"There is one theory, of course, that does fit all the known 
   facts of physics, chemistry, and astronomy without exception. 
   Furthermore it is the simplest and most direct system of 
   cosmogony that could be devised. This is the theory of
   special creation." -- Boardman, Koontz, & Morris, 1973,
   'Science and creation', p. 197]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

From: LARRY SITES
Area: BIOGENESIS
Date: 93/09/10

During my recent visit to the ICR, I purchased several pamplets
from the Science, Scripture, & Salvation radio series. This post
conserns the one titled The Book of Beginnings which covers
programs 19-21 by Henry M. Morris.

    In the 1st program, The Foundational Importance of Genesis, he
talks about many things but never provides a convincing reason why
it is important. He makes much ado about Genesis being quoted in
the new testament more often than other old testament books. He
says on page 5 "Jesus also said in John 5 that if they wouldn't
believe Moses, they would not believe Him. And so he urged them to
believe the books of Moses...". And goes on "it [Genesis] is true,
and the factual record of the beginning events of human history.
And it does fit with all the facts of science."

    I assume he is refering to:

    ----------- John 5:
 45  Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is
[one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.

 46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he
wrote of me.

 47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my
words?

    Notice that Jesus does not refer to the creation story. Neither
does Jesus EVER in any of the gospels refer to creation as being
literally true or as a belief required for salvation. Jesus
likewise never refers to the Genesis account of mankinds fall via
Adam and Eve nor to that being the reason for his comming.

    As an interesting aside, Morris says he is not suggesting that
Genesis be taught in public schools and gives this reason. He
doesn't believe that the word of God should be taught by people who
don't believe that the bible is the word of God. I guess we should
use the same logic to insure that science is taught only by people
that believe in science! (grin)

    Morris then on page 5 calls science into question by using Fred
Hoyle. Quoting Morris "Hoyle (a great astrophysicist who ... has
now also rejected the big bang theory) has written an article
entitled, 'Was there Really a Big Bang?' He [Hoyle] says in this
article : 'A sickly pall hangs over the big bang theory.' It has so
many difficulties with it that it is going to be rejected." Then on
page 6, Morris quotes Harold Jeffreys, geophysicist, 'As far as we
can tell from the scientific evidence, the solar system is
impossible. It could not exist.'

    Morris then says that Genesis explains the origin and says
quote "And there is not a single fact of astronomy or cosmology or
any other science that can refute the simple straightforward
statement of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. The big bang
theory and all the rest contradict these basic laws
[Thermodynamics] of science. And these laws of science point to the
necessary truth of an initial special creation of all things."

    Morris then says that Moses was the editor of Genesis but that
Adam, Noah, etc actually wrote down the events as they took place
because they "signed" their respective writting by concluding it
with "This is the book of the generations of" and their name. He
uses this to prove that "we have the actual record of those who
were there" page 10. For some strange reason, Morris neglected to
identify the eyewitness recorder of the events before Adams
creation. But by his logic we can know that those events are
recorded in the heavens and earth as they are the subject of
Genesis 2:4 "these are the generations of" verse. So Morris has
unknowingly shown us that the actual geophysical structure of the
universe is to be believed over bibolating human speculation.

    Now, to the point of this post, the second program titled What
Genesis Teaches about Creation. After poo-pooing the day age and
gap theories, Morris argues that the creation days are literal 24
hour days from day 1 on. Now dear readers prepair yourselves for
Morris' explaination of the "light before the sun" paradox!

    On page 16, Morris says "Now initially there was only light
energy created. It is the Hebrew word, 'or'. He said, 'Let there be
light,' and there was light, coming, I suppose, from different
points of space, and the earth began to rotate on its axis, so that
the light was seperated from the darkness, and the day from the
night. There was Day 1, then Day 2, and Day 3. On Day 4, then, God
says, 'Let there be lights.' That is the Hebrew 'maor'. At this
time He created light bearers, or light generators, to be the
sources for the light energy which would continue to function
thereafter."

    Now I ask you all, has Morris, who claims that Genesis "is
true" and "does fit with all the facts of science" and there "is
not a single fact of astronomy or cosmology or any other science"
that can refute it and that "these laws of science point to the
necessary truth of an initial special creation" explained where the
light before the sun came from? He "supposes" that it came from
"different points of space" yet the stars were not yet formed. What
law, fact, or observation of any field of science allows for light
without a source? And even if there were one, is there any reason
to "suppose" that these "different points of space" would be
grouped together so that they would light only one side of the
earth and result in day and night as the earth rotated? The "facts"
say that light on earth before the sun and stars as described in
Genesis is false not true. The description of creation does not fit
with the "facts" of science. The laws of science do not point to
the necessary truth of creation, they disprove it.

    It is interesting to note that the only "facts" of science that
allow for anything like light without a source are the theoritical
description of the big bang. Here the start of the universe is the
source for the energy which was originally radiant light before
transforming into the matter of the universe. In that respect,
Genesis is correct, there was light before the sun and stars,
unforunatly that light also preceded the formination of the earth.
As Morris suggests, we should believe these facts as recorded in
the generations of the heavens and earth and now "read" for us by
science.


 Peace, Larry
___
 * WR  # 398 * Welcome to Earth. Friendly natives. Enjoy your stay.
--- FMail/386 0.98a
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)