The taxonomic divisions presented primarily by God in the Bible differ in part from the Linnaean classification system, which is familiar to modern biology. An evaluation was completed of the usage of the Hebrew terms for each division during the Creation week, after the Fall, during the Flood, and later in Biblical history. The analysis suggests that dinosaurs declined significantly after the Fall and before the Noachian Deluge. Conversely, after the Fall, mammals increased markedly. This conclusion runs contrary to other creationist theories that suggest that most dinosaurs died during or after the Flood. The Bible suggests these trends may have occurred for theological reasons: the danger that dinosaurs posed to the existence of mankind, their susceptibility
to demonic influence, and their capabilities under infernal control.
Some Implications of the Demise
of the Demarcation Problem
Two court cases, McLean v. Arkansas (“Arkansas”) in 1980 and Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District et al. (“Dover”) in 2005, showed how decisive philosophy can be when wielding the demarcation argument, as both creation science and intelligent design
were denied victories because they were judged to be unscientific based on demarcation arguments. However, since the Arkansas decision and before Dover, the demarcation problem has generally come to be viewed by philosophers of science as intractable (i.e., “unsolvable”). The corollary of the intractability of the demarcation problem is that anything and everything can claim to be science without fear of being proved otherwise and that, therefore, the term “science” has no meaning.
This has some clear implications for the creation project, including the renewed prospect for success in the courts and powerful answers to anti-creationist rhetoric.
(available to the public)
The Huxley-Wilberforce Debate Myth
The history of the now famous debate between Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and Thomas Huxley, a disciple of Darwin, is reviewed. The debate, which occurred at Oxford University (June 30, 1860), is widely regarded as a critical coup for science in the putative war of religion against science. The myth is that Huxley made a fool of Wilberforce and carried the day. The actual debate was very different than this common version. In fact, the debate involved several individuals,
of which Huxley was not even considered one of the primary advocates of Darwinism.
The Origin of Grand Canyon
Uniformitarianism Fails to Explain Grand Canyon
Michael J. Oard
This is the first of a five-part series on the origin of Grand Canyon. It will address numerous uniformitarian problems. Despite nearly 150 years of study, uniformitarian scientists remain mystified as to its origin. Part of their difficulty stems from the necessity of explaining both the canyon and its geological context within the surrounding Colorado Plateau. Data gathered at present do not support any uniformitarian hypothesis. The three most credible uniformitarian hypotheses all can be shown to create intractable problems. These are: (1) the old antecedent
stream hypothesis, (2) the stream piracy hypothesis, and (3) the revived lake spillover hypothesis. None are viable. Thus, any reasonable earth scientist should be open to exploring the possibility of a recent catastrophic origin.
Modern Geohistory: An Assault on Christianity,
Not an Innovative Compromise
John K. Reed
Martin Rudwick, noted historian of earth sciences, proposes that geohistory originated as an innovative compromise between two “unmodern” traditions: Biblical chronology and Aristotelian eternalism.
According to his theory, Enlightenment intellectuals—particularly
Georges Cuvier—found a third path that avoided the theological problems of Aristotle’s cosmology and the “empirical” problems of a short Biblical past. Although this analysis is interesting, it minimizes the fundamental anti-Christian spirit of the Enlightenment and fails to make a compelling case for any relevance of Aristotle’s temporal cosmology.
Proposals for the eternality of matter arose not from Aristotle but because it is a logical metaphysical alternative to theistic creation. Rudwick fails to differentiate between Aristotle and the post-Christian materialism of the Enlightenment, which was quite dissimilar from Aristotle’s Metaphysics. More importantly, crucial relevant aspects of church history and orthodox theology compromise his theory. Thus, it should be rejected in favor of a historical interpretation of geohistory as part of an integrated secular attack on traditional Christianity—an explanation that better explains developments in Western culture, both then and now.