|
The Denver Post Sunday, January
30, 2000 Perspective
Section H Page4H
Many scientists accept creationism
By Edmond W. Holroyd III
There has been much discussion recently about origins, how this world
came into being.
Naturalism claims that no God was involved and that everything evolved
from some primitive
conditions over long periods of time. Alternate views have God as creator.
No side has absolute
proof. All viewpoints must ultimately rely upon faith and are therefore
religious.
The dominant viewpoint in universities and the media promotes evolution
over billions of years,
excluding alternatives. The creationist viewpoint -- that the Earth is
young, only thousands of
years old, after being created directly by God -- is held by a seeming
minority but supported by
the conservative branches of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Why do we
persist in this
young-Earth viewpoint?
Modern science, developed in Western culture, initially taught that a
rational God created all
things relatively recently in an orderly manner and that humanity could
study the creation and
benefit thereby. Yet today, many evolutionists claim that creationists
cannot be scientists. The
books "Men of Science, Men of God" and "21 Great Scientists
Who Believed the Bible" show the
strong religious beliefs of many of the founding fathers of our modern
science, including
post-Darwin scientists. Every quarterly issue of Creation Magazine interviews
a modern scientist
who is a leader in his or her field and also a creationist. In the first
of a growing number of
creationist organizations, the Creation Research Society's voting members
(more than 600) are
required to have post-graduate scientific degrees. So it is not true that
creationists cannot be
scientists. For many decades our scientists have been documenting evidences
for a young Earth.
A few of the post-Darwin creationists who have benefited society are Louis
Pasteur, Gregor
Mendel, G.W. Carver, the Wright brothers, Werner von Braun and R.V. Damadian,
inventor of
the MRI scanner. Dr. J. Baumgardner's supercomputer model at Sandia National
Laboratory,
designed for studying earth-mantle dynamics, has been the world's best
for more than a decade.
Good predictions, are the life-blood of science. Dr. R. Humphries, a creationist
physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, is the only scientist to correctly predict:
1) the size of the magnetic
moments of Uranus and Neptune; 2) that Mars would have no magnetic field
but would have
remnant magnetism from an ancient field; and 3) that lava flows on Earth
would be found that
captured a magnetic field reversal in the time it took for them to cool.
Good scientists must object to the teaching of speculations as fact, to
misrepresentations (such
as gluing peppered moths to trees), to fraud (such as Haeckel's embryo
diagram and several
supposed hominids) and to unwarranted extrapolations (such as frogs turning
into people over
millions of years). We must acknowledge observable phenomena such as variation
within a type
of creature (like dogs) and natural selection (which keeps a species within
fixed limits). The
Kansas Board of Education rightly excluded the speculative evolutionary
concepts from state
testing while strengthening the teaching of the observable processes.
There is a design complexity so great in life that numerous basic parts
must be simultaneously
present for an organism to live and function. There is an intelligent
language, which we are
beginning to learn, within the DNA molecule that indicates the even greater
intelligence of a
designer. Probabilities for correct protein sequences by random processes
are essentially zero.
Such topics are addressed in the new book "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists
Choose to Believe in
Creation." We still have challenges to explain the data from astronomy
(speed of light) and
geology (radiometric dating) that indicate vast periods of time, as addressed
in my chapter,
viewable at www.kingofkings.org/creation/6days.htm.
During the holidays just past, Christians again proclaimed that the Creator
joined us here on
Earth in the human form of Jesus Christ. He affirmed the biblical account
of the creation. An
important issue for me and many Christians is whether there was death
(for people and the
"higher" animals) before Adam sinned. Death (physical and spiritual)
is the declared penalty for
sin. If death is not the penalty for sin, then Jesus died needlessly and
the Christian faith is in vain.
At Easter we celebrate that this creator suffered our abuse, died to pay
the penalty for our sin and
came back to life again to offer us eternal life with himself.
Edmond W. Holroyd III is a scientist in the Remote Sensing and Geographic
Information Group
at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and a board member of Rocky Mountain
Creation Fellowship
(www.youngearth.org). He holds a Ph.D. in atmospheric science. Guest Commentary
submissions may be sent to The Post editorial page.
|
|