Homeschooling and ScienceThis is a homeschool and family blog dedicated to my two kids (7 and 9) who LOVE science and love the Lord. One of the main reasons we chose to homeschool them was because we believe public schools are teaching a completely godless and secular view of science and history (to the tune of REWRITING history and using FICTION/LIES instead of science). A few days back, I made some comments on a post I read at another blog and it ended up bringing me into a well-mannered debate. I started to think… “Hey, I’ve never even shared my views on Creationism on my blog before other than in small comments or book reviews“. So I thought a post on the topic would be in good order (evolution being one of the reasons we chose to homeschool our kids). It isn’t that we DON’T teach secular science and evolution. We most certainly DO. We just present it’s weaknesses and alternative views (Creation) as well. After all, shouldn’t your children have all the information if they are going to be critical thinkers when they grow up?
Hugh Ross and Notes from Previous Posts
I think Global Warming is very inter-related with the Evolution/Creation debate because there are many people who believe that the science behind both (global warming and evolution) is not all it’s cracked up to be. I know I may never convince anyone to “convert” to 6-Day Creationism but no matter, I will still believe. I don’t think it takes a micro-biologist to see through “particles to people” evolution or the “gap theory”.
Instead of engaging in endless comment debate, I’d rather just give you a few notes on Kent Hovind’s seminars that I do agree with and let you all mull over it on your own time.
So here it is, Part 1 of “Why I believe in 6-Day Creation”:
Kent Hovind doesn’t copyright his material and tells you to COPY and distribute his DVDs for your Christian friends. I may not agree with every word he says, but most of his science is right on mark. One of the reasons I love Kent Hovind (despite the cloud of critics and other issues surrounding him) is that I truly believe he is SOLD OUT for God and it is contagious. My family has really enjoyed watching his seminars (even though some of the information should be taken with a grain of salt). Answers in Genesis does have a few items on the “Don’t Use That Argument when Debating an Evolutionist” list that Kent Hovind uses, but it only takes a few moments to cross reference that list and I’m not including anything controversial (as far as AIG goes) here.
The following is the first portion of my notes on Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Seminar, PART 1 – “The Age of the Earth”…
Dr. Hovind starts out by explaining that even the vocabulary in our public school secular science books uses words in sentences like “evolved” as if it were a fact (even though there are many different meanings for the word and great controversy over many of them). In fact, AIG states that “particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.”
In his seminar, Kent lists the different meanings of the word Evolution and how they all do not add up. I have broken them down and added a few of his notes on these:
1. Cosmic Evolution (WRONG)
“In the Beginning God…” – Cosmic Evolution stands at opposite ends with the Bible. The evolutionist answer to where all matter came from is, “I don’t know”. At least Creationists have an answer. “Matter cannot be created or destroyed” – 1st law of thermo-dynamics. Either someone made the world or the world made itself. In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe with a uni (single) verse (spoken sentence). That really preaches, doesn’t it? Kent also says that he does believe in a Big Bang, only it is a lot different than theirs – and the verses for it come at the END of the bible. “2 Peter 3:10… the big bang hasn’t happened yet, but it’s coming soon to a city near you.” I have also seen a bumper sticker that said, “I believe in the Big Bang: God said it, and BANG!!! There it was!” Dr. Hovind notes that in our public schools, many teacher’s manuals instruct teachers to STRESS that the world is billions of years old, and they waste trees to print books which have known errors. One of the textbooks he mentions says, “In the beginning… all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a single mass that was smaller than the period on this page.” Even though this is only one “hypothesis”, it is treated as a proven fact. Almost all modern science textbooks treat the evolution hypothesis this way. One textbook even went so far as to say that ‘big bangs’ (plural!) “happen every 1-80 billion years” (meaning that the matter will one day come back together to explode again)! Kent Hovind also reads from magazines and lists references of them on his seminar videos. One such magazine stated, “Physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began”… WHAT? Then another (Discover Magazine) states, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing”. I love what Kent Hovind’s says about the two different worldviews: It’s either, “In the beginning God or In the beginning Dirt.” He asks the question, “Which one is a religion?” and answers it with a factual statement, “Both”. The only difference between the two religions is that one is tax-payer supported and the other isn’t.
2. Chemical Evolution (WRONG)
You can’t get past iron with fusion so where did all the elements come from? He talks more about this on another tape, I think. I didn’t take many notes on it. There are other interesting articles to read about this, however: here, here and here.
3. Stellar Evolution (WRONG)
No one has ever seen a star form even though every person on planet earth could own 2 Trillion stars for themselves (the spot getting brighter in the Crab Nebula cannot be proven to be a star birth). I’ll cover more on this in Part 2 (not just stars but other evidences from space that the earth isn’t as old as some scientists and Intelligent Design groups believe).
4. Organic Evolution (WRONG)
There can not be life from non-living material. Spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago. Some of the articles on #2 could also fit under this category.
5. Particles-to-People/Macro Evolution (WRONG)
The Bible says “they bring forth after their kind”. A KIND (species is not really a correct word here) being those which are ABLE to bring forth. It is logical to think that a wolf and dog, while not being the same species, can still bring forth). The Family Canidae, which includes coyotes, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves would be closer to describing what the Bible might have meant when it said “Kind”. However, interestingly, many inter-species births result in sterile progeny (as in the case of a zebra/horse and horse/donkey) because of chromosomal anomalies. Many other inter-species pregnancies end by rejection from the maternal immune system so that no birth takes place at all. The 2 Law of Thermo Dynamics (which teaches that everything tends towards disorder – not magical organization) is overlooked by the concept that species can gradually get better over time through selection. The Bible teaches the same thing as the 2 Law of Thermo Dynamics.
10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
We aren’t getting better. Macro-evolutionists say you can overcome the second law of thermo-dynamics by adding energy. Yet adding energy is destructive. Dr. Hovind’s examples are great: “The Japanese added a bunch of energy to Pearl Harbor and it didn’t organize a thing. The sun adds energy to your roof. Does your roof get better?”
The textbooks take liberties to act as if the hypothesis of ‘particles-to-people’ was proven fact… “You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms.” (Text Book: Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994) Kent Hovind shares his analogy of this ‘theory’: “Frog turns into the prince quickly = fairy tale, Frogs turns into a prince slowly = modern science.” He states that to the evolutionist, “Time is the magic ingredient”. He admits that his version of Creation is a is a religion (and requires some faith because it is not completely provable), yet evolutionists insist that their version is a science and not a religion. I believe as he does that evolution is pure religion. Why, then, should I have to pay for their religion to be taught in schools or their research funded? I thought we should separate church and state?! Science is observable, testable and able to be studied. No one was there to observe the ‘big bang’ or ‘Macro-evolution’. It is a religion.
6. Micro Evolution (RIGHT, but incorrectly labeled)
Variations within a kind or bacterial adaptations to antibiotics – should be called variations or resistances, not evolution. There are different breeds of dogs, sure. There might even be a wolf-dog. That doesn’t prove anything. If you keep mating them for eternity (even with other species), the progeny will always be a dog, or it will be sterile – which only disproves natural selection.
That’s it for today, folks. Tune in tomorrow for Field Trip Foto Friday and Saturday for “Why I Believe in 6-Day Creation: Part 2”! Maybe I can fit all the rest of those notes into one post. That is my plan.
Answers in Genesis
Another wonderful source of information about the age of the earth can be found at Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is a wonderful website and Ken Ham is a very thoughtful and awesome Creationist. They have a super website and magazine and are extremely thorough and up to date with their science news.
Buzz Words: Science, Apologetics, Animals, Species, Space, Seminar, Creationism, Life, evidence, Believe, Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Creation, Hovind, Christian, Origins, Christianity, Debate, Homeschooling