Creationism increasingly proving to be good science
by Nelson Price
Columnist
September 13, 2009 01:00 AM | 382 views | 6 6 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Having a minor in biology, I have maintained an interest in earth sciences. Following are insights from keen scientific minds on the subject.

There are several scientific societies made up of members with advanced degrees from prestigious institutions. "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek quotes some of these scholars. In this worthy read many scientists speak on the topic of origins. They range from creationists to theists to atheists. Note these insights by them on the topic of the Teleological Argument. "Telos" is Greek for design.

Isaac Newton wrote, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Cosmologist Ed Harrison said, "The fine-tuning of the universe proves prima facie evidence of deistic design."

Microbiologist Chandra Wickramasing admits Darwinists are acting on blind faith when it comes to spontaneous generation of life and observed, "The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding hard to shed. Indeed all attempts to create life from non-life, starting with Pasteur, have been unsuccessful."

Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

Phillip Gold, referring to the orderly design of the universe concluded, "God plays Scrabble."

Though not a scientist, former astronaut John Glenn looked out of the space shuttle Discovery and remarked, "To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible."

Michael Denton, a respected atheist adds, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

Design indicates a designer. Consider the design of a single one-cell amoeba. Darwinist Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University, acknowledges the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more that the 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined. The entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. That is detail intricate design yet naturalistic evolutionists claim it came about by spontaneous generation.

Design is seen in one protein molecule which has about 100 amino acids. Michael Behe has calculated that the probability of life arising by chance from nonliving chemicals would be like a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. One protein molecule is not life. To get life, would require about 200 protein molecules together.

Physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey is honest in admitting, "The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology." He concludes Darwinists are as religious as the "religious" and live by faith.

The creation evolution debate is not about religion verses science or Bible versus science - it is about good science verses bad science, and creation is increasingly proving to be good science. Many honest evolutionists admit flaws in their philosophy but like Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard insist that because of having "a prior commitment to materialism ...we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

It might be added especially the school house door.

The Rev. Dr. Nelson Price is pastor emeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church. Contact Price at nlprice@aol.com.
comments (6)
« Joe Anderson wrote on Monday, Sep 14 at 01:16 PM »
Mr Price,

To illustrate how selectively choosing ideas that support one‘s position while ignoring the original context can be misleading, I used your article to string together a few short statements that reflect my position on the issues of God, Richard Dawkins and the teaching of religious concepts in science class:

“I have made up a God. God is to me impossible. It is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event.”

“Richard Dawkins is honest.”

“The creation/evolution debate is not about religion versus science or bible versus science - it is about flaws in philosophy divine. We cannot allow it. Especially [at] the school house door.”

And I thought proponents of intelligent design claim they are in favor of accurately presenting both sides of the argument.

Regards,

Joe Anderson
« Scott Little wrote on Sunday, Sep 13 at 08:10 PM »
I must state that using the sayings of many of these scientists out of context does not prove your argument that "creation" is science. It simply states that you can cherry pick comments without providing the context from which they were taken. The fact is that creation is not science in any way, shape, or form. It is simply fiction supplied by "theologists" to try to explain what is to them unexplainable. No, science does not have all the answers, but it does have many more realistic answers than something solely based in mythology and human created stories to explain what goes bump in the night. While there is not proof of what caused the moment of creation in science, there is a lot more evidence that supports the theories posited by scientists than any "proof" supplied by the stories cooked up by a bunch of unknown and unknowable men hundreds or thousands of years in the past. Simply saying "god did it" does not prove anything at all and certainly is not science.

Maybe you should take that minor in biology that you earned 30 years ago and go back to school and earn a major, much has changed and the evidentiary support for abiogenesis and evolution is getting stronger every day, with every study being conducted by true scientists who aren't afraid to ask the important questions and follow the evidence.
« Seth Manapio wrote on Sunday, Sep 13 at 07:30 PM »
Except, of course, that scientists do not claim that the intricate design of an amoeba came about by a single spontaneous event. That's actually the exact opposite of evolution. Evolution is a series of selected changes, not a single chance event or changes preserved by chance.

Creationism is not "increasingly" good science. The more we learn about the universe, the less support for an intelligent designer there is. You can quote mine "Darwinists" all day long, but in the end, your dishonesty only hurts your credibility.
« CWalters wrote on Sunday, Sep 13 at 07:30 PM »
I have a minor is philosophy, and I declare Christianity to be false. (Pretty compelling, eh?)

Rev. Price, you have been misled and lied to. In the process, you have committed a great number of logical fallacies (not the least of which is "begging the question").

Why don't you (and other dyed-in-the-wool creationists) simply read what evolution says. Forget the "Darwinist" label and learn what evolutionary biologists are actually claiming, and how evolution works. The minute you mentioned spontaneous generation, you showed how outdated your information is.

Creationism is not good science, and asserting it is does not make it so.

If you want to undo the findings of generations of scientists over the last 140 years, you will be better served to learn what those findings are.
« Dustin P wrote on Sunday, Sep 13 at 07:07 PM »
This is probably one the most scientifically inaccurate pieces I've read in quite some time.
« Dahrhwhen wrote on Sunday, Sep 13 at 01:35 PM »
For once now, I have some reason to agree with "Dr" Price. The mere existence of his weak scientific intellect is indeed demonstrable & testable evidence that natural selection has some serious and inexplicable holes in it.

But seriously "Dr" Price, science and faith are irreconcilable. The basis of all science is on direct examination & measurement, testability, & repeatability. Faith is just that...faith. There's nothing particularly wrong with faith, but faith is the antithesis of science and the scientific method.

Those in faith who search for some common ground with science are wasting their time. Those of us in science who find explanations of some of the physical world's wonders in faith (due to the lack of any scientifically testable hypothesis) are just taking a scientifically lazy short-cut driven mainly by impatience or perhaps peer pressure.

So, a plea to "Dr" Price...please stick to what you know and keep your untrained scientific hands out of science. You're form of help is counter-productive in this field of learning.