The OT prophets prophesied of Christ’s coming, and when He came He prophesied of His coming again. Our faith in the promises are warranted because of the unveiling of God’s purpose in the progression observed in redemptive history, which testifies that our God is a covenant keeping God; His faithfulness endures to all generations and His mercy is everlasting.

We often hear of faith being challenged as if faith were somehow contrary to science. What this challenge is really about concerns the Biblical record of origins. But the evidence here is clearly seen in what God has created and in what remains of the earth since the Genesis Flood. These things testify to the truthfulness of the Genesis accounts.

We have defined neo-science as the religious practice of radical naturalism that professes that a creator God is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe and life and the mind of man.

Like any religion they have a belief system and extremists who declare that their beliefs are truth and not a matter of faith. They hold to macro-evolution and the belief that death and the survival of the fittest is the natural order of things, rather than the result of man’s sin. Their faith is not based on fulfilled covenant promises from the self-revealed God, but on wishful thinking and presumption that their doctrine is true.

Like any false religion they abuse the revelation and supply their own interpretation to the evidence. They invent the concept of macro-evolution and apply it to a fictitious geologic column. This is their view of the results of the Genesis Flood. The contrast is as great as our views of life and death.

The recent global warming fraud has already breeched the facade of scientific objectivity and integrity. But is it really the greatest fraud of modern science as some are saying? No! A much greater fraud exists that gives credence to the possibility of global warming: that the world’s existence and stability is without design or purpose and therefore subject to human intervention. But what saith the Scriptures?

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.”

“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.”  [Genesis 8:2-22]

Creationists have reported for over a decade on the science journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains. Media outlets have largely been silent on the subject. But a recent segment that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue is gaining traction.

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an unexpected discovery in 2000 of “elastic, like living tissue” from inside the femur of a recently excavated T-rex fossil. 60 Minutes reported, “It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old!” The report replayed some of the original video of the tissues taken in 2000. “They were there. Things that looked suspiciously like flexible, transparent blood vessels.”

“Being a fossil, there should have been nothing left. But there was…Blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells, pose a radical challenge to the existing rules of science, that organic material can’t possibly survive even a million years, let alone 68 million.” [CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl]

But it is not some arbitrary “rule of science” that dictates that flesh usually rots quickly. It is extremely well established by common observation, as well as by decades of easily repeatable experiments, that protein decay occurs in mere days. Instead, the “existing rules of science” are being challenged; that is, the deep-time evolutionary dogma that remains widely held despite contradictory evidence.

When Schweitzer’s work was originally published in the journal Science, it was greeted with more than just skepticism. Her laboratory was suspected of accidentally contaminating the samples, or worse. But her original findings were firmly established when her team—after taking great pains to prevent contamination or spoiling of specimens from the field to the lab—found even more soft dinosaur tissue, this time in another species, that was verified by a third party.

Viewing “80-million-year-old” tissue through a microscope, Stahl asked, “Is that a blood vessel?” Schweitzer replied, “This is a blood vessel. Do you see the branches right there? And look at all of them.”

But even with the evidence in front of their eyes, and despite their own incredulity, they still accepted the story that organic remnants that should have rotted long ago had somehow been preserved.

One of the results of this new situation is that if one wishes to be thought of as “scientifically astute” or ‘educated” one must bow before the orthodox idol of materialistic thought, primarily expressed in its greatest child, the theory of evolution. If one dares to ask the freedom to fit the facts of scientific research into any other theory than that of evolution, one is automatically the target of ad hominem attacks and slanderous abuse. All is fair in the defense of the orthodox religion. No level of abject lying or misrepresentation is prohibited from the faithful Darwinite. Surely no Roman Catholic inquisitor was more dutiful than the modem defenders of naturalistic materialism.

But, we are told, there is no possible way that any other view could be true! Really? Well, let’s take some of the facts of science and demonstrate that what we know to be true fits far better within a theistic/creationist viewpoint than an atheistic/materialistic one. We shall first look at the function of natural selection and ask the question, "which theory best explains and even predicts the existence of natural selection in species today?”

If, in any instance, it is found that the information better fits into the creation model than the evolution model, then surely simple honesty demands the granting of freedom for further examination. Only an incredibly deep prejudice, from a commitment to the religion of materialism, can possibly provide a basis for a denial of such freedom.

The genetic make-up of animal and vegetable species includes a mechanism that allows a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions that, without the existence of this mechanism, would result in the extinction of the species. This process or mechanism is known as natural selection. How does it work? Basically, the forces of predatory or environmental selection work upon the inherent ability of the genetic mechanisms to change and adapt to allow the species to survive and adapt.

Natural selection is the process whereby the spectrum of phenotypic manifestations of the genetic make-up is “taken advantage of” by the selection pressures of the environment. Stasis could be described as a time when there is no specific or directional pressures being exerted upon a species, either by predation or environment. For example, those individuals with genetic makeup “g” predominate in the gene-pool of the species. These individuals, then, have more viable offspring that pass on their genotype than an individual with, say, genotype “i”. Since “i" is not as well adapted to the environment as "g" then “i” will not, as long as environmental conditions remain the same, replace “g” as the center-point of the genotypic spectrum of this species.

Now, let’s say that a shift takes place in some environmental factor. The classic Illustration is predation. A new predator enters the environment and begins to exert more pressure upon the individuals with the “g" genotype than the “i” genotype (which was, till this time, a minority in the gene-pool). The practical result of this is that those with the “i” genotype begin to have more viable offspring in the second generation than those with the “g” genotype. The effect over time, of course, is a shift of the center of the gene-pool.

Now, it is important to differentiate between natural selection and micro-mutational evolution as proposed in the neo-Darwinian model. Natural selection, as described above, is not dependent upon, nor driven by, any mutation in the genetic code of the individuals within the species. As we saw, the above genotypes in our example both existed together in the gene-pool; the environmental pressures did not “create” anything new, but the ability of the species to adapt was derived from the pre-existing range of genetic possibilities. Now, it is clear, why the neo-Darwinian synthesis must place such a huge emphasis and weight upon the existence of mutation to provide “new” genetic material upon which, over great expanses of time, natural selection can then work to bring about the incredible complexity and variation of life as we see today.

Now, in light of all this, let’s ask some simple questions. First, which of the two models would predict such a mechanism as natural selection? Well, natural selection is primarily a mechanism of conservation. It is not the “engine" of change that is so often claimed for it. Which model would predict a mechanism that would allow for the conservation of a species? If a Creator did indeed produce a purposeful creation, would not such a mechanism be expected? And how shall the evolutionist explain the origination of the process of natural selection? Clearly the model does not predict it at all, and neither can it provide a logical explanation for how it came about.

The point is that the whole spectrum of scientific evidence relative to natural selection fits perfectly and without contradiction into the creationist model. The evolutionist must emphasize the exceptional circumstance, rather than the norm. In the exceptional he must deny the fundamental precept that the function of the DNA/RNA system is to copy itself and repair copy errors. Mutation leads to extinction, not increased complexity and new function. Natural selection of existing genetic potential leads to the conservation of life as from a wise Creator.

We see from this brief examination of the scientific evidence that it can successfully be fit into the creationist model. In fact, it fits with better consistency and accuracy than in the evolutionary model. This alone is sufficient to demonstrate the sad religious bigotry that predominates in scientific circles today that would eliminate the freedom to think in any way other than the “orthodox” way of naturalistic materialism. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and bigots.

After having further analyzed the data published on Ida, which was scientifically named Darwinius in honor of the late British naturalist, more paleontologists are now expressing their doubts about the fossil’s relevance. In fact, Richard Kay of Duke University told Scientific American that creatures like Ida “are decidedly not in the direct line leading to living monkeys, apes and humans.”

Certain traits of Ida’s lower jaw were hyped as being critical indicators of her transitional status. However, her partially fused lower jaw structure also appears sporadically in various other mammals. This distribution flies in the face of Darwinian “tree of life” reconstructions, but it follows a mosaic pattern of shared characteristics among disparate forms that is consistent with creation science predictions of design forms and methods from a common designer rather than evidence of common descent.

Ida’s jaw does not show evolutionary development, and the fossilized creature’s total failure to provide any “transitional” evidence caused Robert Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago to conclude, “I am utterly convinced that Darwinius has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of higher primates.”

These statements are quite the opposite in both volume and content from the bold and loud proclamations of Ida’s significance upon her “unveiling.” Unfortunately, few outside of paleontological academia will hear these expert voices, only having been exposed to the local evening news or to the Google web search site, both of which featured Ida in her false loftiness, and neither of which now feature Ida in her true guise of a well-preserved, but otherwise inconsequential, extinct lemur.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2009/09/06/blinded_by_the_light_of_discovery

Bacon speaks of the redemptive nature of the gospel and the right use of the arts and sciences that exalts the image of God in man and discovers the works of God in creation.

Man as the image bearer of his creator was given dominion over the earth. Pursuing the arts and sciences is fulfilling his purpose.

Religion and faith can be abused by man to pursue a righteousness that exalts the works of man rather than the grace of God. So also, autonomous reason can corrupt the sciences into a denial of the Giver and Sustainer of life for the irrational discovery of a world void of purposeful design. Even so, the arts are corrupted by pursuing the things of the flesh rather than the things that edify.

Fallen man in his depravity will always pursue corruption, and in his pride he will always pursue autonomy because that is his nature. What greater autonomy is there than to reduce the flaws of man to DNA errors and then manipulate human genetics to fix his faults? Will man reverse the physical effects of sin in the world by use of neo-science?

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/DrMiriamGrossmanMD/2009/08/04/beware_the_“science”_in_sex_education

Neo-science is the religious practice of naturalism. Assumption number one is that there is no supernatural Creator of all things that upholds all things by the word of His power. With this tenet of their faith, they undermine the very foundation of science that scientific law exists only because the world is designed and ordered by a wise Creator so that His image bearers, given dominion over the creation, might investigate and discover the glory of God in what He has made.

The neo-scientist has no foundation to expect the existence of law, and apart from the influence of the Biblical world-view, neo-science has no future. He admits that moral law is arbitrary, and he treats scientific law the same way. The scientific method is mocked as his theory becomes the master of the method, meaning that anomalous data contrary to the theory is excluded, ridiculed or dismissed because it does not conform to the accepted paradigm.

As opposed to neo-science, real science confirms what is written…’from the beginning God made them male and female’ –Jesus Christ

Dr. Grossman, we thank you for the following information…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uoca-uoc061709.php

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids5.html#wp1175557

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090528/sc_afp/uspaleontologychina_20090528195207

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A huge volcanic eruption in China some 260 million years ago led to the sudden extermination of marine life clear around the world, British paleontologists announced Thursday, in a report being published this week in the journal Science.

[The age of 260 million is derived from the position in the geologic column complied and dated under the assumption of evolution theory]

The researchers were able to pinpoint the exact timing of the massive eruption thanks to a layer of fossilized rock which showed mass extinction of different life forms -- clearly linking the volcanic blasts to a major environmental catastrophe.

[Clearly?]

"The abrupt extinction of marine life we can clearly see in the fossil record firmly links giant volcanic eruptions with global environmental catastrophe," said Paul Wignall, a professor and palaeontologist at the University of Leeds, who was the lead author of the research paper in the May 29 edition of Science.

[Clearly again? This may be the end of his career at the university]

The eruption in southwest China unleashed about a half million cubic kilometers of lava, covering an area five times the size of Wales, according to the research by scientists at the British university.

The mass extinction of ocean life came about because of the collision of fast flowing lava with shallow sea water, which caused a violent explosion at the start of the eruptions and threw huge quantities of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere.

[Glad to see that he dropped the word clearly on this claim.]

"When fast flowing, low viscosity magma meets shallow sea ... there's spectacular explosion producing gigantic clouds of steam," Wignall said.

Darwinius masillae

This newly claimed primate genus and species is said to be an ancestor of humans. The fossil [named Ida] dates to 47 million years ago. The abdomen contains organic remains of food in the digestive tract.

[source: http://www.livescience.com/animals/090519-fossil-scene.html]

Ida’s Death Scenario

There it is! And these men claim to be scientists, rather than religionists. Is there any doubt that the clues of broken bone and food remains suggest a catastrophic and rapid burial of Ida? This is similar to the remains of the Frozen Mammoths documented at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths.html.

Why will men with a science degree not question the existence of organic remains of food in the digestive tract of a 47 million year old fossil? Why is this accepted as real science, rather than nonsense?

‘Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…’ [Romans 1:21 KJV]

Dark energy is a substance that has not as yet been measured directly. At the urging of the neo-scientists, millions of government dollars are being spent trying to detect and characterize dark energy.

Another assumption is the Copernican principle, which holds that the universe has no edge and no center. It assumes that there are no unique places and that the position of the earth is therefore not special. If this principle is rejected, then the general relativity equations can describe a universe that does have a center and edges. A bounded universe admits to the possibility that earth is uniquely positioned, which is anathema to the neo-scientists.

There is strong evidence from quantized red-shifts of galactic clusters indicating that galaxies are in evenly spaced spherical shells around the Milky Way Galaxy. Earth appears to be within 100,000 light years of the center of the universe, a position with the small chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 of having happened by accident. If earth is near the center of the universe, then the need for the mythical “dark energy” vanishes.

A cadre of secular scientists is following the data where it leads, and where creation cosmologists have already been—recognizing that earth appears to be near the center of a bounded universe. May many follow the data back to God, who placed the earth then ‘stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in’ [Isaiah 40:22].

Major peer-reviewed science journals serve as forums for an incestuous style of peer review and intellectual discussion.

Faculty members of prominent universities are raised to celebrity status and their opinions promoted as those of science’s most progressive thinkers.

International conferences are held with speakers and select attendees chosen to present a unified body of scientific thought.

Supporters are given high academic honors while dissenters are marginalized.

These actions can bestow overwhelming scientific respectability on even scientifically empty concepts. Rank-and-file scientists may find themselves under pressure to conform despite their better judgment. The tendency is to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct, which is now labeled "informational cascade". [http://www.icr.org/article/4590/]

Those that compromise the doctrine of a global Genesis Flood may not realize that a local flood theory amounts to demeaning the integrity of God. Has the promise made to Noah and his descendants about never again flooding the earth been kept?

Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you… Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” [Genesis 9:8-11].

Evolutionary anthropologists once thought that stone knives were developed in the late Stone Age, around 40,000 years ago. That figure was later revised to 200,000, around the Middle Stone Age, when stone blades were discovered in lower strata.

Now stone blades have been found in Kenyan rock layers dated at about 500,000 years old according to evolutionary estimates. Thus, the original claim that “40,000 years ago, man made his first stone implements” was off by over 92 percent, suggesting that evolutionary depictions of human history are unreliable.

[Mr. Thomas you are too kind here using the word ‘suggesting’. Let’s go ahead and say it, the evolutionary depictions of human history are unreliable because they are based on a false theory of reality. Their theory of the geologic column is a flat out denial of the Genesis record of created kinds and the Genesis Flood.]

The news of 500,000-year-old knives may be frustrating to evolutionary anthropologists, who had already faced difficulty adjusting history to accommodate the supposedly 200,000 and 300,000-year-old stone knives found in recent decades. An attempt was made to reconcile those data to the old historical framework by reasoning that since modern man only emerged from an ape-like ancestor some 200,000 years ago, pre-modern (almost-man) creatures who lived over 380,000 years ago must have been able to make knives, even though they were quite ape-like in other respects.

[This stuff makes sense to the neo-scientists because the alternative of created kinds has been suppressed to the level of being unthinkable.]

But these newly-discovered knives predate even “pre-modern” man’s imagined ability to make such tools. A difference of about 160,000 years is significant enough that it cannot easily be ignored. Another major alteration is needed to accommodate the new data.

[No problem! the theory of evolution evolves with the data, no matter how absurd the accommodation. Ever hear of Punctuated Equilibrium?]

Although puzzling to evolutionary scientists, evidence such as these stone knives fits perfectly with the biblical record, which teaches that mankind was created fully human from the beginning, without any “ape-man” ancestors. In fact, ape-kind and mankind are described as being created as distinct kinds [Genesis 1:25], thus ruling out that “kind” of evolution.

[In the light Genesis 1, macro-evolution is not a credible theory. The fossil record is confirmation of created kinds and the Genesis Flood.]

Removing the restriction of long-age assumptions, the stone knives were most likely made somewhere on the order of several thousand years ago, at least since the time of the Tower of Babel. The forced dispersion of peoples from the Middle East outward across the rest of the world, as described in Genesis 11, caused migrating families to start from scratch, eking out an existence with stone knives and cavedwellings for a time. The volcanic deposits that sandwiched the newly-discovered African blades could well be remnants of post-Flood volcanic activity, marks of a time when earth’s crust was less stable, still settling down from the great, year-long upheaval of Noah’s Flood. This historical picture, unlike the standard evolutionary one, is based on eyewitness accounts, not on unfounded and ever-changing presuppositions.

In describing the “human ancestors” who made the Kenyan blades, the journal Science stated that “these toolmakers were capable of more sophisticated behavior than previously thought.” Of course they were. They were fully-created human beings!

Material taken from: http://www.kheper.net/evolution/emergent.html

Emergent evolution agrees with Materialism and Materialistic Pantheism in considering the physical universe as the substratum of existence.  But it also sees this reality as able to unfold higher levels of organization that transcend it and that are not defined by its limitations, or predictable by its laws. 

To give a trivial example, Life emerges (evolves) out of Matter.  But life cannot be explained or defined according to physical or chemical laws that are otherwise very capable of explaining inanimate matter.  Life represents something totally new.  It has emerged out of matter but it constitutes a new grade of organization, a "symmetry break" so to speak.  In a sense, life is a "singularity" as far as inanimate matter is concerned; it is a whole new grade of organization, functioning, expression.

And in the same way mind emerges out of life, and represents a whole new grade of organization that cannot be explained in merely biological or metabolic terms.

The emergent paradigm is an extremely profound yet at the same time simple, obvious, common-sense way of explaining the universe. Moreover it provides a way to link both science and materialism on the one hand, and metaphysics and spirituality on the other. 

Thus we find materialistic thinkers propounding an emergent theory of life and planetology (the Gaia hypothesis).  They came upon this from a materialistic perspective, yet it is a hypothesis that goes beyond materialism (even if its founders are dead against the intuitive New Age interpretations)

Coming to Emergent Evolution from the other direction, metaphysical and spiritual thinkers see evolution as an emerging out of matter of higher qualities, culminating in the spiritual culmination (the Collective Unconscious and then Consciousness evolving out of the original nonconscious biological and elemental substratum).

And straddling and incorporating both camps, the incredible book on systems theory and cosmic evolution, the Self-Organizing Universe, is one of the most fascinating and inspiring works of science ever written.