CEN Technical Journal (now CMI’s Journal of Creation) 13 (1) 1999 – source.
The problem with peer review as practised by creationists, is that the peer reviewers are creationists.
This is a cheap shot, I know, but I don’t mean it like that – not entirely, anyway. Continue reading
Ironically – since it helped provide the reason to start this series – I didn’t watch the Great Debate. I did post more than my fair share of links to commentary elsewhere, but today we’ll limit ourselves to stories not directly related to it. Continue reading
We have a new contender for the title of “oldest known galaxy”: it has a redshift of z = 7.51, corresponding to an age only 700 million years younger than the universe as a whole, and has been assigned the code z8_GND_5296. Discoveries like this happen fairly often, as there is a sustained effort of astronomers staring at little red dots with similarly arcane designations in the hope of teasing out a little more information about the early evolution of galaxies. Continue reading
While not technically a catch-up situation, at some point during my extended absence the ICR uploaded an interesting group of four videos, not tied to any project that I’ve seen much about. Unfortunately, but predictably, I am unable to directly embed the videos here – I’ll give you a link and brief synopsis of each and if you’re interested you can go over and have a closer look.
This first video is simply a modified version of one we’ve already seen. This is the one with the nice music, and which concludes with the YOM logo – or rather it did, but in this version it has been replaced by the ICR logo instead. It’s rather clumisily done, with the YOM logo partially appearing before being abruptly covered by the ICR one. The picture above is from the 1:18 mark, where it’s most obvious, but start at around 1:15 to see the full transition. Continue reading
For Wednesday Jason Lisle provides a surprisingly up-to-the-minute article, Washing Machines on Mars, opening:
Several news outlets yesterday heralded early reports from NASA that the Curiosity rover on Mars has found evidence that the red planet could have supported primitive life.
Lisle cites three headlines: NASA: Yes, Mars could have hosted life; Mars had the right stuff for life, scientists find; and Wow! Ancient Mars Could Have Supported Primitive Life, NASA Says. If you haven’t heard the news you should probably go read one or two of those. Where do washing machines come in to it? Continue reading
Some members of the ICR (specifically Jason Lisle, and probably some help) went to California under the Your Origins Matter banner recently, and YOM has provided a list of quotes. They start with stuff like this, and just get worse from there:
All science is creation science.
Science is possible precisely because God upholds the universe in a consistent way that the human mind can (at least partially) understand.
You can read the rest here – well worth it.
The first edition of Acts & Facts for 2013 has been noticeably redesigned from last year. Aside from various cosmetic changes there is now a dedicated contents page, a new series of articles, and some of the usual sections have been rearranged. For its part the A&F page on the ICR’s website now has pictures, linking to some of the articles which are similarly highlighted in the magazine itself. Because I have been going through these articles for the last five days this recap is mostly for future archaeologists, but there are still a few things I missed. Continue reading
…is the title of a book by Jason Lisle, written a few years ago back when he was at Answers in Genesis. I haven’t read it myself, but a few days ago I found a blog in the process of giving it a chapter-by-chapter review. If you’re interested you can start with Ken Ham’s forward – and don’t forget to pass on the link. (And, if you want spoilers, Bjørn Østman wrote a much shorter review of the whole thing back in 2010.)
Two articles in the January Acts & Facts edition argue a similar point. According to them, the young Earth creationist approach of biblical literalism is superior to world-views influenced by observation of the actual universe. The articles aim their attacks primarily at fellow Christians who don’t take the YEC position, but take slightly different angles.
The first is by Jason Lisle, and is called The Two-Book Fallacy. It begins:
The founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, taught that God has written two books: the Scriptures and the book of creation (or nature). Today, many professing Christians affirm this view. After all, the Scriptures teach that God’s attributes are clearly seen in nature (Romans 1:20). So we can learn about God through both Scripture and science—the systematic study of nature.
In 1955 Arthur C. Clarke published a short story titled The Star, about (spoilers!) a Jesuit astrophysicist investigating the remnant of a supernova referred to as the “Phoenix Nebula” that destroyed a civilisation when it exploded. This is revealed to have been the source of the star over Bethlehem, concluding:
[O]h God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?
Did I mention spoilers?
Anyway, Your Origins Matter has today posted an article called The Most Famous Star, about possible explanations for the event – supernova or supernatural. Continue reading
Eye on the ICR 