When I created Mapping God’s Bloodline, I had no idea what a turning point it would be for this website. Until then, few had visited the site. Once a few influential people shared it on social media, I discovered how visualization could turn a boring, tedious subject into something people find highly engaging.
Multiple news outlets have broken the story of a project which puts to rest a major argument supporting Darwinist ideology. It’s called the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project , described as a “Google Maps for the Human Genome.” NPR reports some initial conclusions and their implications:
For decades, scientists thought that most of our genetic code was essentially useless — basically filler between our genes. Only a tiny fraction — the part that has genes in it — really mattered, according to this thinking. […] What has been called junk DNA is actually teeming with an intricate web of molecular switches that play crucial roles in regulating genes. The ENCODE project scientists found at least 4 million of these regulatory regions so far.
This is fantastic research. I do wish scientists had never called any of it “Junk DNA.” That idea was born out of the evolutionary paradigm that dismissed it as “useless filler,” like the failed “vestigial organ” arguments of yesteryear. Ideas like that hold back scientific progress.
Looking at it from the perspective that this code is here for a reason, placed there by an intelligent designer, curiosity is sparked: “What’s it here for?” “What does it do?” “Let’s find out!” No, the most important concept in biology is not evolution. It is the notion that biological structures have a function and their purpose can be discovered through scientific research. Evolution News has a breakdown of this story which confirmations intelligent design predictions.
This takes away nearly all the genetic breathing room anyone had left to insert mythologies about the development of life on Earth. The new findings are a major upheaval and I expect there will be more information going “mainstream” in the coming weeks. Are you as excited as I am?
For more information on this project, see the video below and Nature‘s website.
Scientists routinely study people’s behavior as part of humanity’s quest to better understand ourselves and our universe. Christian theologians use the Bible as their guide while traveling along that same quest. Since the scientific community has a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than the general population, they approach studies of humanity with a strikingly different worldview from Christians. So, what happens when scientists and theologians try to go about understanding each other?
A recent article on PhysOrg, “God as a drug: The rise of American megachurches“, presents a study on the rise of American Megachurches. Unlike many such studies on religious subjects, it is not an attack piece. It does, of course, ignore God’s role in conversion and largely attributes the growth to sensory and emotional experiences – no surprise there. From the article:
As part of their study, Wellman, Corcoran, and Stockly-Meyerdirk analyzed 470 interviews and about 16,000 surveys on megachurch members’ emotional experiences with their churches. Four themes emerged: salvation/spirituality, acceptance/belonging, admiration for and guidance from the leader, and morality and purpose through service.
Our modern perception of science is that it is an objective search for truth, but we often forget that science is conducted by people. Those people are subject to the same influences and biases as everyone else. While the application of certain methods can reduce the error caused by human imperfections, we cannot deny that paradigms, axioms, and presuppositions heavily influence the world of scientists.
To illustrate this, Creation-Evolution Headlines rewrote the PhysOrg article as though a theologian had conducted a study on the growth of Darwinism. The result of this fictional study is a strikingly accurate description of how many Darwinian “evangelists” view their role. Consider the same paragraph, above, re-imagined from the opposite perspective:
As part of their study, Weller, Corky, and Stocky analyzed 470 interviews and about 16,000 surveys on society members’ emotional experiences with the conferences. Four themes emerged: materialism/scientism, conformity/unity, admiration for and desire for acceptance from peers, and a sense of duty to fight creationism in public outreach.
Both articles are a good read, so check them out. Do you agree that scientists can be influenced by each other in ways that affect their conclusions? How do you think this shapes the narrative of “religion vs. science?” Leave a comment below.
Many scientists today argue that a belief in God as the Creator is detrimental to the advancement of our knowledge. Today’s most-quoted scientists, especially in the field of Biology, directly attack religion in large public forums. Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist, had this to say in his book, The Blind Watchmaker:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
And it’s not limited to biology. World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is on record as saying:
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark
But, has it always been this way? Is it necessarily true that the Bible’s history of our origins is at odds with the practice of scientific inquiry? To the contrary, many (if not most) of the scientists who either founded their field of study or at least are credited with its most important advancements routinely saw their work as seeking to better understand God through his Creation. The quotes below are a sample of what these men who were profoundly influential in a wide array of fields said years ago.
There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error: first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.
-Francis Bacon, Scientific Method
Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.
-Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics
Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors.
-Isaac Newton
O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.
-Johannes Kepler, Astronomy
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.
-Louis Pasteur, Medicine
Finite man cannot begin to comprehend an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite God … I find it best to accept God through faith, as an intelligent will, perfect in goodness and wisdom, revealing Himself through His creation.
-Werner Von Braun, Rocket Science
The conduct of God, who disposes all things kindly, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and threats is not to put religion there, but terror.
-Blaise Pascal, Hydraulics
When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!
-Robert Boyle, Chemistry
The flowers’ leaves… serve as bridal beds which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity.
-Carl Linnaeus, Taxonomy
It is His work,” he reminded them; “and He alone carried me thus far through all my trials and enabled me to triumph over the obstacles, physical and moral, which opposed me. ‘Not unto us, not unto us, by to Thy name, O Lord, be all the praise.’
-Samuel Morse, Inventor
How much is a billion – or 4 billion, and does that represent the age of the Earth? See the scientific data that may convince you otherwise.
That’s a Fact – Measuring Billions from Institute for Creation Research on Vimeo.
Is it irrational to disbelieve evolution? It depends on the kind of evolution you’re talking about. Obviously we see creatures changing and adapting all the time. Yet, can we extend that deep into the past to infer molecules-to-man evolution? Science tells us we cannot.
When we hear the charge that creationists are “anti-science,” it’s important to make a distinction between science that’s based on repeatable, observable phenomena in the present verses making inferences into the past with limited clues. When looking at history, we must look to documents and eyewitness accounts to help us piece it together. One collection of observations exists in what we know of as the Bible.
Our nation still suffers from racial tensions on a daily basis. A better understanding of the Bible tells us that we are all really just one race – the human race! This video, part of the excellent “Check This Out” series also explains why we see so many different skin colors.
The Bible mentions unicorns 9 times. Critics use this as a means to argue that scripture is a collection of myths. Yet, a brief study shows the Bible is talking about an animal that is nothing like the creature of fanciful legend.
Skeptics claim there is zero evidence beyond the biblical record that Earth is relatively young (approximately 6,000 years old). In fact, there is far more evidence than could fully be explained in this 1-minute video from Creation Science Evangelism.
I happened to come across a project today that maps the links between various Wikipedia articles to help understand the categories and topics that users find to be related. Normally I wouldn’t share such a project on this blog, but since they used the Tower of Babel as an example, I thought it would be fitting. The project is from Sepans, called Mapped Wiki, and you can see their results below:
Follow the genealogy of Jesus from the creation of Adam and Eve through Noah, the tribes of Israel, King David, and finally Joseph and Mary. Zoom out for a broader perspective or zoom in to examine finer details.
A common claim against biblical creationism is that it merely argues against prevailing theories but makes no scientific predictions of its own. Physicist Russel Humphreys (a creationist) explains his predictions that were tested and verified by the Voyager II spacecraft.
In 2005, Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education expressing his opposition to their recent decisions concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design. He claimed to be a member of a parody religion known as Pastafarianism which worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His skillful use of rhetoric and humor turned the idea into an Internet phenomenon – today it has a polished website and 14.6% of the French editors of Wikipedia claim to believe in it. Yet, his own parody easily shows the foolishness of these common anti-creationist arguments.
The argument generally goes that if Intelligent Design or anything else that might be characterized as creationism is allowed to be taught alongside evolution, then every single creation story must be included, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. This argument embodies the perspective that the notion of a creator God is just as silly, imaginary, and unscientific as, well, a Flying Spaghetti Monster (hereafter known as the FSM). One need not provide further evidence to point out the atheistic nature of this line of thinking.
I once pointed out in a discussion with an ardent atheist that belief in evolution requires a belief that such a ridiculous creature could one day evolve. I posited that an octopus could eventually take on characteristics that allow it to fly, giving an air-bound creature the “noodly appendages” that are so emblematic of the FSM. His predictable retort described me as totally ignorant regarding what Darwinism is all about. Little did I know that I’d be vindicated by a project called The Future Is Wild, which includes a documentary and a cartoon series aired on Discovery Kids.
The project is centered around imagining what creatures might be around 5, 100, or even 200 million years from now. Yet, they repeatedly claim that it involves much more than that:
“Every animal and plant in The Future is Wild could really exist. Our science team devised each one as a viable, living organism. Their place in the environment, their life cycle and their place in the food chain are all authentic.”
What’s more, the team involved in the creation is not made up of artists, but 16 scientists that are “experts in fields such as geology, climatology and biology.” To be clear, they are claiming that the processes of biological change originally theorized by Charles Darwin could realistically make their imagined world come to life given the right conditions and enough time. That’s where Squibby comes in.
Squibby is the playful pet of the main characters of the cartoon series. He is a cross between a Gibbon (which resembles a monkey) and a squid (yes, a squid), giving him the proper name, “Squibbon.” The resemblance to the FSM is striking:
Because of their tree-dwelling ancestry, squibbon can “fly” through the trees. The relation to a squid gives it the same “noodly appendages” as the FSM (the Future Squid Monkey?) Really, except for the fact that the squibbon only has one large round body mass instead of two, these two creatures are not decidedly different from one another.
Galatians 6:7 tells us that God s not mocked. Indeed, when vast numbers of people reject their creator, the resulting foolishness is limited only by our imagination. The absurdity of Henderson’s “monster” makes it an effective and humorous parody. As we have seen, atheists themselves must believe such a ridiculous thing could someday exist in order to be consistent in their worldview.
The Bible teaches the only true NON-racist version of human history. We are all descendants of Adam. We are all genetically related. Contrast this with the racist theory of Evolution that promotes the ideas that those who are more evolved or superior.