Saturday, September 22, 2018

Transformed by the Evidence

I have been fascinated by the stories of Christian scientists who once believed in evolution, but were, Transformed by the Evidence.
When I was in high school, and even microbiology in nursing school a few years ago, I learned that DNA was read in one direction. There was no mention of layering or backwards coding. Jay Seegert, a creation speaker, talks about the dynamics of DNA in one DVD.
And in his book Transformed by the Evidence, by Jerry Bergmann Ph.D he includes the account of Tom Hennigan, who is an associate professor of biology at Truett-McConnell College. Mr. Hennigan gives a stunning analogy of DNA complexity.
Let me quote what he wrote regarding the complexity of DNA. He explains that DNA is made up of "multiple instructions embedded within multiple instructions in multiple directions." He goes on to explain, "if you read the book from front to back, you would learn all about building a car. If you read it from back to front, you would learn how to design the electrical circuitry of a house. Starting in the middle and reading forward then backward you could learn a new language or, alternatively, if you began reading in the middle, reading backward, and then forward, you would learn calculus. The complexity is mind boggling and inconsistent with random natural process.

Yes, indeed, "In the beginning, God"....

This book, "Transformed by the Evidence"  has been so phenomenal! Men and women are coming to know Christ, or develop a deeper walk with Him because of the evidence leading to belief in a historical Genesis chapters 1-11. This is too good to not share:

By one contributing author, Jonathan Bartlett, "When I believed in an old earth, it meant that most of history was disconnected from the Biblical narrative. Now, when I think of the Paleozoic, I think of the onset of the flood; when I think of the stars, I think of the fourth day of Creation; when I think of the K/T boundary (the geological layer above the dinosaurs with very few fossils), I think about the end of the flood, and Noah releasing the animals to repopulate the earth. Christianity becomes not just one part of my life, and one part of the history of the world, but rather a total truth about the whole history of the earth."

Friday, September 21, 2018

The Case from Science by Jay Seegert

Jay Seegert of Starting Point Ministries is hosting a Seminar at Hales Corners Lutheran Church. 

Mr. Jay Seegert
DATE: September 27, 2018 

TIME: 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.  

Hales Corners Lutheran Church
12300 W. Janesville Road
Hales Corners, WI 53130

SEMINAR TOPIC: The Case from Science

Examining Creation vs. Evolution

Origin of the Universe
Origin of Life
Origin of Species
Origin of Design

Enjoy some pictures from the summer fairs

Calvary Chapel Madison plays a big part in the booth in Dane County. What a privilege to share God's Word with the hundreds of families, teens, college students and adults and  kids. We pray the Lord brings fruit from our work.

Krista loved answering questions as kids spun the wheel. 

We are an interactive booth. Would you like a dinosaur tattoo? or a pressed penny with a butterfly on it? or would you like to look at some fossils or a replica of Noah's Ark? Take a look at a feather or butterfly wing under the microscope?  Look at the human and chimp skull; mankind was created with uniqueness and special purpose!

Dad and son look in the microscope and discover complexity in nature that can only be explained by: 'In the beginning, God..."

Isaac and Crystal talking to folks and giving out resources

Final evening of State Fair. People kept coming and coming...

Some folks just want to look from afar. It might be the first authoritative statement about Biblical Creation they have encountered.  

"My muscles are strong enough to squish a penny". Did she chose the penny with Noah's Ark that states: "Noah's Ark, salvation from the judgement of the flood; Jesus Christ, salvation from our sin."?

Yes, the Biblical Flood explains the sedimentary layers and the formation of petrified wood.

Yes, those sedimentary layers were laid down during The Flood!

Randy talking to some young women.

Sheboygan County Fair. It's the best booth at the fair!

Pastor Richard loves to talk to kids about dinosaurs and the Bible....and Jesus!

Thursday, July 5, 2018

New Friends in the Booth

Check out our newest display for the What's the Evidence? fairbooth. We plan to highlight the differences between man and animal and emphasis that man was created in God's image with very unique design and capabilities. Because man was created in God's image he has the responsibility to serve his Creator. Yet, God gives us a choice about who we will serve. We hope you choose Him!
It's been a lot of fun learning about this. Come visit us and learn, too.
The video below discusses the uniqueness of man:

That's a Fact

There are several topics folks get confused about when it comes to "evidence" for evolution.
ICR (Institute for Creation Research) has put out some short (under two minutes), very informative videos. Topics include: Human Evolution, Climate Change, Junk DNA, Noah's Flood, Whale Evolution, the Big Bang, Population Growth, Carbon-14 Dating, Dinosaur Tracks, Cell origin and MORE.
Check this out:

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Summer 2018 Fairs

Dane County Fair
July 19-22
Waukesha County Fair
July 18-22
Wisconsin State Fair
August 2-12

Sheboygan County Fair
Labor Day Weekend
August 30-Sept. 3

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Schism in Evolutionary Theory Opens Creationist Opportunity


Evolutionary biology is experiencing its most serious division over the structure of evolutionary theory since the development of the Modern Synthesis nearly 100 years ago. Last November, Great Britain’s prestigious Royal Society (The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge) held a conference to deliberate if evolutionary theory needs to be “extended” or even renovated to accommodate fresh ideas from new discoveries. The article Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society in the current issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution by a conference organizer explains why “the discussion witnessed little meeting of minds.”1
The vital importance of this conference was framed in the science journal Nature in a point-counterpoint-style article, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?”2 They note that “researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.” A division over basic processes at the core of any theory suggests that the theory is incomplete, based on misleading research, or broken.
One researcher advocating for a major revision in evolutionary theory (modestly labeled the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, or EES) is Kevin Laland of the University of St. Andrews. He said that “the data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation.”2 The bitterness, per Laland, is generated since “this is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.”
The Debate: What Causes Adaptive Innovations?
Another scientist supporting the EES, Gerd Muller of the University of Vienna, had previously stated that one value of the extension would overcome the “restrictions” of “externalism.”3 Externalism is principally a way to think about how organisms are formed. Externalists see an organism’s traits as imposed on it by external conditions.4 These conditions are designated as “selective pressures.” These “pressures” are essentially environmental problems “driving” the adaptation of organisms to produce some trait or traits to overcome the problem. In contrast, most researchers promoting the EES would say that traits which overcome problems are, obviously, due to an organism’s internal systems—and therefore where research should primarily focus.
For example, one Royal Society conference topic was embryonic development. The internalist EES faction contends that, for some organisms, specific traits “could be predicted with knowledge of their mechanisms of development. For these biologists, a bias in development that produces some morphologies more readily than others can shape the course of adaptive evolution. Douglas Futuyma, by contrast, presented a more traditional standpoint in attributing the adaptive characteristics of organisms solely to selection….”5
Internalists also view organisms as possessing a repertoire of traits which are “plastic” enough over multiple generations to enable them to actively explore and fill new niches, rather than be passively driven by selective outside pressures. Thus, another area of departure was over developmental plasticity “which can be viewed as a genetically specified reaction norm fashioned by past selection, and/or as being reliant on more open-ended (e.g., exploratory) developmental processes that are propagated across generations through epigenetic mechanisms.”6
This sharp division at the Royal Society also highlights the completely different approaches to identifying causality for traits. Internalists attempted to describe observable mechanisms. Externalists repeatedly invoked natural selection, prompting one science reporter in attendance to state that “the event would have benefited from someone in the wings with a hook restraining speakers who insisted on relying on the mantra of natural selection to fill in the blanks of their science. Repeated references to the term became almost comical. Sir Patrick Bateson finally came to the rescue, cautioning against overuse of the ‘metaphor,’ saying further that ‘natural selection is not an agent.’”7 Laland also writes that the anthropologist and archaeologist attendees welcomed “the plasticity-first hypothesis” as “vital to their work. For these social scientists, standard gene-centric selectionist accounts provided less satisfactory explanations.”
Different Interpretations of the Same Data
Interestingly, these deep divisions at the Royal Society illustrate an important point that Creationists have been making for years. Evolutionists often claim they have a mountain of data to support their position while creationists have virtually none. Creationists contend they possess the very same data, but interpret it quite differently. Similarly, Laland, who comes from the minority position at the Royal Society, also observed, “This tension was manifest in the discussions where different interpretations of the same findings were voiced…. The conference brought home a key point—these debates are not about data but rather about how findings are interpreted and understood.” So, it seems the debate generally isn’t over which side has data, but is about the best explanation of that data.
Even though evolutionists engage in acrimonious disputes over how evolution could happen, they still unite in the common belief that it did. In their minds, evolution is a fact. “There were points of agreement,” Laland reassures readers. “All parties emphasized that evolutionary biology is a vigorous and progressive field of science. To the chagrin of creationists and some journalists hoping for a fight, no calls for revolution were heard.”
Creationist Theory Better Explains the Data
Creationists have some points of agreement with advocates for the EES. First, we would agree that the Modern Synthesis which proposes that random genetic mutations are “acted on” by progressive iterations of a struggle to survive has some fundamental problems. Problems not only in the sufficiency of those mechanisms to account for the diversity of life, but a basic conceptual problem with the projection of volition onto nature to exercise “agency” as a causal substitute for areas where the handiwork of a real intelligent agent would normally be understood.
We could also agree with Laland that along with the basic research of biologic systems “at least as important are different notions of how the scientific process works, or ought to work. Those speakers at the meeting pushing for change tend to emphasize the role of conceptual frameworks in shaping what questions are asked, what data are collected, and what factors are viewed as causally important.”
The mechanisms discussed at the Royal Society tend to confirm design-based creationist theory that emphasizes active, problem-solving organisms capable of self-adjusting to fill dynamic environments. Creationist theory predicts that if organisms were designed with internal capabilities to continuously track environmental changes then developmental bias and plasticity, then epigenetic mechanisms and many other mechanisms would enable these organisms to fill new niches. Tracking conditions and filling new environments would happen quickly—within the lifetime of a parent—and enhance the ability of offspring to do the same.
In fact, the creationist model of Continuous Environmental Tracking would enable creationists to 1) fully describe, or 2) predict currently unidentified, system elements that a design-based model would indicate are essential to proper function. Since even EES proponents have evolutionary mindsets and are often trapped in naturalistic research programs, they overlook blatantly obvious key system elements that ought to be described or, if unidentified, ought to be investigated.
For instance, developmental bias is only the output response of a system having at least three parts. Though rarely described or even identified in evolutionary literature, an organism must first have a sensor to identify the presence of specific events or changes in its environment; then it needs a corresponding signal to an if-then logic center to direct the third part, the appropriate developmental bias as a response.
Evolutionary theory is in a “struggle for the very soul of the discipline” due to the discovery of pervasive internalmechanisms facilitating self-adjustments…that clearly don’t fit into current theory that posits passive creatures shaped by external conditions. But those mechanisms confirm a model that expects active, problem-solving creatures designed to track changing conditions to “fill the earth” showcasing the wisdom of their Creator—the Lord Jesus Christ.
Evolutionists have had over 150 years to fully develop and fine tune their theory, but they are bitterly fighting over its most fundamental processes. Time and data are on the creationists’ side.
  1. Laland, K. N. 2017. Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 32 (5): 316–317.
  2. Laland, K. et al. 2014. Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature. 514 (7521): 161–164.
  3. Muller, G. B. and M. Pigliucci. 2010. Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 13.
  4. Denton, M. J. 2013. The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism. BIO-Complexity. 2013 (3): 1–18.
  5. Laland, K. N. Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society, 316.
  6. Laland, K. N. Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society, 316.
  7. Mazur, S. Pterosaurs Hijack Royal Society Evo MeetingHuffpost, The Blog. Posted on November 21, 2016 accessed on April 25, 2017.
*Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative. He earned his M.D. from the University of Minnesota, his Master of Public Health from Harvard University, and served in the U.S. Air Force as 28th Bomb Wing Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. Dr. Guliuzza is also a registered Professional Engineer.
Image Credit: Copyright © 2017 The Royal Society. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.
Article posted on May 18, 2017.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Digging Past the Doubts

by Bryant Wood on ; last featured December 31, 2017
Audio Version
Today most archaeologists claim that no evidence supports the Bible’s claims about many Old Testament events. There is a problem, but it’s not with the evidence.
Have you ever tried to share your faith and heard these ominous words? “But archaeology has disproved the Bible!” If you haven’t, it’s coming soon. As our Western culture increasingly abandons all semblance of Christianity, more and more people think the Bible is just a bunch of myths.
Perhaps you’ve been taught to respond confidently: “Recent discoveries have forced archaeologists to admit the reliability of Old Testament history.” But the answer is much more complicated than that. In fact, most experts are now saying just the opposite. They’ve been looking very hard for evidence of biblical events, but nothing has turned up, they say.
So if you don’t know how to respond to these questions, your gospel presentation could effectively end right there. Answers really do matter.
The short answer is encouraging. Archaeologists have found evidence that supports the Bible, but many times the evidence is ignored because of preconceptions about the Bible’s historicity, or their dates or places are wrong for the biblical events. The longer answer is even more exciting. Any supposed contradictions turn out to be human errors, not Bible errors. Consider five of the most common examples.
  1. Tower of Babel
  2. Sodom & Gomorrah
  3. Israelite Slavery in Egypt
  4. Conquest of Jericho
  5. Conquest of Ai

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

RNA Miracle

'RNA World' Paper Retracted

The whole concept of how life originated is an insurmountable naturalistic hurdle. Life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in an interdependent triad in which each molecule is wholly dependent on the other two to exist. It’s worse than a chicken and egg scenario. Furthermore, since each type of molecule carries and conveys complex encoded information, an intelligent information provider is the only logical cause of this information source. Code implies a coder.
Shortly after the largely unfruitful origin of life research on amino acids by Miller and Urey in the 1950s,1scientist Alex Rich speculated in 1962 that RNA may have been the first biomolecule to spontaneously evolve. That first RNA biomolecule would possibly have both informational and enzymatic properties, thus omitting the original necessity of DNA and proteins.2 This idea slowly gained traction and eventually became more popular in the 1980s with discoveries that some types of RNA were involved in enzymatic-like reactions in the complex processing of RNA transcribed from genes. One of the main researchers in these discoveries was Scott Gilbert who coined the term “RNA World.”3
Since the late 1980s, researchers explored many aspects of the evolutionary possibilities related to RNA being the first biomolecule, but have found nothing but obstacles including no method of spontaneously forming RNA or its nucleotide building blocks. In fact, a secular scientist published a 2012 paper expressing this great frustration titled, “The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others).”4
If we grant the evolutionists a lot of slack and assume that RNA molecules with meaningful biological information could somehow magically burst onto the scene in a chemical milieu favorable to RNA stability and life, there are still many other problems. One of these additional obstacles is how the first RNA molecule could have possibly replicated itself without the aid of protein polymerases. In 2016, research was published that seemed to provide a solution to this dilemma by showing that RNA could be partially replicated without protein enzymes.5 Small chains of amino acids called peptides were used to help keep the products of the replicated short RNAs from binding to each other. Peptides are merely really short versions of proteins, so the scientists essentially cheated and the RNA replication process was not exclusively RNA-based. Nor was it very efficient or reliable. As fate would have it, the famous study also contained some major errors and could not be replicated. Thus, the famous—now infamous—paper had to be retracted. The authors—one of them a Nobel Laureate—later confessed, “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.”6
So not only did this so-called RNA World study cheat by using peptides, meaning it really wasn’t just an RNA World, but the research was misinterpreted and unrepeatable. This led to its complete retraction. Even if the study had been a success, the conditions surrounding it were carefully engineered by humans in a state-of-the-art laboratory—a classic case of intelligent design, not an example of purposeless random evolutionary processes.
  1. Thomas, B. 2011. Historic 'Primordial Soup' Study Yields New Data, But Not New AnswersCreation Science Update. Posted on April 25, 2011, accessed January 5, 2017.
  2. Lehman, N. 2015. The RNA World: 4,000,000,050 Years OldLife. 5(4): 1583-1586.
  3. Gilbert, W. 1986. The RNA World. Nature. 319:618.
  4. Bernhardt, H. S. 2012 The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others). Biology Direct. 7:23.
  5. Jia, T. Z. et al. 2016. Oligoarginine peptides slow strand annealing and assist non-enzymatic RNA replication. Nature Chemistry. 8 (10): 915-21. DOI: 10.1038/NCHEM.2551.
  6. Stern, V. 2017. “Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal. Posted on December 5, 2017, accessed January 10, 2018.
*Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.
Article posted on January 15, 2017.