Next Creation Science Forum

Tuesday, Mar 7, 2017
6:30 - 8:00 PM
Farm and Home Center of Lancaster
Click here for directions

Topic:  “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”

Evolutionists claim that we are still evolving, improving along the way. Is this true? Not according to the science of genetic entropy. At our next meeting, ISBR Board Member Jay Auxt will present the ten major points developed in the book by geneticist Dr. John Sanford. Dr. Sanford’s book, with the same title as this talk, explores the science behind mutations and natural selection, constantly touted as the definitive elements of evolution from particles to people. Dr Sanford was a research geneticist at Cornell University and is the co-inventor of the “gene-gun.”  As an ex-evolutionist, he is now a devout Christian exposing the fallacies of evolutionism.  This is truly a fascinating book with dozens of excellent points.

      Please join us and bring a friend!
Creation/Evolution in the News
Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Is the cat finally out of the evolutionary bag? Creationists have been saying for decades that the notion of evoution (that is, large-scale complexity changes, not adaptation, which is commonly called "micro-evolution") cannot generate the new information needed to increase the complexity of life. Now some evolutionist scientists are saying the same thing (quoted from the attached article):

"the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life."

This is not to say that neo-Darwinism is dead, because at most, it would be re-defined still as a molecules-to-man process with no intelligence required. Stay tuned.

Did You Know ?
This past Chrismas, PBS posted a series of videos on YouTube, called "The 12 Days of Evolution." The purpose, of course, was to encourage viewers to reject the Bible from the very beginning. Answers in Genesis has written a rebuttal, found by clicking here
Which Came First, the Environment or the Trait?

From this article: "Millions of years of horse development suggest that one of the key assumptions of evolutionary theory may be wrong." This "key" assumption is that species evolve traits first and then move into whatever environment is advantageous for their population growth (called "adaptive radiation"). This study, however, showed the opposite - that changes in the environment drive greater genetic variablity; i.e., new traits and new species. Why is this important? They say "the radiation of equids (i.e., horses) has been cited as a textbook example of adaptive radiation for more than a century, as it is crucial to the development of evolutionary theory linking trait evolution and adaptive success." So if this "key" assumption is wrong, how about other "key" assumptions, like the ability of molecules to develop codes and messages without intelligence? Creationists have long known that speciation is driven by environmental changes acting on the genes but this is definitely NOT evolution (particles-to-people), but rather adaptation. Horses may have changed over the years, but they nevertheless remained horses.