The mission of the Creation Science Hall of Fame is to worship God, to grow in Christ while leading others to Christ and to build a family of Creationists on the foundation of the Bible by honoring those who honored God's Word as literally written in Genesis.

Our motto

"Proving the existence of God."

Charity Status:

The Creation Science Hall of Fame is a 501(c)(3) public charity. The IRS notified us, in a letter that President Nick Lally received on May 16, 2013.

Brief Policy Statement

In “honoring those who honor God’s Word,” the Creation Science Hall of Fame does not honor men 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 seek to preserve the testimony and give honor where honor is due for all that the Christian community owes our inductees.


The Board of Directors of the Creation Science Hall of Fame are the sole judges of the merits of any inductee, living or dead, or candidate for induction. Furthermore, the Creation Science Hall of Fame is an independent, self-standing ministry. No other ministry or organization owns, controls, or otherwise influences the Creation Science Hall of Fame or any part of it. Nor does the Creation Science Hall of Fame recognize any voice save the judgment of its own Board of Directors, whether in evaluating candidates for induction or in any other matter that shall come before it. The Board alone decides whom to induct, and bases said decision on the merits of the candidate, according to the Board's own criteria.

Creation Science Hall of Fame Policy and Procedures

The Creation Science Hall of Fame (CSHF) is now open. On November 11, 2009, we secured the following domain names: creationsciencehalloffame.org, -.com, -.net, and -.us.

Location proposal

Artist's concept of the Creation Science Hall of Fame building. Artist's concept of the Creation Science Hall of Fame building.

We will build the Hall of Fame as a brick-and-mortar structure in northern Kentucky, between Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum and the new Ark Encounter park. All creationists, collectively, throughout the world, will own the CSHF. We do not wish to own it, nor should anyone else. We now have a five-member Board of Directors and we operate as a non-profit corporation within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We also expect all creationists to support this project collectively and with neither bias nor regard to politics or past disagreements.

God is no Respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34)

True enough, many creationists do not agree with one another's theories. But this will not determine who enters the Hall of Fame. We want our Lord to be proud of us and this project. The Creation Science Hall of Fame exists to honor those men and women who honored God's Word as literally written in Genesis, be they alive and remaining, or gone home to the Lord.


We will never ask anyone whether they wish us to induct them. The Board of Directors votes on each candidate and appoints candidates for induction according to our own criteria. The chief criterion is this: the Creation Science Hall of Fame seeks men and women who have honored God's Word as literally written in Genesis and have worked toward that end during their lifetimes. (1 Thes.5:12-14) The Hall of Fame building will eventually house the biographies, pictures, accomplishments, effects, and artifacts of all its inductees. Until that time, we shall illustrate those items on this site. (Check back periodically for updates.)

Current goals

  • To choose inductees
  • To choose and request nominations for Honorable Mention
  • To preserve documents and artifacts
  • To teach the public that creation science is valid science, and how many scientists uphold it (whether the secular media admits this or not)
  • To promote Christian values and above all, Jesus Christ


This Web site will have a store to sell pertinent resources. Proceeds from sales will go toward the construction and maintenance of this web site and, eventually, the building.

June 29 update: Kent Hovind wins release!

The Creation Science Hall of Fame offers its humble praises to God for the impending release from prison of Dr. Kent Hovind. Mr. Karl Priest sent this information to the CSHF:

Praise God, July 8th Kent Hovind will be released from Federal Prison to serve the last month of his sentence in Home Confinement. The family is so excited about this news and would love for you to celebrate with us! Will tell you when and where the party is soon! Stay Tuned. https://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

CSHF is fully mobile-ready!

On April 21, the leading search engine announced from now on, it would rank the "mobile friendship" of a site in its search rankings. The Creation Science Hall of Fame vigorously supports all efforts to make the World Wide Web a friendly place for smartphone, tablet, and other mobile-device users, not merely those who use high-end devices. CSHF has always had a separate "mobile theme." We recently installed a new "mobile theme" that better reflects the same distinctive colors you are used to seeing on a desktop, plus a new, explicitly mobile-friendly version of our Menu Bar. Check it out! We welcome your feedback on how easy CSHF is to load and navigate on your smartphone, tablet, or any other mobile device.

Breaking: Answers in Genesis to sue Kentucky for reneging on Ark Encounter

From Answers in Genesis: As construction moves forward on the life-size Ark, Answers in Genesis (AiG) confirmed today it is filing a federal lawsuit against Kentucky state officials for denying the park participation in the state’s tax rebate incentive program. Although the program is available to all qualifying tourist attractions seeking to build in the state, AiG’s application was rejected solely because of the religious identity and message of AiG. The lawsuit explains how this action by Kentucky officials, including Gov. Steve Beshear, violates federal and state law and amounts to unlawful viewpoint discrimination. Constitutional law attorney Mike Johnson is the chief counsel of Freedom Guard and is serving as counsel in the case with Nate Kellum, chief counsel of the Center for Religious Expression. Both public interest law firms are providing their legal services to AiG free of charge. From Ken Ham, President of AiG:

Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

See articles here, here, and here. https://youtu.be/7nFxl6N1nLw


As you have already seen, he's listed under Deceased Inductees. The Deceased Inductees page lists our deceased inductees in the chronological order of their flourishing. But if you hold your mouse over the phrase "Deceased Inductees" on the top menu bar, you'll see another list of our deceased inductees in alphabetical order. That allows you to find a particular scientist quickly and efficiently.

We would never leave off our list the man who revived and re-popularized creation science.

Well, I thought the same thing as the previous visitor. You immediately see the portraits and you get the impression that "these are it." Its not that apparent that you have to consult the drop down menu. You need to redesign the website to make it more apparent.

Great effort though!

The portraits are of eight honorees that we selected to "advertise" the site. Now when you visit the Deceased Inductees page, you can see a complete listing of our deceased honorees, in the chronological order of their "flourishing" (the fl. or flourit designation on most biographical or genealogical records). The drop-down list shows them in alphabetical order.

Conspicuous by his absence is Dr. Henry Morris, co-author of The Genesis Flood with Dr. John Whitcomb.

As the website is explicit about induction criteria, I must ask - in which language is Genesis to be taken literally? Scholars have been arguing for centuries about shifts in meaning produced by translations, and I haven't read of any significant agreement. Some of these differences relate directly to the mission.

Classical Hebrew will do quite nicely. And any version that faithfully translates that text. Understand: the original Scriptures are inspired. Translations of them cannot be.

Yes! That is one of the things that was said to occur.

Not everyone understands Hebrew... The original King James version is okay since any errors in it are well known and accounted for. The newer versions...well, that's a little ify. Too many changes in newer versions sort of changes things...and that's dangerous because you won't know what they are.

For the longest time I thought I was alone in my theories.
Just a voice crying out in the wilderness.
I now realize that we as a society have fallen pray to a giant manipulation.
For some twisted reason our Governments which mandate our Universities have come to the conclusion that scientist cannot do productive research if they accept the facts of an intelligent designer as the origin of the universe and life.
It is our responsibility to point out the obvious fact that the USSR which started this atheist challenge in science has collapsed.
Nations that have followed the atheist philosophy are doing the same.

I've found the easiest way to defeat evolution is to simply ask them how male and female came to be! I say I just want to know what came after this primordial soup, and in what order. All the evolution charts show is one fish morphing into a lizard, one lizard into a bird, one bird into a dinosaur...etc. They don't know. Well then that's not science. God created them male and female...no wonder He reiterated so many times...the answer is there in Genesis.

To all readers: be sure to check this link against any TalkOrigins "answer to a creationist claim."

>"I’ve found the easiest way to defeat evolution is to simply ask them how male and female came to be"

This post seems to imply that scientists have nothing to say on the topic of "how male and female came to be". (They have lots to say on that subject.) So I'm not clear on why the commenter sees this as an "easy way to defeat evolution."

> "All the evolution charts show is one fish morphing into a lizard, one lizard into a bird..."

Textbooks, especially at the introductory level, always summarize and simplify. (Besides, no scientist would EVER say that "one lizard [morphs] into a bird." In fact, the science would say that if that ever happened, The Theory of Evolution would be immediately debunked.)

If someone thinks that such basic illustrations are the ONLY things scientists claim about evolution and evolutionary paths, they are going to be in for a huge surprise when talking to someone with more than a first-year biology student's knowledge.

If the debate was truly that trivially simple, it would have been over a long time ago. Going into a debate with the mistaken impression that one's opponent has nothing to say on such questions is an excellent way to get shocked into reality.

I see that there's no way to edit my typos after posting. Therefore, I should point out the obvious: I wrote, "In fact, the science would say that if that ever happened, The Theory of Evolution would be immediately debunked.)"

Of course, I MEANT to write "scientist" (as in evolutionary biologist"), not "science". Therefore, it should have said: " In fact, the evolutionary biologist would say that if that ever happened, The Theory of Evolution would be immediately debunked.)"

I do not accept the "theory of evolution" as currently presented.

I believe life does not have one single tree, but an orchard. The trunk of each tree in that orchard is a particular "kind" of life form. That "kind" might conform to the conventional "family" or "genus."

More to the point, I reject the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm. Which consists of:

  1. Uniformitarianism: "the present is the key to the past," and all processes observed today have always run at the same rate since the beginning of time.
  2. Abiogenesis: life began ex nihilo from a "primordial soup."
  3. Common descent: all life descends from one ancestor.

And my chief reason to reject that, is that I reject an old earth. I suggest this earth, and this solar system, can be no older than about 7500 years old, by Earth clocks. That last is important. The universe might be far older, by any clock running at the edge of the universe. But here in the Galaxy, which is at the center, time was stretched when the universe expanded.

If you look for my article about an astronomical fix on the Global Flood, you'll see further evidence, not only that the earth was young, but that a key event in earth's history happened exactly as described, and consistent with patriarchal annals, king lists, and the like, from the Old Testament, and the conventional fixation of the year of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II (the Great), 586 BC. (Note carefully: BC, not BCE.)

Could it be possible that God created us through evolution? The Bible may be considered God's word, but it is written by man, and man is flawed. Though some parts of the Bible are true, others can be seen as stories, opinions, or tales in an attempt to explain God. Neither Jesus nor God himself wrote the bible. I personally think that God did create us through evolution, not just in 7 days. If he created us in 7 days, it would be that there are too many unexplained things around that to be plausible. I fail to see how evolution could not be even partly true if God did create us. There's just too much evidence, and if it is true, why is evolution happening even now?

Do not confuse changes within a created kind with the change from one created kind to another. The latter has never been seen in nature.

For that matter, neither has the spontaneous generation of life.

Neither let the tales of the "geological column," or of radiometric dating, confuse you. The evidence actually militates against evolution as you understand it, and against an old earth.

If you doubt that, look through some of our biographies, and at some of the articles you see linked here. The Ark and Flood articles are a good place to start.

If you support God created us through evolution, it implies humans did not come into existence immediately after God’s speech. Your support contradicts Psalms 33:9 since it mentions humans stood fast after His spoken words in Genesis 1:16.

Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

Psalms 33:9, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

So do you believe evolution exists, but it does not pertain to how humans were created, or do you flat out disbelieve in the theory of evolution?

I got lost in all of the schools. What was your point in all this...?

First, because He said so.

And second, because we have seen the findings that many of our inductees and Honorably Mentioned workers have developed. And we find them more than sufficiently convincing.

The Church argues that the soul is immortal.
Where then is our soul was 1000 years ago?
Faith is built for power and money.
For example, the Christian Crusades.
You think God created the earth?
And what do you think who created god?

We are not alone in the universe.
We have not even explored the center of the country, and even more that we explore the entire universe.
Surely there is life in the universe.
But we are not able to investigate.
Because we have no technology.
We still do not know with what technology they built the pyramids

Now that's a very convenient proposition.

"It's out there, but we can't see it, because we haven't the tools to see it."

That's what Jan Oort said about his Cloud of Comets. And not a scintilla of evidence exists for that even today, though we now can see stars wobbling from the orbits of the planets they carry.

As for who created God: hasn't it occurred to you that God is the First Cause?

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"

The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"

The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."

"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."

Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

Albert Einstein was more intellectually honest than you have been. He would at least conclude, however reluctantly, that the universe had a beginning. And neither he nor any other honest scientist would have the hubris to insist that his should be the last word on anything.

You want to talk about arrogance? I give you the Methodological Naturalism of Darwin and his successors. According to Methodological Naturalism, by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field whatsoever can be valid if it posits any, repeat any, supernatural agency. Of primary importance to the neo-Darwinists is that God must be regarded as impossible, and therefore any explanation, however violative of the Law of Averages, has an equal claim on the attention of seekers of Naturalistic Truth.

Richard Lewontin, of Harvard University, admitted, even avowed, that scientists, even if they do not swear that oath to a designated Master Bridge Builder of Science, might as well do just that.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

The physical evidence does indeed point to a young earth. And as Richard Lewontin admitted above, the "evolutionistic community" ruthlessly sought to deny that to the general public.

Austin's paper on the excess argon in the dacite at Mount St. Helens is proof positive that radiometric dating is a sham, and always has been.

I find the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism spurious, specious, and meaningless in practice. Or, as a lawyer would say, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

From Dr. Jerry Bergman. Submitted by Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors, CSHF.
Bob Woodberry's background includes a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an undergraduate degree from Wheaton College. His publications include numerous articles in peer reviewed journals, including the American Sociological Review and chapters in books published by Oxford University Press. The publications that caused problems include one in the Encyclopedia of Missions and Missionaries. He brought a lot of money grants from both private foundations and the government to University of Texas. He grew up in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, and worked in China and Japan, and has traveled to over 50 countries.
He was an excellent teacher. He had outstanding student appraisals and high student ratings. He earned several teaching awards, and was very popular with students. “His passion for doing thorough complex statistical work to both verify and falsify his work is unimpeachable.’
But there was one big problem.
His research clearly revealed politically incorrect results—his primary sin was his research supported Christianity. In every culture, by every measure, when Protestant missionaries move into a native culture, every standard of living indicator started improving dramatically, even when all other known factors were taken into account.”
His article "The Measure of American Religion" won the Outstanding Published Article Award from the Sociology of Religion Section of the American Sociological Association. In fact he took longer to publish in order to make his case airtight, countering every objection before it was raised, so he had fewer papers than some of his colleagues. Also, the best journals have rejected his papers for trivial reasons, forcing him to publish in journals outside his field, which count less towards tenure.”
The main problem was Woodberry's research showed that Protestant missionaries built schools and had mass literacy campaigns because they wanted people to read the Bible in their own tongue—a fact Woodberry documented by multiple regression analyses. He found that evangelism was by far the most consistent predictor for starting modern elementary education programs.”
His American Political Science Review article documented a “positive association between years of exposure to Protestant missions and the growth of democracy—and these results are consistent across continents and world regions, even when controlling for geography, climate, disease prevalence, and many other factors.”
He also documented that the British forced the sultan of Zanzibar to end the slave trade and those enslaved East Africans until evangelical pressure pushed Britain to deploy its fleet to stop
slavery in non-Western societies. In one paper Woodberry quoted an 1888 missionary conference’s declaration that said the opium trade is “a standing reproach to Christianity. We are responsible in the sight of God for this culminating wickedness.” Woodward’s research also showed from the 1820s to the 1850s missionaries in India campaigned to protect the people from landowner abuses. They brought cases to court on behalf of low caste believers. In 1865, when Jamaica's royal governor killed a black leader, the missionaries mobilized a campaign that led to the governor being recalled to England and put on trial for murder. This is not what the anti-Christian professors wanted to hear, so they fired him.”
A fellow professor, Dr. Rob Wilson, wrote the purpose of tenure was to protect the academic freedom of good faculty to explore controversial topics. What are unpopular research topics
changes over time, and tenure is designed to protect freedom regardless of the political climate. He added he would rather have a system that allowed for a few ‘bad apples’ in order to protect the
majority that are doing good work.”
After he was denied tenure Dr. Woodward had to look for another position. He found that academic freedom is an illusion unless you agree with certain tenets of the ‘in vogue’ academic culture,
or unless you have tenure. Even then, life can be rough if you are too outspoken about the wrong things. The tenure system is supposed to protect people with politically correct views before they
were politically correct, and now what was once politically correct is now intolerable, and it is rare for someone like Bob to obtain tenure at a major university these days.”
After the University of Texas denied Woodberry tenure he applied to 108 other schools. No U.S. University gave him a single offer. One Christian college made a tentative offer, but not a formal
offer. No other school invited him for an in-person interview. To obtain a position Woodberry had to move nearly 10,000 miles to The National University of Singapore, a Moslem University in a
Moslem nation. They gave him a 50 percent increase in salary, free housing for up to nine years, the first semester off with pay, and $85,000 to fund his research.

If this entire universe would be created by time and space to be guided by Intelligent Design, it would turn up that God was not the creator. The reason is simply time and space had turned up to be the main sources to act as creators of this universe and yet God had turned up to act as an assistant for the progress. This is not biblical since Isaiah 45:8 mentions God was the creator instead of merely the assistant for the creation.

Similarly, there is no reason to assume all living creatures would be formed through natural selection to be guided by intelligent design. The reason is simply natural selection had turned up to be the creator instead of God. God had eventually turned up to stand beside to assist the creator, i.e. natural selection, in the evolution.

Isaiah 45:8, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

That Story about Einstein was amazing, I have heard this story since I was small! However I was unaware it was Einstein, before using it in my creation works, where and how was the story originated, and or the source of the story?

I was recently approached by an agnostic, who said: Agnostic simply is a fancy term for "I don't Care!"

Then he proceeded for 45 minutes asking me clarifying questions about God and Creation! By the time he had finished he walked away scratching his head asking himself if he really cared after all! CARE TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF YOUR WORLD!

If I could say anything to the critics of God's Divine Creative Origination to our Universe, might I challenge you to care enough to research the evidence for God as I have done! It was amazing! Before long, you will find God's existence everywhere! And come to the knowledge that God himself can place his Holy Spirit into your heart! All you must do is Believe and Repent of your sin! The sin? Disbelief that Jesus Christ can wash away everything you have ever mistakenly done: Disbelief of his amazing power and Godhead!

The journey will be started of lifelong peace joy and purpose! And this experience cannot be refuted by those who have walked into its path!

Do you have ANY academic experience in geology? I marvel at how adamant you were in insisting that scientists define a word in ways they do not, even while ignoring my pleas that you consult a textbook to find out the truth. Are you still going to insist that I'm the ONLY person who insists on the correct definition of a word used by scientists today? Do you honestly think I was the only professor on the planet teaching a definition which agrees with every geology book on the planet?

>I might accept your definition.

Again, it is NOT my definition. I didn't coin the term and I'm simply telling you what any science professor (or Dept of History & Philosophy of Science professor) at any university would explain to you about the actual meaning of the term! (This should also serve as yet another warning to the wise that "creation science" claims should be taken with a huge grain of salt, even in matters of correct terminology.)

>But I cannot accept it as the proof-of-a-negative against the Flood

My post said nothing about the Flood---so I'm not sure why you are changing topics. But if you verify that you are accepting the evidence and acknowledging your need to CORRECT the misuses of the term, then I would be happy to move on to a discussion of a new topic. (However, I will caution you and all other readers that I care about what God in his scriptures and his creation has revealed to us about the flood while caring very little about what man-made TRADITIONS have claimed about the flood. I am far more interested in the claims of the Biblical TEXT than about the claims of TRADITIONS about the Biblical text.)

> that Hutton and Lyell used it as.

Why is ANYONE obsessed with what James Hutton thought? Modern day geologists (as the Wikipedia article and every modern geology textbook on the planet explain) do NOT ascribe to James Hutton's PHILOSOPHY of Uniformitarianism. (Don't confuse the natural philosophy which preceded the age of modern science and the scientific method with the science in our textbooks today! I see constant confusion about the differences between the two among the non-scientist Christian leaders who try to pontificate on science which they know nothing about.) Notice how the Wikipedia article carefully explains the errors and flaws in Hutton's views of science and the world.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that nobody relies upon Hutton for the modern definition of Uniformitarianism! James Hutton was born in 1726 and died in 1797. Does it seem likely that today, in the year 2015, scientists would be depending upon a guy who gave his grand presentation in 1785, some 235 years ago, and continue to ignore the many catastrophic geologic events they've observed in the centuries since? Does it?

>The way they used it, it means exactly what Ms. Cooper and I have said it means.

So, in other words, you are complaining about a wrong PHILOSOPHY from 1785 which nobody in the science academy has cared about in many many years because NOBODY thinks that everything in geology is explained by gradual processes. Thus, if you are retracting your original statements and admitting that you are only opposing a very old philosophy that no scientist today accepts, that's great! Mission accomplished.

I hope you now understand why every geologist in the world who understands the word "Uniformitarianism" uses the 20th century science definition and NOT the philosophy definition from 1785 which James Hutton presented at an academic conference. You are running about 235 years behind.

Again, read the Wikipedia article. After reading about early uses of the word by Hutton and Lyell, move on down the page and read about how modern science rejected the concept and pay special attention to the "Twentieth Century" heading. From there, skim down to the section titled:

"Modern Uniformitarianism includes periodic catastrophes"

Do you understand now why real scientists shake their heads in face-palm disbelief when they hear various origins ministry entrepreneurs making this same uniformitarianism Straw Man Argument which you are making? Non-believers laugh at us when they see Christian origins ministries making huge science gaffes which could be cured by reading any first semester geology textbook.

However, that's not the only harm of such propaganda antics when people don't do their basic science homework. I've had young people from good fundamentalist Christian church backgrounds come to my campus office to lament: "I'm finding that so much of what I was told about science in my church and Sunday School was not only false. We were even taught wrong definitions of science terms! Why should I trust ANYTHING they taught me now that I'm checking the textbooks and the evidence for myself and finding I was lied to?" What would YOU tell them?

The biggest problem facing the local church today is NOT "atheists" and "atheism". No, far greater damage is done WITHIN the church when the scripture's emphasis upon TRUTH is abandoned and false TRADITIONS are substituted for what God has revealed through his scriptures and his creation.

I've made this post detailed and complete because I've noticed the two-edge sword of denialist ministries when they resort to two contradictory complaints: (1) "You never dealt with issues X, Y, and Z"----yet when every detail is covered, the complaint is (2) "That's far too long for me to read and respond to." (Yes, many who love the Gish Gallop hold to double-standards.)

Well, my hoity-toity interlocutor, are you quite through telling me off?


Because now, I am going to tell you off.

Credentials do not validate a false premise. And that is what you have been trying to do: argue from your own credentials, and those of your sources. The twin logical fallacies of argumentum ab auctoritate and argumentum a gradis (arguing from one's own degrees, grades in school, etc.) do not repeat not impress me.

"Modern uniformitarianism includes periodic catastrophes." How lame. Modern uniformitarianism never once considers that the entire "geological column" derives from one event. An event so violent it is the only one deserving of the name cataclysm. That's the name Paul of Tarsus gave this event. The Mother of All Storms, that's what it means. And I maintain it is literally the Mother of All Earthquakes.

If you're so smart, I now pass along to you the Walter T. Brown Written Debate Challenge. Maybe I don't have a background in geology. But let me dispose of one issue right now. When you ask me about my academic background, what you really are saying, in flowery language, is that I ought to shut up. I won't shut up. Get over it, and yourself.

As I was saying: maybe I don't have a background in geology. But Walter T. Brown carefully enhanced his academic experience by taking geology courses, so that he could discuss the lingo with any person who claimed the special knowledge geologists routinely claim.

That wrongheaded philosophy (and at least you admit that much) still governs geology today. I reject your denial. "Periodic catastrophes" do not make the Cataclysm that produced the entire geological column. And the Trans-Neptunian Objects, including Pluto. And much else, besides. Things you and others assume took a total of 4.5 billion years to form, actually took one year to form.

You think you can disprove it? Let me get in touch with Walter T. Brown, and you and he can arrange to have the Written Debate he has been eager to have for decades.

One of my students of long ago alerted me to your kind offer:

>"Let me get in touch with Walter T. Brown, and you and he can arrange to have the Written Debate he has been eager to have for decades."

That would be wonderful! I so appreciate your offer. I've been trying to get Walt Brown to debate me for many years now. The last time I accepted Brown's supposed "challenge", his excuse was that because my doctorate was not in science, I wasn't qualified. I pointed out that even though my doctorate was in another field, I had been a faculty member of science departments at two major universities during the 1970's and 1980's and served as Department Chairman and Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences---until I changed universities in order to become a seminary professor. Yet, Walt was adamant that my Biblical Studies PhD "didn't qualify" me as a "real professional scientist" even though I had been a science professor and had published my scientific research in peer-reviewed science journals. (Thus, by any legitimate standard, I'm a retired scientist.)

Of course, if you have actually investigated Brown's challenge, you discovered that I'm far from the only person who was unable to arrange a debate with Brown. Even the CONSERVAPEDIA article on Walt Brown tells of his dodging a debate with Fergus Mason, and shares details of Brown's unethical behavior.

>"If you’re so smart, I now pass along to you the Walter T. Brown Written Debate Challenge."

It sounds like you are entirely unaware that Brown's so-called "Debate Challenge" is just about as legitimate as Kent Hovind's comical "evolution debate challenge" where he promises $250,000 to anyone who can convince some judge who is a friend of Hovind (LOL!) that they have "proven the general theory of evolution." At least Hovind is actually willing to schedule a debate---when he's not serving time in federal prison for 55 criminal felony counts for fraud. But Brown has a long history of refusing people who have signed up for his debate challenge. Even Ken Ham and AIG's ANSWERS JOURNAL got fed up with Brown's excuses for refusing to defend his hydroplate theory even after being allocated more pages than any prior article's allotment. It surprises me that you are a fan of Brown's pseudoscience when so many of the Young Earth Creationist honored by your webpage have criticized both his alleged "theory" as well as his behavior.

Brown lacks the confidence to defend his rubbish in a debate because he knows that it fails basic physics, especially the heat calculations. Perhaps you could explain why YOU think it merits consideration. Do you believe that the many Young Earth Creationists who have debunked Brown's nonsense are being unfair to him? Or do they know something you don't? And can you explain why no Bible-affirming, born-again Christian physicists affirm Brown's theory? I can: Brown's "research" is only supported by non-scientists who don't know any better.

>"You think you can disprove it?"

Yes, I do. But you've got things backwards. The burden of proof is on Walt Brown to present his own SOLID EVIDENCE for his alleged "theory". He also must explain how his theory is subject to falsification testing and what predictions it successfully makes. Until he does, it is every bit the mindless rubbish that both Christians and non-Christians have noticed it to be.

>"Let me get in touch with Walter T. Brown, and you and he can arrange to have the Written Debate he has been eager to have for decades."

That's a great idea! Perhaps you can succeed in getting him to come out of hiding. Perhaps you could also ask him why he lacks the courage to defend his ideas before any of the many scientists and Biblical scholars who have accepted his "debate challenge." (Yes, the real challenge is getting Brown to come out of hiding and debate anyone at all!)

>"Maybe I don’t have a background in geology. But let me dispose of one issue right now. When you ask me about my academic background, what you really are saying, in flowery language, is that I ought to shut up."

No. Your paranoia is getting the better of you. I asked about your geology background because I wondered if you had gotten your strange geology definitions from the discontinued California school run by the Institute for Creation Research during the 1980's. Your definitions sounded vaguely familiar to theirs.

> "I won’t shut up."

I certainly hope you don't. Everything you say is actually extremely useful and gives Christ-followers a clear choice. Meanwhile, why not encourage Walt Brown to submit his "Hydroplate Theory" to a peer-reviewed academic journal and demonstrate that he has the evidence and analysis to win over the academy. That's what REAL scientists do and that's how real science works. Other born-again Christians in the sciences do it all the time. Why not Brown? Or is everybody just supposed to take his word for it? If he can't defend his ideas, perhaps he needs to---as you put it---get over himself. Debate challenges aren't worth much, especially when he never follows through. And the only "debates" which matter in the science academy are those which take place in peer-review. Brown wasn't even able to convince a book publisher. He is self-published. No surprise there.

Meanwhile, how about a progress report on how much of the Hall of Fame building project funding has been raised?

Media is the interface by which millions look at the planet outside. He'd produce a database that will be shared by a limitless number of individuals. I'd like to briefly explain what `personalization' means within this context and what's the semantic web within the next section. He should have knowledge about each and every news concerning the organization. In the following table, we'll take a glance at a list of some of the very best in the company, together with a small information about their various achievements.

Though he can be considered a tech-star himself, the largest show of his own fame is just a photo of the meeting with President Obama. He sealed up all of the rooms within the farmhouse for a monument to his beloved mother, keeping just one room open for himself for a living space. Anyway, it also helps if he is a creative person and has the ability to develop new and advanced suggestions to draw the public. He must play an instrumental function in communicating just one message through the organization.

There are only three primary thoughts before selecting a topic for the science fair. The whole idea of the secret can rouse a lot more questions. For a truth, some numbers keep repeating within our lives. Nonetheless, the purpose stays the same, to attempt to explain the start of the entire world. Consequently, a finite number was taken under consideration here. Science fair projects help get the impossible.

Writing essays are really a significant part literature subjects in school academics. This is, naturally, not true, because one's learning ability isn't directly related to their own ethnicity. The report should illustrate the vital concepts found within the research.

The results of the science fair experiment needs to be decided well beforehand. The giant effect hypothesis, is currently our very best guess. There are a number of different physics applications used in parachutes, like the square or cruciform type shapes, specially made to lessen turbulence and vigorous swinging during descent.

Offer sessions so everybody can have a chance to take part in a number of the activities. These senior project ideas can definitely be considered a bonding tool in regards to interacting with others inside your class. With these ideas and experiments in position, you can start to work on an extremely premium quality project that may earn you an exceptional grade.

He must be aware about the very edge competition and ought to have up-to-date informative data on the prevalent market conditions. Also, he must prepare a press kit for those journalists, which covers a press release, providing specifics of the announcement. Actually much more than the qualification, it's the skill that matters, to achieve success in this area.

Many needed to fight discrimination as well as their path to fame wasn't simple. Is however a fantastic pity is the fact that among the typical public, although a lot of people have heard of Charles Darwin and understand he has something to do together with the theory of evolution, many don't understand really understand what his work was about. The reality needs to be depicted but not quite gaudily that it is going to have a long-lasting effect on people's minds. That's the freedom of the futurist or even a science fiction writer. Yet, both of these thinkers interpreted idealism in rather different ways. Certainly, there are numerous assumptions and theories.

I've often seen atheists and anti-theists post this famous urban legend on Christian websites. They think it's funny to see Christians respond to the story as if it were true. Some Christian websites even have automated filters which block the prank and others like it before they appear.

Readers here no doubt spotted the popular urban legend Indeed, I've been receiving email spam copies of it for years, ever since the Internet began. Folklore scholars have traced it back centuries (long before Albert Einstein) and a wide-variety of "evil professors" and "brilliant students" have played the iconic roles of this and related tales, which also has been set in various times of history.

In the Internet versions of the legend, "Albert Einstein" has been (in my experience) the most common "punch-line" but I've had Christian friends and colleagues send me other variations as to the identification of the student and they are set in a variety of periods of history: Isaac Newton (creationist Christian), Carl Linnaeus (the creationist Christian who developed the taxonomy system biologists still use), George Washington Carver (a creationist who really knew how to use all sorts of wonderful things in God's marvelous creation to bless the farmers who were struggling to make a living through a variety of crops best suited to their particular soil type!), and even Martin Luther King.

I've even seen a Roman Catholic version of the legend, where various later-to-be Popes played the role of the student.

Of course, I"m sure I speak for many when I say that I've always found the legend insulting to whoever the famous person appearing as the "punchline". After all, the failed "logic" of the legend is the dependence upon lame word-games. Obviously, cold DOES exist just as darkness DOES exist. Indeed, the Bible talks about darkness a lot. And I wince when the "student" says: “Sir, Evil does not exist." Of course EVIL EXISTS! The Bible could not be more clear about that. Any "student" making such ridiculously absurd arguments in a classroom would be laughed into silence by other students (especially if they know their Bibles) and a real-life university professor would never allow such time-wasting, failed pedantics to proceed past its first absurd claim about "cold."

Of course "After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back." is as absurd as it is imaginary. Why would any professor "bow his head" and remain silent--unless he was pondering how he ever made the career decision to teach at a university with such low-caliber students!

Fortunately, many God-fearing, brilliant theologians have been addressing the professor's theodicy question FAR BETTER than the student's embarrassingly poor attempt. Indeed, we can thank Our Lord Jesus Christ for the fact that Bible believers can find many excellent presentations of this "If God is good and God is all-powerful, why is there evil and suffering in the world?" question throughout the Internet. In fact, just yesterday I listened to a Youtube video where a Christian colleague eloquently answered Dr. Lawrence Krauss in a university campus debate where this theodicy was the main topic of the debate.

Snopes is not always reliable but they've got this particular urban legend nailed down well and some readers may find it very interesting:

By the way, as Snopes points out, anyone familiar with Einstein's statement about "I believe in Spinoza's God" (i.e., not at all the YHWH ELOHIM we know as Our Lord God of the Bible) no doubt finds the story baffling---because it is totally out of character for Einstein! (Of course, no one will ever find this imaginary confrontation in an Einstein biography. The legend's literary origins go back centuries before Einstein.)

Of course, one wonders why anyone would choose Albert Einstein for the role of student in the light of his religious positions. Yes, some uninformed Christians wish to believe that Dr. Einstein at least "believed in God" but Einstein got very emphatic and ANGRY as theists kept misquoting him and counting him among them. (Of course, if they don't understand what Spinoza meant by "God", they could easily misunderstand some of Einstein's statements.) At the same time, Einstein didn't like being called an "atheist" either. Here is probably is clearest statement of what Einstein thought about God:

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

To try and salvage their position, I've seen a few Christian authors try to claim that Einstein was a "true theist" as a young student. However, they never manage to make a well-documented case for that!

Of course, for those who have known the Lord for years and are familiar with the Bible, they are already quite capable of answering the theodicy question. They don't need a famous scientist or Christian thinker to help them out because they already know the Creator Himself!

It would be wonderful if Christians could re-establish Christian Science. Unfortunately a 'denomination' by that name is still in operation to this day, and I'm sure causes a fair amount of confusion. Time to reclaim the term.

"Time to reclaim the term."

I certainly agree with that! I find it so annoying to have to reword my thoughts whenever I wish I could refer to "Christian science" without being misunderstood in terms of a sect that has largely receded from public notice in America.

Of course, real science has always been "Christian.' Modern science and its rejection of blind reliance upon ancient Greek philosophy, folk medicine, and mere tradition in favor of a strict methodological naturalism (aka empiricism) was one of Christianity's many gifts to western civilization. Christian philosophers from William of Ockham to Descartes to Newton to Bacon and so many others who pioneered new fields of Natural Philosophy, which today we call "modern science", recognized that God's creation (aka the universe) could be investigated and understood by relying upon EVIDENCE. Those Christian philosophers defined what came to be known as the Scientific Method.

The rabid anti-theists who try to claim that Christianity was an impediment to the progress of modern science are ignorant of history. Indeed, for many centuries the Church was the "National Science Foundation" of European civilization. Christians not only encouraged scientific discovery, Christians FUNDED scientific investigation and the university academies in general---as well as what we would today call the "public education system".

That's not to say that Islamic science and mathematics wasn't at one time far ahead of the development of science and academia in general in Europe. Christian scholars learned from the scholars of other cultures (including Arabic and Hindu mathematics) but they continued to build on those foundations and far exceeded the scientific accomplishments of all other civilizations.

The Creation Adventurer wrote:
>".....‘uniformitarianism’ and the logic creation scientists provide can be traced to James Hutton’s books."

The term "uniformitarianism" does trace back to Hutton but, as I pointed out, the definition supplied by most "creation scientists" is NOT the definition one would find in any university science textbook today. (I would encourage readers to investigate this for themselves by looking up the word in such a textbook and making the comparison.) As The Creation Adventurer pointed out in her post, the anachronistic definition comes from another era of a prior century and so Unformitarianism in science textbooks today is not at all the same concept and definition as that described in most creation science discourse. (And that is yet another reason why the two "sides" are talking past each other and why readers will find themselves baffled by the "logic" of it. I've had many young students come to me over the years trying to make sense of the contradiction. It is yet another equivocation fallacy that complicates the topic.)

No science or philosophy of science textbook used in any major university today defines "Uniformitarianism" as unchanging rates of physical processes, nor as "gradual change versus catastrophic change." All sorts of rates of processes take place at different speeds, from how fast an ice cube melts in various environments to the varying rates of increasing carbon levels in the earth's atmosphere, just as some vast geologic structures form quickly and some very slowly. No scientists denies anything so obvious as those many examples of varying rates of physical processes! Scientists are neither blind nor asleep. hey publish thousands of scientific journal articles per year describing changing rates of countless processes. (Students of science should not confuse changes in rates of processes with physical constants and mathematical constants like c, G, and e!) Of course, most of us in our daily lives refer to this uniformitarian aspect of God's creation more casually: we call it "common sense"!

Uniformitarianism (when CORRECTLY defined) is simply the idea that one can understand the past by means of evidence collected in the present---and that we can expect the laws of physics to apply here and a million light years away from here (as well as last week, today, and next Tuesday) to behave consistently. Otherwise science couldn't know much about anything! Indeed, that valid kind of uniformitarianism is what Dr. Jason Lisle often declares in his lectures and writings as the "rationality" and "consistent logic" of creation---and he thereby designates it to be "the ultimate proof of God."

[Whether the hyperbole of "the ultimate proof of God" is appropriate is a matter for debate. Many would say that the ultimate proof of God is Our Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh, appearing among men, living out the will of the father in sinless perfection during the kenosis on earth, and offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin on the cross, and then rising from the dead so as to bring the offer of eternal life to all sinners who will repent and look to him as Lord of their lives. But I'm not so sure that we necessarily gain a whole lot from trying to rank and label what is the most "ultimate" of that which shows us the reality of God our Creator. In any case, what I just summarized about Jesus Christ is carefully described in the scriptures----while Lisle's so-called "ultimate proof" (based on uniformitarian consistency of the laws of physics) is not so easily apparent within the Biblical text. The Great Commission makes clear to us what our Gospel message should be, so the ranking of "proofs" isn't much of an issue.]

Clarification: Dr. Lisle doesn't usually mention the term "uniformitarianism" when writing about that very consistent, observable attribute of God's creation---but that is the logical basis of his "ultimate proof of God" argument which he describes in the book of that title. Unfortunately, there are some creation science authors who praise that same observed consistency of the Laws of Physics within God's creation but then turn right around and condemn uniformitarianism! What an incredible self-contradiction based upon an equivocation fallacy! As The Creation Adventurer pointed out, it is because so many of them misunderstand the word "uniformitarianism" as based upon wrong ideas from a small number of researcher-naturalists of long ago, such as Hutton.

Then, Professor, you have abandoned the usual argument that "there is no evidence of a catastrophic event, and only gradual events have taken place." For that is what everyone but you means by "uniformitarianism."

I might accept your definition. I might recognize it as descriptive of the processes I observe.

But I cannot accept it as the proof-of-a-negative against the Flood that Hutton and Lyell used it as. The way they used it, it means exactly what Ms. Cooper and I have said it means.

The question professor Tertius asked about 'uniformitarianism' and the logic creation scientists provide can be traced to James Hutton's books.
You can find some of his work online to download and read his assumations for yourself.
He actually came close to realizing earth had a special Power. But his refusal to believe in God twisted his theory into believing earth emerged from the sea, not the sea at one time compassing earth (Noah's Flood).
Hope this helps.

Wow. It has been a while since I have been on the site: but I simply wanted the source of the story of the college professor before using it in an article: What I thought was amazing: was the professor's response. Do not be surprised if it was indeed a true account. I have had a professor walk away completely baffled and marvelling: because the Spirit of God was convicting him and it was not the content of what I said but rather his conscience!

My article was going to have the story and then bring to light the very thing you addresses: Every believer repeating the story should -as you have said- look in scripture for the accuracy of all things.

God said "I the LORD create evil" in the book of Isaiah, and that is a whole different debate among atheists and theists.
A debate Darwin never came up with an answer for. If "God exists why....."

In fact the Bible even talks about a "darkness which may be felt"

It is difficult for us to realize that God created both
realities to give humans a matter of choice. He wants us to choose him of our own free will!
God wants us to realize mankind whether atheist or theist are fallible! And that is why there is a distinct written Word for mankind to follow! :)
Creation Scientist need to not rose evrything up with flower pedals and realize that the truth is God did Create Darkness and evil including "I the LORD formed the crooked serpent"

You'll probably have to ask "Professor Tertius" himself. He left the comment--anonymously, too.

One of my faculty colleagues of long ago who still teaches in the Folklore Dept. of a midwestern university just now sent me the Muslim version of this popular "Einstein myth" in the form of a link to the Islamic "tract" on this website:


...in which the student grilling the atheist professor is a devout Muslim deploring The Theory of Evolution and explaining Allah and the wisdom he claims to have found in the Quran. Many of the lines are identical. Of course, in this version, there is no "punchline" where the student turns out to be Einstein. Instead, the unnamed Muslim student is the hero of the story and he finally politely excuses himself from the classroom so that he can pray at the local Mosque.

You will notice that it incorporates virtually the same questions of the student grilling the evil atheist Ph.D. The folklore professor described this extended version as yet another variant of the classic "virtuous student puts arrogant professor in his place" tale going back to the Middle Ages and hybridized with what he labelled "a type of Chick Tract for Islam." I'm no folklore scholar but it is amazing to see how many ways this centuries old genre spawns new versions of the same popular tales and adapts them for various religious traditions. Not long ago I even saw some spam emails with a Baha'i version of the classroom fable and it looked like it might have been modified from a much more concise version where the student was clearly a Jehovah's Witness. (The give-away clue was that it still retained a round of dialogue about the evils of blood transfusion and observing Christmas.)

Seeing these old tales weaved into so many different religions and agendas is a good reminder that we always do well to focus instead on the unique scriptures God has given us in the Holy Bible. Feel-good stories come in at a very distant second place to the inspired words of the living God---so we have no need to recycle the same kinds of fictional tales which a confused world distributes in so many forms.

Remember also, while you're at it. a broken clock tells the correct time exactly twice a day.

I've always been baffled by this unusual "expanded" definition of UNIFORMITARIANISM:

>"Uniformitarianism: “the present is the key to the past,” and all processes observed today have always run at the same rate since the beginning of time."

I've taught for science departments (and History & Philosophy of Science Departments) at both Christian and secular universities. I've used a LOT of science textbooks of every sort over a long career. Yet, I have NEVER EVER SEEN a textbook include the odd addendum at the end of the definition: "at the same rate since the beginning of time."

If someone can find a science textbook making that bizarre claim about the definition of UNIFORMITARIANISM, I would love to see it. After all, SCIENTISTS HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN that rates are not always fixed and constant. Seriously, a scientist would have to be totally BLIND and basically ignorant of science and the real world to not realize that MANY FACTORS cause all sorts of "rates" to change over time. (Obviously, there are SOME "rates" which remain constant. But there are many other "rates" which are not constant.)

For example, consider population growth rates for humans or any other species. No scientist who stayed awake during math class would ever claim that the population growth rate measured in the United States for the year 2010 was the same as the rate for 2000.....nor the same as the population growth rate in the U.S. in 1900......and certainly not the same as the same geographic territory in 1600. (Indeed, EVERYBODY KNOWS that there have been major changes in family sizes, even in recent generations!) Of course, we can say the same for the population growth rate for humans worldwide and throughout human history. In fact, not only are those "rates" today not "the same rate" as a thousand years ago, they aren't even always in the same direction! (For example, when the Great Plagues hit Europe and similar diseases came to the New World with the explorers, population growth rates turned and reversed most severely to produce NEGATIVE GROWTH RATES!

Of course, we can apply that simple truth to geology, chemistry, and physics. For example, geologists know that the rate of erosion of the White Cliffs of Dover today are NOT the same rate as those same cliffs two hundred years ago. Likewise, geophysicists know that the rate of sodium ions being added to the world's oceans are not the same today as they were a century ago.

So, the first part of the definition of Uniformitarianism, “the present is the key to the past,” is correct. The addendum, "and all processes observed today have always run at the same rate since the beginning of time." IS INCORRECT. To my knowledge, no legitimate science textbook used in universities around the world have EVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM. Yet, somehow, this "variant definition" has become increasingly common, especially on-line in recent decades. I often see it pop up in discussion forums.

In the 1960's I was already hearing this erroneous definition from my students now and then, and I put many hours into searching for a commonly used science textbook containing the error. In the late 1970's and again about 30 years later, I even offered a financial incentive in the form of a reward that reached $500 at its zenith. (That rate changed also! LOL.) I never had a single "taker" vy for the prize. The people who mentioned the definition couldn't recall a science textbook where they saw the bizarre definition variant.

As common sense would remind us, scientists do know that there are many rates which change over time. Our science textbooks are full of them. (Indeed, examples are often on exams where students have to calculate the rates and how much they've changed!)

Therefore, even though my retirement ended my financial offer, I'd still be interested in learning if there are any of the widely used, standard science textbooks used in the USA or Canada which define UNIFORMITARIANISM in this bizarre way. If you can post such a citation(s)---and the names of any universities using the textbook, if you happen to know---I would be very grateful! It is a mystery I've wanted to solve for about a half century!

Blessings to you all and thank you if you are able to help me out on this.

>" Of primary importance to the neo-Darwinists is that God must be regarded as impossible, and therefore any explanation, however violative of the Law of Averages, has an equal claim on the attention of seekers of Naturalistic Truth."

Could you please explain what is meant by the last part of your sentence, starting with "however"?

Of course, The Law of Averages is a popular logic fallacy, also known as the "Gambler's Fallacy". (e.g., In flipping a coin, there have been 10 heads in a row. "Therefore, the chances of ANOTHER "head" coming up on the next coin-flip is very very low. " That kind of erroneous thinking is an instance of the false "Law of Averages" that naive gamblers fall into.) So, I didn't follow how or why a scientist in this sort of context would rely on that particular logic fallacy.

I took a quick look on Google to see if there was another kind of "Law of Averages" but all I could find was that popular fallacy. (Perhaps some people think of "regression to the mean" as a kind of "law" concerning averages?)

Also, even the word "Darwinism" is used very differently in the UK versus the USA. So, could you please clarify exactly what you mean by "Neo-Darwinist"?

Thank you for your help!

>Then, Professor, you have abandoned the usual argument that “there is no evidence of a catastrophic event, and only gradual events have taken place.”

How can I "abandon" an argument that I've never held?

Indeed, how does it make any sense to speak of abandoning "the usual argument" that NO SCIENTIST of our modern day has EVER held?!! (Can you name any scientist alive today who makes such a claim?)

I'll restate my challenge: Show me ANY university geology textbook used in any of the world's top universities where ANY scientist claims that modern geology depends upon a "Uniformitarian view that all is explained by gradual processes and no catastrophic events were involved." NAME JUST ONE. (Textbook title, author names, publisher name, and year of publication will suffice.)

If you had taken my advice---when I said that anyone doubting my words should consult a geology textbook---you would have discovered that NOBODY in the science academy claims that "only gradual events have taken place.” Nobody. Zero. None. Nada. Zip.

As I also stated, nobody with any modicum of common sense would claim that “there is no evidence of a catastrophic event, and only gradual events have taken place.” We observe catastrophic events all the time, even in geology! Every time a volcano erupts, that is a catastrophic event. Indeed, a catastrophic event like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens some 35 years ago altered the landscape of a huge area in a matter of SECONDS. That was very very very catastrophic, not gradual----and NEWSFLASH: Geologists did notice that catastrophic event! And NOT ONE of the geologists on-site monitoring the volcano at the time NOR ANY of the hundreds of scientists who published scientific articles in peer-reviewed academic journals in the years that followed claimed "only gradual events have taken place." No, it is YOUR claim that defies all common sense.

>For that is what everyone but you means by “uniformitarianism.”

No. I'm telling you the same thing that any geology textbook will explain to you. I know that you didn't follow my advice and consult a geology textbook because of EVIDENCE: I compared the time-stamp on my post and compared it with yours. You simply resorted to "you're wrong and I'm right." Evidence matters. It matters to scientists and it SHOULD matter to Christ-followers.

In contrast to your straw man argument about an alleged teaching of modern science which nobody actually teaches, I will provide documentation which includes citations which will provide all of the evidence readers will need to settle the matter.

Now I could work from one of the university geology textbooks on my bookshelf right next to me---but because some readers will refuse to accept such documentation, I'll utilize a more generally available secondary source that is available to you and every other reader: Wikipedia provides an excellent summary of what any modern day geology textbook dealing with the topic will tell you. I'll even provide the link so everyone can follow along:


Let's settle the definition issue which you are continuing to deny by citing the last sentence of the first paragraph:

"Uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

Repeat: "modern geologists.....no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

Notice also:

"The current consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[35]" (2007)

Notice also that even James Lyell rejected your claims about "gradualism only" and "no catastrophic events":

"Even Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10,000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America."

Did you understand that? Much like modern day geologists, Charles Lyell recognized that slow, gradual events like erosion from a waterfall could eventually lead to a hugely catastrophic geologic event!

So, how did some NON-GEOLOGISTS (like Drs. Morris, Whitcomb, and Gish) get so mixed up about Uniformitarianism? I used to confront them on this issue (back when I was a young professor in the Young Earth Creationist "creation science" movement) and discovered that they apparently assumed that the word "Uniformitarianism" meant that "everything is uniform". Sadly they lacked a background in basic linguistics which would have warned them that "Etymology is not lexicography" and old linguist's adage that "a butterfly is not defined as a fly which likes butter." But these are the kinds of ERRORS which leach into the church when falsehoods become TRADITIONS and truth takes a back seat.

Again, I encourage you to read the ENTIRE article on Uniformitarianism so that you will finally accept what NOT JUST ME (as you insist) but THE ENTIRE SCIENCE ACADEMY has maintained for many many generations of scientists: gradual processes continue throughout history but catastrophic events can and do happen, drastically changing landscapes and even the entire planet on a sudden and massive basis.

Another example of such a catastrophic event that every scientist I know accepts (though I have no doubt that some non-scientists with no knowledge of the evidence will deny it) is known as the K-T event, when a 6 miles in diameter object from space (perhaps an asteroid) crashed to produce a 110 miles wide crater in Mexico. NOBODY in the science academy claims that that crater was caused by gradual processes.

** continued in next post **