BEING THAT I formerly wrote as Technical Editor for a national automotive magazine, and my crossover from the technical field now torques toward more theological pursuits, I think that I possess a good background for examining the whole “Creation-vs-Evolution” debate. However, know that this conversation tends to torque the minds and twist the tongues of many persons in modern society.

In examination of dialog on this topic, I saw where TV science personality Bill Nye offered some statements backed up with pseudo-scientific proofs drawn from Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution”. He cited evidence from geology and astronomy. Drawing upon what he understands as theorems falsely grown to scientific “facts” in his mind, he has taught students from grade school to those with doctorate pursuits. Thus the “science expert” forwarded the theory concerning the evolution of man up from pond scum. He pushed the “big bang” origins of an expanding universe, and declared the necessity of “survival of the fittest” behavior modification. This last item he especially proposed as a must if we humans are to survive global warming. He also noted rigorously about his being appalled by any Judeo-Christian resistance in accepting his argument, claiming that a modern majority population already

Creative Torque!

has accepted his positions. He finally stated that many “thoughtful” Christians join his work to reconcile the progressive worldview with the Bible.

Noted biblical expert Ken Ham, however, declared then that the real evidence for this topic comes not from science, but instead from the solid, scriptural, historical witness of the Bible. He shunned a strictly scientific approach to our deep past, as a path interpretatively trod beyond human scientific certainty. He cited an example of research bias, in that any explorative geological findings are interpreted by scientifically-trained minds tutored in faulty evolutional theory. Consequently,

Ham highlighted his belief that science and faith can exist together, by saying that many good scientists are faithful Christian believers. Thus as a theologian, he claimed that scientific discovery can be found and rightly stated by modern man from a creationist expression.

First let me take screwdriver and wrench and open up the scientist’s assumptions, those concerning our knowledge gained by “pure” science. I question the purity claim. Given that the churchman pointed rightly that reputable scientists are products of a modern educational mold, this forms the basis of their very thinking processes. Since experimental results gathered are substantively influenced by learned observance and reaction they are not pure.

In example, I have read that “aging” measurements by which various artifacts, whether stones, trees or parchment, are now influenced by newer, changing scientific measurements. These changes can vary our assessments of historical timelines greatly! An item’s age had been long determined through the atomic deterioration of matter. Though basic elements of matter were once scientifically-thought to decay at a certain consistency, new

Some things are like the Studebaker, which evolved to the brink of extinction. Leaving only a few as evidence of their passing.