by Chris Parker, Copyright 2010
2010 came in like a lion with a major earthquake in Chile and went out with snow like lambâs wool covering many parts of the United States. So much for global warming?
More on that later.
There really is no way to quantitatively select the top 10 or 12 science stories that were the most important to the cause of belief in God, special creation and Biblical truths in 2010. This is quite obviously a subjective exercise. No real attempt has been made to here to prioritize among these choices either. If last years list is any indication, weâll get some argument and some suggestions-some of which will be printable.
At s8int.com, we believe and fully accept the Biblical account for creation. That faith and belief helps us form our world view and our view of science. Weâve always assumed that true, honest and objective science would support the Biblical account and Godâs place in the universeâand it has.
The worldâs preeminent Atheist, Richard Dawkins, made the following observation in his book; The Blind Watchmakerâ
âAn atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.â
Itâs been a tough decade for Darwinism, though and 2010 was no different. It continues to be the case that the more science learns about the universe and our place in it the less tenable is the Darwinist faith. Despite the hard work and dedication of Darwinists, a new Gallup poll (reported in December of 2010) shows that only 16% of Americans subscribe to the view that âHuman beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process.â
Photo:Stein interviews Dawkins in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed!”
Things have gotten so bad for Darwinists that Richard Dawkins now says that he could accept the notion that âsuper-intelligent aliensâ are responsible for creating life on earth and that this would explain why life seems designed. (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed , 2008
Dawkins doesnât even seem to realize that this illogical and contradictory position puts him squarely back in the pre-Darwin; anything or anyone but God camp! The very position he described as being âlogically soundâ but âintellectually unsatisfyingâ!
The Joy of Ignorance? What group has tried to turn their own ignorance into a virtue as aggressively as the Darwinists? Remember âvestigial organsâ? Basically science was ignorant about the function of certain âorgansâ and so they declared them functionless, leftovers from the evolutionary process.
They asserted that God wouldnât have created useless organs and that ergo; there was no God!
Unfortunately for this theory, science could not maintain its ignorance for long; the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from approximately 180 in 1890 to arguably, none in 1999. (Bergman, Jerry, “Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?”, Journal of Creation 14(2):95â98, August 2000)
Dawkins and other atheists also trumpeted âJunk DNAâ as proof that there was no God. God they reasoned, would not have created useless, functionless, âjunkâ DNA (non-coding DNA ) that took up so much of the space in the genome. They fairly chortled about it. Dawkins said;
âOnce again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.â (Dawkins: The Information Challenge)
Time and additional scientific knowledge and understanding vindicated God as the creator and showed that Dawkins and other evolution believing critics were simply speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. It turns out, once again that scienceâs (and Dawkinâs) own lack of knowledge was the problem here, not Godâs creative abilities:
” “The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of “junk DNA” flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion “letters” of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” (Washington Post, July 14, 2007 Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle
Finally, Darwin admitted that it was difficult to conceive of how an organ as complicated as they eye could have evolved (although he believed it did). Michael Behe, an architect of âintelligent designâ deemed the eye irreducibly complex; in other words it had to be the result of a deliberate design rather than evolution because it would have been useless without all of its parts being fully functional.
Evolutionists have deemed the eye to be one of evolutions biggest mistakes because it appears to them to be wired backwards. In 2010 it became clear once again that ignorance on the part of atheists and Darwinists was the problem. A study showed that the design of the eye leads to better vision and that in fact its design should be copied in order to make better optical machines.
This is a principle Christians can depend on; if evolutionists think that something God created is imperfect;- simply wait until their ignorance dissipates. âLet God be true and every man a liar!â Romans 3:4
We combed through; Discovery News, CreationEvolutionHeadlines, NewScientist, s8int.com/WordPress and other sources to compile news stories of interest. Hereâs our list of the top science stories of 2010 for Christians/creationists.
1)Universal Health Scare: Study Locates Conscious Minds Locked in Appearance of “Vegetative State And; Atheist Doctors More Likely to Kill You!
“Distressing” is not an adequate word to describe a study by Cambridge University neuroscientist Adrian M. Owen that proves that many people in supposedly vegetative states actually are quite aware of what is happening around them and have opinions and views about it all. There may be thousands of such people in the U.S. alone.
The implications are hard to bear and yet demand action. Can you imagine anything much worse than being completely unable to communicate with others and yet affected by them? Anyone who has suffered an injury that impairs even a small function knows how frustrating that can be. But this is almost like being buried alive. With this difference: the patient is aware of people’s conversations and can, at least in his mind, respond. But no one in the presence of such a person–until now–has found a way to “listen” and therefore to converse.
This study adds force to the anti-euthanasia arguments made in cases like that of Terri Schiavo. It also calls in the name of human compassion for greater efforts to engage such conscious minds encased in unresponsive bodies and to give their lives some scope for vigorous interaction. It also calls for greater scientific and technological efforts to break the physical chains binding such people.
A colleague of Dr. Owens sees a number of immediate practical uses of the new way of communicating with conscious, but immobilized persons. “This technique could be used to address important clinical questions. For example, patients who are aware, but cannot move or speak, could be asked if they are feeling any pain, allowing doctors to decide when painkillers should be administered.”
But another urgent need is to find ways to communicate more directly than is possible now. In their study, the Cambridge team used MRI technology, which is expensive and obviously hard to arrange on any regular basis. Posted by Bruce Chapman on February 3, 2010 4:03 PM Discovery News
Atheist Doctors More Likely to End Your Life–ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2010) â
Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows. The findings are based on a postal survey of more than 8500 UK doctors, spanning a wide range of specialties, which was designed to see what influence religious belief — or lack of it — had on end of life care…. ScienceDaily
âThere is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaursâ, according to Wikipedia and other Darwinist sources. This idea is a new tenet of the Darwinist faith and the truth is the acceptance of the idea has never really been as much of a consensus as advertized. As weâve noted many times, âStorrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian and evolutionist himself proclaimed that âa cadre of âzealotsâ were trying to âactively promulgate the theropod dinosaur origin of birds theory in concert with Nature and National Geoâ… Quote Story
An article published in 2009 in Medical Hypotheses noted: Some âNon-Avian Feathered Dinosaurs May Have Been Birds.â Spend a few minutes working out that headline’s meaning. In an article published in PhysOrg, a different group of evolutionists at OSU made a complete reversal of the Darwinist tenet by claiming that the evidence showed that dinosaurs evolved from birds!” Commentary by: CreationEvolutionHeadlines
âFeb 9, 2010 â Birds evolved from dinosaurs, we are often told. Thatâs backwards, reply some scientists at Oregon State University. According to PhysOrg, the recently-published bi-plane model study of Microraptor gui (01/29/2010) demonstrates that theropod dinosaurs did not sprout wings and fly; instead, they became flightless after their bird ancestors came down from the trees.
Their response demonstrates how the same evidence can be spun different ways. They are adamant about it: âThe weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs,â John Ruben of OSU said, âbut that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.â Heâs glad to see a breakthrough from the conventional wisdom. âThis issue isnât resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that.â CreationEvolutionHeadlines
From Soup to Nuts! One of the oldest tenets of Darwinism is that life began in a âprimordial soupâ. However, âthe ‘soup’ theory has been overturned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.â ScienceDaily
The truth is that absent an acceptance of the Genesis account science has no idea how dead chemicals became living. There are literally hundreds of competing âscientificâ theories regarding lifeâs origin, as we covered in our story:. “When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity
Neanderthal Now One of Us. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon have long been enlisted by the Darwinists as a caveman/primitive man proof of the truth of the evolution of man from lower forms. They were successful enough that even some Christians invented âpre-Adamicâ man to try to help the Bible out.
As late as last year some scientists were still claiming that man and Neanderthal never interbred; that they couldnât speak, that they had no language, argued over whether they buried their dead, claimed that they only ate meat because they werenât smart enough to cook vegetables, etc. etc. (Cro-Magnon was rehabilitated some years ago).
Now, itâs all changed. Itâs been reversedâŚ
An analysis of âNeanderthalâ DNA indicated that their DNA matched “modernâ manâs DNA to 99.97%. Since the analysis was only of 60% of the genome the actual match might be closer. That awaits further study. It’s worth noting that each of our own DNA is a match to our neighborâs to 99.999%.
Neanderthals Admired Beauty 01/10/2010
Jan 10, 2010 â This may be the last evidence needed to debunk the image of Neanderthals as dim-witted brutes: they wore make-up. CreationEvolutionHeadlines
- Humans and Neanderthals Are One 05/08/2010
âMay 08, 2010 â If Neanderthals bred with modern humans, they are one and the same species. That must be the case according to the most widely-accepted definition of a species: those who can breed and produce fertile offspring. The news media are abuzz with Science magazineâs cover story this week, âThe Neanderthal Genome.â Most anthropologists are now accepting the genetic evidence for human-Neanderthal mixing of DNA, and that there are remnants of the Neanderthal genome walking the earth in living human beings. CreationEvolutionHeadlines
Science Daily announced, âNeandertals âHardly Differed at Allâ from Modern Humans.â
The last bit of dirt was kicked over Ida, the fossil that evolutionists claimed was going to change everything. âMissing Linkâ Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010)
3)Macro Evolutionâs Evolving, Non-Evolving Problem The trade secret of paleontology might very well be the lack of transitional fossils..(Gould); but the Darwin family secret is the long list of supposedly millions of years old fossils which are indistigushable from their living counterparts. Two of those articles are linked here:
Evolutionists Blind, Ignorant, Criticism of the Design of the Eye Proves to be Short Sighted and Wrong. (Will Science Teachers Continue to Constrict Their Pupils with This Kind of Teaching?)
Dawkins is not great. First, as head atheist he jumped on the; vestigial organs prove there is no God train, only to see it derailed; then onto âjunk DNAâ and finally to the “backwards designed” eye.
A 2007 Article entitledâ Evolutionâs Greatest Mistakesâ claimed that the eye was an example of âflawed evolutionâ.
âThe most famous flaw is found in vertebrate eyes. Their light-sensing structure, the retina, is wired up back-to-front.) NewScientist
In May, commenting in an editorial about a 2007 German study that found that the eye is wired backwards, purposely âor at least to the benefit of the eye said:
âIT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.â
NewScientist went on to note that creationists have defended the eye design by claiming that the backwards design actually enhances vision:
ââŚcreationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision – and even that its structure enhances vision.
âThis week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see “Optical fibre cells transform our weird, ‘backward’ retinas”). Their simulations showed that MĂźller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.â
You have to love this defensive quote from NewScientist;
âThe findings do not mean the creationists have a point – although they may well quote the studyâ.
According to the authors of the research paper, the findings of the study could lead to better designed optical equipment and cameras. So much for bad design.
5)Not A Grain of Truth to Scienceâs Claim That âPrimitive Manâ Domesticated Food Crops: Animals Refuse to eat Genetically Modified Foods..
Itâs the belief of evolutionary scientists that all the domesticated grains that we eat; grains like rice, corn, oats, wheat and barley, were created by deliberate cultivation over hundreds or even thousands of years by our primitive ancestors. They would have needed the ability to work tirelessly and purposefully for a period of generations on crops that would have no food value for them until the projects were created; all eons before Gregor Mendel developed prinicples of genetic transmision of inherited traits.
This story is hard enough to believe but hereâs another problem. If man genetically modified all the food crops we mentioned; why were cows and pigs eating them? And why do they have a problem with the New genetically modified foods? Isn’t the same agent, man responsible for the old GM crops as well as the new?
Clearly not, the crops weâve known for thousands of years were created by Godânot man. When Adam was punished he was told that he would have to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, he was meant to plant and harvest crops–the same crops that Cain brought as a failed offering to God.
Animals didnât have a problem with the former, but the do have a problem with the latter. Article
6) Why Paleontology is Not âScienceâ; When It Comes to Giant Pterosaur Flight, Science Believes Very Strongly Both Ways!
In the course of a yearâs time paleontologists made the bold statement that pterosaurs couldnât fly; only to have another study claim that they were the greatest flyers ever!
Any discipline that claims two mutually exclusive things are both true in that short a period of time canât be called a science. This is the stuff they want to teach your kids. Article
Research Indicates Ancient Civilization Thrived Until Ocean Submerged It Beneath the Persian Gulf âAboutâ 8 Thousand Years Ago: Do You Noah What That Reminds Us Of?
8) Science Daily Article: Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds.â
Unfortunately, weâre not smart enough to comment on this article. We didnât understand it. It didnât make any sense to usâŚ. Article
9) Human Genome âInfinitely More Complexâ Than Expected 04/05/2010 âApril 05,
2010 â Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is âorders of magnitudeâ more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature News March 31 and in the April 1 issue of Nature.
An air of daunting complexity haunts the article. The Human Genome Project was one of the great scientific investigations of the end of the 20th century. Some compared it to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. It used to be tedious, painstaking work to read the sequence of DNA letters.
Now, deciphering genomes is a matter of course. But with the rush of data coming from genomes of everything from yeast to Neanderthals, one thing has become clear: âas sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude,â Hayden wrote.
âŚ..Hayden acknowledged that the âjunk DNAâ paradigm has been blown to smithereens. âJust one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,â she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process â genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription. âBiologyâs new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA â what used to be called âjunkâ DNA â has been fascinating and befuddling.â
If itâs junk, why would the human body decode 74% to 93% of it? The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.
These realizations are dissipating some of the early naĂŻvetĂŠ of the Human Genome Project. Planners predicted we would âunravel the mysteries behind everything from evolution to disease origins.â Cures for cancer were envisioned. We would trace the path of evolution through the genetic code. That was so 1990s.
Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said, âJust the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things â such as how a cell turns on and off â is incredibly naĂŻve.â â CreationEvolutionHeadlines
10) Evolution as âScientific Literacyâ Dropped by NSB; Sets Off Firestorm 04/11/2010
April 11, 2010 â Can you be called scientifically literate if you deny that humans evolved from lower animals? What if you deny the universe began with an explosion? American students have typically scored low on those questions, leading to charges that they are scientifically illiterate compared to other countries in Europe and Asia.
But now, the National Science Board (NSB) decided to drop those hot-button questions in the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation of the state of global science, on the grounds that they donât accurately reflect studentsâ knowledge of science, but rather their beliefs. The decision set off angry protests in certain quarters.
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reported on this issue in the April 9 issue of Science. He quoted Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) calling it âintellectual malpracticeâ to discuss scientific literacy without mentioning evolution. âIt downplays the controversy,â he said. Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State, conducted the survey until 2001. As the one who added the survey question in the first place, he thinks the current board is making a big mistake.
âIf a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, … how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?â he asked. Bhattacharjee said, âthose struggling to keep evolution in the classroom say the omission could hurt their efforts.â
But the NSB defended its decision to drop the âvalue-chargedâ question on evolution as a misleading indicator:âŚâŚ CreationEvolutionHeadlines
11) The Great Global Warming Collapse
âIn 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, âThe deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.â To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.â Globe and Mail
12)Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests
LiveScience Staff Writer
Jan 15 2010âScientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing â an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King Davidâs reign.
The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bibleâs Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)
Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.
âIt indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research,â said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.â Article