing wrong with associating with homosexuals. In fact, as Christians, we should show them the same love and respect that we show anyone else. However, that does not mean that God or we approve of their lifestyle, nor should we withhold the truth from them when challenged about their sinful lifestyle. We must share the truth “in love” even though the pill may be hard to swallow.

The truth is that we are all sinners in need of the Savior. If you do not know the Savior, see my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”

 Notes:


[1] LeVay S A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 1991;253:1034-1037

[2]   Dr. Paul Cameron, “Born What Way?” http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/born-what-way/

[3]  INAH 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3

[4]  Tyler O’Neil, “Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender,”  https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Current Events, Origins, Science, Theology

Plant Death

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:29)

Plants do not possess life in the biblical sense. The Bible almost always refers to plant “death” as “withering.” The Bible says that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11). Plants do not have blood; therefore, plants do not have life, neither do they die in the biblical sense. The prophet Isaiah wrote: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8). Notice that he says that the grass “withers,” not that it dies.

If that is true, then why did Jesus say that a grain of wheat falling to the ground dies (John 12:24)? In this passage, the word “die” translates the Greek word apothnēskō. According to Strong’s (G599), the word means, “to die off (literally or figuratively).” Jude applies the same word to “trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots” (Jude 1:12, emphasis mine). The word translated “dead” is the same Greek word, apothnēskō, but note that it is associated with “withereth.” Therefore, death, in the Bible, can be applied to plants, but it is more in the figurative sense than in a literal sense.

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24, emphasis mine). However, He used the word “die” in the figurative sense. He was referring to His pending death and resurrection. He was not using the word in a literal sense that a seed actually dies.

When a seed gets buried in the ground, it does not remain a seed. Rather, it germinates and transforms into a new plant that produces many more seeds. Similarly, Jesus died and was buried in the earth. On the third day, He came up out of the ground, and His resurrection produced eternal life for all who would believe on Him.

So, talk to your plants, if you like, but they really do not hear you. Plants are food, not pets.

Comments Off on Plant Death

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Death, Religion, Resurrection, Science, Theology

Intelligent Design

The “Simple” Cell

Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: (Jeremiah 32:17)

The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) originated around 1987, according to Wikipedia,[1] for the purpose of debunking the theory of evolution from a strictly scientific perspective. Wikipedia says that IDM “is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection’” (emphasis mine). One must consider the source! Wikipedia charges that the “movement arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents. The overall goal of the intelligent design movement is to overthrow materialism and atheism” (emphasis mine). The author takes a defensive posture against IDM and tends to minimize the scientific research behind the movement.

One of the more familiar IDM organizations is the Discovery Institute founded in 1991 and based in Seattle, Washington. According to their “About” page, the institute is “dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued.  Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.”[2] That seems innocuous enough. It certainly does not come across as overly religious unless one harbors a hypersensitivity to theism (which is a very broad and general term).

Through the years, IDM has made great strides in promoting origin of life by intelligent design over random-chance evolutionary processes.[3] Their research demonstrates the impossibility of life springing from non-life. They have shown how even the simplest of life form is so irreducibly complex that it would require an all-or-nothing simultaneous assemblage of all the components to make up a single cell, and not only once, but multiplied billions of times. In an article written for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), David Rosevear writes:

“… the cell is no longer regarded as simple. The living plasma membrane allows in or out only specific compounds. It is not simply a semi-permeable membrane. Cells contain nucleic acids that carry information about the structure and functions of the organism. They also contain ribosomes where proteins are made using a complex mechanism of nucleic acids and more than a hundred different proteins, each with a specific task. The cell also contains mitochondria where energy (ATP) is produced. The complexity of all these parts of the cell is enormous. Lynn Margulis has suggested that the first proto-cell assimilated these organelles by a process of symbiosis. However, these components cannot now exist independently, nor could the cell exist without their contributions. Moreover, one such type of organelle, known as a lysosome, contains enzymes whose function is to digest foreign bodies. With all the amazingly complex, mutually-dependent components, it seems that the cell had to be complete from the beginning, rather than being assembled piecemeal over years of evolution … Each component of a living cell is breathtakingly complex, yet in isolation it cannot survive nor replicate itself. All the parts of the cell are necessary to its functioning and replication. Nothing works until everything works.”[4] (Emphasis mine)

Recently, the church where I attend invited James M. Tour, Ph.D.,[5] a well-known organic chemist and tenured professor at Rice University, to come and speak on the impossibility of abiogenesis – life from non-life. Dr. Tour began his talk by touting his credentials as a “real” scientist as evidenced by his research and many patents in nano-engineering. He was by no means bragging; he was just stating facts. I spoke to him both before and after his talk, and he is a genuinely humble man, but the fact remains that he is extremely intelligent and gifted. Next, he gave his testimony of how he came to faith in Christ. I was very impressed that before beginning his talk, he took a knee and offered a prayer that God would open the eyes and hearts of the skeptics who might be in the audience. (The church sent to area schools.)

After giving his testimony, he opened the final portion of his talk by stating that from that point on, he would not bring God into the picture. His purposed to disprove evolution by abiogenesis by demonstrating the scientific evidence against it. He read from his “Open Letter to My Colleagues” (not yet published) where he calls the origin of life from non-life a “retarded” theory. “Retarded” because it has not advanced since the Urey-Miller experiments of 1953. He expertly demonstrated how life – even simple life – cannot spontaneously come from random chemical reactions. He pointed out how time is the enemy of slow and gradual evolution. If it is going to happen at all, it must happen all at once.

Tour says he prefers to be “free of that intelligent design label … I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might.”[6] However, like most IDM proponents, he destroys the theory of evolution (life from non-life), but offers nothing substantive to take its place. A public pronouncement of God as the Intelligent Creator is a step too far for him, although on a personal level he may hold and profess that belief. In fact, for Dr. Tour, organizations such as ICR are an embarrassment to both the scientific and Christian community since they rely on Scripture above “science.” Tour wants to maintain a purely “scientific” approach to the question of origins to the exclusion of a supernatural act of creation by Almighty God.

In his 1999 article, David Rosevear said everything Dr. Tour said in his talk.  The difference being that Rosevear attributes the origin of life to God. I suspect that Dr. Tour believes in God as Creator; he is just unwilling to take that stand among his peers.

Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). What one believes concerning the origin of life is not a salvation issue. Dr. Tour professes to be a Christian and his personal testimony is compelling; of course, that confession was made in a friendly venue. Outside of that, how can a Christ-indwelled “believer” question creation by the very One in which he confesses to trust? “All things were made by him [the Word; Jesus]; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). I do not question Dr. Tour’s salvation; only God can judge the heart. I find no flagrant flaw in his testimony. [7] My only issue with him is that he makes a great case for the impossibility of chemical evolution, but then he leaves it at that. If life could not have originated in that way, then how did it originate? If chance randomness cannot account for the precision in the design of even the simplest cell, then how did that design come about? It must have an intelligent source. He will not say, at least not publicly. That is a shame!

IDM makes a great case against evolution and demonstrates how all life shows intelligent design. However, by refusing to proclaim God as the Intelligent Designer, they leave to door open to all kinds of fanciful possibilities. Some in the ID movement go so far as to propose “seeding” of the earth by ancient aliens; but that only pushes the question of origins further out in outer space. All life, indeed all that exists, originated in the mind of One Intelligent Designer – God.[8] “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The Institute for Creation Research may be an embarrassment to the likes of Dr. James M. Tour, but at least they are not ashamed to proclaim God as Creator, and the Bible as infallible and inerrant in all matters of life including science. I pray that Dr. Tour will soon arrive at that conclusion as well.

Notes:


[1]  “Intelligent Design Movement” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

[2]  Discovery Institute “What We Do” – http://www.discovery.org/about/

[3]  “The Fallacy of Time And Chance” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2012/06/06/the-fallacy-of-time-and-chance-13/

[4]  David Rosevear, “The Myth Of Chemical Evolution” – http://www.icr.org/article/myth-chemical-evolution/

[5]  James M. Tour – https://www.jmtour.com/

[6]  James M. Tour, “Evolution/Creation” – https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

[7]  James M. Tour, “Personal Statement” – https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/personal-statement/

[8]  “Proof of God” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2014/06/22/proof-of-god/

 

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Origins, Religion, Science

Alien Intrusion Reviewed

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Thursday evening I met some friends at a movie theater in Plano, TX to watch the documentary Alien Intrusion: Unmasking the Deception.[1] Since I read the book by the same name by author Gary Bates, I had a good understanding of the topic, so there were no surprises.

The documentary was very well done, and it employed excellent computer-generated animation (CGI) to carry the viewer onboard alien spacecraft to the far reaches of space. The documentary did an excellent job of debunking the notion of extraterrestrials (ET) visiting our planet from galaxies far, far away. Traveling at the speed of light is a physical impossibility that is well-known in modern physics. That, coupled with the astronomical distances in the known universe, even within our own Milky Way, makes such travel unthinkable. Minute particles of space debris would rip a spaceship to shreds traveling at such speeds. Our orbiting satellites sustain constant hits as they orbit at the “slow” speeds required to maintain their orbits.

So, if those aliens are not from “out there,” from where do they come?[2] The documentary does not deny the “reality” of these “alien entities.” However, the movie casts doubt on whether UFOs, i.e., the spacecraft, are real. While they (the movie producers) confess that many sightings remain unexplained, they suggest that most, if not all, can be explained by natural phenomena. Their focus zeros in on the alien entities.

To the point, the documentary concludes that these entities are real, and they are from the spiritual realm, not from outer space. One of my friends was frustrated that they seemed to dance around the issue without outright naming the “entities” for what they are – demons. That point escaped me because I naturally understood that they were referring to demons. So did my friend, but her point was that people who are unfamiliar with Christianity and the Bible might miss that point. Perhaps that is a point the producers should have taken into consideration.

The documentary featured people who have experienced “close encounters of the third kind,” i.e, personal and physical contact with these “entities.” They describe abductions by these beings where they are taken into spaceships where physical experiments are performed on them. Often, the examinations involve sexual experimentation. The abductees report seeing incubation areas in the spaceships where the products of the sexual experimentations are grown. When psychiatrists examine these people, they are found to be telling the truth. However, the producers of the documentary, while believing the entities are real, suggest that the experience itself is a delusion induced by the entities. This is a reasonable conclusion since Satan himself is a deceiver and the “father of lies” (John 8:44); therefore, it stands to reason that his demons would also be expert liars. The movie producers conclude that the encounters are real, and the entities are real, but the UFOs are not.

L.A. Marzulli,[3] a Christian ufologist (UFO chaser), agrees that the “aliens” are demons, but he would disagree with the other conclusions presented in Alien Intrusion.  Based on the record of “the sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men” (Genesis 6:1-4), Marzulli believes that the abductions are real, and the sexual experiments performed on the abductees are for the purpose of creating hybrids like the Nephilim[4] of old. He also believes that the UFOs used by these “aliens” are real. Many expert witnesses – experienced pilots – have confirmed the reality of these craft but until recently, these reports have been suppressed by government agencies.

Recently, on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,”[5] a Navy pilot disclosed – complete with video footage – his encounter with a craft he claimed was “not from this world.”[6] Marzulli sees this “disclosure” as the government’s way of preparing the public for the arrival of ET. It is Marzulli’s contention that when the Rapture of the Church takes place, the ETs will “show up” to convince the world that the disappearances were their doing to rid the world of “undesirables.” That too makes sense. Demons possess high intelligence. They are not omniscient, like God, but they possess knowledge beyond that of man. So, can they manipulate DNA? Can they create “spacecraft” that defy the laws of physics? Of course, they can! Besides all of that, they are cunning deceivers.

Alien Intrusion: Unmasking the Deception[7] is a good documentary, but I do not think it went far enough. I agree more with L.A. Marzulli that the UFOs and abductions are real, not just simply demon-induced imaginations. The documentary also made a feeble attempt at presenting the Gospel. They did point out that the “visitations” stop if the victim calls out to Jesus. In addition, those who have experienced frequent abductions stop having the experiences when they trust Jesus as their Savior. However, the clear Gospel message was rather weak. Overall, the movie is well worth the time to watch. I am not sure if it will be shown in theaters again, but the DVDs will be available soon from their website.

Notes:


[1]  http://www.alienintrusion.com/

[2]  https://erniecarrasco.com/2013/06/16/aliens/

[3]  http://www.lamarzulli.net/

[4]  https://erniecarrasco.com/2017/08/13/giants/

[5]  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/tucker-carlson-tonight/index.html

[6]  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tucker+carlson+tonight+ufo+disclosure&view=detail&mid=BC0AF1D55B709984A042BC0AF1D55B709984A042&FORM=VIRE

[7]  http://www.alienintrusion.com/

Comments Off on Alien Intrusion Reviewed

Filed under Christianity, Current Events, End Times, Random Musings, Science, UFOs

Light From Afar

… he made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)

The question about the age of the universe is certainly a hotly debated question among both young earth and old earth creationists. Young earth creationists affirm and accept the literal account recorded in Genesis.[1] Old earth creationists accept that God is Creator, but they accommodate long ages because they are convinced that “science” has “proven” that the universe is old. They arrive at this conclusion because we see light from stars and galaxies that are billions of lightyears away from us. The “proof” is questionable, but that is a separate matter.

If one considers God’s account of creation recorded in the first chapter of Genesis, one notes that all things, plants, sea creatures, avian life, land creatures and even humans were all created fully mature and immediately able to reproduce (“the seed is in itself”). The earth itself was created, formed, and organized in the first three days of creation (Genesis 1:1-13). The Bible gives no indication that these were long periods of time.[2] When God records the day (Hebrew yom), He uses the word normally understood as a 24-hour day. By assigning an ordinal number to modify the day (first day, second day, third day, etc.), He further qualifies the day as a normal 24-hour day. If that is not enough, He further defines the day by “evening and morning” indicating a normal 24-hour day.

Some may want to argue that, but their argument is against God’s Word, and that is reminiscent of the first words from the tempter’s mouth: “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1).

With all of that in mind, look again at Genesis 1:14-19, Day Four of creation. In God’s account of creation, God created the earth first, then the other heavenly bodies beginning with the sun and moon and finally He “created the stars also” (v. 16). This in itself contradicts the notion of a Big Bang. Verse 15 establishes the purpose for the heavenly bodies: Lit. “to light over the earth.” In the KJV verse 17 reads: “And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.” The Hebrew word translated “set” is nâthan, which means “to give.” A strict translation of the verse would read: “God gave them in the expanse of the heavens to light over the earth.” As with all of God’s creation, the light of the stars upon the earth was created in place and fully mature. This eliminates any discussion about how long it takes for light from distant stars to arrive on earth. It makes the argument irrelevant. Whatever is now is not what it was in the beginning.

Notes:


[1]  “The Universe is Young” https://erniecarrasco.com/2017/05/21/the-universe-is-young/

[2]  “The Bible Says” https://erniecarrasco.com/2016/04/03/the-bible-says/

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Creation, Origins, Religion, Science