.
In the meantime, I will say this. The whole universe is only several thousand years old (about 6000-10,000), according to the Bible. The variable is related to whether or not there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. Some young-earth creationists believe there are. I do not believe their arguments from Scripture are persuasive. So, I favor the roughly 6000 date, but won’t “die on a hill” for that exact age. In any case, we all are obviously in opposition to the evolutionists.
Ames, Iowa:
This has always puzzled me. Isn't a belief in God all about FAITH? Why would someone need scientific evidence in order to beleive in God? Doesn't that imply someone has no faith? Why do you need PROOF to believe?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Good questions. Since all people, including all evolutionists, individually and collectively are very finite in knowledge, we all must take many things by faith. So in one sense faith in God is no different from faith in your doctor or car mechanic or evolutionary geology teacher. But there are two kinds of faith—foolish faith or wise faith. Foolish faith trusts in someone or something when there is no rational basis for thinking that the object of one’s faith is reliable. An American trusting Osama ben Ladin would be an example of this, would you not agree? Wise faith trusts in someone or something which give us good reasons for trusting. But faith must always go beyond what you can understand, because you have only very finite knowledge of any object of trust.
I believe there are an enormous number of good intellectual reasons for believing the Bible to be the Word of the Creator and therefore totally reliable in all matters about which it speaks. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that faith in the Jesus Christ is beyond reason, but not against reason. Christianity is based on well-established facts, but Christian faith goes beyond the facts (see, for example, Luke 1:1—4 and I Corinthians 15:1--19). It is not a “blind leap of faith” with my head in the sand (though sadly, many Christians are very shallow in their thinking).
Having said that, I must add that no amount of scientific, historical or experiential evidence can PROVE absolutely God’s existence or the truth of Christianity. There is more than sufficient evidence to make faith in God reasonable, but not enough to intellectually FORCE an atheist to abandon his position. So I don’t NEED scientific evidence to believe in God. But from my many years of personal and academic study of the arguments for and against evolution convinces me that true science confirms the teachings of the Bible, not evolution theory. I find it intellectually very satisfying to be a Christian. And being exposed to the strongest objections of skeptics and opponents of Christianity, such as the PBS series evolution, actually strengthens my faith because with careful analysis I can see that those objections are actually very weak.
Washington, D.C.:
Hello,
I've been watching the Evolution series on PBS, and it seems very well done to me. The last segment was fair, and gave some time over to the creationist movement. I'm a pretty strong supporter of teaching evolution , but also support religious freedom of expression.
The main problem I have with supporters of literal creation who are opposed to teaching evolution is that they seem unwilling to allow both these worldviews to exist within themselves and others. Haven't they heard of "compartmentalization"? Sheesh, you go out to school and learn about science, evolution, fossils, etc, and then you go home at night and say your prayers and read the Bible and they can both coexist in someone who is open-minded and more importantly large-minded. Those with small minds seeks to minimize their horizons and reject science because it supposedly clashes with their theology.
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Creationists do not oppose the teaching of evolution. We are for open debate and challenge evolutionists to present their case in public debates. We also want Christians to know exactly what evolutions believe and how they argue. That’s why our website encouraged people to watch the PBS series. We figure that the evolutionists ought to be able to explain their view clearly and they have been doing so for years. However, we do oppose the teaching of only the evidence that seems to support evolution while withholding from students and the public the scientific evidence and arguments (put forward by fully qualified scientists) against evolution. We also oppose the intellectually and academically unfair misrepresentation of young-earth creationists as scientifically ignorant, as the final segment of the PBS series did and many evolutionists do.
Truth is truth and reality is a whole. I cannot compartmentalize life, as you apparently do. My heart or soul cannot embrace on Sunday, what my mind rejects as foolish irrationality on Monday to Saturday. To do so is not large-mindedness, but narrow-mindedness that is afraid to look at the tough questions that lead to the full integration of all aspects of life. God is the Creator of all that is and the one who inspired the human authors of the Bible to write the absolute truth. And He is the God of truth, not of confusion or deception. Therefore, if we properly interpret the Bible and we properly interpret the facts of nature, those interpretations will agree. If you have not seriously and carefully grappled with young-earth creationists arguments (rather than the evolutionists’ straw-man characterizations of those arguments), then I submit to you that you are the one who is minimizing your horizons and rejecting true science and scientific inquiry.
Washington, D.C.:
Reportedly, the Pope believes in evolution. However, evolution seems to debunk the very foundations of Christianity, that God created humans as he said that he did -- which was not through an evolutionary process. What is your view on this? Do you think that persons who give credence to evolution are knowingly or unknowingly debunking crucial elements of Christianity?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Yes, belief in evolution undermines crucial doctrines of Christianity. One that even most Christians overlook is the Bible’s teaching on death. The Bible says clearly in Genesis 1-3 and several other passages (Romans 5:12 and 8:19--23 and I Corinthians 15:22–22) that God made a perfect world but that the whole creation was significant damaged sin and God’s judgment. So we live in what theologians call a “fallen” world.
This present world of death, disease, violence and suffering is not the way the world was before Adam and Eve sinned. The theory of evolution over millions of years completely contradicts the Bible’s teaching death. Consequently it undermines the gospel. If the fall of man in sin and God’s curse on the creation (as recorded in Genesis 3) is not literal history, then Jesus died for a mythological problem caused by a mythological couple and He is therefore a mythological savior. In this case, also, if we don’t trust the Bible’s teaching about the origin and history of the creation, we don’t have a valid basis for trusting what it says about the future of the creation and heaven. And then we don’t have a good basis for trusting the Bible’s teaching on morality. It all stands or falls together. We cannot CONSISTENTLY pick and chose the parts of the Bible to believe. I am intellectually persuaded that we can trust it all, from the very first verse.
Bethesda, Md.:
How do you explain the existence of dinosaurs?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Being land animals, they were created on the sixth day of creation along with man (aquatic and flying reptiles, sometimes called “dinosaurs” in non-technical conversation were made on day five—see Genesis 1:20–28). They were originally herbivores (along with all other animals, which are only the ones that the Hebrew of Genesis 1 designates as “nephesh Chayah” in 1:20–24 and 2:7) but by the curse of God on creation after man sinned some of them became carnivores (Genesis 3:14–19). In the flood of Noah’s day all of them died (except two of every type or kind that went onto the ark) and many of their bodies or body parts were buried in sediments of the flood and soon after fossilized, as we find them today in sedimentary rocks. The dinosaurs on the ark then multiplied and spread out on the earth after the flood. The book of Job in the Bible, written after the flood, gives the description of a creature (Job 40:15–24) that fits with the largest dinosaur we know of (and not with an elephant or hippo as a marginal note in most Bibles suggest—pay careful attention to the Bible’s description of the tail). And Job 41:1–11 does not describe a crocodile either. With the passing of centuries it would appear that they all became extinct, due to the post-flood ice age and the same reasons that creatures become extinct today (e.g., humans decimating the populations by over-hunting or destroying their habitats). But there is strong evidence that they have been alive in relatively recent human history and some very intriguing evidence which suggests that they may not all be extinct after all. Whether they are or not would be consistent with the Bible. But of course their continuing existence would be fatal for the theory of evolution, which would explain why the evolutionary scientific establishment would never allow such evidence to be published. It would be rejected without analysis because it contradicts evolution. For answers to a myriad of objections against this view dinosaurs, visit www.AnswersInGenesis.org and search for “dinosaurs” and “ark”.
College Park, Md.:
Hello Dr. Mortenson,
Earth is the only world mentioned in Genesis. Does that mean there's no life in the rest of the universe?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Yes, I believe so. This is because of the way that the Bible ties the redemptive work of Christ on the cross to the whole of creation. See Romans 8:19–25, Colossians 1: 15–20 , II Peter 3:3–13 and Revelation 21:1–5. Furthermore, there is literally no, zero, scientific evidence that biological life exists anywhere but on earth, in spite of years of trying to find it.
Alexandria, Va.:
Science tells us that anatomically modern humans have existed on earth for at least 40,000 years and more likely 100,000 years.
How long do you believe that anatomically modern humans have existed on earth?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Science doesn’t tell us this. Evolutionary assumptions involved in the radiometric dating methods lead to this assumption. The Bible indicates clearly that man has existed for as long as the rest of creation (give or take a few days), which is about 6000 years. By the way, contrary to what many people inside and outside the church think, the Bible is perfectly clear that man was not made from any pre-existing creature, but literally and directly and miraculously from the dust of the earth. Genesis 2:7 says that God made man and breathed into him the breath of life and then he became a living being. God did not take an existing living being and breathe into it to transform it into man. Harmonizing the Bible with the theory of human evolution is only possible by ignoring or mutilating the Biblical text.
For evidence of the unreliability of the radiometric dating methods consult the careful scientific analysis in several articles on the AiG website. Also read John Woodmorrappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, and the appendix article in Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Both books are available from the AiG website bookstore, along with Larry Vardiman et al, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. This latter book, co-authored by many PhD scientists, is extremely technical as it summarizes the documented problems with these dating methods and maps out a 5-year research project involving many more scientists than the authors to discover just what the radiometric decay measurements are really telling us (since they clearly are not telling us the true ages of the rocks).
Brackenridge, Pa.:
The difficulty of understanding how life has come to be as it is comes from the belief system of the observer. Both the creationist and the Darwinian thinker come into the discussion with prestructured views. Each of them interprets impressions of reality based on a mind set that was formulated by parental and cultural indoctrination absorbed through childhood.
Beliefs never clarify for the observer how reality functions. As artifical conceptual constructs, they only distort perception so that events and relationships APPEAR to conform to expectations. If one believes in a god, as a creationist does, he will perceive all examined phenomena to work consistent with charactistics attributed to that god. If one believes this reality to consist of a bunch of randomly interacting particles, his interpretation of things will be consistent with that paradigm. The two will argue without avail because neither can absorb the other's perspective as he filters all accepted input through his own belief structure.
There is meaning to life. There is a cohesive, interactive functionality to how life flows -- but neither the religion-based thinker nor the convinced scientist will ever perceive that. Both are too busy confirming their beliefs via constricted, closed arguments.
My question is, having read the above, how do you respond? And I will suggest beforehand that your response will be a thinly veiled defense of your belief system.
Well, maybe not even "thinly"...
Sent by:
Tom Nehrer
tom-nehrer.net
Dr. Terry Mortenson: I hope my answer is not thinly veiled. I have nothing to hide and don’t want to deceive my readers. I am interested in open, thought-provoking interaction.
I can agree with much of what you say. But your postmodern relativism applies to your view of the matter also. If everything is relative, if all views are simply a matter of conditioning, then so is the statement “everything is relative and a matter of conditioning.” The position is self-refuting. No one actually lives as if everything is relative and only a matter of conditioned opinion.
So, it is accurate to say the following. Some things are relative but some things (both morals and truth statements about reality) are absolutely true for all people in all times. Objective truth does exist. It is true that family, education and culture, etc. do contribute to a set of presuppositions that affect our analysis of reality and daily living. But those presuppositions can be analyzed by thoughtful reflection and experience and especially by interaction with people who have different presuppositions. In this way we can discern true and false assumptions. And we can even reject presuppositions that we long held without question. We all actually do this. And scientific research would not be possible without this ability and actuality. All worldviews or philosophies are not equally true. There are ways to test them to discover error and truth. And there are ways to test the truth or falsity of religious books (e.g., the Bible).
New York, N.Y.:
Dr. Mortenson, do you buy the chronology of the Rev. Ussher, I believe his name was, who calculated the exact minute of the exact date of creation? Pardon my ignorance of the date, but I believe it was something like 4,000 years before Christ. If not, how old do you believe the earth is?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: As I have already indicated in an earlier reply, I hold to a date close to Ussher's (which he calculated to be 4004 BC for the beginning). He was a brillian scholar in the 17th century and his massive scholarly work (800+ pages) on chrnonology is soon to be published in a modern English translation from the original Latin. It will be available from AiG's website bookstore in the not too distant future.
Crystal City, Va.:
This isn't well-known, but God gave Noah ONE WEEK to round up at least two of every species of animal before the deluge. How could this have been possible? And what about the conflict in Gen 7:2, in which God tells Noah to collect seven of the clean animals and two of the unclean?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: You need to pay more careful attention to the text. Genesis 7:9 & 16 indicate that God brought the animals to Noah, who was already inside ark. Also, creationists believe that there is Biblical and scientific evidence to suggest that there was only one pre-flood land mass. So God did not have to bring the animals from Australia or Latin America. The present arrangement of the continents was produced by the flood.
Washington, D.C.:
How can you even "debate" evolution? Most of the intelligent persons of this world, especially those who do not have religion to cloud their judgment, accept evolution as the only logical explanation of our origins. While there are some things we will never know and a few questions evolution does not answer, it sure makes more sense than the idea that all life on this planet appeared in its current form in a matter of days out of nowhere. Since creationism is based on nothing more than a story and faith, where evolution is based on science, how can we even doubt which makes more sense? Creationism served its purpose of answering the unanswerable eons ago before science had progressed to the point where such questions could be answered. Today, however, such ideas only stand in the way of logic and progress. Such fairy-tales have no place in the modern scientific world; most true scientists will admit as much, since their work only proves these stories wrong. Why don't you work to further our knowledge, instead of trying to hold us back based on religious stories?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: You are simply uninformed about the many PhD scientists who don't accept evolution as a logical explanation of reality. And some of them are not even religious, but agnostics. But also, atheism, New Age pantheism and post-modern relativism dominate the evolution camp and they are nothing more than disguised forms of religion. Furthermore, truth is not determined by popular vote, even of scientists, but by sound arguments presented in the face of open opposition.
Washington, D.C.:
There isn't enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth. How do you explain Noah's flood, in light of that simple fact?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Sure there is. Just raise the ocean basins and lower the mountain ranges (which were once nearly level sedimentary deposits) and there is enough water to flood the lands to a depth of miles. But isn't it ironic that evolutionists are now talking about a flood on Mars during what they call a "noachian epoch", when there is no liquid water at all on Mars?
Great Falls, Mont.:
Is there any scientific findings or proof of evolution that could ever change your mind about creationism?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: No, because scientist were not there in the past and don't know everything and never will. The past cannot be observed or repeated in the laboratory. All we have in the present is some of the evidence of the past events and every one must use assumptions to interpret that data. I contend that the evolutionists have no basis for the soundness of their assumptions, whereas there are many good reasons for believing the the Bible is the inspired Word of the Creator and therefore the only source of correct assumptions for interpreting the evidence that is available to us (both creationists and evolutionists).
Washington, D.C.:
Dr. Mortenson:
Can you explain for me why multi-billion dollar oil corporations, when engaging in oil exploration, insist upon hiring "old-earth" scientists who believe in evolution, and search for oil using their theories about the history of the world that directly contradict the Bible, rather than "young-earth" creationists, who could find oil using theories drawn from Genesis? It sounds like, if you're right, there's a real money-making opportunity!
Dr. Terry Mortenson: I question if you statement of the hiring practices of oil companies applies to reality. The fact is there are PhD young-earth creationist geologists who have worked for oil companies. The evolutionary time-scale imposed on rocks is not essential to the discovery of oil.
Washington, D.C.:
Pray tell, how does a flood rearrange continents so drastically? Continents are rather slow-moving, ponderous things, and aren't tossed hither and thither by mere water pressure.
Dr. Terry Mortenson: You are working with evolutionary assumptions about the slow movement of plates. Check out the technical papers by Dr. John Baumgardner, a world authority on this from Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. His papers which refute this idea can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp
Potomac, Md.:
As an othodox Jew, I (along with most others) view science as telling "how" and the Bible as telling "why." You said that this is a problem for Christians only because it undermines their particular faith (New Testament) but not a problem for others, including Jewish scholars who understand the bible creation story as metaphor for the beginning of human awareness of the world, sin and death, not a literal science road map. Since only Christians have a theological problem with evolutions, dosnt that make creationism a religious doctrine?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: No, because the problem of no death before Adam is a problem for the Old Testament understanding of the world too and undermines the OT teachings about the Messiah would redeem man and the creation (e.g., Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 11:6-9 and 65:17-25.
Also, the very common conception that Genesis only tells us why God created, not how, is not consistent with the text. It nowhere clearly answers the question "why" but it gives a very explicit description of the order of creative events and explicitly distinguishes between how God created the first living creatures (supernaturally by His word) and how He brought the rest of the living creatures into the world (by "natural" procreation from the sexual mating of the first creatures.
Crystal City, Va.:
I am curious as to whether you have ever read anything by Gould or Dawkins, or Dennett's DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA? I have found in debating creationists time after time, they haven't read ANYTHING by an evolutionist.
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Yes I have read some of their works. But equally, I have found that very few evolutionists have actually read first hand the writings of the leading creationists. Have you?
Lewiston, Idaho:
If the Bible is the authority on scientific matters such as creationism, is all other scientific study a waste of time?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: No, absolutely not. Because ever since the flood there has been regularity to the creation (as Geneses 8:22 says). God upholds His whole creation by His providence. The way He does this is described by what scientific study can be labeled as the "laws of nature" (really they are what I prefer to call "the customs of God", because nature would not exist and function without His sustaining power).
So scientific research is valuable for seeing the marvelous glory of God in His creation and our accountability to Him (e.g., Ps. 19:1-7 and Romans 1:18-20) and for harnessing the resourses of creation for the good of all people and the creation itself (as God mandated in Genesis 1:28, which does NOT legitimize the exploitation of the environment).
Young-earth creationists are enthusiastic about science! But we object to religion charading as science.
Arlington, Va.:
Did you watch PBS' "Evolution" series? If so, what did you think? If not, why not?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Yes, I did. I thought it was a classic case of presenting a mountain of interesting facts, none of which supported the molecule to man theory of evolution. Creationist believe in mutations, natural selection and variation and extinction. But the key to evolution is the INCREASE in genetic information. The PBS series only gave examples of the reshuffling of existing genetic information in creatures or the mutations of the genetic information. Mutations can reshuffle genetic information or result in a LOSS of information, just the opposite of what evolution requires.
It also a very one-sided program for public TV to produce. For it failed to mention any of the scientists or scientific evidence opposed to evolution. It gave the false impression that scientists are monolithic in their view of evolution. On the contrary there is a significant debate going on.
Dr. Terry Mortenson: As a closing comment, before I run out of time, allow me to say this.
I have enjoyed this discussion immensely.
It is obviously impossible in a one-hour, Internet, question-answer textual discussion to give thorough, documented, scientific refutations of the evolutionary claims presented in the PBS evolution series of eight hours on television. The PBS series failed to mention any of the arguments used by PhD scientists against the theory of evolution, despite the fact that PBS representatives were present at a creation seminar and interviewed a leading creationist for 2 hours. The series also misrepresented Answers in Genesis and all young-earth creationists as scientifically uninformed with only Biblical and musical arguments against evolution.
Therefore I invite readers to visit the AiG website (www.AnswersInGenesis.org). There you will find detailed scientific critiques of each episode of the PBS series, written by one of AiG’s staff scientists, Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D., chemistry). You will also find free downloadable articles in our Q&A section on almost every conceivable question related to this debate and an on-line bookstore selling many books and videos for people ranging from small children up to Ph.D. scientists.
I suggest the following books in particular:
Ham, Sarfati, Wieland, The Answers Book
Sarfati: Refuting Evolution
Denton: Evolution-A Theory in Crisis
Spetner: Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
Woodmorrappe: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
Morris: The Young Earth
Get all the facts, examine the assumptions used in interpretation of the agreed-upon facts and then judge for yourself the position which best makes sense of the scientific evidence.
Finally, I would like to thank the Washington Post for this opportunity for the free exchange of ideas.
Sterling, Va.:
Was wondering to what degree does Islam speak about any type of evolution? I gather Muslims don't belive in it like Christians don't, but is there even a mention of it in a holy book?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: There are Muslims who accept evolution but many who do not, both for scientific and religious reasons. I am not an expert on the Koran to comment further.
Palo Alto, Calif.:
Couldn't evolution be God's way of creating this world we live in? In a sense creating it by allowing it to unfold by itself? It seems that both people and other organisms have free will. I cannot believe that the hand of God is directly making bad things happen; they must be a byproduct of a complex process that unfolds as things play out. Whether these things were set in motion by someone (God) or not, it is apparent that evolution is a plausible explanation for much of what we see, and God's hand is not a plausible explantion. Comments?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: No it could not, because it is impossible to fairly interpret the Biblical text to harmonize it with evolution theory.
The order of creation in Genesis 1 and the order of evolutionary history contradict each other at many major points.
Also the Bible's teaching about death contradicts the evolution view.
And there are other problems I don't have time to cover.
Boston, Mass.:
In an earlier response, you stated "there are many good reasons for believing the the Bible is the inspired Word of the Creator."
Can you elaborate on these reasons, without referencing the Bible itself? Or, to put it another way, aside from the scripture and the faith of those that is derived from it, what objective evidence is there that supports your assertation that the bible is the "inspired Word of the Creator?"
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Check out the AiG website for articles related to this question.
Washington, D.C.:
In one of your responses you stated that the existence of dinosours would be fatal to the theory of evolution. How so?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Evolution says they died out 65 million years ago. Who would trust the theory if the evolutionists got that "established fact" wrong?
Crystal City, Va.:
Doc, there USED to be water on Mars--the evidence is very clear. This reminds me of another problem: The Moon is heavily cratered, indicating that it was bombarded by debris during its formation while molten. It appears that some of the bombardment was coming directly from Earth. Are we to assume all this occurred 6,000 years ago?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: We don't know for sure that there used to be liquid water on Mars. Were you there? But nevertheless, there is plenty of water on earth for a global flood.
Check the AiG website for articles on the craters on the moon. Also, Dr. Danny Faulkner, an astronomy professor at a secular university, has recently given a lecture (which will soon be for sale on video at the AiG website bookstore) on moon craters and the age of the moon.
Olney, Md.:
Do you have an explanation, or is there a concensus among creationists, why G-d would have created elements with an atomic decay rate that is apparently absolutely stable, and created skeletons or fossils of creatures that never lived, and then have some of their radioactive isotopes decay so that they would seem older?
Or, more simply, why can we observe evolution in action Drosophilia and bacteria, but you believe that humans never grew taller or developed bigger craniums?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: He didn't create fossils; they are the result of the Flood.
Check out the previously mentioned books and website articles on radiometric dating. The decay rates are not constant and PhD creation scientists are research this whole area.
Flies change into flies, bacteria into bacteria, humans into taller humans. But evolution does not explain the increase information to change bacteria into flies, humans or any other non-bacteria.
Jefferson's Virginia:
This whole discussion seems to be centered on a totally "Christian" view of the subject, but only as defined by you and your ilk. I guess the views of the origins of the Earth and the Universe as seen by other great religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism don't even count here?
In other words, one has to be a "Christian" to be a scientist? Sorry, but I think they stopped burning heretics some centuries ago....
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Sorry, but I never said that. And I don't believe in burning anyone at the stake. But the historical fact is that science was born in the womb of Christian Europe not in Hindu or Buddhist countries and science continues to operate on assumptions that flow outof the Christian worldview. People of other religions can do science, but they will be using Christian assumptions about reality, whether they realize it or not.
New York, N.Y.:
Dr. Mortenson, in the last 200 years, some eminent Biblical scholars have shown how the Bible was composed. It was, according to them, a lengthy process of collection, redaction, selection, rejection -- in short, not a simple flash of revelation, but a painstaking building by committees, Jewish and Christian. Does this view of the Bible's Genesis, if you will, match your own? Doesn't such a view, seeing how errant human judgment is, make it very unlikely that the Bible is the literal word of god?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Most of those liberal theories have been refuted long ago by other Bible scholars, archeologists and historians. Liberal seminaries and university religion departments are teaching false arguments, because like evolutionists they refuse to listen to objections of their well-informed critics. The traditional trust in the reliability of the Bible is more reasonable than ever.
Washington, D.C.:
How do you explain the fact that we've found clear fossil lineages for many modern species (humans included)? How do you explain the bones of australopithecines and Homo erectus and Homo habilis, that get progressively less "apelike" and more "humanlike" as you move forward in time?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Regarding human evolution consider.
The history of the theory of human evolution is littered with the discarded fossil evidence that when discovered was zealously and confidently declared to be irrefutable proof of human evolution from ape-like creatures. But time plus more careful analysis exposed the wrongly interpreted data. Paleoanthropology is in a mess. Consider the statement by Dr. Chris Stringer from London’s Natural History Museum. After mentioning "Skull 1470" (Homo habilis), "Skull 3733" (Homo erectus), both found by Richard Leakey in Kenya, the Laetoli footprints, found by Mary Leakey in Tanzania, and "Lucy", found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia, Dr. Stringer says,
“The study of human origins seems to be a field in which each discovery raises the debate to a more sophisticated level of uncertainty. Such appears to be the effect of the Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ethiopian finds. The new information has opened and gradually widened a rift between the Leakeys and Donald Johanson and Timothy White as well as other American workers involved in the discovery and interpretation of the fossils. True to the traditions of the field the arguments swirl around the questions of the correct classification of the fossils and of the presumed relationships between the species of humans and pre-humans. Was one group ancestral to another, or were they contemporaries, perhaps contending for evolutionary advantage? Such discussions have made the field fascinatingly contentious, and they have probably won it more newsprint than it might have otherwise received.”
Chris Stringer, Book review of Origins Reconsidered: In Search Of What Makes Us Human, by Richard Leakey (Doubleday, 1992), in Scientific American (May 1993), p. 88.
Regarding Ardipethicus ramidius kadappa, the latest missing link. it should be noted that key evidence for upright posture was the toe bone, separated from the other bones geographically by 10 miles and chronologically by over 100,000 years. So much for careful, unbiased analysis of the facts. See other problems with this fossil find at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/kadabba.asp.
Tell me where the other missing links are. They are nowhere to be found on the PBS program or anywhere else. See the AiG website critiques of the PBS series to see what's wrong with the evidence that the PBS did present.
Crystal City, Va.:
Human remains are found mixed with those of woolly mammoths, for example, but never with those of dinosaurs such as T. Rex. Doesn't this conflict with Genesis?
Dr. Terry Mortenson: We would not generally expect to find such creatures together in death, due to living habits, ecological zones, ability to escape the rising flood waters, difference in fragility of body structures and what happens when the creature dies in water, etc. No problem for the Bible here.
Dr. Terry Mortenson: Thank you again for a lively discussion. Keep thinking and pursuing the truth. And visit our website to hear what the evolutionists refuse to tell you so that you can make an informed judgment.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company
