Creationists Fight Back with Laughable Faux-Science “Journal”

By Jennifer Barone | February 13, 2008 3:13 pm

Answers in Genesis, the folks who brought us the Creation Museum, just launched a “professional, peer-reviewed technical journal,” Answers Research Journal. Because after all, peer-reviewed journals are where real scientists publish their work, right? Splendid. Let’s pop inside and take a peek at how peer review works for creationists!

Here is the publication’s own description of the review process, from their Instructions to Authors [PDF]:

VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

  1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
  2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
  3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
  4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
  5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
  6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

In other words, they’ll happily publish your paper, just as long as it sticks to their script and doesn’t rock the ark with any pesky details like evidence to the contrary!

Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it. They’ve helpfully explained in a neatly-ordered list that they’re only interested in hearing news that confirms what they already believe. Of course this kind of tunnel vision exists, but you’d think they would do their best to cover it up in public. Instead, it’s all nicely laid out as editorial policy. Thanks, AiG!

Contrast the criteria above with the guidelines for peer review at highly-respected journals like Science (where the rules begin with “reviews should be objective evaluations of the research,”) or Nature (where the first priority for a paper is that it “provides strong evidence for its conclusions”).

The editors of Answers might benefit from a reading of the nifty booklet on “Science, Evolution and Creationism” recently published by the National Academy of Sciences, which includes a handy section on How Science Works. One of the core ideas is: “Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light.” I’m not sure how to politely describe the activities of a so-called “journal” whose policy is to sweep inconvenient evidence under the rug, but it sure ain’t science.


Mouse-nod to Nature News for noting the publication launch.

And a one-day-belated Happy Darwin Day to all!

  • Steve S.

    Let’s see, Discover? Like in Discover new truth? As in let individuals decide for themselves? The problem with you people is cowardice, so you have one recourse: belittle with generalities. Why don’t you call for a debate on PBS or the Discovery Channel with the best Answers in Genesis has to offer and one of your guys? You won’t. You are afraid, and you lie. You could prove otherwise by debate, but you won’t for the reasons cited. I’m sick of your wicked hearts. You’re hypocrites! You say creationists interpret by their faith and you won’t say the same about your faith. Hypocrisy! You are afraid of the falsifiability of your own pet discoveries. Get with the truth and be set free.

  • Tom C

    What I find truly disturbing in this day and age is that people still proclaim “faith” as science.
    Science is supported by facts. Facts that start as a hypothesis ( an idea ), are then tested, reviewed, tested again and finally proclaimed to be “true” or in other words “scientific law”. Anybody with the desire and the means can duplicate findings. Over and over again.
    “Faith” on the other hand relies wholly on “trust me, I need not prove the validity of my statement, but I know I’m right.”.
    By that logic, since probably 100,000,000 children across the globe at any given time believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, they both exist. Trust me, I have faith.

  • modernrocko

    I hope you were being sarcastic, Steve– your fear of science is showing.

  • Sparkling Medusa

    I am absolutely appalled at Steve’s comment. One cannot call scientifically minded people wicked. It is evidence of insecurity that he has reacted in such a way to someone challenging his beliefs. I think that a great number of people of faith would react in a similar way. I have had many discussions with these kinds of people and have found a similar defensive reaction. I think Tom is absolutely correct. I also have faith. However I am willing to look at the facts that exist instead of passing them off as wicked. Don’t forget ,Steve, that the book of Genesis is simply the documentation of God’s relationship with man. It probably should not be taken literally. It’s a story of how God and man got along back in the day. It is a STORY.

    It says in the Bible: “For we know in part and we prophecy in part” THAT means that we don’t know everything. Won’t Steve’s face be red when we get to pearly gates and the evolutionists were right?

    Perhaps it remains to be seen.

  • Luke

    The article’s author seems incapable of applying his criticisms to his own position.

    Article Quote “In other words, they’ll happily publish your paper, just as long as it sticks to their script and doesn’t rock the ark with any pesky details like evidence to the contrary!”

    In reality, ‘Discover’ will also happily publish your paper, just as long as it sticks to their script and doesn’t rock their ark with any pesky details like evidence to the contrary!”

    This is precisely why AIG created it’s own peer reviewed journal.

    quote “Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it.”

    They have always been transparent about their intentions, persuppositions and methods. Again the author also has presuppositions and beliefs, but is unwilling to subject them to the same ciriticism he holds AIG against.

    further quote: “The editors of Answers might benefit from a reading of the nifty booklet on “Science, Evolution and Creationism” recently published by the National Academy of Sciences, which includes a handy section on How Science Works.”

    If the author truly knew anything about AIG, he would know that they have read and reviewed Science, Evolution and Creationism in detail. Any individual reading they’re rebuttal would realize that AIG does not disagree with any factual evidence put forth in the journal, but rather challenge the beliefs and bias held by the contributing scientists that lead them to their conclusions. The author is unable or unwilling to recognize his own biased position.

    Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself.

    Also note that the author shares his work between the organizations AIG and CMI


  • Mark

    “Won’t Steve’s face be red when we get to pearly gates and the evolutionists were right?”

    A more contradictory statement there has never been. Evolution and an old Earth are incompatible with Creation and a Young Earth (which is what the Bible clearly reveals as truth.) So either evolution is false (and honestly, it’s the biggest mass deception in history), or there are no pearly gates.

  • Jennifer Barone

    Thanks to all for your thoughts.

    Tom’s mention of the scientific method brings up an important point. While
    my post focused on the the publishing and review of research papers,
    hypothesis testing and experimentation are really at the heart of any
    endeavor that calls itself “science.”

    It’s all well and good to wax poetic about which day of creation microbes
    were wrought into being:

    But science progresses when researchers produce testable predictions and
    actually test ’em.

  • Joe Blough

    What would be the point of debating the ‘scientists’ at AiG, it would be a waste of time. AiG’s own statement of faith reads, in part: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” You wouldn’t be able to convince these people now matter how much evidence you put in front of them.

    To AiG if it contradicts the Bible then it’s wrong, end of discussion.

  • marc draco

    I’m with Joe. You can’t debate with someone who has already closed their mind to new ideas. However, I’d be the first to admit that some scientists have done that too: probably as a reaction to these rich a******s at AiG spreading all this propaganda.

    AiG have stupid on their side. People want easy explanations, not scientific ones. Goddidit is the ultimate get out of jail free card. Show them some (even basic) science and their minds can’t (in some cases, won’t) understand it. The very mention of DNA is enough to make them glaze over with incoherence.

    Ken Ham is merely a shepherd and his accidentally or willfully ignorant sheep follow.

    We don’t need to teach evolution so much as scepticism (which is what I’m doing in [shameless plug] my current book). Give people the ability to spot baloney and they will accept the likely scientific explanation rather than some 4000 year old BS.

  • Steve

    So, why not debate on national TV? A waste of time? But shouldn’t the masses decide for themselves? And btw, Answers in Genesis holds to the Genesis scriptural account, but they are thorough in presenting scientific (as in true knowledge) evidences. And here is something else: the discoveries cited in the “nifty” little booklet from the National Academy of Sciences are only interpretations. They will observe and interpret to their liking. Creation scientists will observe and interpret to their beliefs. The point is, which model does the interpretation best support? How about the Cambrian Explosion? How about plutonium halos deep within solid granite? How about the rate of helium release from the earth? How about star’s red shifts in every direction from the earth appearing to put us at the center? (yah, I know, Hubble had to change it to an “inflationary” view since his discovery was too intimidating). And on and on it could go. So, let the debate begin! Let the masses decide for themselves. (not the establishment elite purporting to decide for them)

  • Luke

    Marc and Joe

    ““No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

    For the sake of discussion, take into consideration the similar position of evolutionary scientists. Does it not truly in practice read something like “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it agrees with the Scriptural record.”

    Origins science is conducted within the prevailing paradigm of today which does not allow for new ideas that contradict its presuppositions. So your point “You wouldn’t be able to convince these people now matter how much evidence you put in front of them.” is well taken Joe, but applies to both creationists and evolutionists. Also note that a discussion of the evidence you are referring to would be better interpreted by one of the paradigms presented; I believe the creation model offers a much better explanation, but most people won’t listen or even consider it. Have you considered it with an open mind? Only you know.

    Most scientists today are hostile to the ideas of an intelligent Creator designing our world and universe; good luck having any future in science if you dare challenge neo Darwinism. Remember this is not an argument over fact, but interpretation of facts. AIG’s scientists, intelligent design scientists and evolutionary scientists do not argue over facts, but interpretation of facts based on a belief about an unobserved past. It is those beliefs that puts interpretation into a box which AIG’s statement freely demonstrates and the hostility of evolutionary scientists likewise confirms.

    Good to hear your points of view


  • Phijl Gregor

    Tom C. says ‘Science is supported by facts.’ Good grief! True science, yes. But much of what is purported as science is, at best, theory. Theory is NOT scientific fact. In the best cases it has some fact, but not enough to even rise above theoretic conjecture. Regrettably, and the damning feature of the current scientific community, the missing facts are put together without the rigor of true scientific investigation and proof yet presented as ‘fact’.

    That is unconscienable .. not necessarily evil, but certainly unethical.

  • Trey

    I see a problem in this blog that I can’t help but address. The very title! Why is it that when scientists with a Christian world view start their own journal they are seen as “fighting back”? Why is it taken in offense when scientists with a Christian world view limit the things they want in THEIR journal? Is not the author of this article doing the exact same thing he accused the Christian scientists of doing? Isn’t the author of this blog “fighting back” in his own special way? Why do scientists of other world views have to submit to this author’s beliefs of “how science should be?” I take it the author (or any other journal) is against anyone who “fights” science, still yet he contradicts his own beliefs with this blog.

  • Sam

    Some good points have been made here. Both sides accuse the other of not being open to evidence supporting the alternative view. I am not sure I followed all the logic. Here is what I know
    Science eventually accepts all verifiable evidence. from this a “theory” or multiple theories that best fit accumulated evidence are brought forth. Clearly creationism has been the prevailing theory in the western world for thousands of years. If evidence arises that seems to conflict with the prevailing theory soon a new theory is proposed that explains this new theory better. Sometimes these theories are quite contentious at the outset. Then the fun begins, as more evidence comes to light and either supports or contradicts the theories, frequently with heavy and heated debate. After a period enough evidence accumulates to either support or throw out the different theories. Frequently there is a small amount evidence that is not strong in support of one or the other theory.
    So where is the theory of evolutionary compared to creationism in this process of accumulating evidence for and against? Evolution is ahead about 10,000 to 1. Perfect example of evolution today: clearly in our lifetimes bacteria and viruses have evolved to become resistant to our previously effective drugs. Yes, the evidence is right under our noses( or inside our noses!) if we are willing to accept the evidence.

  • Dan Thomas

    Creation, as explained in the Bible, means that Almighty God designed and brought into existence the universe, including other spirit persons and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

    In this modern, scientific world, is it reasonable to believe in creation?

    “The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.” —Quoted from Wernher von Braun, who had much to do with sending American astronauts to the moon.

    Physical universe: If you found a precision timepiece, would you conclude that it was formed by a chance blowing together of some dust particles? Obviously, someone with intelligence made it. There is an even more magnificent “clock.” The planets in our solar system, also the stars in the entire universe, move at a rate that is more precise than most clocks designed and manufactured by man. The galaxy in which our solar system is located includes over 100 billion stars, and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion of such galaxies in the universe. If a clock is evidence of intelligent design, how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe! The Bible describes the Designer of it as “the true God, Jehovah, . . . the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out.”—Isa. 42:5; 40:26; Ps. 19:1.

    Planet Earth: When crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it. Well, scientists have not yet found life on any of the planets of our solar system except the earth; available evidence indicates that the others are barren. This planet is, as the book The Earth says, “the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere.” (New York, 1963, Arthur Beiser, p. 10) It is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around the earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Marvelously, light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for earth’s inhabitants. Did it all come about as a result of some uncontrolled explosion in space? Science News admits: “It seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random.” (August 24 and 31, 1974, p. 124) The Bible’s conclusion is reasonable when it states: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—Heb. 3:4.

    Human brain: Modern computers are a product of intensive research and careful engineering. They did not “just happen.” What about the human brain? Unlike the brain of any animal, the brain of a human infant triples in size during its first year. How it functions is still largely a mystery to scientists. In humans, there is the built-in capacity to learn complex languages, to appreciate beauty, to compose music, to contemplate the origin and meaning of life. Said brain surgeon Robert White: “I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship—something far beyond man’s capacity to understand.” (The Reader’s Digest, September 1978, p. 99) The development of this marvel begins from a tiny fertilized cell in the womb. With remarkable insight, the Bible writer David said to Jehovah: “I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.”—Ps. 139:14.

    Living cell: A single living cell is sometimes referred to as being a “simple” form of life. But a one-celled animal can catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, build a house for itself and engage in sexual activity. Each cell of the human body has been likened to a walled city, with a central government to maintain order, a power plant to generate energy, factories to produce proteins, a complex transportation system, and guards to regulate what is permitted to enter. And a single human body is made up of as many as 100 trillion cells. How appropriate the words of Psalm 104:24: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made”!

    Does the Bible allow for the idea that God used evolution to produce the various kinds of living things?

    Genesis 1:11, 12 says that grass and trees were made to produce each “according to its kind.” Verses 21, 24, 25 add that God created sea creatures, flying creatures and land animals, each “according to its kind.” There is no allowance here for one basic kind to evolve or change into another.

    Regarding man, Genesis 1:26 reports that God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” So he was to have godlike qualities, not traits that were simply a development of those of a beast. Genesis 2:7 adds: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man [not out of some preexisting life form but] out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life.” There is no hint of evolution here, but, rather, description of a new creation.

    Did God create all the millions of varieties of organisms that exist on earth today?

    Genesis chapter 1 says simply that God created each “according to its kind.” (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25) In preparation for the global Flood in Noah’s day, God directed that representative members of each “kind” of land animal and flying creature be taken into the ark. (Gen. 7:2, 3, 14) Each “kind” has the genetic potential for great variety. Thus there are reportedly more than 400 different breeds of dogs and upwards of 250 breeds and types of horses. All interfertile varieties of any animal are just one Genesis “kind.” Similarly, all varieties of humans—Oriental, African, Caucasian, those as tall as the seven-foot Dinka in the Sudan and as short as the four-foot-four-inch Pygmies—stem from the one original pair, Adam and Eve.—Gen. 1:27, 28; 3:20.

    What accounts for the basic similarities in the structure of living things?

    “God . . . created all things.” (Eph. 3:9) Thus everything has the same Great Designer.

    “All things came into existence through him [God’s only-begotten Son, who became Jesus Christ when on earth], and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” (John 1:3) Thus there was one Master Worker through whom Jehovah performed his works of creation.—Prov. 8:22, 30, 31.

    What is the origin of the raw material of which the universe is made?

    Scientists have learned that matter is a concentrated form of energy. This is demonstrated with the explosion of nuclear weapons. Astrophysicist Josip Kleczek states: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”—The Universe (Boston, 1976), Vol. 11, p. 17.

    From where could such energy come? After asking, “Who has created these things [the stars and planets]?”, the Bible states regarding God, “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isa. 40:26) So God himself is the Source of all the “dynamic energy” that was needed to create the universe.

    Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

    The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

    Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

  • Samuel

    Outstanding reply Dan Thomas. I agree whole heartedly up until the last 2 paragraphs. I understand that when the word “yom” , the word day in hebrew, is used with a number and or evening and morning, that it traditionally means a typical day. I also understand, that we do not fully comprehend the influence of space and time on the speed of light. There are some very interesting theories on this. You can find these on the Answers in Genesis website. As far as the the testing of radioactive decay in rocks is concerned, this also has been shown fallible in many circumstances. There is also scientific evidence for the young age of rocks.I prefer to trust in what God says rather than on the fallible presumptions of man.

  • Sparkling Medusa

    There is far more grey area than black or white, especially in realms such as these. Marc Draco makes a good point when he says that we need to teach skepticism. We as individuals need to question things. We cannot simply ingest whatever we read or see and call it truth. Just because a book is old doesn’t mean that it’s true.

  • PalMD

    Wow, this place sure attracts a lot of wackos.

    It’s sad that some people’s faith is so weak that mere scientific facts can shake its foundation.

    If your faith is strong, scientific fact should not scare you. Faith is faith—it requires no proof. Science is science—it requires nothing but truth.

    I have an idea…next time your car breaks down, take it to a faith-based mechanic. See if Jesus will heal it.

  • Dan Thomas

    My faith is NEVER SHAKEN BY SCIENCE. In fact, I love science—true science that is. True science is supported by facts not theories. I feel that I have a better understanding of science and religion (how they relate) than some folks because I study both subjects intensely. An am an avid collector and researcher of fossils, artifacts, and mineral specimens. Science is my favorite subjet. I kno it and I’m not fooled by scientific want-to-be’s. I love the natural world around me and everything in it. How could a world so supportive of life’s every need, want, and desire come into existence without a loving creator? I see the physical world for what it is—God’s creation. All earthly evidence points to an intelligent creator. I am not shaken or stumbled by evolutionary propaganda as I can see for myself that there are no intermediate fossils in the geologic record, only misinterpreted ones. There is a great variation of species on this earth—some striking similar. The Reason—they all have a common creator—not because one evolved from the other or they share a common ancestor. Many automobiles from the same manufacturer (or even different manufactures) are also similar. That doesn’t mean that they evolved from one another now does it. The creator didn’t have to reinvent the wheel (so to speak) when creating the diversity of life seen on earth today, or the life that existed many years ago, now preserved as fossils.

    (Hebrews 11:1-12:2) 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2 For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. 3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear. 4 By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than Cain, through which [faith] he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness respecting his gifts; and through it he, although he died, yet speaks. 5 By faith E´noch was transferred so as not to see death, and he was nowhere to be found because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well. 6 Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please [him] well, for he that approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him. 7 By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world, and he became an heir of the righteousness that is according to faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, although not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. 10 For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which [city] is God. 11 By faith also Sarah herself received power to conceive seed, even when she was past the age limit, since she esteemed him faithful who had promised. 12 Hence also from one [man], and him as good as dead, there were born [children] just as the stars of heaven for multitude and as the sands that are by the seaside, innumerable. 13 In faith all these died, although they did not get the [fulfillment of the] promises, but they saw them afar off and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. 14 For those who say such things give evidence that they are earnestly seeking a place of their own. 15 And yet, if they had indeed kept remembering that [place] from which they had gone forth, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven. Hence God is not ashamed of them, to be called upon as their God, for he has made a city ready for them. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way. 20 By faith also Isaac blessed Jacob and E´sau concerning things to come. 21 By faith Jacob, when about to die, blessed each of the sons of Joseph and worshiped leaning upon the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, nearing his end, made mention of the exodus of the sons of Israel; and he gave a command concerning his bones. 23 By faith Moses was hid for three months by his parents after his birth, because they saw the young child was beautiful and they did not fear the order of the king. 24 By faith Moses, when grown up, refused to be called the son of the daughter of Phar´aoh, 25 choosing to be ill-treated with the people of God rather than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin, 26 because he esteemed the reproach of the Christ as riches greater than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible. 28 By faith he had celebrated the passover and the splashing of the blood, that the destroyer might not touch their firstborn ones. 29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as on dry land, but on venturing out upon it the Egyptians were swallowed up. 30 By faith the walls of Jer´i·cho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Ra´hab the harlot did not perish with those who acted disobediently, because she received the spies in a peaceable way. 32 And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gid´e·on, Ba´rak, Samson, Jeph´thah, David as well as Samuel and the [other] prophets, 33 who through faith defeated kingdoms in conflict, effected righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 stayed the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became valiant in war, routed the armies of foreigners. 35 Women received their dead by resurrection; but other [men] were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection. 36 Yes, others received their trial by mockings and scourgings, indeed, more than that, by bonds and prisons. 37 They were stoned, they were tried, they were sawn asunder, they died by slaughter with the sword, they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, while they were in want, in tribulation, under ill-treatment; 38 and the world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and mountains and caves and dens of the earth. 39 And yet all these, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not get the [fulfillment of the] promise, 40 as God foresaw something better for us, in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us. 12 So, then, because we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also put off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus.

    I have full confidence that if my car breaks down God will provide me with a solution. He has done iso in the past and I have no reason to doubt that he will do so again. Now, as far as faith-based mechanics are concerned, considered the comment Jesus made to the devil:

    (Matthew 4:5-7) Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple and said to him: “If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put your God to the test.’”

  • Pingback: Science, Technology and The Future()

  • Dan Thomas

    Learn About God And The True Purpose Of Life Straight From The Bible.
    This site is not totally complete, but contains tons of information concerning Bible understanding.

  • Dan Thomas



  • Chris Alchin

    It never faills to amaze me how “scientific” creationists fail to understand the basic tenets of the scientific method. Science is not run like an advertising campaign, attempting to convince people into believing in the target paradigm, that is, in their case, biblical literalism. The Intelligent creationists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) constantly and consistently use the strawman argument that evolution is only a theory and that Intelligent Design is the only alternative.
    Why don’t the faithful read the dictionary and maybe a few science journals before the try to take on modern science.

  • Miguel

    Science is a religion and religion a science, both attempting to further our understanding of what is – neither’s most basic premises can be proven. As beautiful and great as the world is, so can it be argued how ugly and horrid it is, after all, the terms defining it can only exist in the presence of their opposites. Can it be God? Sure. Can it be a big explosion? Sure. Can it be both? Sure. Is it? – nobody can prove it 100%. It would seem that all of you should be working together to come closer to your conclusion, but for what reason? Will it make your world any better to convince all one way or the other? Believe what you will and allow it to better your life and those around you. All elses will fall into place.

  • Chris mankey

    I am not shaken or stumbled by evolutionary propaganda as I can see for myself that there are no intermediate fossils in the geologic record, only misinterpreted ones

    Yeah, there are transitional forms, but creationists ignore them.

    “Many automobiles from the same manufacturer (or even different manufactures) are also similar. That doesn’t mean that they evolved from one another now does it.”

    Automobiles aren’t analogous to living things because living things REPRODUCE. The reason I look like my parents is because I INHERITED their characteristics not because a factory made a similar model. The reason why animals share heritable traits is because they’re related to each other by common ancestry.

  • Pingback: ____Laughable claims of creationists____ - Religion and Philosophy - City-Data Forum()

  • Deborah Y. Byrd

    After examine just a few of the weblog posts on your web site now, and I truly like your way of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website listing and shall be checking back soon. Pls try my web page as effectively and let me know what you think.

  • Bill Modzelewski

    two ways to look at it :

    Evolution – still a hypothesis; they have never been able ( as far as I know ) to produce evolution in a lab. They may see changes in insects or smaller animals; but I believe that is called adaptability; not evolution.
    Extinction of dinosaurs ( large animals) from the past does not prove evolution; it proves extinction.
    Heard one time ; that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe that God created.

    Creationism – God said it ; I believe it. I would have to admit; I do not know all of the bible; but what questions I pose to it; they have never led me wrong. What items in the bible that could be considered wrong; within a short period of time have been proven true. ( those items that I came across; maybe others that I have not come into contact with as of this writing.)
    One would be heliocentricity vs. geocentricity. I would be strong led to follow geocentricity; because of what the bible states.

    Again ; what lab work have they produced to prove evolution ?

  • spoing

    This thread makes me wish I believed in a God so I could pray that some respondents might evolve an intellect. Not. Then I remember that natural selection will solve that problem eventually.

    This is the 21st century and there is a gigantic mountain of intellectual treasure at our disposal in the form of the collected scientific research of the past 5 centuries since the beginning of the age of enlightenment. Get stuck into it! You might find that you learn a thing or two!

    “Evolution – still a hypothesis”

    Actually, no, it’s a well established FACT. Life evolves. Get over it.

    Even over relatively short timeframes. Viruses continuously evolve new strains e.g. influenza. Insects evolve resistance to insectisides. Evolution has been observed in laboratories.

    Read this for example:

    Read Richard Dawkins’ most recent book, “the greatest show on earth.” Then come back with your refutations.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


Quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe.

See More

Collapse bottom bar