Young Earth Science: Join the #YoungEarth Revolution!

When it comes to origins we must face the question, “What happened“? That is, did man come from molecules or are Essential Types of Life (ETL's) limited with respect to variability? Biological essentialism implies stability and variety among basic categories of life.

If I said that President Kennedy’s head wound was the result of abuse of exotic Norwegian teas, you might think me insane. Most agree that JFK was shot, but in some circles the “who” is controversial.

It is possible to be an essentialist and an atheist - they are wrong about the existence of God, but at least they’re correct with respect to what happened in the history of life. Surely the ability of the incubator bird to keep its eggs at 91°F and 99.5% humidity did not evolve.[1] When did an intelligent agent make a cell phone, bridge or clock through “evolution”? Evolution is the method of an inefficient “god.”

Essentialism implies a young earth. If biological entities reproduce their own type, then all the main categories have always coexisted. In order to match this view with the geologic record the time scale must be collapsed.[2] That is, corals, frogs and people have always coexisted. “Who did it?” is not the only important question. “What happened?” is also critical.

The earth is cursed because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17) and even the stars are impure in God’s sight (Job 25:5). Stars blow up and thus lack perfection. God made man perfect from the beginning (Eccl. 7:29, Mt. 19:4). In conclusion, there were no tornadoes before Adam and Eve sinned. This makes theistic evolution impossible.

The Westminster Confession states that God created, “...the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good” (ch. 4.1). That is, galaxies and angels are untouched by sin at the end of six days when man was created. Also, the universe cannot be billions of years older than man!

Consider the following creationists: Steven Austin (Ph.D. Geology) was published in the International Geology Review in 1999. David Phillips (M.A. Paleoanthropology) works at the paleontology lab at the La Brea Tar Pits. John Oller (Ph.D. General Linguistics) is an elected member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Kurt Wise (Ph.D. Geology - Harvard) was privileged to have the late Stephen J. Gould as his principal advisor! The “Against All Odds” video series, part of the Annenberg/CPB collection, is shown in many statistics university courses and contains a segment in program 2 entitled “Lightning Strikes in Colorado.” It focuses on the research of Raul Lopez (Ph.D. Atmospheric Science) - a creationist![3]

#DarwinDoubters of the world unite! David Berlinski (Ph.D. Mathematics - Princeton) said, “The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”[4] Thomas Emmel (d. 2018), who earned his Ph.D. in Population Biology from Stanford, stated, “To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise." Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics for 1978) claimed, “Creation is supported by all the data so far.”[5] Penzias’ sentiments are echoed by another Nobel prize winner in physics (1927), Arthur H. Compton:

Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything ... An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: "In the beginning, God."[6]

Even an atheist can hold to the fixity of kinds. G. H. Harper published an article in The School Science Review (a British educational journal) advocating the “steady state theory of species.” In other words, bears reproduce bears and frogs make frogs - biological essentialism. Harper is an atheist.[7]

I was happy to take a course in the History of Science from Dr. David B. Kitts, formerly a professor of Geology, at the University of Oklahoma. In that course he pointed out that many supposed overthrusts - where “old” rocks lay uniformly upon “young” rocks - show no evidence of this interpretation, such as breccia at the contact, and has not been sufficiently answered by the evolutionary establishment. In an oft quoted article, Kitts proclaimed, “If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record then he has indeed committed a methodological error.”[8]

Dr. Kitts debated Duane Gish and Henry Morris in 1973 and was a student of the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson.[9] In an interview in 1981, Kitts said, “Aristotle, to a greater extent than almost anyone we know about, relied upon his observations. He observed that individual members of a species do not persist but kinds do persist. ... Evolutionists have a very elaborate abstract theory that compels us to suppose that species do not persist.” Furthermore, Kitts claimed, “The fossil record is consistent with an astronomical number of theories. The fossil record does not prove evolution; nothing proves evolution.”[10]

Let us examine the wise words of Rufus Porter (d. 1884), the founder of Scientific American, who boldly proclaimed,

First, then, let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and daily Preserver; and that we are each of us individually dependant on his special care and good will towards us, in supporting the wonderful action of nature which constitutes our existence; and in preserving us from the casualties, to which our complicated and delicate structure is liable.[11]

One can be an atheist and still attack evolution. By "essentialism" I mean that all basic types of life vary within limits and we are not the amoeba's cousin. Herbert Spencer, an atheist, wrote "Illogical Geology" critiquing many of the ideas upon which Darwin based his arguments!

my site: https://totalyouth.us

Notes:

1) The Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin (Biblical Discipleship Pub., 1994), p.45.

2) Henry Morris noticed this decades ago.

3) Some scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation:

https://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

4) "Keeping an Eye on Evolution" by David Berlinski,

The Globe & Mail, Nov. 2, 1996, p. D10:

http://www.refcm.org/scripture-science-stott/evolution/pages/018-eye-on-evolution.htm

5) Some Interesting Statements By Scientists (9-4-99):

https://jashow.org/articles/some-interesting-statements-by-scientists-a-compilation-of-statements-made-by-scientists-only-one-of-whom-is-a-biblical-creationist-concerning-evolution/

6) Arthur Compton Quotes: