Dr. John R. Rankin, Mathematical Physics

Senior lecturer Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering

by John Rankin

The creationist approach allows us to have an exceedingly intricate and beautiful world at the outset, ready for us to explore its wonders scientifically.

Dr. Rankin is senior lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering, La Trobe University, Australia. He holds a B.S. (Hons) with first class honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, and a postgraduate diploma of computer science from the University of Adelaide. He has taught in tertiary institutions for more than 17 years.

When we ask about the origins of everything, what are the choices? We basically really only have two choices: evolution or creation. Evolution has its problems and no scientist denies that. But that doesn’t answer the question of why I believe in creation. Theories can be easily patched up with extra assumptions and more circuitous explanations and couldn’t the problem areas simply be put down to our present state of knowledge? Could we not simply hope that in the not-too-distant future, with further research, each particular thorny problem in evolution will eventually get resolved satisfactorily, one by one? In my perspective, however, if we think of the problem areas inevolution as “holes” in the theory, these holes are getting bigger with time, and they are not going away.

Evolution covers such a wide span of scientific disciplines that no one area is sufficient to disprove the theory. In earlier days, scientists accepted the assurance that although they had insurmountable difficulties with evolution in their own area of scientific work, evolution “works” and makes sense in other areas of research and in basic science in general. But as time has gone on, the problem areas for evolution in the various disciplines of science have not gone away but remained and are standing out like “sore thumbs.” With this situation, scientists have become aware of the difficulties for evolution in all other areas, in addition to their own. Now they are starting to say that maybe there are fundamental problems with the evolution explanation itself.

Let me describe my original area of research and how it related to evolution theory. My early research work was in the area of cosmology. This involves a deep study of mathematics and astronomy and, in particular, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. In cosmology we have a number of “cosmological models” that we study. These are mathematical solutions of the Einstein equations that describe different possible universes allowed according to the laws of physics. My research project was to pursue the question: if the universe started off as a homogeneous distribution of atomic gases and plasma, would the typical small statistical fluctuations in density grow and condense under the known laws of gravity to form protogalaxies, the precursors of galaxies with all their complex constituents of globular clusters, stars, planets, moons, asteroids and comets of today? …

CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE (& references)

image credit: Original artwork of computer engineer from unknown source image

Assumptions and the Age of the Earth

Atheistic assumptions

by Michael G. Houts, Ph.D

Scientist Dr. Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Scientific advances continue to confirm the Bible in all areas where science can be applied. Advances in life science have shown that even the simplest life is vastly more complicated than anything humans have ever made, and believing life could somehow “make itself” is more absurd than believing a space shuttle could do the same (Miller, 2013). Research related to the human genome has uncovered the incredible complexity of DNA, and the idea that random mutations followed by natural selection could somehow turn a single cell into all of the different forms of life we see around us is being further discredited each day (Sanford, 2008). In these areas (and others) it is obvious that true science is the Christian’s friend, and the enemy of religions that use evolution as their foundation.

Because true science continues to discredit the Theory of Evolution, atheists have been forced to focus discussion on topics where conclusions are drawn primarily based on the assumptions that are made, and not on actual science. If an unsuspecting individual can be convinced to accept atheistic assumptions, they can then often be convinced that atheism may be true or, at least, that portions of the Bible may be false.

One example is the subject of “age.” When one examines the subject, it becomes clear that all dating methods rely on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Because all dating methods ultimately rely on assumptions that cannot be empirically proven, the battle is no longer a scientific one (where the atheist or agnostic would lose), but a battle to convince individuals (and society) to accept atheistic assumptions without question. Within groups already dedicated to finding an atheistic explanation for the Universe and everything in it, the atheist has the upper hand.

Assumptions Related to Carbon Dating

An excellent example of the importance of assumptions is Carbon-14 dating. In a nutshell, if a person assumes the Bible is false, Carbon-14 dating can be used to “show” the Bible is false. If a person assumes the Bible is true, then Carbon-14 dating is shown to be consistent with the biblical account.

More specifically, an atheist will usually assume that the Earth is billions of years old, and that uniformitarianism has generally prevailed. Although minor adjustments are allowed, an atheist would also typically assume that there have been no large scale changes in the atmospheric ratio of Carbon-14 to carbon (¹⁴C/C; currently about one part per trillion) for at least the past several hundred thousand years.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible makes it clear that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago. In addition, a global flood occurred within the past 5,000 years. Uncertainties in the distribution and concentration of Carbon-14 at the end of Creation week, coupled with the potential for significant (two orders of magnitude) changes in Carbon-14 concentration caused by removal of carbon from the biosphere during the Flood, make it impossible to estimate Carbon-14 concentrations in the atmosphere much before a few centuries after the Flood. Additional uncertainties are added due to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, the Sun’s magnetic field, the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere, and other factors which can dramatically affect Carbon-14 production rates…

CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE (& references)

image credit: unknown

Dr. Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

In Six Days: Research Chemist

Why I Choose to Believe in Creation

Dr. Jamieson is a research chemist for Alcoa World Alumina, Australia. He holds a B.App.S. (postgraduate degree) in applied chemistry from Curtin University and a Ph.D. in hydrometallurgy from Murdoch University. He has also served as a consultant scientist and research scientist for several companies in the areas of ceramics, battery cell design, and mineral processing.

As the years have passed, there were many questions posed regarding the validity of creation. However, these have always been answered to my satisfaction and have strengthened my foundations.

I can’t remember a time when I did not believe in God or Jesus Christ as a personal Savior. The creation/evolution debate was quite different, however.

The subject used to be a “non-issue” for the church I attended. If anything, the predominant belief was the “gap theory,” but not much was said about the issue at all. This and my strong interest in science led to the inevitable combination of both theories, and another “theistic evolutionist” or “progressive creationist” was born. However, while studying for my Tertiary Admittance Exam (years 11 and 12), I couldn’t help but notice the religious passion that teachers put into their discussions on the theory of evolution. In fact when I raised some scientific inconsistencies (e.g., polystrate fossils, young earth ages for non-radioactive dating methods, and complications for Miller’s “chemicals of life” experiment), often there was an angry reaction and feeble, if any, explanations. I once asked how sedimentary rocks were dated and was told by “indicator fossils.” When I followed with “how were indicator fossils dated,” I was told, “by the rock formations they are found in.” Try as I might, the teacher could not see that this was circular reasoning!

The lack of credible answers made me quite skeptical of the theory of evolution. After all, it wasn’t an obscure theory; it was basically accepted worldwide and had been studied for many years. Simple and obvious questions should have been given simple and obvious answers—so where were they? About the same time I was noticing inconsistencies between the Bible and the theory of evolution. Some examples include: …

CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

image credit: Original artwork from photograph

Dr. James S. Allan, Genetics

In Six Days: Former senior lecturer in genetics

Why I Choose to Believe in Creation

Dr. Allan is a former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He holds a B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal, an M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He currently serves as an international consultant in the field of dairy cattle breeding.

As a biologist in the field of population and quantitative genetics, I had believed in the theory of evolution for nearly 40 years. During that period of my life, the long-time requirements of the theory did not really concern me. Chance (genetic drift) and natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change seemed to be logically acceptable mechanisms for the assumed extent of adaptive radiation.

My research involved using biometrical methods of analysis. I was concerned to predict rates of genetic change as a result of applying artificial selection procedures of varying intensities, based on different kinds and amounts of information. The accuracy of prediction of the rate of genetic change can be assessed theoretically and the results can, in many cases and in the short-term, be checked empirically. The change in genetic merit (and associated phenotypic merit) from one generation to the next is due to changes in the relative frequencies of the underlying genes…

CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

image credit: unknown