SCIENCE ARTICLES

ABOUT PDF      

July, 2007
What is the Biblical Evidence for Long Days in Genesis? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Norman Geisler)
There are many indications within the text of Scripture to support the belief that the creation "days" were longer than twenty-four hours. The authors offer five examples.

July, 2007
How Long Were the Days of Genesis 1-2? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Norman Geisler)
There are two major view with regard to the time involved in Creation: the old-earth view and the young-earth view. The latter believes the universe is no more than approximately 15,000 years old, while the former holds that it is probably about 13.7 billion years old.

July, 2007
Was There Death Before Adam? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Norman Geisler)
Those who hold to the young earth position deny that there could have been death before Adam's fall. They argue that the Bible declares death came only after Adam as a result of his sin. "Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."(Rom.5:12)

September, 2005
Where Did Everything Come From? (Dr. John Ankerberg)
Dr. Ankerberg explores, primarily through quotes from scientists and theologians, the failures of the Darwinian evolutionary model, and the marvelous wonders of creation.

March, 2005
The Current Debate on Creation and Evolution (Dr. Norman Geisler)
What is the difference between "old-earth creationists" and "theistic evolutionists"? What are the areas of agreement between young- and old-earth creationist? Where do they differ? What do both sides need to agree upon?

February, 2005
The Anthropic Principle (Dr. Norman Geisler)
The anthropic principle (Greek: anthropos, “human being”) states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. In order for life to be present today an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe—and they were.

August, 2004
What is the Biblical Evidence for Long Days in Genesis? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Norman Geisler)
There are many indications within the text of Scripture to support the belief that the creation days were longer than twenty four hours.

July, 2004
Differing View of the “Days” of Genesis (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Norman Geisler)
There are two major views with regard to the time involved in Creation: six literal 24-hour days, or six long periods of time. This article presents arguments for the 24-hour-day position with response from Scripture and science.

June, 2004
“Young Earth” vs. “Old Earth”—Where Do They Agree? (Dr. John Ankerberg
There are actually a number of areas of agreement between those who disagree on the age of the earth. But there are other areas where they ought to agree—but that are still a problem. Dr. Ankerberg explains.
 

March, 2004
A Scientific and Biblical Response To: "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human" Time, August 23, 1999
by Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D. (Vice President of Science Apologetics), Richard Deem, MS (Apologist), Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (President, Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA, 91117) - Article courtesy Reasons to Believe: www.reasons.org ©Reasons To Believe
 

March, 2004
Design and the Anthropic Principle
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Summary : Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe. - Article courtesy Reasons to Believe: www.reasons.org ©Reasons To Believe

March, 2004
Fine-Tuning of Physical Life Support Body
by Hugh Ross
- Article courtesy Reasons to Believe: www.reasons.org ©Reasons To Believe

March, 2004
Facing Up to Big Bang Challenges
By Hugh Ross
- Article courtesy Reasons to Believe: www.reasons.org ©Reasons To Believe

February, 2004
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show That God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say About When He Created?
By Dr. John Ankerberg

February, 2004
Six False Assumptions Concerning Evolution—Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Does the fossil record offer genuine scientific evidence that evolution is true? Can matter alone (without God) explain the origin of life and the complexity of the universe? Is scientific creationism only a religion, with no scientific merit?

February, 2004
Six False Assumptions Concerning Evolution—Part 1 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
What one concludes about human origins is crucial for deciding a whole range of other issues. In light of that, the authors explore three of the false assumptions that are often brought into the discussion: That evolution is a proven fact of science; that scientists are always objective; and that evolution is compatible with belief in God.

January, 2004
Evolution, Logic and Increasing Doubts (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon)
Evolutionists tell us that the evidence for evolution can be found in numerable scientific disciplines. Ankerberg and Weldon say the real problem isn’t so much a lack of data—there’s plenty of it—the real problem, they suggest, is the bias against the biblical God that so many scientists bring in to their interpretation of the data.

January, 2004
What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means? (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon)
Most modern scientists agree that the materialistic theory of evolution is an established fact of science and cannot logically be questioned as a view of origins. However, what one concludes about human origins has a bearing on a whole range of other issues, so it’s important to get it right!

January, 2004
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon)
The purpose of this article is to bring home the folly of belief in naturalistic evolution. The point is belabored intentionally because evolutionists frequently argue that probability considerations do not disprove evolution.

January, 2004
Darwin’s Leap of Faith (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Most people consider evolution to be an indisputable fact, but if that is true, how do we account for the statements by reputable scientists calling it a “myth” a “fairy tale” or admitting the evidence simply isn’t there?

January, 2004
Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part 1: How Convinced Was Charles Darwin About His Theory of Evolution? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Darwin himself expressed serious doubts about his theory, as we see expressed in letters to friends and colleagues.

January, 2004
Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part 2: Darwin’s Escape from God—Why Did Darwin Continue to Believe in Evolution? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Sadly, Darwin continued to hold to his theory despite his many doubts. Dr. Robert Clark (and others) suggest that Darwin’s motivation to hold on to his ideas was his continued rejection of the God of the Bible.

January, 2004
Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part 3: How Was Darwin’s Theory of Evolution First Received? (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
In fact, even the scientific community of his own day did not accept Darwin’s theory as either valid or possible.

January, 2004
Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Scientists who declare that evolution is a fact should recognize the damage they do to the credibility of science—and not just evolutionary science, but all of science.

October, 2003
The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—Part 2 (Dr. Bryant G. Wood)
Further archaeological evidence that indicates the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, and which fits beautifully with the biblical account about them.

October, 2003
The Creation Debate: How Do Coal Beds Form? (Dr. John Ankerberg with Dr. Steve Austin)
Dr. Austin relates how he came to reject the conventional model of how coal beds formed—and how events at Mt. St. Helens confirmed his alternate theory.

September, 2003
The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Part 1 (Dr. Bryant G. Wood)
We welcome new author Dr. Bryant G. Wood of the Associates for Bible Research. This fascinating article reveals the search for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the amazing correlation between the on site evidence and the Biblical account of their destruction.

September, 2003
The Creation Debate: Mount St. Helens—Part 1 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Steve Austin)
Dr. Austin explains some of the observations he made at Mt. St. Helens following the 1980 eruption, and why they caused him to rethink his position on the evolutionary model...

August, 2003
The Creation Debate: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth—Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Steve Austin)
Dr. Austin relates why his observations at Mt. St. Helens caused him to rethink some of his assumptions about the age of the earth..

August, 2003
The Creation Debate: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Steve Austin)
What evidence caused geologist Steve Austin to doubt the generally accepted dates for the age of the earth?

July, 2003
The Creation Debate: The Origin of the Universe—Part 4 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Don DeYoung, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise)
What theories have been put forth to explain the origin of the universe? What are some of the problems scientists have encountered with those theories?

July, 2003
The Problems with Human Cloning (T. M. Moore)
Most people aren’t quite sure what to make of the prospect of “engineering” human beings, although they are a little troubled by the thought. Writing from a biblical and Christian viewpoint, T. M. Moore points out three problems associated with the human cloning project

June, 2003
The Creation Debate: The Origin of the Universe—Part 3 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Don DeYoung, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise)
Oscillating universe? Second law of Thermodynamics? Moon rocks? Fission Theory? Capture Theory? Are any of these proof of, or pointers, to the Big Bang?

June, 2003
The Creation Debate: The Origin of the Universe—Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Don DeYoung, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise)
Is the Big Bang theory credible? Is there scientific data that sheds doubt on that theory as the origin of the universe? Dr. Ankerberg’s guests for this discussion have Ph.D’s in physics, biochemistry and paleontology.

May, 2003
The Creation Debate: The Origin of the Universe—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Don DeYoung)
Dr. Don DeYoung (Ph.D. in Physics) explains the Big Bang Theory, and why it is not a reasonable explanation for the universe as it exists.

April, 2003
The Fossil Record—The Evolution of Man (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise)
What does the fossil record show about the evolution of man? Are there any transitional forms? What about Neanderthal? Lucy? Or Ramapithecus?

April, 2003
The Fossil Record—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. David Menton)
Do we have an adequate fossil record? If so what does it show? Does it support evolutionary theory?

March, 2003
Feathers—Part Three (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. David Menton, Dr. Kurt Wise)
Is archaeopteryx a hoax? What about transitional forms? What can we learn about the evolutionary process in the fossil record?

March, 2003
Feathers—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. David Menton, Dr. Kurt Wise)
More fascinating details about feathers that make their evolution from reptilian scales improbable at best.

February, 2003
Feathers (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. David Menton)
Dr. Menton explains how his hobby of studying feathers has led him to some interesting conclusions regarding the fossil evidence.

January, 2003
The Creation Debate: Fossil Record—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Steve Austin)
Is the fossil record adequate? Are there gaps that would still allow for the evolutionary model? Drs. Kurt Wise and Steve Austin help us to see the evidence.

January, 2003
The Creation Debate: The Fossil Record—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise)
Does the fossil record support evolution? What does the lack of transitional forms mean? Are there sufficient fossils to draw reasonable conclusions?

December, 2002
The Creation Debate: Oxygen—The Deathblow to Life? (Dr. John Ankerberg, moderator)
Dr. Ankerberg's guests explain that one reason why the lab experiments that "created" life were not valid is that they were done in a controlled environment that lacked oxygen—a condition that is not "normal" true on most of the planet.

December, 2002
Form Versus Complexity (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. David Menton)
Dr. Menton answers the question, “Is there a difference between form and complexity,” by using the illustration of two picket fences.

November, 2002
The Creation Debate: Some Intelligence Required (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Kurt Wise)
What good is having information if there is no one to understand and use it? Dr. Gish points out that the same principle applies to DNA.

November, 2002
The Creation Debate: What Do Genes Do? (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. David Menton)
How do genes actually function in the body? What is their role in creation? What implications does this have for the evolutionary theory?

October, 2002
The Creation Debate: Part Two—Life in the Laboratory? (Dr. John Ankerberg with Dr. Duane Gish)
Is it possible to create life in the laboratory? Some years ago an experiment conducted by Stanley Miller was reported as having produced the components necessary to form DNA thus, theoretically, “proving” it was possible to produce life. Dr. Gish explains why that conclusion was wrong.

October, 2002
The Creation Debate: Part One—DNA and the Origin of Life (Dr. John Ankerberg with Dr. Duane Gish)
Dr. Gish explains why the complex structure of DNA indicates that the probability of the spontaneous generation of life is, as Francis Crick put it, “equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747.”

September, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Eight (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Darwin gathered and systematized a good deal of data, but he proved nothing. He no more proved evolution by amassing facts than scientists of an earlier era proved the world was flat by amassing facts. Facts are facts, but they can be interpreted quite differently depending upon presuppositions and other considerations.

September, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Seven (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Many people assume that upon publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species that its weight of argument was so convincing, belief in his theory was compelled from all quarters. Not so. In fact, most scientists initially rejected it.

August, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Six (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
W. R. Bird, author of The Origin of Species Revisited suggests that Darwin tended to “jump to conclusions without adequate evidence”, and “stubbornly maintaining his theories regardless of the arguments and evidence against them”. Ankerberg and Weldon give examples to back up this charge.

August, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Five (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Robert Clark, author of Darwin: Before and After, says that “Darwin was determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs.” What affect did that have on his reasoning processes? On his science?

July, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Four (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. One reason is so they can reject the Christian faith. Darwin himself lost his faith, and the repercussions in his life were quite profound.

July, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Three (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon)
Darwin, and indeed, followers of his Theory today must go to extreme lengths to overcome some of the difficulties raised by the Theory of Evolution. But their efforts are absolutely necessary. The authors explain why they must make evolution work.

June, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
How convinced was Darwin about his theory of evolution? The authors say that he frequently expressed doubt about the feasibility of the theory, in one place stating: “Some of them [the difficulties] are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.” So why would he continue to hold to the theory? Why do many scientists today ignore the evidence against it?

June, 2002
Evolution and Recent History: Darwin, Evolution and His Critics—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
How convinced was Charles Darwin about his theory of evolution? Did it gain immediate acceptance within the scientific community? What changed?

May, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Eight (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
In the end, a creator God is our only logically possible explanation for origins. The authors list four options to be considered for the origin of the universe, then point out that only one—that it was created by something self-existent—does not contradict the laws of logic.

May, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Seven (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Modern science’s assigning the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure, random chance does an incalculable disservice to science because it “reduces scientific investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity.” The authors suggest that modern science’s sin against reason is, in fact, a sin against God.

April, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Six (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
What are the odds that televisions will evolve into elephants? There are none—no matter how much time we allow or the event to occur. But this is essentially what evolutionists ask us to believe—dead matter + time + chance = life.

April, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Five (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
“Faith Beyond Reason” The authors point out that even secular scientists have trouble dealing with the overwhelming odds against “the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory” of evolution.

March, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Four (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
The authors give additional illustrations to show the overwhelming odds against evolution as the source of life.

March, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Three (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
The odds that you would win the lottery every week of your life, consecutively, from the day you were born, without missing even one winning weekly ticket, for 80 years, is infinitely more likely than the odds in favor of evolution as the origin of life.

February, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
According to Dr. David Rodabaugh, even giving evolution every conceivable chance and even “assuming that evolution is 00.0000% certain, then evolution has only a 1 in 10123 chance of being valid.” The authors give examples to show how extremely miniscule this chance is.

February, 2002
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
The purpose of this article is to bring home the folly of belief in naturalistic evolution. The point is belabored intentionally because evolutionists frequently argue that probability considerations do not disprove evolution. The discussion will continue in the next few months.

January, 2002
What is the Probability of Evolution Happening Solely by Natural Means? Part 3 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
There is an overwhelming lack of evidence for life originating from non-life on this planet, but what about on other planets? If scientists can find such evidence on Mars, what will that do to bolster the theory of evolution?

January, 2002
What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
A 1962 scientific symposium was held in part because of “a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory…the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory….” Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon suggest that one of the hurdles evolutionary scientists must overcome is the overwhelming odds against evolution.

December, 2002
What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon explain that in books like The Creation Hypothesis, “leading scientists have shown why the scientific evidence for creation is actually more compelling than the evidence for evolution”!

December, 2001
What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Most modern scientists are in general agreement that the materialistic theory of evolution is an established fact of science. However, what one concludes about human origins is one of the most crucial points for deciding a whole range of other issues.

January, 2001
Truth in Advertising—Part Three (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
A third distortion frequently used in the arguments against creation is assuming that creationists cannot possibly be good scientists. Read quotes from leading educators and journals about the problems they claim this will cause.

December, 2000
Truth in Advertising: Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
"Poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy which means to attempt to refute an argument beforehand by discrediting the source of the evidence. In this article Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon give quotes from various sources that indicate this is a wide-spread practice among supporters of the evolutionary theory.

December, 2000
Voices for Evolution (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon)
Read what those who support evolution have to say about the theory in which they have placed their "faith."

November, 2000
Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon explore the claim that the scientific community is actually harming science by embracing the theory of evolution.

April, 2000
False Assumptions About Evolution—Assumption Six, Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
We end this series with a look at the contrast between what creation asserts, what evolution predicts, compared to what the data confirms. You may begin to understand why evolutionists are "increasingly on the defensive."

April, 2000
False Assumptions About Evolution: False Assumption Six—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon)
The sixth and final false assumption in this series is that: Scientific creationism is only a religion and has not scientific merit whatever. Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon explain why this is not the case.

March, 2000
False Assumptions About Evolution, Assumption Five, Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
As the discussion of the fifth false assumption continues, the authors point out the mathematical, statistical absurdity of holding to an evolutionary view of origins.

March, 2000
False Assumptions About Evolution: False Assumption Five—Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
The fifth false assumption is: Matter alone can explain the origin of life and the complexity of the universe. (Therefore, there is no need to postulate belief in a Creator God.)

February, 2000
False Assumptions About Evolution (Assumption 4—Part 3) (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
By now we have learned that there is an embarrassing lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. What new theories have evolutionary scientists formed to explains that?

February, 2000
False Assumptions About Evolution: False Assumption Four, Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
The fourth false assumption is that there is credible evidence in the fossil record to support the evolutionary theory. Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon quote well-known scientists who show that that is simply not the case.

January, 2000
False Assumption Four –Part One (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Continuing our discussion of false assumptions regarding evolution, this article begins a look at false assumption four: the fossil record offers genuine scientific evidence that evolution is true.

January, 2000
Genesis 1-11 as Historical Narrative (W. Gary Phillips and David M. Fouts)
Is the story of creation and the early history of man in Genesis Chapters 1-11 a myth, allegory, parable, legend…? Or is there evidence that it is in fact historical narrative—relating what actually happened? Drs. Phillips and Fouts explain.

December, 1999
False Assumption 3: Evolution is Compatible with Belief in God—Part 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon show how evolution and biblical teaching are not and cannot be compatible.

December, 1999
False Assumptions Regarding Evolution: False Assumption 3 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
In this article the authors tackle the third false assumption: Evolution is compatible with belief in God.

December, 1999
False Assumptions About Evolution: False Assumption 2 (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
In this article Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon look at the second false assumption: that scientists are always objective when they do their research and publicly express their belief in evolution.

December, 1999
False Assumptions Concerning Evolution: Part 3: Why Scientists Can Be Wrong (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
In this article Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon look at four reasons why many scientists may accept evolution as fact—despite the evidence, or lack thereof.

November, 1999
False Assumptions Concerning Evolution—Part Two (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
The discussion of the first false assumption continues in this article: the assumption that "evolution is a proven fact of science." Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon use quotes from respected scientists to show that it is not.

November, 1999
False Assumptions Concerning Evolution: Part One—Evolution is a Proven Fact of Science (Dr. John Weldon, Dr. John Ankerberg)
Evolution is widely accepted, partly based on the assumption that it has been proven scientifically. Drs Ankerberg and Weldon explain the impact that the evolutionary theory has had on society, and why evolution is not even good science, let alone a proven theory.

November, 1999
Biblical Evidence of Primary Causation (Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Gary Phillips)
Doctors Wise and Phillips offer biblical and theological reasons to indicate that God did not need great periods of time to complete the act of creation.

November, 1999
Biblical Evidences for an Immediate Creation Event (Dr. David Fouts and Dr. Kurt Wise)
A debate rages among creationists at to whether the "days" of creation were 24-hour days, or long periods of time. At issue as well is whether the earth is "young"—a few thousand years, or "old"—perhaps millions of years. Using language a layman can understand, these two scientist lay out evidence that suggests that Creation was instantaneous rather than an extended event.

October, 1999
Creation Evidence (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Is there actually evidence for the Creation theory? If so, why do so many scientists reject it? Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon examine why Creation is actually a better theory.

October, 1999
Science: Increasing Doubts About Evolution (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Many scientists are expressing doubts about the evidence and scientific validity for evolution. Surprisingly, these objections are coming from non-creationists.

October, 1999
Evolution and Logical Fallacies (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
This article looks at 12 logical fallacies to show how they are "applicable to how evolutionists deal with the date or how they respond to creationism."

October, 1999
Evolution, Logic and Increasing Doubts: An Introduction to the Evidence
(Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
In this article Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon look at the evidence for evolution. Is it really as convincing as many would have us believe? Would the evidence stand up to cross examination in a court of law? Or is there another, better explanation for much of it?

September, 1999
Marx and Darwin (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
Evolution isn’t just bad science. Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon explain how Darwin’s theory laid the groundwork for the terrible atrocities committed against the Jews in the Second World War.

September, 1999
Evolution: The Big Gamble—Chance and Dignity (Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon)
If man is only an animal, an accident of nature, a collection of chance mutations, the question logically arises, where does he then derive ultimate meaning, dignity, or absolute values? In this article Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon explain why the answer to this question is important.

September, 1999
The Big Gamble: Why the Creation/Evolution Issue Is So Important
(Dr. John Ankerberg/Dr. John Weldon)
Historically and at present, many have argued that general acceptance of the theory of evolution has had greater consequences than realized for religion, morality, and mankind’s sense of purpose in life. This article explores some of these issues to explain why the theory of evolution is, in fact, a "bad idea."

August, 1999
Human Population (Dr. Kurt P. Wise)
In this fascinating article Dr. Wise explains what the current population of the world can tell us about the amount of time since human life began. How do "genetic load," and "the Eve hypothesis" lend support to the biblical scenario?

August, 1999
Typology (Dr. Kurt Wise)
The Bible, in Genesis, states that animals were created "after their kind." What evidence from Science, particularly related to the field of Typology, support this? Is there actually evidence of very different "families," unrelated enough to be "underivable from one another"? Dr. Wise explains.

July, 1999
Increasing Acceptance of Global Catastrophe (Dr. Kurt P. Wise)
Mt. St. Helens and its aftermath have laid the groundwork for geologist to rethink the length of time needed to form certain geologic features. Is it possible that rather than millions of years a global catastrophe (perhaps Noah’s flood) is responsible for some of these formations?

July, 1999
The Language of DNA (Dr. Kurt P. Wise)
How can DNA carry so much information? Dr. Wise uses the analogy of the Morse code to explain.

July, 1999
Baraminology (Dr. Kurt P. Wise)
Baraminology is a new field of science, which seeks to more accurately classify what the Bible identifies as "kinds".

July, 1999
The Law of Decay (Dr. Kurt P. Wise)
Dr. Wise discusses why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics explains what is happening to the universe as a result of the curse of sin.

July, 1999
"Inherit the Wind"—A Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial, Part 2 (Dr. David Menton)
Dr. Menton continues his examination of the difference between the actual trial, as seen from trial transcripts, and the Hollywood version of the story.

June, 1999
"Inherit the Wind: A Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial—Part 1 (Dr. David Menton)
Dr. Menton uses trial transcripts as well as other books written about the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial" to show what actually happened, and compare it with Hollywood’s version of the story.

June, 1999
Some Interesting Statements by Scientists:
A compilation of statements made by scientists (only one of whom is a biblical creationist) concerning evolution.

June, 1999
The Eye: An Evolutionary Dilemma—Part Two (Staff Writer)
What is it about the eye that caused Charles Darwin to say: "to suppose that the eye…. could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree." These articles look at some fascinating information about the human eye.

June, 1999
The Eye: An Evolutionary Dilemma—Part One (Staff Writer)
What is it about the eye that caused Charles Darwin to say: "to suppose that the eye…. could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree." These articles look at some fascinating information about the human eye.