PMT 2017- 037 by Robert Tracinski (The Federalist)
The organizers of the ‘March for Science’ follow the legacy of substituting a political narrative for the distinctive language and methods of science.
Robert Tracinski writes: I am a Carl Sagan fan from way back. His 1980 TV miniseries “Cosmos” hit me at just the right age and inflamed a lifelong love of science. But we’ve had nearly 40 years to assess the long-term effects and see how Sagan unwittingly contributed to a trend that muddled public understanding of science. This weekend’s so-called “March for Science” is a perfect example of what went wrong. Continue reading
PMT 2017-025 by John Hartnett (Creation.com
The commonly accepted big bang model supposedly determines the history of the universe precisely (see Figure 1). Yet to do so, it is filled with unprovable fudge factors. That may sound like an exaggerated claim, but it seems to be the state of cosmology today.
This situation has come about because the unverifiable starting assumptions are inherently wrong! Some brave physicists have had the temerity to challenge the ruling paradigm—the standard big bang ?CDM inflation cosmology.1 One of those is Prof. Richard Lieu, Department Chair, Astrophysics, University of Alabama, who wrote:
“Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … .”2 [emphasis added]
PMT 2017-020 by Jonathan Sarfati (Creation Ministries International)
A straightforward reading of the Bible indicates that God created in six 24-hour days a little over 6,000 years ago. This is the way the church has understood it for most of the church’s history,1 and the way Hebrew scholars have always understood it.
However, with the rise of long-age claims in geology led by James Hutton2 and Charles Lyell3 about 200 years ago, some conservative Christians became intimidated. Continue reading
PMT 2017-018 by Justin Taylor (The Gospel Coaltion)
Ronald Numbers grew up as the son of a fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventist minister, attending Adventist schools and being taught young-earth creationism until adulthood, where he lost his faith and became an agnostic. Today he is perhaps the world’s leading scholar on the history of the relationship between science and religion.
If you were to ask Professor Numbers for the “greatest myth” about the historical relationship between science and religion, he would respond that it’s the idea the the two “have been in a state of constant conflict.” Continue reading
PMT-2017-016 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The early generations of men following Adam live to enormous ages of centuries. According to the genealogy in Gen. 5 Adam lived to be 930; Seth 912; Enosh 905; Kenan 910; Mahalalel 895; Jered 962; Methusaleh 969; Lamech 777; Noah 950.
Then in the Gen. 11 genealogy after the Flood, longevity begins dropping: Shem lives to be 600; Arpachshad 438; Shelah 433; Eber 464; Peleg 239; Reu 239; Serug 230; Naho 148; Terah 205. Later Abraham lives to be 175 (Gen. 25:7) and Moses 120 (Deut. 34:7). Moses’ age was remarkable in its day (Deut. 34:7), and he even declared that a strong man might live to be 80 (Psa. 90:10). Continue reading
PMT 2017-014 by Garrett Haley (Christian News)
A soon-to-be-released documentary-style film, featuring footage from around the U.S. and interviews with over a dozen scholars and scientists, will provide visual evidence and scientific arguments for the Bible’s accounts of Creation and the Flood.
On February 23, hundreds of movie theaters across the U.S. will participate in a one-night showing of the film “Is Genesis History?” The film, produced by Compass Cinema and structured as a documentary, features interviews with respected Christian scientists, including microbiologist Kevin Anderson, astronomer Danny Faulkner, geologist Andrew Snelling, and several others. Continue reading
PMT 2017-002 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this article I am concluding a three-part study of a Reformed writer’s attempt to re-interpret the Westminster Confession of Faith’s statement on six day creation. The paper I am critiquing was written by Dr. Lee Irons.
Irons complains: “assuming that these men almost universally held to a young earth, logically we cannot conclude that the Confession itself affirms or requires the young earth position.” In response we should note:
(1) Irons’ choice of terms unfortunately tends to bias his readers against Hall’s work: once again he speaks of “assuming” something. Hall does not assume the young earth perspective of the divines: he provides what Irons himself calls “a catalogue of quotes”; that is, he documents their views. Continue reading