Evolution doesn’t make you smart

So Rafi Letzter, writing in Business Insider, wonders “why so many smart people don’t believe in evolution.” He rightly questions a study suggesting if you’re smart, you should believe in evolution. But he then fails to follow through with what his own analysis suggests. Continue reading

Glen Kuban wrong on Walt Brown

Glen J. Kuban, almost twenty years ago, took exception to the finding of human and dinosaur tracks, side by side, near the Paluxy River. He has tried several times in those almost twenty years to cast doubt on that claim. Six years ago he found a new target: Walter T. Brown, author of the Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood. (See In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, in hardcover and online here.) He published a rebuttal to the theory, and last edited this two days ago (1 September 2015). But his revisions won’t help him. He might have read the book. But he never once examines critically the conventional theories of the origins and history of the earth. And so he falls into a common logical trap. And he never escapes it. Continue reading

We created a scene in 2014

The year 2014 saw great strides in understanding how God created the world, and how the Global Flood created confusion as well as judgment. This year also saw controversies that moved the creation debate out of obscurity and even caught mainstream press attention. Continue reading

Creation: clash of theories

The creation science movement has not been able to speak with one voice for years. And now we know why. Less than two weeks ago, a bold commentator broke decades of unproductive silence on the real issue. One man, among all creation scientists, has a unified and comprehensive theory of the Global Flood. That man is Walter T. Brown Jr., and that theory is the Hydroplate Theory. Now we know the real reason why the larger creation movement rejected it out-of-hand. And the grounds were not scientific, and still aren’t. Continue reading

Scientist fired for discovery

Can a scientist lose his job for discovering something new and telling the community about it? It happened recently. And the scientist who lost his job, is going to court to get it back. And that case threatens to pit creation against evolution in a trial to rival Tennessee v. Scopes. Continue reading

Ex nihilo: out of nothing

Since Einstein unsuccessfully spent the last 30 years of his life looking for it, Grand Unification Theory (GUTs) has remained the golden fleece of physics. GUTs requires that the small and large forces of physics must not conflicti. It is believed that resolving the conflict of these forces will most likely lie in understanding and developing string physics. As significant as the future discovery of GUTs or the development of string physics may be, it will only lead to another question: how did something come out of nothing? It is the understanding of how the organization of energy existing in a zero point vacuum (referred to as Zero-Point Energy or ZPE) ultimately transitions into matter and information that needs to be understood. Continue reading

Peer review potential and peril

Almost without fail, any critic of creation science will utter the phrase peer review to suggest creation science has no merit. The premise: only by peer review can any scientist be sure he is reading something truly important, and not insubstantial junk. True enough, some men claiming to be scientists, do not follow the scientific method as closely as they should. But sometimes “peer review” can become a means to exclude new ideas, whether they have merit or not. So lack of “peer review” does not necessarily deny merit to a new idea. Continue reading