The year 2014 saw great strides in understanding how God created the world, and how the Global Flood created confusion as well as judgment. This year also saw controversies that moved the creation debate out of obscurity and even caught mainstream press attention.
Advances in the creation debate
2014 began with an important benchmark on what the public thought about the evolution-creation debate. The Pew Research Center published its survey on “public views of human evolution.” According to Pew, 33 percent of all Americans believed humans have not changed much since their beginnings. And of the 67 percent who believed humans have changed, nearly half felt God helped guide that change.
Within days, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Ken Ham, head of Answers in Genesis, announced a debate on this question:
Resolved: that creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific world.
That debate took place on February 4, 2014. Ken Ham’s Creation Museum hosted it. The two men fought each other to a draw – or a double default. But Walter T. Brown Jr., of the Center for Scientific Creation, found some reason to cheer. He suggested the Bill Nye/Ken Ham event “moved the creation-evolution debate from the back burner to the middle burner.”
Before February was out, Ken Ham announced he had finally secured the funding he needed to move forward with another great demonstration project. He and his partners will build a full-scale concept model of Noah’s Ark, and will build a theme park – Ark Encounter – around this. Update: two weeks ago, the government of Kentucky reneged on an earlier promise of sales-tax incentives for the project. Ark Encounter, LLC will take legal action and ask a judge to restore the incentives. But will they even need them? The publicity might help them raise enough funds to make up for not having them.
But the creation-evolution debate created more legal controversy earlier in the year. A scientist lost his job after reporting a discovery that casts doubt on the “billions of years of Earth pre-history.” Specifically he found soft tissue, including identifiable remains of osteocytes, in a sample of a Triceratops horn. The journal Acta Histochemica published his find. Within days a superior officer roared at him,
We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!
At last report, Mark Armitage, the scientist who lost his job, was still litigating the firing.
September brought two controversial announcements, one concerning the creation community, the other from a nominal Christian. Bob Enyart, at Real Science Radio, released a documentary: The Global Flood and the Hydroplate Theory. He did not mince words. He made plain why so many in the creation community objected to the Hydroplate Theory of Walter T. Brown (see above). Brown had, early in the history of the movement, denounced the Canopy Theory of Isaac Newton Vail as unworkable and relying too much on miracles.
Separately, Michael Gungor, a “Contemporary Christian Music” (CCM) artist, suggested Jesus flat-out lied about the creation and Global Flood accounts being real history, and about Adam, Eve, and Noah being historical figures. Sadly, Gungor would not stand alone. Less than two months later, Pope Francis would say something similar.
Advances in creation science
Those events created great shocks in mainstream media and in Christian circles. Sadly, this caused people to miss the meaning of even more shocking events. Observations, mainly from astronomy, came in that vindicate creation science in general, and the Hydroplate Theory in particular.
On January 23 came this article in Nature: the dwarf planet Ceres has abundant water vapor gushing out of two geysers in its middle latitudes. That Ceres should have any such source defies convention. But the Hydroplate Theory can explain it easily. According to it, the Global Flood ejected enough water, rock and mud to form the meteoroids, comets, and asteroids of our solar system.
And, as Brown would realize two months later, the Trans-Neptunian Objects! On March 27 this letter appeared. It announced a companion (2012-VP113) to the far-off dwarf planet Sedna. In that same issue, astronomer Megan Schwamb pointed out a finding too striking to be coincidental. The twelve largest TNOs, including Sedna and 2012-VP113, have identical arguments of perihelion. Schwamb herself said any theory of origins of these objects must account for this. So Brown would announce a radical new understanding of the violence of the Global Flood. Incredibly, the Flood launched three percent of the mass of the earth to form all the “mavericks of the solar system.”
The hits kept on coming. In August came this announcement from ITAR-TASS: two cosmonauts aboard the International Space Station took swabs from the porthole of one of the two oldest of its modules, specifically Zvyesda. Those swabs held sea plankton. Could any modern launch have carried those sea plankton aloft? Impossible. Those plankton must have lingered from the Global Flood days.
A month later came this letter in Nature: a Chinese-American team found fossil embryos showing clear evidence of “late” development. And they found these in pre-Cambrian rock.
Then came the landing of the spacecraft Philae on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Sadly, Philae landed with its solar panels in shadow. But before she went to sleep, she sent back volumes of data, more than any earlier rocket probe has ever sent back from a comet. In his own year-end retrospective, Brown noticed two key points:
- The ices of Comet 67P have 3.4 times the concentration of deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, that one finds in the oceans of earth.
- The vapors of Comet 67P contain methane.
This direct measurement of deuterium on Comet 67P, and in such concentration, clearly negates the notion that comets brought water to earth. The methane suggests the comet, and perhaps all comets, have life on them. This life came from earth, as the comets themselves did.
2014 was a very good year for the advance of creation science. It produced the best scientific evidence yet found. This evidence vindicates the Global Flood and cast serious doubt on conventional theories of the origin of the earth and the solar system. The debate will take time to catch up with the science. But now more people are paying attention to it. And that could not come at a better time.