Category Archives: Creationism

Bill Lockwood: Foundation of True Science 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

Christians need to recognize the foundational importance of the Bible’s doctrine of Creation.  It is not a periphery issue, but is in reality the basis of the Bible as well as true science as well.  How is the case that the Bible’s doctrine of creation is the foundation of true science?

First, scientific investigation is based upon the concept of rationality.  Rationality is simply drawing the conclusions as warranted by the evidence.  That is, the law of correct thinking.  But what is “correct thinking” if atheism and its doctrine of spontaneous generation is true?  If reason is just a physical sensation … there is no reason for the atheist or evolutionist to say that he is using his mind and the theist is not.  Matter in motion would have produced in the atheist his atheistic arguments and matter in motion would have produced in the theist his faith in theism.  There is no reason why one should be accepted as the true insight into reality over the other.  Atheism or evolutionism gives us no confidence that it could possibly be the true insight into reality.

Second, scientists admit that the foundations of true science are found in a Christian world-view. Stanley Beck, an evolutionist writing in Bioscience (1982), confessed that the basic premises of science find their foundation or origin in Christian theology.  That is to say, that since the world was created by a divine Creator and man was created in God’s image, therefore nature makes orderly sense, man is able to decipher its operations, and true science becomes possible.  If the world, on the other hand, was a mere product of jumbled masses of atoms and our brains were nothing more than jumbles of matter and electrical impulses, science itself becomes nonsense.

Third, some evolutionists confess that given evolution (as opposed to Creation), man has no free moral choice.  William Provine, who died in 2015, was a professor in the Department of ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, lectured at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1998. His remarks included the following: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) No life after death exists; 3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) No ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) Human free will is non-existent.” Provine spent the balance of his time discussing “free will” because he noted “the first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them.”

Provine was exactly right, given his naturalistic premises. There would be no such thing as free will if the general theory of evolution is true. These considerations alone ought cause professors of science today to rethink commitment to the ungodly doctrine of evolution. Creation gives man his only basis for True Science. 

Did the Cosmos Arise from Nothing? 0 (0)

Did the Cosmos Arise from Nothing?- Something pretty mysterious. No science.”

by Bill Lockwood

If the general theory of evolution is true, then the earth and all that is in it, the entire cosmos, popped into existence from pure nothingness. This is how many internationally-acclaimed evolutionary biologists argue. They suggest a very unscientific beg

inning, better known as unsupported faith, defined as a “fairy tale” by their own reasoning.

A year ago, famed atheist Richard Dawkins, in a debate with Cardinal George Pell, once again asserted this “fairy tale.” Pell challenged the “something from nothing” claim that only physicists can understand but can’t demonstrate scientifically. Dawkins responded by proposing a “primeval simplicity” for the origin of the universe. No science at all. Only wishful thinking—the kind of story that should begin with “once upon a time.”

Here are Dawkins’ words: “Of course, it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course, common sense does not allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order

to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.”

Something pretty mysterious. No science. No formulas from experimentation. No physical proof. Simply guesswork. Material for legends. Yet, since the story-teller is enrobed in a scientific lab coat, people must always believe it.

But not this audience. Dawkins sou

ght to “explain” what was meant by “nothing.” “You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very, very simple.” At this point in the debate, the audience laughs. But scientists who propose fairy tales are not used to being laughed at. So, Dawkins retorts, “Why is that funny?”

As Gary DeMar commented, “Science has become mysticism. It’s akin to the New Age nonsense of ‘the sound of one hand clapping.’ How many times have you heard atheists argue that they can’t believe in an invisible God. But it’s OK for atheists to argue that the cosmos came into existence out of nothing. ‘A physicist said it. I believe it. That settles it.’”

Bill Lockwood: The Earth is the Lord’s 0 (0)

The Earth is the Lord’s & the Fullness Thereof- “Landmarks were regarded as sacred among other nations besides Israel. Romans, for example, enacted the death penalty against those who removed them. “

by Bill Lockwood

Tucked away in an unexpected passage dealing with “meat sacrificed to idols” the inspired apostle Paul underscored the fact that the earth was created by God, and for man. The natural conclusions that flow from his short statement are as profound as they are apropos to the current cultural scene in America.

First, the Context. At issue in 1 Corinthians 10:23ff is whether or not a Christian living in Corinth may purchase meat from an open-air marketplace, called in the first-century a “Makellon,” and consume it—with the possibility that that meat may have been butchered by a pagan priest and offered to an idol. Answering that question in the affirmative, the apostle of God then gives the reason for it: “for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”

This quotation Paul takes from Psalm 24:1 and means simply that all the food and provision with which the earth has been filled has been filled by God for man’s usage. “The fruit and products of the earth were designed by God, the Great Proprietor, to the use and subsistence of mankind …” (Matthew Henry, 2263).

Second, the Context of the Creation. In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth God specifically stated that mankind, who was created “in His image” (Gen. 1:26) was to “have dominion over” the earth and its products and to “subdue” it (Gen. 1:28). These phrases speak clearly of God’s intention for the created earth and the environment—that mankind is to manage it. “The dominion of man, the God-like king, only begins with his natural realm, …extended by cultural conquest over all the creation kingdoms …The subordination of both animal and plant kingdoms to man’s royal service …” (Eerdman’s Bible Commentary, 83).

It is from this premise of dominion that the concept of Private Property flows. Biblical truth assumes that since man “has dominion over” the earth, men have also the right to own property. “Thou shalt not steal” is built on this framework. So also is the familiar Old Testament law forbidding one from “removing his neighbor’s landmark” (Deut. 19:14).

Landmarks, or boundary markers in the OT, designated one’s private property and were considered “sacred.” To “move” the markers was to “steal” property. Thus, a curse was placed upon those who “removed them” just the same as a curse was pronounced upon one who cursed his father or perverted the rights of orphans and widows (Hos. 5:10; Prov. 22:28; 23:10). Landmarks were regarded as sacred among other nations besides Israel. Romans, for example, enacted the death penalty against those who removed them. Private property rights rest on man’s dominion.

Third, the Context of America. Ancient paganism and its modern Green version, represented by many in the environmental movement, disavow that the earth was created by the One God for man’s usage. Therefore, instead of “subduing” the earth pagans “worship” it. Imagining that the world is a personification of a goddess ancient pagans consider the earth “sacred” and celebrated its seasonal cycles with religious observances. The modern counterpart of ancient paganism is represented in part by The Millenium Institute which presses for “Sustainable Development.” This doctrine demands that mankind submits to global management in which the products of the earth are rationed.

Man is denounced as the problem with this new philosophy. One prominent globalist told Gerald Barney, the author of Global 2000 for the Jimmy Carter Administration, that “Christianity is the menace of the earth.” The Clinton Administration championed Al Gore who began his crusade for a New Earth Ethic with publication of Earth in the Balance in which he sought to re-write the Bible’s account of Genesis. Not only man, but all of nature was created “in God’s image” was the manner in which he argued with Moses.

From the Pagan Federation International website we are informed that earth must be “venerated.” The very first paganistic principle echoed there is that we all have a “love and kinship with nature” which is defined as “reverence for the life force and its ever-renewing cycles of life and death.” The earth itself therefore is “sacred” and the natural year is marked by festivals “which offer access to different divinities according to their affinity with different times of the year.” This “new earth ethic” in which man is described as the plague, is actually thousands of years old. It is rooted in ancient paganism.

Back to Homepage

Will Humanism Save the Planet? 0 (0)

Will Humanism Save the Planet?

by Bill Lockwood

Laws are always theologically based, whether or not they are so acknowledged,” observes Herbert Schlossberg (Idols for Destruction). This is why in the societies of the ancient Near East, laws were always associated with deity. The famous Hammurabi stele, for example, shows the sun god Shemash giving the Babylonian laws to the king. This illustrates the fact that humanity recognizes that law must have ultimacy—be recognized as the ultimate standard—if it is to give any conviction that it must be followed.

Conversely, when people lose the conviction that law must be followed as an ultimate standard, then we have societies degenerating into pragmatism—everyone does that which is right in “his own eyes” (Judges 21:25) — and the breakdown of society itself is near. Right and wrong are only questions of risk and reward and morality is only a matter of personal reflection. As atheist Richard Dawkins put it, “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution” (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 301).

This is why people who reject the first commandments of the Decalogue (Exodus 20) [“thou shalt have no other gods before me, etc. …] can not be expected to recognize any ultimate significance in the last six [“honor thy father and mother; thou shalt not kill …]. At a society level, when God is erased from a culture, as our political and intellectual leaders are feverishly seeking to do, chaos between people is the predicted result. This is exactly what is occurring in America.


Humanism removes God from public or private consideration. “No god will save us,” says the Humanist Manifesto. But that leaves man without any basis upon which to assess any action as ultimately right or wrong. “Ethics are situational and autonomous.” No ultimate savior and no purpose in life. However, people instinctively need a moral base and a purpose for living which cannot be supplied by Humanism itself. Therefore, from the Christian world-view, humanists bootleg some type of value into their system. Not the saving of souls, for the Manifesto boasts that there is no damnation to fear. But we must have “planetary salvation.” What is this?

Greg Epstein, who serves as the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and is Executive Director of the Humanist Hub on that campus, a place where atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers connect with each other, authored Good without God. In it (p. 148) he quoted another with approval:  “This [ecological crisis] is a different kind of issue than Christians (or any other humans) have ever faced, and continuing to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life may even impair our ability to see clearly its depths and significance … What is now needed is a reordering of the whole of human life around the globe in an ecologically sustainable manner – something heretofore never contemplated by any of our great religious (or secular) traditions.”

Whatever else might be said regarding Epstein’s sounding of the ecological alarm, it is a purposeful call to arms. His ecological “crisis” demands concerted action and he has proposals to accomplish it. He is seeking to re-infuse into a vacuous world-view some sort of ultimacy—a standard which should be followed with conviction. The words SHOULD and OUGHT are written all throughout Epstein’s manifesto. What of this?

First, this is precisely what his world-view disallows. If there is no god, and ethics are completely and truly “situational” and “autonomous”—arising solely within each individual—then Epstein’s should and ought have no more value than for him to say “I itch.” When he says “What is needed …” we must remember that his convictions on the subject are nothing more than the combination of atoms bumping into one another. Only physical sensations brought about by physical chemical reactions. There is no real value in this.

Second, as all atheists, Epstein criticizes religion and specifically a God-centered world view. Religion is somehow to blame in what he calls our current “ecological crisis.” But if Epstein is correct in his basic world-view then my religious belief is produced solely by matter in motion, just as his world belief is produced. Whatever we believe and do cannot be the fault of religion since religion is only the product of matter in motion. No moral fault can be laid at the feet of those who “continue to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life …”

Where did his matter get the right to criticize my matter or even to speak about the earth being treated justly? Why blame Christianity? Why even speak about “global injustice?” There can be no such thing as injustice unless man is more than matter in motion. Of course, the particular arrangement of matter in motion known as Greg Epstein cannot help making these judgments since he is not a rational being but only matter responding to the brute force of matter.

Back to Homepage

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory 0 (0)

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory

by Bill Lockwood

With all the authoritarian haughtiness of a religious priest he claims to despise, evolutionist Richard Dawkins publicly rebukes Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for his belief in Creationism. As unbridled arrogance does to every heart in which it resides, Dawkins cannot see that the worldview which he champions logically disallows such criticisms. If Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution is a fact then Carson can no more help himself from arriving at his conclusions than a rock rolling down a hill can freely choose to stop rolling.

Interview on CNN

Dawkins was recently interviewed on CNN by Fareed Zakaria. Reflecting upon Creationists generally and Dr. Ben Carson specifically, he lamented: “This fills me with despair. This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” Dawkins could barely contain himself. After adding how “deeply depressing” was this situation, he continued: “I mean, that’s a disgrace. … [F]or a very senior eminent distinguished doctor as he is to say that is even worse. Because of course, evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.” “He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject,” he continued. “That is a terrible indictment.”

This is mild-mannered Dawkins. The Oxford professor had this to say in 1989 regarding the ‘Ben Carsons’ and creationists of the world: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Filled with Despair?

Why should the professor be filled with despair? The “Fundamental theorem of his own subject” (evolution) is that matter in motion is the sole reality. We must assume that he understands its implications—unless the “terrible indictment” falls upon his own head. What is that fundamental theorem of matter in motion? Everything in the universe has strictly material origins and is explained solely on mechanistic grounds.

For example, Thales, the ancient Greek philosopher, sought to explain natural phenomena without recourse to “the gods.” His oversimplification was apparently that everything is composed solely of water. This extreme position differs not from the Dawkins’ of the world who propound the theory that everything is reducible to chemistry and all motions are explained by mechanics. It is a philosophical assumption of what Elton Trueblood called the “Nothing But …” theory.

Therefore, per Dawkins’ own system, which eliminates everything except “matter in motion,” thought processes in the brain are explained by the same assumptions. Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with anyone’s beliefs. Why then, be frustrated or filled with despair, Richard Dawkins? The movement of atoms in Carson’s brain are no more responsible for the electrical impulse called “Creation” any more than the movement of grey matter in yours can help becoming an evolutionist.

And all of this time you supposed evolutionary theory was based upon scientific fact to which all reasonable minds must come! No, no. The only way to change the functioning of a mechanistic machine such as the brain is to either bang it on the head or add different chemicals. I guess in the end Dawkins’ despair and frustration with Creationists is to be explained on the same basis. No reasoning. No rational conclusions drawn from evidence. Just chemicals squirting through the labyrinths of grey matter in the Dawkins cranium. He cannot help it. Does Richard Dawkins ‘understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject?’ Apparently not.

Back to Homepage