Scientific Method Step 1: Observation is made Step 2: Hypothesize Step 3: Set up falsifiable experiments to become theory Step 4: Set up more experiments.

Scientific Method• Step 1: Observation is made

• Step 2: Hypothesize

• Step 3: Set up falsifiable experiments to become theory

• Step 4: Set up more experiments to become a scientific law

Scientific Method• Step 1: Observation is made

• I found a fossil, a transitional form that existed between monkeys and mankind

Scientific Method• Step 1: Observation is made

• I found a fossil, a transitional form that existed between monkeys and mankind

• Step 2: Hypothesize• The fossil became lithified over long periods of time and/or

many transitional forms occurred between monkeys and man

Scientific Method• Step 1: Observation is made

• I found a fossil, a transitional form that existed between monkeys and mankind

• Step 2: Hypothesize• The fossil became lithified over long periods of time and/or

many transitional forms occurred between monkeys and man

• Step 3: Set up falsifiable experiments to become theory

• I cannot set up any experiments to observe the fossil lithification process because the time periods are too long nor can I set up the experiments to get the transitional forms

• Experiments are limited to human experience

Scientific Method• Step 1: Observation is made

• I found a fossil, a transitional form that existed between monkeys and mankind

• Step 2: Hypothesize• The fossil became lithified over long periods of time and/or

many transitional forms occurred between monkeys and man

• Step 3: Set up falsifiable experiments to become theory

• I cannot set up any experiments to observe the fossil lithification process because the time periods are too long nor can I set up the experiments to get the transitional forms

• Experiments are limited to human experience

• Step 4: Set up more experiments to become a scientific law

Conclusion: Evolution can never be a theory nor a law of science. It is a hypothesis or belief.

Issues Regarding Evolution

• Introduction: Faith vs Science

• Issue of observing a final result and presuming a wrong history

• Tenets of Belief in Evolution: Counter Arguments

• Summary

Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at London Museum of Natural History

"The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing....that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-- it ought not to be taught in high school.' "

Faith vs Science Premise

• Creationism: belief that God made everything so that scientific method is not applicable

• Evolution: things are explained in the natural realm according to scientific restrictions

Faith vs Science Premise

• Creationism: belief that God made everything so that scientific method is not applicable

• Evolution: things are explained in the natural realm according to scientific restrictions

WRONG

Johann Kepler said that science is not autonomous.

science

God

God is autonomous

God

Science

Science is autonomous

Faith vs Faith

• Creationist Faith: Belief in an all-knowing, perfect, never-changing being who observed all past history events.

• Evolutionist Faith: Belief in limited knowledge, imperfect, always-changing being who was not present to observe past history events.

Some Scientists Are Creationists

• Creationist thinking has allowed me to make critical observations in fracture and fatigue

Fatigue• If I just examine the failed surface and not

the history of the material, I could reach an erroneous conclusion about the history

• Observation: fatigue failure surface

Fatigue

• Observation: fatigue failure surface

• Hypothesis: the largest area probably caused the greatest amount of damage by just examining the final broken piece

Fatigue

• Observation: fatigue failure surface

• Hypothesis: the largest area probably caused the greatest amount of damage by just examining the final broken piece

• History experiments: 50% of the cycles to failure were just in initiation the damage and 99% of the cycles were to the line in the smallest region

WRONG

Fracture

• If I just examine the failed surface and not the history of the material, I could reach an erroneous conclusion about the history

• Observation: ductile fracture surface

• Hypothesis: Void growth and size is the most important parameter

Fracture

• If I just examine the failed surface and not the history of the material, I could reach an erroneous conclusion about the history

• Hypothesis: Void growth and size is the most important parameter

• History experiments: Damage includes void nucleation and coalescence too, determined by examining the history

wrong

Comparison of End-of-Life Analysis vs Changing History Analysis

• Old End-of-Life paradigm included only void growth and missed the most important features in some cases

• History experiments revealed that that the paradigm for more accurate void modeling to include nucleation, void growth, and void coalescence

• A paradigm shift occurred because of examining the history of a material

Human Origins…who are Human Origins…who are wewe??

• ““Then God said, Then God said, ‘let us make ‘let us make man in our man in our image, after our image, after our likeness’…”likeness’…”

• Genesis 1:26Genesis 1:26

• Created by God?

How Did Man Get Here…How Did Man Get Here…Adam or Apes?Adam or Apes?

• Evolved by Nature?

What About Cavemen?!What About Cavemen?!

•

Was This The Emergence Was This The Emergence of Man…of Man…

•

……or was he created another way?or was he created another way?

The Emergence of Man?The Emergence of Man?

• Placing skulls of Placing skulls of dead humans and dead humans and extinct apes in extinct apes in some sort of some sort of progression from progression from *ape-like* to *ape-like* to *human-like* does *human-like* does absolutely absolutely nothingnothing to prove to prove that humans that humans evolved from apes!evolved from apes!

Monkeys to Man Summary1.Shape of jawbone: man-parabola, ape-U

shaped

Monkeys to Man Summary1.Shape of jawbone: man-parabola, ape-U

shaped

2.Palate of mouth: man-arch, ape-flat

Monkeys to Man Summary1.Shape of jawbone: man-parabola, ape-U

shaped

2.Palate of mouth: man-arch, ape-flat

Galata Baboon of today has parabola mouth and an arched palate.

Monkeys to Man Summary1.Shape of jawbone: man-parabola, ape-U

shaped

2.Palate of mouth: man-arch, ape-flat

Galata Baboon of today has parabola mouth and an arched palate.

3.Teeth:man-same size, ape-large canine teeth

Monkeys to Man Summary1.Shape of jawbone: man-parabola, ape-U

shaped

2.Palate of mouth: man-arch, ape-flat

Galata Baboon of today has parabola mouth and an arched palate.

3.Teeth:man-same size, ape-large canine teeth

4.Supposedly 30-70 million years ago branching from apes occurred with man.

Monkeys to Man Summary5.Piltdown Man (1912) : first claimed to be

500,000 yrs. old, flouride tests yielded about 2000 yrs. old. It is now known to be a modern monkey jaw with teeth filed down and stained to look old.

Who Was Piltdown Who Was Piltdown Man?Man?

Who Was Piltdown Who Was Piltdown Man?Man?

•

Piltdown ManPiltdown Man was found in 1912 in a gravel pit in Piltdown, England was found in 1912 in a gravel pit in Piltdown, England

and was authoritatively declared to be an ape-man, a human-ape and was authoritatively declared to be an ape-man, a human-ape transitionaltransitional

form 500,000 years old by several eminent British scientists…form 500,000 years old by several eminent British scientists…

Who Was Piltdown Who Was Piltdown Man?Man?

•

…among them anatomist Sir Arthur Keith of the British Museum. They were so confident of their discovery, they announced it to the world press as evidence: “(E)stablishing human descent from apes”…

Piltdown Man Made World Piltdown Man Made World Headlines in 1912…Headlines in 1912…

Darwinists were so confident that they had the *missing link*, did they?Darwinists were so confident that they had the *missing link*, did they?

Piltdown Man Exposed Piltdown Man Exposed as a Fraud!as a Fraud!

• ““In 1953 Piltdown In 1953 Piltdown Man was exposed Man was exposed as a fraud…the as a fraud…the skull was from a skull was from a modern human…modern human…the jawbone and the jawbone and the teeth were from the teeth were from an orangutan.”an orangutan.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp

OOPSOOPS!!

The Joke’s on the The Joke’s on the Evolutionists!Evolutionists!

•

Monkeys to Man Summary1. Shape of jawbone: man-parabola, ape-U shaped

2. Palate of mouth: man-arch, ape-flat

Galata Baboon of today has parabola mouth and an arched palate.

3. Teeth:man-same size, ape-large canine teeth

4. Supposedly 30-70 million years ago branching from apes occurred with man.

5. Piltdown Man (1912) : first claimed to be 500,000 yrs. old, flouride tests yielded about 2000 yrs. old. It is now known to be a modern monkey jaw with teeth filed down and stained to look old.

6. Neanderthal Man: In museums as brutish and stuped over as ape. Now accepted as Homo Sapien with bone disease (Rickets and arthritis). World Book Encyclopedia,1977,vol.14,pg.85.

Monkeys to Man Summary7. Peking Man: Davidson Black before WW2 found a tooth and he

published on his findings.

Monkeys to Man Summary8. Java Man (1891): Dr. Dubois, mentioned as similar to a large

Gibbon.

Monkeys to Man Summary9. Australopithecus-exctinct ape-Leakey's work in Oldivai Gorge in Africa; Dr.

Oxnard of Chicago University states:"These are not ancestors of human beings."

Who Was “Lucy”?Who Was “Lucy”?

•

Who Was “Lucy”?Who Was “Lucy”?

National Geographic’s reconstructionNational Geographic’s reconstruction of “Lucy” (Australopithecus Afarensis) of “Lucy” (Australopithecus Afarensis) done so with extensive “artistic license”done so with extensive “artistic license”

Lucy’s actual remainsLucy’s actual remains

Donald Johanson,Donald Johanson,who discovered “Lucy”who discovered “Lucy”

Was Lucy a Bonobo?Was Lucy a Bonobo?

““Bonobos stand apart from the other great apes…Physically, Bonobos stand apart from the other great apes…Physically,

their anatomy most closely resembles Australopithecustheir anatomy most closely resembles Australopithecus……Bonobos walk Bonobos walk bipedallybipedally on two feet more easily on two feet more easily and for longer and for longer periods of time than the other apes.”periods of time than the other apes.”

Reconstruction of “Lucy” Reconstruction of “Lucy” (Australopithecus Afarensis)(Australopithecus Afarensis) Bonobo (Pygmy Chimpanzee)Bonobo (Pygmy Chimpanzee)

•The Bonobo Conservation Initiative, The Bonobo Conservation Initiative, What is a Bonobo, What is a Bonobo, www.bonobo.org www.bonobo.org

Was Lucy a Was Lucy a Bonobo?Bonobo?

Reconstructed skull of Reconstructed skull of AustralopithecusAustralopithecusAfarensis specimen A.L.444-2Afarensis specimen A.L.444-2

Bonobo skullBonobo skull

IDENTICAL!IDENTICAL!

Do Anatomical Studies Do Anatomical Studies Show That “Lucy” Was Show That “Lucy” Was

Bipedal?Bipedal? “ “The arc sizes of the The arc sizes of the

three semicircular canals three semicircular canals (the balance organs (the balance organs located in the inner ear) located in the inner ear) affect the sensitivity of affect the sensitivity of the sensory system that the sensory system that detects head rotations detects head rotations and contributes to the and contributes to the stabilization of gaze and stabilization of gaze and control of locomotion.”control of locomotion.”

• Fred Spoor, Ph.D., Professor Fred Spoor, Ph.D., Professor of  Evolutionary Anatomyof  Evolutionary Anatomy

Superior and lateral views of Superior and lateral views of a left bony labyrinth, a left bony labyrinth, reconstructed from high-reconstructed from high-resolution CT scansresolution CT scans

Superior and lateral views of Superior and lateral views of a left bony labyrinth, a left bony labyrinth, reconstructed from high-reconstructed from high-resolution CT scansresolution CT scans

Anatomical Studies Anatomical Studies Showed “Lucy” didn’t Showed “Lucy” didn’t

Walk Upright…Walk Upright…• ““CAT scans of CAT scans of australopithecine australopithecine inner ear canals inner ear canals reflecting posture and reflecting posture and balance (by anatomist balance (by anatomist Dr. Fred Spoor and his Dr. Fred Spoor and his colleagues at colleagues at University College, University College, London) showed London) showed they they did notdid not walk walk habitually upright.”habitually upright.”

F.Spoor, Ph.D. ‘Implications of F.Spoor, Ph.D. ‘Implications of Early Hominid Morphology for Early Hominid Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion’, Locomotion’, NatureNature 369(6482): 369(6482): 645-649, 1994645-649, 1994 Anatomist Fred Spoor, Ph.D.Anatomist Fred Spoor, Ph.D.Anatomist Fred Spoor, Ph.D.Anatomist Fred Spoor, Ph.D.

Comparison of three knee joints…a Comparison of three knee joints…a Human, Chimp, and the knee Human, Chimp, and the knee

purported to be Lucy’s…purported to be Lucy’s…

Hadar knee found aHadar knee found a

year earlier,70 meters year earlier,70 meters lowerlower and over a mile and over a mile awayaway..

Hadar knee found aHadar knee found a

year earlier,70 meters year earlier,70 meters lowerlower and over a mile and over a mile awayaway.. National Geographic Nov. 1985 issue. P.

593National Geographic Nov. 1985 issue. P. 593

Say Say “HI!”“HI!” to Lucy… to Lucy…

Monkeys to Man Summary10. Ramapithecus: early monkey, but was originally offered as the missing link

from a handful of teeth and jawbone.

Who Was Who Was Ramapithecus?Ramapithecus?

•

• Ramapithecus: was once believed to be a human ancestor based on the flimsiest of evidence, a solitary jaw…

Will the REAL Will the REAL Ramapithecus Please Ramapithecus Please

Stand Up…Stand Up…• “Ramapithecus was

considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid. Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as Sivapithecus,Sivapithecus, a genus a genus considered considered to be an to be an (extinct) orangutan(extinct) orangutan.”.”

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e/e-r1amapith.asp

OOPS!OOPS!OOPS!OOPS!

Monkeys to Man Summary11. Nebraska Man: tooth of pig, used as evidence in the Scopes Trial.

Who Was Nebraska Who Was Nebraska Man?Man?

Nebraska Man & His Nebraska Man & His Wife’s *Remains*Wife’s *Remains*

Nebraska Man Was Nebraska Man Was Exposed to be an Exposed to be an Extinct Pig!!!!!Extinct Pig!!!!!

• ““The truth leaked out slowly The truth leaked out slowly and obscurely in the and obscurely in the American Museum NovitiatesAmerican Museum Novitiates for January 6, 1923, where for January 6, 1923, where nine authorities cited their nine authorities cited their objections to the claim that objections to the claim that the tooth was anywhere near the tooth was anywhere near related to the primate…by related to the primate…by 1927 it was begrudgingly 1927 it was begrudgingly concluded that the tooth was concluded that the tooth was that of a species of that of a species of Prosthennops,Prosthennops, an extinct an extinct genus related to the modern genus related to the modern wild pig.”wild pig.”

• (Ian Taylor, (Ian Taylor, Nebraska Man Nebraska Man RevisitedRevisited, Creation 13(4):13, Creation 13(4):13September 1991)September 1991)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/nebraska.asp

Will the Real Nebraska Will the Real Nebraska Man Please Stand Up?Man Please Stand Up?

Who Was Homo Floresiensis?Who Was Homo Floresiensis?

(Flores Man)(Flores Man) • This tiny human relative, This tiny human relative,

whom we nicknamed whom we nicknamed Hobbit, Hobbit, lived just 18,000 lived just 18,000 years agoyears ago, a time when , a time when modern humans—people modern humans—people like us—were on the march like us—were on the march around the globe. Yet it around the globe. Yet it looked more like a looked more like a diminutive version of diminutive version of human ancestors a hundred human ancestors a hundred times older, from the other times older, from the other end of Asia…survivors from end of Asia…survivors from an earlier era, hanging on an earlier era, hanging on far from the main currents far from the main currents of human prehistory.of human prehistory.Who Who were they?were they?

• National Geographic National Geographic April 2005April 2005

Who Was HomoWho Was HomoFloresiensisFloresiensis??

• A comparative A comparative look at the look at the skulls of Homo skulls of Homo Floresiensis & Floresiensis & modern humans modern humans reveals reveals little little or noor no difference!difference!

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/041025-3.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/041025-3.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/041025-3.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/041025-3.html

Who Was Homo Who Was Homo FloresiensisFloresiensis??

• ““The Indonesian comments The Indonesian comments about a pygmy about a pygmy Australomelanesian group of Australomelanesian group of people is interesting in light of people is interesting in light of the many reports one used to the many reports one used to hear from missionaries, mostly hear from missionaries, mostly from the early part of last from the early part of last century and before, about century and before, about what they often called “the what they often called “the little people.” were of an little people.” were of an allegedly distinct (but now no allegedly distinct (but now no longer extant) population of longer extant) population of very small humans, i.e., a very small humans, i.e., a group quite distinguishable group quite distinguishable from the local Aboriginals. from the local Aboriginals. Could at least some of these Could at least some of these have been the same (or a have been the same (or a closely related) people group closely related) people group as those whose skeleton has as those whose skeleton has been found on Flores?”been found on Flores?”

Australomelanesian Pygmy…could his tribeAustralomelanesian Pygmy…could his tribe have been mistaken for Flores Man? have been mistaken for Flores Man? Australomelanesian Pygmy…could his tribeAustralomelanesian Pygmy…could his tribe have been mistaken for Flores Man? have been mistaken for Flores Man?

Carl Weiland, M.D., Ph.DCarl Weiland, M.D., Ph.D.Carl Weiland, M.D., Ph.DCarl Weiland, M.D., Ph.D.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1108hobbit.asp#_ednref1 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1108hobbit.asp#_ednref1

Flores Man was a Pygmy Flores Man was a Pygmy with a deformed brain…with a deformed brain…

• ““However, an item posted on 1 However, an item posted on 1 November 2004 by Anatomy November 2004 by Anatomy Professor M. Henneberg gives Professor M. Henneberg gives significant support to the significant support to the ‘Flores Man’ was a ‘Flores Man’ was a

microcephalicmicrocephalic Henneberg is Henneberg is the Head of the Department of the Head of the Department of Anatomy at South Australia’s Anatomy at South Australia’s Adelaide University, and has Adelaide University, and has studied human evolution for 32 studied human evolution for 32 years. He says that the years. He says that the dimensions of the face, nose dimensions of the face, nose and jaws do not differ and jaws do not differ significantly from those of significantly from those of modern humans, unlike the modern humans, unlike the very small braincase.”very small braincase.”

• Carl Weiland, M.D., Ph.D. Carl Weiland, M.D., Ph.D. Answers in Genesis AustraliaAnswers in Genesis Australia

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/110Shobbit.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/110Shobbit.asp

Supposed Human Evolution Supposed Human Evolution Doesn’t Doesn’t Pass For Real Pass For Real

Science!Science!• •“•“(P)erhaps generations (P)erhaps generations

of students of human of students of human evolution, including evolution, including myself, have been myself, have been flailing around in the flailing around in the dark; that our data base dark; that our data base is too sparse, too is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. to mold our theories. Rather the theories are Rather the theories are more a statement about more a statement about us and ideology than us and ideology than about the past.”about the past.”

• (American Scientist, Vol. (American Scientist, Vol. 6666, p. 379, May/June 1978)

God created man around 6000 God created man around 6000 years ago, not millions of years years ago, not millions of years

ago…ago…

Scripture claims to beScripture claims to beaccurate historyaccurate historybeginning withbeginning withGenesis. It clearly Genesis. It clearly shows that the firstshows that the firstman Adam wasman Adam wascreated less thancreated less than10,000 years ago.10,000 years ago.This is revealed in theThis is revealed in thegenealogies of Adamgenealogies of Adamin Genesis 5.in Genesis 5.

The many faces of The many faces of humanity…humanity…

• Man has always Man has always been man, not been man, not many races but many races but ONE human race…ONE human race…

• ““And hath made of And hath made of one bloodone blood all all nations of men for nations of men for to dwell on all the to dwell on all the face of the earth”face of the earth”

• Acts 17:26 KJVActs 17:26 KJV

……all made in the image of all made in the image of God!God!

GenesisGenesis 1:261:26 GenesisGenesis 1:261:26

So Why Is Creation So Why Is Creation Evangelism Really Evangelism Really

Important?Important?

“…“…Because the Skeptics Because the Skeptics are ‘Willfully Ignorant’ are ‘Willfully Ignorant’

””

Today’s Culture is Today’s Culture is Willfully IgnorantWillfully Ignorant……

“(T)hat scoffers will come in the Last Days, walking according totheir own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of Hiscoming? For since the fathers fellasleep, all things continue as theywere from the beginning of creation.’ ”I Peter 3:3-4

“(T)hat scoffers will come in the Last Days, walking according totheir own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of Hiscoming? For since the fathers fellasleep, all things continue as theywere from the beginning of creation.’ ”I Peter 3:3-4

Today’s Culture Is Like Today’s Culture Is Like The Ancient Greeks…The Ancient Greeks…

• ……they perceive they perceive the Gospel of the Gospel of Christ as Christ as ‘foolishness’ ‘foolishness’ because they because they largely have a largely have a pagan or pagan or ‘evolutionized’ ‘evolutionized’ philosophical philosophical base…a base…a secularized secularized worldview.worldview.

Is Evolutionism Really Is Evolutionism Really “Science”?“Science”?

• The myth that The myth that Creation is Creation is religion and religion and Evolution is Evolution is science is being science is being continuously continuously echoed in the echoed in the public schools public schools and the media and the media virtually virtually unchallenged!unchallenged!

Evolutionist Evolutionist Propaganda is Propaganda is

Rampant in Today’s Rampant in Today’s Schools…Schools…

• Children are Children are taught from taught from kindergarten all kindergarten all the way through the way through the universities the universities that evolutionism that evolutionism is *science* and a is *science* and a *fact*. Why *fact*. Why should we then should we then wonder why they wonder why they won’t listen?!won’t listen?!

Evolutionist Evolutionist Propaganda is Rampant Propaganda is Rampant

in Today’s Schools, it in Today’s Schools, it Starts Early…Starts Early…

I Can Read About Prehistoric Animals p. 1

I Can Read About Prehistoric Animals p. 1

Evolutionist Propaganda Evolutionist Propaganda is Rampant in Today’s is Rampant in Today’s

Schools, it Starts Early…Schools, it Starts Early…

Evolutionist Propaganda is Evolutionist Propaganda is Rampant in Today’s Schools, it Rampant in Today’s Schools, it Starts Early…Starts Early…

Evolutionist Propaganda is Evolutionist Propaganda is Rampant in Today’s Schools, it Rampant in Today’s Schools, it Starts Early…Starts Early…

Today’s Culture is Today’s Culture is Willfully Ignorant… Willfully Ignorant…

‘Evolutionized!’‘Evolutionized!’• As a result it’s As a result it’s

far more far more difficult to difficult to reach today’s reach today’s young people young people for Christ than for Christ than it was even a it was even a generation (20 generation (20 years) ago!years) ago!

Today’s Youth Culture is Today’s Youth Culture is Willfully Ignorant… Willfully Ignorant…

‘Evolutionized!’‘Evolutionized!’

•Why should Why should we then we then wonder wonder why they why they won’t won’t listen?!listen?!

Creation Evangelism is Creation Evangelism is Extremely Important Extremely Important

Today…Today…• Creation Creation

Evangelism is Evangelism is an extremely an extremely powerful tool in powerful tool in helping to reach helping to reach the neo-pagan, the neo-pagan, evolutionized evolutionized culture of culture of today!today!

The Power of Creation The Power of Creation Evangelism…Evangelism…

CreationCreation

Evangelism canEvangelism can

effectivelyeffectively

dismantle alldismantle all

evolutionism-evolutionism-basedbased

ideas that infestideas that infest

today’s culture!today’s culture!

Faith vs Faith

• Creationist Faith: Belief in an all-knowing, perfect, never-changing being who observed all past history events.

• Evolutionist Faith: Belief in limited knowledge, imperfect, always-changing being who was not present to observe past history events.

Truth Claims in Conflict Theism God exists. God is self-existent. In addition to matter, there is non-material language, and created spirit beings with language ability. The cosmos is an open system, opento reordering both by God and byhumans. Life and its genetic blue-prints are the product of intelligent creative action on God’s part.  God has created human beings with godlike powers of language,volition, creativity, reason, self-awareness, and moral discernment.

Materialism There is no God.  Matter is self-existent. Matter is all there is.    The cosmos is a closed system.Every event in the cosmos obeyschangeless natural laws. Life’semergence is nothing more thanan outworking of these laws. Human beings are nothing more than soul-less animals. There is no rational basis for hope, meaning, esthetics, or morality.