Creative thinking
Some people believe that Creationism isn't scientific. Nonsense! Word has reached the Heresiarch of a new online journal, the Answers Research Journal, which aims to set the record straight, showing up Dawkins and similar evolutionists as the shallow saps they really are.
ARJ claims to be
"There has been a pressing need for such a journal" writes editor Andrew Snelling (PhD).
Answers Research Journal makes no concessions to the Intelligent Design wimps, who fondly imagine that they can take on mainstream biologists on their own ground, thus surrendering the initiative to the godless. Instead, it is entirely upfront about its approach. Bible first, questions afterwards, science, if you're lucky, somewhere far behind.
Take, for example, an account of "the role of microbes in God's wonderful design" by Alan L Gillen.
Gillen's problem is the lack of reliable (i.e. scriptural) evidence. After all, there's not much in the Book of Genesis about unicellular life. One searches in vain for "And on the fourth day God created amoebas." Even Jesus didn't make many unambiguous statements about bacteria, having, it might be thought, other things to worry about. Which leaves a number of important issues unresolved:
Gillen even claims Lister, Pasteur and the microscope pioneer Leeuwenhoek as previous "creation scientists" saying that they "were blessed by God as He revealed (Psalm 139:17a) to them critical insight into His creation."
Nice microbes, like the ones we have in our stomachs to aid digestion, were, Gillen thinks, created by God along with more complex lifeforms. However, the ones responsible for all the nasty diseases
I see. So because Adam and Eve developed an unfortunate taste for apples, there are now parasitic wasps which lay their eggs inside the living bodies of caterpillars.
I'm sure Richard Dawkins and his acolytes will now feel thoroughly embarrassed at the shallowness of their own so-called "science".
The most striking thing about "creation scientists" is their complete lack of interest in science. To them, the findings of bona fide researchers are merely debating points to be settled by cleverly twisting certain Biblical passages. Still, they should have plenty to chew on. Here's one I've never understood. If the dinosaurs were wiped out in the Flood (because Noah didn't let them in the Ark, presumably) what killed off the ichthyosaurs? After all, they could swim.
Yes, I know it sounds like some sort of wind-up. As science writer Adam Rutherford puts it,
As far as I can tell, however, the people behind the site do exist: one even pops up on YouTube talking about the time humans coexisted with dinosaurs.
ARJ claims to be
a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
"There has been a pressing need for such a journal" writes editor Andrew Snelling (PhD).
People want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet, which is why papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research. Thus, we can give you absolute assurance that the papers we will be publishing in our Answers Research Journal are of the highest scientific and theological standard.
Answers Research Journal makes no concessions to the Intelligent Design wimps, who fondly imagine that they can take on mainstream biologists on their own ground, thus surrendering the initiative to the godless. Instead, it is entirely upfront about its approach. Bible first, questions afterwards, science, if you're lucky, somewhere far behind.
Take, for example, an account of "the role of microbes in God's wonderful design" by Alan L Gillen.
Gillen's problem is the lack of reliable (i.e. scriptural) evidence. After all, there's not much in the Book of Genesis about unicellular life. One searches in vain for "And on the fourth day God created amoebas." Even Jesus didn't make many unambiguous statements about bacteria, having, it might be thought, other things to worry about. Which leaves a number of important issues unresolved:
Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall? These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years. Ongoing research, based on the creation paradigm, appears to provide some answers to these puzzling questions.
Gillen even claims Lister, Pasteur and the microscope pioneer Leeuwenhoek as previous "creation scientists" saying that they "were blessed by God as He revealed (Psalm 139:17a) to them critical insight into His creation."
Nice microbes, like the ones we have in our stomachs to aid digestion, were, Gillen thinks, created by God along with more complex lifeforms. However, the ones responsible for all the nasty diseases
would have originated after the Fall (Genesis 3). The Edenic Curse would have profoundly influenced all creation, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoans that would later become pathogens or parasites...
It is not the way the Creator intended for man and nature.
I see. So because Adam and Eve developed an unfortunate taste for apples, there are now parasitic wasps which lay their eggs inside the living bodies of caterpillars.
I'm sure Richard Dawkins and his acolytes will now feel thoroughly embarrassed at the shallowness of their own so-called "science".
The most striking thing about "creation scientists" is their complete lack of interest in science. To them, the findings of bona fide researchers are merely debating points to be settled by cleverly twisting certain Biblical passages. Still, they should have plenty to chew on. Here's one I've never understood. If the dinosaurs were wiped out in the Flood (because Noah didn't let them in the Ark, presumably) what killed off the ichthyosaurs? After all, they could swim.
Yes, I know it sounds like some sort of wind-up. As science writer Adam Rutherford puts it,
To be honest, I'm finding hard to believe that's it's not a wheeze, a clever dig at us po-faced scientists. I'll be the first to issue a public self-deprecating tut when it's all revealed as being a prank orchestrated by Chris Morris.
As far as I can tell, however, the people behind the site do exist: one even pops up on YouTube talking about the time humans coexisted with dinosaurs.
Comments