Creation Science and Young Earth Creationism:

Many people believe that the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago, in 6 days. This group of people known as young earth creationists believe that the creation story in the Bible is scientifically accurate. This is an assumption and for the young earth creationist, this assumption is a self evident truth or axiom. No scientific evidence can disprove the young earth axiom, because young earth creationists believe that the scientific evidence should be interpreted using the young earth axiom. This process gives rise to creation science. Creation scientists often interpret the evidence differently than scientists. They assume that the earth was created 6000 years ago and then set about to show that the scientific evidence shows that their assumption is correct.

To summarize: young earth creationism is an axiom. That is it is a self evident truth held by many that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Creation science is a discipline that interprets scientific evidence using the young earth axiom for guidance.

Evolution and Atheism:

Atheists believe that God does not exist. While many scientists believe in God, science itself must assume that He does not exist. Science is based on two axioms: 1) The observable axiom - scientists can accurately observe the universe and everything in it. 2) The naturalistic axiom - everything that happens, has happened and will happen can be described by naturalistic processes. In other words, no help from any supernatural entity like God is required. Science cannot function properly without these two assumptions. For example, suppose a scientist conducts an experiment where he measures how much salt will dissolve in a glass of water. Does the amount of salt depend on God’s mood at the time of the experiment or does it depend on the chemical properties of water and salt? For science to work and be effective, it must assume that the latter explanation is always correct. Thus, science assumes that the atheists are correct. And this assumption is not by choice but rather by necessity. Without this assumption science just does not work.

Most of the time, this naturalistic assumption does not create controversy. That is if the chemistry of water and salt determine how much salt dissolves in water, everyone is happy. This finding does not go against anyone’s religion. So we don’t have any controversy and science works as it should.

But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to God’s handiwork or will. Now we have controversy. And interestingly enough, it is this controversy that forces science to fail. Because of the attention, scientists are no longer allowed to say “we don’t know.” Instead, they often promote a hypothesis with no experimental support to the status of theory (for example, self replicating RNA molecules). And they claim they know how things happened when in reality they don’t have a clue.

Furthermore, many things are just assumed true. For example, science assumes that evolution is true. This assumption arises directly from the naturalistic axiom. So when Darwin proposed his theory, science did not have to test it. Instead it just set about trying to prove it correct.

People often give science more credit than it deserves. The way scientists interpret evidence all relies on two assumptions. So the ability of science to accurately describe any event depends entirely on these two assumptions. One could say it is science’s faith in atheism that allowed it to readily accept evolution and promote Darwin’s theory to the status of proven fact. One could also say, that if God exists, science cannot find Him.

Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution:

Theistic evolution is the idea that God used evolution as a tool to guide creation. That is the creation story in the Bible is not scientifically accurate. The earth is very old and many different animals and plants have evolved over the earth’s history. This evolution is the result of God’s guidance. There is a continuum of beliefs in the Christian church between young earth creationism and theistic evolution.

Intelligent design can test theistic evolution. If one assumes that God uses evolution as a tool, then we ought to be able to analyze the scientific evidence and find out which things God did and which things just happened by evolution. The criteria is as follows: events that have a reasonable chance of happening in 5 billion years are assigned to evolution, and those that have no chance are assigned to the work of the designer -> hence intelligent design. This is why intelligent design relies so heavily on statistics, probability theory, computer simulations and molecular biology. To a casual observer it looks like science. It is important to remember that intelligent design is not science. It cannot be science because science assumes that the designer does not exist.

Intelligent design differs from both creation science and science in a very important way. Intelligent design does not assume that the axiom on which it rests (theistic evolution) is correct. By using probability theory to calculate the odds of something happening, intelligent design theory can either infer design and no design. Thus, unlike evolution and creation science, intelligent design can be disproven. In other words, if the scientific evidence does not suggest a designer was required to create life, then intelligent design will not infer one. Thus, in my opinion, intelligent design offers a better way to investigate origin of life theories.

This censorship, misinformation and discrimination arises because most people fail to understand the difference between intelligent design and science. The following definitions may help.

Definition of Science: science is the methodology that mankind uses to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on two assumptions: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom) and 2) everything that happens, will happen, or has happened can be explained without invoking the supernatural (the naturalistic axiom).

In other words, science assumes that God does not exist and then sets about to prove this assumption. Take evolution for example. Shortly after Darwin, science assumed that evolution happened and then set about to prove how it happened. The naturalistic axiom does no allow science to ask if it can happen or why did it happen? Science cannot ask these questions because science assumes that God does not exist.
Thus, science is limited.

Definition of Intelligent Design: intelligent design is a methodology that some scientists use to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on one assumption: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom).

Because intelligent design does not assume that God does not exists, it is not science. Intelligent design has more flexibility than science in that it can ask questions that science cannot. Take the origin of life for example. Intelligent design can look at science’s inability to explain this event as evidence supporting the existence of a designer. Scientists who use the intelligent design methodology have and continue to identify problems associated with the origin of life that evolution cannot explain and will likely never explain.

So which is better science or intelligent design? This depends on who is deciding. Many scientists are perfectly happy assuming that God does not exists, so they prefer science to intelligent design. These scientists are not upset by the fact that college textbooks say that life began in the primordial soup as a self replicating RNA molecule when the primary scientific literature (articles in journals like Science, Nature, and the Journal of Molecular Evolution) contradict this scenario. These scientists are not interested in the truth.

Others do care about the truth. These scientists want to understand the universe and everything in it. If God had some part to play in creation, then these scientists would rather not assign His part to the role of some yet unidentified and mysterious naturalistic process. It concerns these scientists that college and high school biology text books are not allowed to present the many unsolved issues with the origin of life that are so plentiful in the primary scientific literature. Most of these scientists do not voice their concerns because if they do, evolutionists will label them creationists. They will then be denied tenure, their papers will not get published, they might be fired and their research grants will probably be denied.

This academic censorship is well documented on other web sites, and for the most part I think it is working. So Darwin wins by intimidation and fear. The darwinian fundamentalists are squashing free speech and free thoughts to assert their world view. And the tragedy here is that these fundamentalists do not even understand that their unwavering believe in evolution is based on nothing more than their faith in the naturalistic axiom.

I am going to allow comments on this article so people can add their experiences or questions about the Galapagos here. No comments or questions about intelligent design or evolution will be accepted. To be posted, comments must be related to Galapagos travel or trips reports etc.

Galapagos sea horses at cousins rock

A batfish found at Floreana, A Southern Galapagos island

View from Bartolome, top of the hiking trail

Galapagos Penguins

One more seahorse

The link to the video page is here -

Galapagos Video Clips

Intelligent design can not prove that God exists. But knowing that science does not explain the origin of life may help some to conclude that He does. Thus, intelligent design is a bridge between science and religion. Intelligent design cannot determine which religion is correct. It cannot even prove that a designer exists. All ID theory can do is interpret the scientific evidence with less bias than science. Science is very limited by its axioms. Intelligent design theory enjoys much more freedom.

Click on Image to Enlarge -

Galapagos Videos

The whale shark and the sea lions are the best.

This cartoon shows the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) with his noodles caught in several of Behe’s mousetraps - the idea being that even the great FSM cannot escape from intelligent design and its implications. (In his book, Michael Behe uses a mousetrap to represent a system that cannot work properly without all of its parts, and thus it offers no selective advantage until it is mostly complete. He then makes an analogy to life, which shares many of the same constraints).

Intelligent design can be used to build a bridge between science and religion. But because intelligent design cannot determine which religion is correct, critics have introduced the flying spaghetti monster parody. Intelligent design would perhaps be better served by not letting the question of the designer’s nature unanswered. The fsm did not create anything. Intelligent design implies that Christians are correct when they assert that God created life.

Unfortunately, it is a no win situation. If intelligent design advocates infer design and then conclude that God created life, critics will say that their logic is driven by religion and thus all of their conclusions are flawed. If instead the movement decides not to make such a jump, critics will create fictitious creatures like the flying spaghetti monster and start a mock church to worship him.

Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life…

Since the ARN price includes shipping, it is very competetive if not cheaper than Amazon.com. ARN has a large selection of intelligent design books listed on their products page. So if my book is too technical try another one. Behe’s book: Darwin’s Black Box is a good place to start.

RNA World and the Origin of Life

The idea behind this new page is that any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.

This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.

first page of Intelligent Design or Evolution? with galapagos pictures at bottom

Pictures are generated by javascript, so if you do not see them, enable javascript in your browser.

And for the extremely lazy who just want to see pictures and not read the site:

galapagos slide show

Once one infers design, logically one then must make another choice - which religion. There are certainly plenty of choices. Is the church of the flying spaghetti monster (or moster for those who cannot spell) really the right one? I don’t think so. There is historical evidence that suggests that Christianity is the right choice.

There are many techniques used by scholars and editors to evaluate the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of any written document that decribes an event that supposedly happened. These include but are not limited to things like: 1) did the author actually observe the event 2) if not, how does the author know about the event 3) did the author stand to gain (financially or otherwise) from his writtings. If so, what was his motivation. 4) if the author quotes information from another earlier source, does the style of the quoted text differ from that of the authors. 5) Do documents written by other authors also exist. If so, is their description of the event consistent? 6) Most importantly, did the author or authors write their description of the event down in a timely fashion. For historical documents written by authors who lived hundreds or thousands of years agos, this last point is extremely important, because stories that are passed on verbally by oral tradition for many years tend to become exagerated and eventually become nothing more than legends. 7) Once the document is written, is it faithfully reproduced accurately?

The New Testament was not written in a timely fashion ( Paul’s letters were written ~25 years after the ressurection, and the Gospels even later). This has led many critics to suggest that the miracles performed by Jesus were simply a legend. The same people claim that the ressurection did not happen or was somehow faked by His followers.

25 years is a long time. But one thing we do have are the very early creeds, short statements of faith that outline important facts and are composed in such a way so that they are easy to remember. Paul relates such a creed in Corinthians 15:3ff.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to five hundered brothers and sisters all at one time……. - NRSV

The statement: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received” identifies this as a creed. Paul is passing on knowledge that others passed on to him. Historically this is perhaps the most important part of the Bible because this creed does so well when it is analyzed using the criteria outlined above.

That this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. - The Historical Jesus, Habermas

In other words, the creed dates back to a time before Paul’s conversion to christianity a couple of years after the ressurection. It is so short that it would have been preserved by oral tradition fairly easily - even I can remember it.

Ideally, we would like to have first hand witnesses. This creed does not meet this criteria. Nevertheless, this creed is so historically compelling because Paul learned about it within a few years of the resurrection and he likely received it directly from first hand witnesses - Peter (Cephas) and James ( Gal. 1:18-1:19). As mentioned earlier, 1 Corrinthians was probably written 25 years after the resurection, so Paul’s letters were not written in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the early Christian church formulated this creed soon after the resurrection. Because it is short, easy to remember and so central to Christian beliefs, it is had to see how oral tradition would not preserve it for 25 years, and once Paul recorded it in his letter, its preservation into modern times would be all but assured.

As Habermas puts it:

The importance of the creed in 1 corinthians 15:3ff. can hardly be overestimated. No longer can it be charged that there is no demonstratable early, eyewitness testimony for the resurrection or for the other most important tenets of Christianity, for this creed provides just such evidential data concerning the facts of the gospel, which are the very center of Christian faith. It links the events themselves with those who actually participated in time and space. As such the creed yields strong factual basis for Christianity through the early and eyewitness reports of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, …

-The Historical Jesus

Given the above, the only way out for non-belivers is to suggest that the disciples stole Jesus’ body from his tomb and then made up the ressurection story. And as to this criticism one must ask what would they gain by doing this other than persecution and certain death. Even if they could not predict the hostility, once they experienced it, they did not change their story. Paul was thrown into prison and eventually executed. Paul certainly must have believed in what he wrote.

So no matter what members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster may claim, they are just simply wrong. While they claim to be mocking intelligent design, they are really making fun of Christianity. Their open letter reveals their intent when they claim to have many ancient texts that support their beliefs. While it is true that the ressurections happened a long time ago, Paul’s letter acurrately reflects his and the disciples’ beliefs. They were there, we were not. So while the letter is ancient, there is no reason to questions its content.

In closing, life can not be explained by a flying being made out of pasta anymore than global warming can be explained by the alarming decrease in pirates over the last two centuries.

church of the flying spaghetti monster

Darwin Research Center

whale shark

manta ray

galapagos turtle

galapagos sea lion

galapagos shark

Darwin’s origin of the species discusses the diversity of the finches on the galapagos in great detail. While these birds are everywhere around santa cruz, they are small, timid and while diverse not very impressive. I found the marine life much more interesting.

Darwin’s finches on path to tortuga bay, Galapagos

Darwin’s finch in trees at Darwin’s Station

While Darwin’s finches are most unimpressive, the same is not true of the blue footed booby. This is a cool looking bird. I never saw one underwater, but they dive into the water to catch fish.

the galapagos blue footed booby

The following movies require a movie player like quicktime or windows media player to be installed and working. I have not been able to get windows media player to work with these but that is just typical microsoft. Firefox + quicktime works. The made the first two movies small by editing out frames so everyone can watch. The others require high speed internet.

whale shark movie

Galapagos hammer head shark

The next 2 movies are very large so right click on the link and save these files to your desktop (save link as). Then left click on the file icon on your desktop to play with you favorite move player - quicktime, media player or real player will work. It is possible to left click on these links on my web site and see the movie after a download delay (2 minutes with high speed internet, hours with dial up) - the transfer rate is too slow to get a good movie with this method.

Galapagos sea lion (4.4mb)

This sea lion was trying to show us divers how to swim. I did not edit out frames as I did in the other movies so this will not play correctly even with high speed internet. I reccommend downloading it or playing it twice, as at least on my computer if I play it once, it plays normal the second time through.

If this does not work, I have made a few pdf files of the sea lion in the video:

galapagos sea lion
sea lion shot 2
sea lion shot 3

high speed required for the following movie (caution 10meg file download before playing)

millions of fish in the galapagos

It just is not like this anywhere else in the ocean. Charles Darwin missed a lot by not going for a swim.