Chairman’s Corner

Nick Lally, Chairman, Creation Science Hall of Fame

Dear Christians,

The Creation Science Hall of Fame is your site. As directors of the CSHF, we want all creationists to feel part of this movement, web site and future building. We want to support all of the worlds’ best creationists….meaning those who have worked in the creation science field for a decent  amount of time and who have Honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis”. We want to recognize Creation clubs, museums, Creation organizations as well as placing those who participate in the Creation Science arena on the “Honorable Mention” page of the CSHF web site.

We can’t do this alone. We need your help….help in building the first every Creation Science Hall of Fame. It will be a place to honor and recognize those creationists who have dedicated their time and resources to demonstrate that God’s Word can be trusted.
Remember, it’s not about honoring man instead of God in the sense of the world’s vain idea of fame. Rather, in the spirit of Hebrews 11, and Romans 13:7, we see to preserve the testimony and give honor where honor is due for all that the Christian community owes our inductees.

We intend to have exhibits with pictures of Creationists, their stories, and artifacts of living as well as deceased Creationists.

Over the years people will remember the contributions these people made to the world. If these men and women Creationists pass on, no one will remember their accomplishments, theories, bio-artifacts, etc., because their belongings, i.e. papers, signatures, photos, etc. will be scattered to future beneficiary basements only to be discarded in the future.
The Creation Science Hall of Fame will be a safe haven for those who would otherwise be forgotten.
It will demonstrate to the world that there were and are reputable scientists who demonstrated a Super Natural Creation and showed that Darwinian Evolution was not possible.

I’m asking you to partner with us and help build the first ever Creation Science Hall of Fame.
You may donate any amount and we will place you or your family names on the “Wall of Honor” inside the Creation Science Hall of Fame.
Just click on “donate” upon viewing the web site: Creation Science Hall of Fame.

All inductees are encouraged to start collecting their Bio-Artifacts and those that can be transported by email, please start sending them (photos, awards, certificates, etc.) to the CSHF for posting on your exhibit pages.

In Christ,
Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors, Creation Science Hall of Fame

PS Rember, that your Board of Directors may choose the next “Inductee” from the “Honorable Mention” page of the CSHF web site, so keep nominating your favorite Creationist.

PS Questions:


13 thoughts on “Chairman’s Corner

  1. I would suggest Dr. Walter Veith, a Paleontologist who has a website on creationism. He’s fantastic!

    • Darrell, please see the email that I sent to you today, 8/28/12
      Thank you for your suggestion. We added Dr Walter Veith to our Honorable Mention page. Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors, CSHF

  2. Pingback: A Creationist is Giving Away $10,000

  3. When was this challenge created? The news articles imply it was late March of 2013, but there are comments from August 2012.

  4. It seems strange that you would vilify Hugh Ross like this and at the same time have Matthew Fontaine Maury and James Dwight Dana inducted into your Hall of Fame. Neither Maury nor Dana accepted the idea that the Genesis “days” were literal 24-hour periods. For that matter, by the mid-1880s Dana had accepted the “transformation of species” theory. I don’t think Ross accepts biological evolution even to this day.

    • He does not accept abiogenesis, and I don’t think he accepts uniformitarianism. But he accepts an old earth, though that is unwarranted.

  5. The point is, both Maury and Dana accepted an old Earth, too, yet they are in your Hall of Fame. Before Dana accepted species-to-species evolution he was a “progressive creationist” who believed that God caused extinctions and replaced the extinct versions with newly created species. Neither Maury nor Dana considered the creation “days” to be literal. Why do you accept them but reject Ross?

    • First, we do not accept unsubstantiated rumors without first checking them out. So we are not prepared to accept your premise.

      Second, Hugh Ross has available to him solid evidence that the appearances of a great age of the earth are, frankly, deceiving. Yet he persists.

      • I am very puzzled by your answer : “we do not accept unsubstantiated rumors without first checking them out”. You seem to have accepted the unsubstantiated rumor that Dr Hugh Ross is a theistic evolutionist of some sort. He is not. He is a Creationist, through and through.

        The only difference between himself and yourself would be that he accepts a perfectly valid interpretation of the Hebrew word “yom” to be a “finite period of time” or “day-age”, which fits better with mounting scientific evidence that points to a great age of the earth.

        It is a pity that you prefer to malign your fellow Christian, your fellow Creationist, without having seemed to have read any of his works (for instance, “A Matter of Days”; “Origins of Life” (co-authored with Dr F Rana)).

        Sowing dissent among fellow believers seems to me to be the kind of fruit we ought to be avoiding? Hopefully you will not be remembered for this when you are gone.

        • That Hugh Ross is a theistic evolutionist is no mere rumor. It is a logical deduction. It follows logically from his positions on the age of the earth and other matters.

          Do you know what theistic evolution is and what it states? It states that the earth is as old as the uniformitarians insist it is, and evolution did proceed as conventional paleontologists state. The only difference is an insistence upon Divine guidance, and a Divine miracle for the assembly of that First Cell.

          That is thoroughly un-Biblical. If you search our site for posts by Pam Elder, you’ll see why. She shows definitively how the original Hebrew clearly reads for Genesis chapter one. That has no room in it for any compromise with the conventional (and, we hold, utterly erroneous and even mendacious) interpretation of the clues to the age of the earth.

          The text of the Bible clearly attests to the miracles of the creation of all the plants, and of the animals of the land, sea and air. Not to mention to the most violent event the world has ever known, and the only one deserving of the name “cataclysm.”

          • Thank-you for your recommendation for further reading : I will be sure to follow that up.

            In answer to your question, yes I am very well aware of the difference between creationism and theistic evolution.

            I feel that it is of utmost importance, before prayers are requested to shut down the ministry of Dr Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe, that the true position of Dr Ross and the directors of Reasons to Believe is properly understood.

            I reiterate, Dr Ross is NOT a theistic evolutionist. He firmly believes in a fiat creation – of the universe, of the earth, of first Life and of all the life forms upon the earth, each according to its kind, until the creation of mankind in the image of God.

            Please refer to the Reasons to Believe homepage for information about the beliefs of the directors of the organisation : “We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible CREATION of God.” (Emphasis mine).
            link to

            The one area where Dr Ross and yourselves differ is on the interpretation of the word “yom”. This word has been interpreted by many creationist theologians throughout the ages as meaning a “day-age” (just as “The Day of the Lord” is not normally considered to refer to a 24 hour period.) In Biblical Hebrew, there are several translations for the word “yom” and it is not necessary to limit this to a 24-hour or 12-hour day.

            The interpretation of this word has managed to polarise God’s people into two camps : but surely this is unnecessary? The true essential of God’s Word remains – salvation is available to all men through the Grace of Christ Jesus. Dr Ross strives to help unbelievers and doubters to come back to this essential truth, just as you do.

            In normal circumstances I would “live and let live” about your misunderstanding of Dr Ross’s beliefs. However, you are calling for his ministry to be shut down, and declaring his work to be evil, seemingly based upon a misunderstanding of Dr Ross’s position on Creationism.

            You also accuse Dr Ross of bearing no fruit for the Kingdom. Here again I need to differ. I myself have had my faith increased to unshakable levels as a result of the opportunity to study God’s two “books” in conjunction with each other (the book of nature and the book of His Word) – to find that Nature truly does proclaim His Glory.

            So many people, especially university-level young people, feel utterly torn by a dilemma born of increasingly finely confirmed dates for the universe and the earth, and what their English-translation Bibles seem to imply about “a Day”, little realising that there is absolutely no need for this dilemma. Dr Ross has brought many people (not just young people) back to a firm belief in God as Creator and away from a belief in evolution (one area of science which he does disagree with).

            I really pray that you will reconsider your call to others to shut down his ministry.

          • I must dispute your analysis. For several reasons, not least of which is that you just accused me of not knowing what I’m talking about.

            The “day/age equivalence” fails on two essential points. First it suggests that death was part of a “very good” creation. The phrase “mo’ed tov,” that King James I’s translators rendered as “very good,” means more than that. It means “absolutely excellent, not amenable to improvement.” Can anyone assert, with any justice, that a creation in which animals and man die, and that plants die before becoming food, is “absolutely excellent, not amenable to improvement”? I think not.

            Second, it suggests that plants were alone on the face of the earth, and in the sea, for millions of years before the appearance of the first animals. In the first place, that is not consistent even with the fossil record. And in the second, the plants would have rapidly consumed all the carbon dioxide in that amount of time and therefore could not survive in an ecosystem having only half its members. The other half are the animals.

            We have, more to the point, observed the consequences of the acceptance of conventional “science” as interpreters of Scripture. The “millions of years” compromise has crashed into the Church like a wrecking ball. It leads people to assume that the Bible does not mean what it says, and that the Bible can mean different things depending on the latest discovery. And not even a discovery! More like a different fad in interpretation. Such an analysis cedes control of the debate to atheists.

            And none of it – I say again, none of it – is necessary. Before the Hydroplate Theory, for example, all the arguments for a very old earth fall to the ground. We need yield to no one in our interpretation of the age of the earth, as Hugh Ross has.

  6. There are numerous passages in Dana’s “Text-Book of Geology” which illustrate his views during the 1860s. He discusses the length of geological time beginning on p.243 of the 1863 edition. He believed that the great extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was the end of the 5th Day (p.260). His 1885 treatise, “Creation; Or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science,” describes his slow acceptance of the “development theory” — which he had previously explicitly rejected in his “Text-Book” (as on p.150 for one example).

    Both the “Text-Book” and his “Creation” treatise are available online.

    As to Maury, I see that you have his statement that “the Mosaic account affords evidence itself that the term ‘day,’ as there used, is not that which comprehends our twenty four hours,” here on your site, but have somehow chosen not to accept that it means what it says.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.