Hebr - Prédications adventistes



Evolutionist thinking & Greek philosophy[1]

Until recently, I thought that the theory of evolution was the result of scientific progress. If you thought so as well, we might need to think again. As it seems, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9).

How old is evolutionist thinking?

The odds are that deceivers have been at work! They want us to think that “evolution” is something modern. However, evolutionist thinking is as old as Greek philosophy (at least)!!! Although the general public might think so, there is nothing revolutionary in Darwin’s thought.

A very thorough article on this topic is the following one:

“The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution” (see Appendix 2 for the full article)

founding_fathers_on_evolution_creation.html

A quote from the above article: “Nobel-Prize winner Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) explains: “The general idea of evolution is very old; it is already to be found in Anaximander (sixth century B.C.).”

With regards to bible history, this translates to the time when Daniel was in Babylon!

Thus, what happened in the 19th century could at best be described as “ancient thoughts warmed up” (or “evolutionist thinking re-packaged”).

As a consequence, it is very clear why Paul (and others) seem to speak out against evolutionist thinking[2]: They were familiar with this thought pattern. For a sample of bible verses warning directly or indirectly against evolutionist thinking, see Appendix 1.

“The Reemergence of Evolutionary Concepts

The Crusades of the 11th through 13th centuries brought Christian Europeans back into contact with some of the Greek texts that had been vanquished from Europe by earlier Christians. These texts made their way through the hands of European scholars and theologians leading to the reemergence of concepts long forgotten by Europeans.

The rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophy formed the basis of the Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. By the 1700s philosophical materialism and empiricism were being reborn in European thought. Fundamental assumptions of Christian thought were being shaken off and challenged by increasing numbers of thinkers.

During the Age of Enlightenment evolutionary concepts were reborn, but they were often reinvented from scratch, based on the same fundamental principles of materialism and observation of the natural world, i.e. empiricism.

In 1748 French philosopher Julien Offray de La Mettrie published Man a Machine (L’homme machine), one of the most controversial books that Europeans had ever seen. The book was banned by the churches and often burned. In Man a Machine La Mettrie stated that he believed humans and animals were related.”

“In 1749 French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon published his first 36 volumes of Natural Hi story (Histoire naturelle). Natural History was condemned by the Catholic Church and often burned. In Natural History Buffon challenged the belief that the earth was 6,000 year old (…)”

“In 1779 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by philosopher David Hume, was published (three years after Hume's death). In Dialogues Hume put forward a concept of evolution with natural selection.”

Quoted from:

“In 45 BCE the Roman statesman Cicero wrote a masterful summary of the boldest elements of Greek philosophy, The Nature of the Gods. In the tradition of his time the work was written in dialog format. In The Nature Cicero put forward the positions of the major schools of Greek philosophy relating to gods, the universe, and life. The Nature was a widely read work by Roman scholars and early Roman Christians; such men as Saint Augustine were influenced by the work. The Nature also, of course, reflects the views and opinions that prevailed in Mediterranean society shortly before the birth of Christianity. In The Nature Cicero summarized the arguments for and against views, including those of Platonic Stoics, that the universe was created by an intelligent force for the use of man, and thus the book serves as a good window into that school of philosophy.”

Quoted from:

“The first logically proposed evolutionary concept is agreed to have come from Anaximandros (Anaximander) of Miletos, who lived from 610 BCE to 547 BCE, about 100 years before the writing of Genesis. (…) Anaximander believed that life must have started in the water, and that from this early form of life, other forms of life, including man, developed. (…) While his teachings were crude compared to what we know today, they represent the earliest known example of naturalistic evolutionary thought.”

Quoted from:

Around 520 BC - Anaximander

The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time.

Around 500 BC - Xenophanes

Xenophanes studied fossils and put forth various theories on the evolution of life.

Around 350 BC - Aristotle

The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, studied marine animals and developed an epigenetic model of evolution. He also developed a classification system for all animals.

Quoted from: literature/Pre_Dar.html

“His (Aristotle's) model of Earth history contains some remarkably modern-sounding ideas:

(…) But the whole vital process of the earth takes place so gradually and in periods of time which are so immense compared with the length of our life, that these changes are not observed, and before their course can be recorded from beginning to end whole nations perish and are destroyed.”

Quoted from: ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html

Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin's time the idea of evolution - called "descent with modification" - was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation.

Quoted from:

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1809)

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's book, "Philosophie Zoologique" stated that animals evolved from simpler forms. Lamarck saw evolution as a goal oriented process striving towards perfection; analogous to species climbing a ladder. One result of this view was that he did not believe species became extinct, rather, they simply evolved into a different species. For Lamarck the process of evolution was a simple one - as the environment changes species need to modify how they interact with it in order to survive. As a species used a particular structures more often that structure grew bigger (or smaller if used less). Lamarck also supported the notion of inherited characteristics; any changes that occur through use or disuse are passed on to the next generation. Lamarck coined the term "invertebrates" and in 1802 he (with Trevirons) coined the term "Biology" for the first time.

Quoted from: literature/Pre_Dar.html

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's (1744-1829) theory of evolution was a good try for his time, but has now been discredited by experimental evidence and the much more plausible mechanism of modification proposed by Darwin. Lamarck saw species as not being fixed and immutable, but rather in a constantly changing state. He presented a multitude of different theories that he believed combined to explain descent with modification of these changing species.

Quoted from:

Further reading: Appendix 2

See also:

Timeline of Evolutionary Thought

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html

A history of evolutionary thought

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html



A brief history of the theory of evolution

oldsite/number3/number3.html

Darwin Literature

literature/Pre_Dar.html

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implications



Listen also to the following presentations (SDA):

joecrews.html

76. Evolution - Part 1

79. Evolution & Nature - Part 3

80. Evolution & the Body - Part 1

81. Evolution & the Body - Part 2

Creation - Art Chadwick

english/sermons/recordings/1689/creation.html

Creation and Evolution: A brief history - Tim Standish

english/sermons/recordings/2432/creation-and-evolution-a-brief-history.html

documents.htm#science

This site offers several articles, e.g. « Evidences of a Recent Creation »



- run by Sean Pitman, M.D. (SDA)

Appendix 1

Some bible verses that are (or seem to be) related to the topic of “creation / evolution”:

2 Chronicles 20:20

“Believe in Yahweh, your God, and you shall be established.

Believe His prophets, and you shall prosper.”

No comment.

Job 12:7-9+25

7 But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; And the birds of the air, and they will tell you; 8 Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; And the fish of the sea will explain to you. 9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of Yahweh has done this, 25 They grope in the dark without light, And He makes them stagger like a drunken man.

Without light: without understanding, believing that evolution is true.

Job 36:12

But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

Dying without knowledge: e.g. dying as a believer in the theory of evolution.

Job 38:4

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have (any) understanding!

Luther renders: “Tell me, if you are really intelligent!”

Psalms 96:5 (see also Psalms 33:9)

“For all the gods of the nations are idols: but Yahweh made the heavens.”

Yahweh is the Creator - no evolution!

Isa. 5:21

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!

Isa. 8, 20

“To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

The law (i.e. the bible) tells us that

a) God made the earth inhabitable, he is the Creator.

b) He finished his work within six literal days.

Isa. 45:12 (see also Jeremiah 27:5)

I have made the earth, And created man on it. I - My very own hands - stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

Jeremiah 8:9

“The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of Yahweh; and what wisdom is in them?”

This is the wisdom that can be found in men (if they are disconnected from the Creator): evolution.

Those who pretend to be Christians but claim that the creation account cannot be taken seriously have rejected Yahweh‘s word.

Jeremiah 23:29

“Is not My word like a fire?” says Yahweh, And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?”

The biblical message (His word) breaks the theory of evolution in pieces.

Jeremiah 23:36

“And the oracle of Yahweh you shall mention no more. For every man’s word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God.”

Are we perverting His word when we claim that the creation account refers to a long time period (more than six days)?

Jeremiah 32:27: “Is there anything too hard for Me?” – No comment…

Matthew 18:3

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

a) Children have a simple (i.e. uncomplicated) faith. If they are told about creation, they will believe that God created the earth.

b) Do I want to go to heaven? The consequence is obvious!

Luke 1:37

With God nothing is impossible.

Creating the world within six days? Child’s play!

John 20:29

Jesus said to him, “… Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Does this declaration also apply to those who have not witnessed the act of creation?

Does the Creator expect me to believe, without having seen him at work?

Romans 1:20-25

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

V. 20: The variable speed of light[3] shows that there is ample evidence for a major event (i.e. creation) about 6000 years ago. As a consequence, man (and woman) is “without excuse”.

V. 25: Changing the truth of God into a lie: creation account becomes (theistic) evolution.

Acts 17:24

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth.

This is Paul speaking in Athens – his listeners certainly knew about the ideas of Greek philosophers…

Romans 1:21-25

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but

became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, …

The truth of God: He is the Creator. Creation took six days.

They changed the truth into a lie: God is the Creator, but creation took more than six literal days.

Romans 2:6-8

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Romans 13:11

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

1 Corinthians 2:6

“However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.”

The wisdom of this age: e.g. the theory of evolution.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20

If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. …“Yahweh knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

2 Corinthians 5:12-13

For we do not commend ourselves again to you, but give you opportunity to boast on our behalf, that you may have an answer for those who boast in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind, it is for you.

V. 13: I am not quite sure what Paul was thinking about when he said “we (seem to be) beside ourselves”. Was he saying that when he talks about creation, some people think he is beside himself?

Ephesians 4

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Ephesians 5

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2 Thessalonians 2:(11+)12

“That they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth...”

The truth: Yahweh is the creator God

1 Timothy 4:1

“Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

“Doctrines of devils”: The devil does not want us to believe in a Creator. He wants us to believe in evolution - because the theory of evolution alienates us from our Creator!

1 Timothy 6:20-21

“Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is science falsely so called. By professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.”

The theory of evolution is “science falsely so called”!

Note: In the Greek original of 1 Timothy 6:20, we find the word “gnosis” (“knowledge”; “gnosis” is also the root of the modern word “gnosticism”). Therefore, depending upon the bible translation used, this passage is either rendered “falsely called knowledge” (KJ2000) or “science falsely so called” (KJV). According to some scholars, this passage could refer to the gnostic movement[4]. The followers of this movement tried to explain God and the world simply based on their own understanding!

Could it be that many contemporary scientists are also hoping to explain the world’s existence with the use of human reasoning – forgetting that reason itself is fallible. Thus, they are rejecting the divine reasoning (the bible).

Clearly, the bible is still up to date as God warns us against this kind of behaviour.

Do I allow the theory of evolution to enter my life because – without being aware of it – I am trying to be a friend of the world (see James 4:4)?

2 Timothy 1:14

That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

“That good thing which was committed unto thee”: could be relating to sound teaching, according to the bible

2 Timothy 2

7 - Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

25 - In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 - And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

“The snare of the devil”: The theory of evolution is a snare of the devil!

2 Timothy 3:7

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Even though they are ever learning, some scientists might never be able to come to the knowledge of the truth: It was Yahweh who created the earth.

2 Timothy 3:14+15

“But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

“Continue in the things which you have learned” during your childhood: As a child, Timothy certainly learned about God creating the world – as many children still learn today.

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Timothy 4

2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

V. 2 - Preach the word! Preach what the bible says. The bible tells us about creation!

V. 3 - Sound doctrine: Yahweh created the earth. Could it be that if there is “sound doctrine”, there is also “unsound doctrine”? Theistic evolution is unsound doctrine!

V. 4 - Some people have “turned unto fables” – another word for fable is fiction or theory:

e.g. the theory of evolution.

Titus 1

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

Those who contradict biblical teaching: Those who talk about (theistic) evolution.

Hebrews 4:11

Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience.

Paul encourages obedience to the bible, all of it.

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Scientists agree: Before the so-called “big bang” there was absolutely nothing!

Hebrews 13 (see also Hebrews 11:3)

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

V. 8 – Jesus Christ was, is and will be the Creator.

V. 9 – The theory of (theistic) evolution is a “strange doctrine” as it is not in line with the bible.

1 John 1:5

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in

him is no darkness at all.”

God is truth (i.e. light), in him is no lie. He will not lie at you regarding the creation, e.g. six literal days.

James 1:5

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

For a human, it is quite difficult to understand how Yahweh created. But he will give us sufficient wisdom, so that we can understand whatever we do need to understand with regards to the creation account. With wisdom from above, the creation account will make sense.

James 4:4

“You adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”

According to James, by accepting worldly theories (e.g. evolution), I would become an enemy of God! Do I wish to become an enemy of the person who loves me with an incredible love?

2 Peter 1:21

“For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

The creation account was written while the author was being moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 2:1-3

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

2 Peter 3:3-6

Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

There is a link between refusing the creation account and refusing the flood account.

1 John 1:5+6

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.”

V. 5 - God is light: God is truth, in him is no lie. He will not lie at you regarding the creation, e.g. literal six-day creation.

V. 6 – Walking in darkness: Does this include accepting the theory of evolution?

2 John 1:9

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.”

The doctrine of Christ = the doctrine of the bible: evolution is part of what the bible teaches. Theistic evolution is not an option.

1 Peter 2:8

“A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Revelation 14:7+12 (see also Revelation 4:11)

7 Saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

V. 7 – “Worship Him who made heaven and earth”: This thought excludes evolution.

V. 12 – “The faith of (or in) Jesus”: Having faith that Jesus is able to create our world within six days - six literal days. If I want to go to Heaven, I need to have faith in Jesus – believing everything he said (100% of it, 99% will not be enough). That includes the creation account.

And

articles/the-major-biblical-creation-texts-creation-accounts

Appendix 2

The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution - David Barton 2008

This article is quoted from: founding_fathers_on_evolution_creation.html

While uninformed laymen erroneously believe the theory of evolution to be a product of Charles Darwin in his first major work of 1859 (The Origin of Species), the historical records are exceedingly clear that the evolution-creation-intelligent design debate was largely formulated well before the birth of Christ. Numerous famous writings have appeared on the topic for almost two thousand years; in fact, our Founding Fathers were well-acquainted with these writings and therefore the principle theories and teachings of evolution – as well as the science and philosophy both for and against that thesis – well before Darwin synthesized those centuries-old teachings in his writings.

Nobel-Prize winner Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) explains: “The general idea of evolution is very old; it is already to be found in Anaximander (sixth century B.C.). . . . [and] Descartes [1596-1650], Kant [1724-1804], and Laplace [1749-1827] had advocated a gradual origin for the solar system in place of sudden creation.” 1 Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935), a zoologist and paleontologist, agrees, declaring that there are “ancient pedigrees for all that we are apt to consider modern. Evolution has reached its present fullness by slow additions in twenty-four centuries.” 2 He continues, “Evolution as a natural explanation of the origin of the higher forms of life . . . developed from the teaching of Thales [624-546 B.C.] and Anaximander [610-546 B.C.] into those of Aristotle [384-322 B.C.]. . . . and it is startling to find him, over two thousand years ago, clearly stating, and then rejecting, the theory of the survival of the fittest as an explanation of the evolution of adaptive structures.” 3 And British anthropologist Edward Clodd (1840-1930) similarly affirms that, “The pioneers of evolution – the first on record to doubt the truth of the theory of special creation, whether as the work of departmental gods or of one Supreme Deity, matters not – lived in Greece about the time already mentioned: six centuries before Christ.” 4

For example, Anaximander (610-546 B.C.) introduced the theory of spontaneous generation; Diogenes (412-323 B.C.) introduced the concept of the primordial slime; Empedocles (495-455 B.C.) introduced the theory of the survival of the fittest and of natural selection; Deomocritus (460-370 B.C.) advocated the mutability and adaptation of species; the writings of Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) announced that all life sprang from “mother earth” rather than from any specific deity; Bruno (1548-1600) published works arguing against creation and for evolution in 1584-85; Leibnitz (1646-1716) taught the theory of intermedial species; Buffon (1707-1788) taught that man was a quadruped ascended from the apes, about which Helvetius also wrote in 1758; Swedenborg (1688-1772) advocated and wrote on the nebular hypothesis (the early “big bang”) in 1734, as did Kant in 1755; etc. It is a simple fact that countless works for (and against) evolution had been written for over two millennia prior to the drafting of our governing documents and that much of today’s current phraseology surrounding the evolution debate was familiar rhetoric at the time our documents were framed.

In fact, Dr. Henry Osborn (1857-1935), curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, identifies four periods of evolution: I. Greek Evolution – 640 B.C. to 1600 A.D.; II. Modern Evolution – 1600-1800 A.D.; III. Modern Inductive Evolution – 1730-1850 A.D.; and IV. Modern Inductive Evolution – 1858 to the present. 5 He describes the third period in the history of evolution – the period in which our Framers lived – as a period which produced the pro-evolution writings of “Linnaeus, Buffon, E[rasmus] Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, Geof. St. Hilaire, St. Vincent, Is. St. Hilaire. Miscellaneous writers: Grant, Rafinesque, Virey, Dujardin, d’Halloy, Chevreul, Godron, Leidy, Unger, Carus, Lecoq, Schaafhausen, Wolff, Meckel, Von Baer, Serres, Herbert, Buch, Wells, Matthew, Naudin, Haldeman, Spencer, Chambers, Owen.” 6

The debate over the origins of man has always been between a theistic and a non-theistic approach; and among those who embrace the theistic approach have been found (and still are found) three distinct sub-approaches: (1) intelligent-design (that which exists came into being by divine guidance, but the period of time required or the specifics of the process are unsettled, possibly unprovable, and therefore remain debatable); (2) theistic evolution (that which exists came into being over a long, slow passing of time through natural laws and processes but under divine guidance); and (3) special creation (that which exists came into being in six literal days). This, then, makes four separate historic approaches to the origins of man: three theistic, and one non-theistic.

In the non-theistic camp, Empedocles (495-435 B.C.) was the father and original proponent of the evolution theory, followed by advocates such as Democritus (460-370 B.C. ), Epicurus (342-270 B.C.), Lucretius (98-55 B.C.), Abubacer (1107-1185 A.D.), Bruno (1548-1600), Buffon (1707-1788), Helvetius (1715-1771), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), Lamarck (1744-1829), Goethe (1749-1832), Lyell (1797-1875), etc.

In the theistic camp, Anaxigoras (500-428 B.C.) was the father of intelligent design; that same belief was also expounded by such distinguished scientists and philosophers Descartes (1596-1650), Harvey (1578-1657), Newton (1642-1727), Kant (1729-1804), Mendel (1822-1884), Cuvier (1769-1827), Agassiz (1807-1873), etc. Significantly, even Charles Darwin (1809-1882), strongly influenced by the writings of Paley (1743- 1805), 7 embraced the intelligent design position at the time that he wrote his celebrated word, explaining:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species. 8

John Dewey, an ardent 20th century proponent of Darwinism, explained why the intelligent design position – scientifically speaking – was reasonable:

The marvelous adaptation of organisms to their environment, of organs to the organism, of unlike parts of a complex organ (like the eye) to the organ itself; the foreshadowing by lower forms of the higher; the preparation in earlier stages of growth for organs that only later had their functioning – these things are increasingly recognized with the progress of botany, zoology, paleontology, and embryology. Together, they added such prestige to the design argument that by the later eighteenth century it was, as approved by the sciences of organic life, the central point of theistic and idealistic philosophy. 9

(This position of intelligent design, also called the anthropic or teleological view, is now embraced by an increasing number of contemporary distinguished scientists, non-religious though many of them claim to be. 10 )

The second camp within the theistic approach is theistic evolution, which was first propounded by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Other prominent expositors of this view included Gregory of Nyssa (331-396 A.D.), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.), St. Gregory the First (540-604 A.D.), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Leibnitz (1646-1716), Swedenborg (1688-1772), Bonnet (1720-1793), and numerous contemporary scientists. In fact, many of Darwin’s contemporaries embraced this view, believing that “natural selection could be the means by which God has chosen to make man.” 11

As confirmed by Dr. James Rachels, professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham: Mivart [1827-1900, a professor in Belgium] became the leader of a group of dissident evolutionists who held that although man’s body might have evolved by natural selection, his rational and spiritual soul did not. At some point God had interrupted the course of human history to implant man’s soul in him, making him something more than merely a former ape.

. . . Wallace [1823-1913, who advocated natural selection prior to Darwin] took a view very similar to that of Mivart: he held that the theory of natural selection applies to humans, but only up to a point. Our bodies can be explained in this way, but not our brains. Our brains, he said, have powers that far outstrip anything that could have been produced by natural selection. Thus he concluded that God had intervened in the course of human history to give man the “extra push” that would enable him to reach the pinnacle on which he now stands. . . . Natural selection, while it explained much, could not explain everything; in the end God must be brought in to complete the picture. 12

In fact, Clarence Darrow himself (the lead attorney during the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 13), admitted during the trial that this was a prominent position of many in that day; 14 and Dudley Malone, Darrow’s co-counsel, even declared:

We shall show by the testimony of men learned in science and theology that there are millions of people who believe in evolution and in the stories of creation as set forth in the Bible and who find no conflict between the two. 15

Interestingly, writers who chronicle the centuries-long history of the evolution debate16 confirm that there have always been numerous evolutionists in both the theistic and the non-theistic camps, and much of the proceedings in the Scopes trial reaffirmed that a belief in evolution was not incompatible with teaching theistic origins and a belief in a divine creator.

The third camp, special (or literal) creation, was championed by Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) and later by Pasteur (1822-1895) as well as by subsequent contemporary scientists.

Significantly, then, the history of this controversy through recent years and even previous centuries makes clear that subsequent scientific discovery across the centuries has not yet significantly altered any of these four views. Therefore, it was not in the absence of knowledge about the debate over evolution but rather in its presence, that our Framers made the decision to incorporate in our governing documents the principle of a creator. One example affirming the Framers’ view on this subject is provided by Thomas Paine. Although Paine was the most openly and aggressively anti-religious of the Founders, in his 1787 “Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris,” Paine nevertheless forcefully denounced the French educational system which taught students that man was the result of prehistoric cosmic accidents, or had developed from some other species:

It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author. When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well-executed statue, or a highly-finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talent of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How, then, is it that when we study the works of God in creation, we stop short and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the Author of them. . . . The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator Himself, they stop short and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter and jump over all the rest by saying that matter is eternal. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them. God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon. But infidelity, by ascribing every phenomenon to properties of matter, conceives a system for which it cannot account and yet it pretends to demonstrate. 17

Paine certainly did not advocate this position as a result of religious beliefs or of any teaching in the Bible, for he believed that “the Bible is spurious” and “a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy.” 18 Yet, this anti-Bible founder was nevertheless a strong supporter of teaching the theistic origins of man. Many other Founding Fathers also held clear positions on this issue.

John Quincy Adams

It is so obvious to every reasonable being, that he did not make himself; and the world which he inhabits could as little make itself that the moment we begin to exercise the power of reflection, it seems impossible to escape the conviction that there is a Creator.    It is equally evident that the Creator must be a spiritual and not a material being; there is also a consciousness that the thinking part of our nature is not material but spiritual – that it is not subject to the laws of matter nor perishable with it. Hence arises the belief, that we have an immortal soul; and pursuing the train of thought which the visible creation and observation upon ourselves suggest, we must soon discover that the Creator must also he the Governor of the universe – that His wisdom and His goodness must be without bounds – that He is a righteous God and loves righteousness – that mankind are bound by the laws of righteousness and are accountable to Him for their obedience to them in this life, according to their good or evil deeds. 19

But the first words of the Bible are, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The blessed and sublime idea of God as the creator of the universe – the Source of all human happiness for which all the sages and philosophers of Greece and Rome groped in darkness and never found – is recalled in the first verse of the book of Genesis. I call it the source of all human virtue and happiness because when we have attained the conception of a Being Who by the mere act of His will created the world, it would follow as an irresistible consequence (even if we were not told that the same Being must also be the governor of his own creation) that man, with all other things, was also created by Him, and must hold his felicity and virtue on the condition of obedience to His will. 20

Benjamin Franklin

It might be judged an affront to your understandings should I go about to prove this first principle: the existence of a Deity and that He is the Creator of the universe; for that would suppose you ignorant of what all mankind in all ages have agreed in. I shall therefore proceed to observe that He must be a being of infinite wisdom (as appears in His admirable order and disposition of things), whether we consider the heavenly bodies, the stars and planets and their wonderful regular motions; or this earth, compounded of such an excellent mixture of all the elements; or the admirable structure of animate bodies of such infinite variety and yet every one adapted to its nature and the way of life is to be placed in, whether on earth, in the air, or in the water, and so exactly that the highest and most exquisite human reason cannot find a fault; and say this would have been better so, or in such a manner which whoever considers attentively and thoroughly will be astonished and swallowed up in admiration. 21

That the Deity is a being of great goodness appears in His giving life to so many creatures, each of which acknowledges it a benefit by its unwillingness to leave it; in His providing plentiful sustenance for them all and making those things that are most useful, most common and easy to be had, such as water (necessary for almost every creature to drink); air (without which few could subsist); the inexpressible benefits of light and sunshine to almost all animals in general; and to men, the most useful vegetables, such as corn, the most useful of metals, as iron, & c.; the most useful animals as horses, oxen, and sheep, He has made easiest to raise or procure in quantity or numbers; each of which particulars, if considered seriously and carefully, would fill us with the highest love and affection. That He is a being of infinite power appears in His being able to form and compound such vast masses of matter (as this earth, and the sun, and innumerable stars and planets), and give them such prodigious motion and yet so to govern them in their greatest velocity as that they shall not fly out of their appointed bounds not dash one against another for their mutual destruction. But it is easy to conceive His power, when we are convinced of His infinite knowledge and wisdom. For, if weak and foolish creatures as we are, but knowing the nature of a few things, can produce such wonderful effects, . . . what power must He possess, Who not only knows the nature of everything in the universe but can make things of new natures with the greatest ease and at His pleasure! Agreeing, then, that the world was a first made by a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, which Being we call God. 22

John Adams

When I was in England from 1785 to 1788, I may say I was intimate with Dr. Price [Richard Price was a theologian and a strong British supporter of American rights and independence, with Congress bestowing on him an American citizenship in 1778]. I had much conversation with him at his own house, at my houses, and at the house and tables of many friends. In some of our most unreserved conversations when we have been alone, he has repeatedly said to me, “I am inclined to believe that the Universe is eternal and infinite. It seems to me that an eternal and infinite effect must necessarily flow from an eternal and infinite Cause; and an infinite Wisdom, Goodness, and Power that could have been induced to produce a Universe in time must have produced it from eternity.” “It seems to me, the effect must flow from the Cause"... It has been long – very long – a settled opinion in my mind that there is now, never will be, and never was but one Being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects [like us] to pretend to comprehend it. 23

James Wilson

When we view the inanimate and irrational creation around and above us, and contemplate the beautiful order observed in all its motions and appearances, is not the supposition unnatural and improbable that the rational and moral world should be abandoned to the frolics of chance or to the ravage of disorder? What would be the fate of man and of society was every one at full liberty to do as he listed without any fixed rule or principle of conduct – without a helm to steer him, a sport of the fierce gusts of passion and the fluctuating billows of caprice? 24

Daniel Webster

The belief that this globe existed from all eternity (or never had a beginning), never obtained a foothold in any part of the world or in any age. Even the infidel writer of modern times, however, in the pride of argument they may have asserted it but believed it not, for they could not help perceiving that if mankind, with their inherently intellectual powers and natural capacities for improvement, had inhabited this earth for millions of years, the present inhabitants would not only be vastly more intelligent than we now find them but there would be vestiges of the former races to be found in every inhabitable part of the globe, floods and earthquakes notwithstanding. Unless we adopt Lord Monboddo's [1714-1799, a Scottish legal scholar and pioneer anthropologist who advocated evolution through natural selection and man’s ascent from chimps] supposition that mankind were originally monkeys, it is impossible to admit the idea that they could have existed millions of years without making more discoveries and improvements than the early histories of nations warrant us to believe they had done. The belief in an uncreated, self-existent intelligent First Cause takes possession of our minds whether we will or not, because if man could not create himself, nothing else could; and matter, if it were not external, could produce nothing but matter; it could never produce thought nor free will nor consciousness. There must have been, therefore, a time when this globe and its inhabitants did not exist. The question then arises, what gave it existence? We answer God, the great First Cause of all things. What is God? We know not. We know Him only through His creation and His revelation. What do these teach us? They teach us, first this; incomprehensible power, next His infinite mind, and lastly His universal benevolence or goodness. These terms express all that we can know or believe of Him. 25

(A longer and more extensive piece on the history of evolution and the Founding Fathers can be read in David Barton’s law review article published for Regent Lawschool on the 75th anniversary of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. That piece, entitled “Evolution and the Law: A Death Struggle Between Two Civilizations,” is accessible at .)

Endnotes

1. Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948), pp. 33-34. (Return)

2. Henry Fairfield Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924), p. 1. (Return)

3. Henry Fairfield Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924), p. 6. (Return)

4. Edward Clodd, Pioneers of Evolution From Thales to Huxley (New York: Books for Libraries Press), p. 3. (Return)

5. Henry Fairfield Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924), pp. 10-11. (Return)

6. Henry Fairfield Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924), p. 11. (Return)

7. James Rachels, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 10. (Return)

8. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882, Nora Barlow, editor (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 92-93. (Return)

9. John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy, and Other Essays on Contemporary Thought (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1910), p. 11. (Return)

10. Some of the contemporary academics and researchers embracing this position include Dr. Mike Behe of Lehigh University, Dr. Walter Bradley of Texas A & M, Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, Phillip Johnson and Dr. Jonathan Wells of the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Robert Kaita of Princeton, Dr. Steven Meyer of Whitworth, Dr. Heinz Oberhummer of Vienna University, Dr. Siegfried Scherer of the Technical University of Munich, Dr. Jeff Schloss of Westmont, etc. There are numerous others that, to varying degrees, embrace the anthropic position, including Dr. Brandon Carter of Cambridge, Dr. Frank Tipler of Tulane, Dr. Peter Berticci of Michigan State, Dr. George Gale of University of Missouri Kansas City, Dr. John Barrow of Sussux University, Dr. John Leslie of the University of Guelph, Dr. Heinz Pagels of Rockefeller University, Dr. John Earman of University of Pittsburgh, and many others. (Return)

11. James Rachels, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 3. (Return)

12. James Rachels, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 57-58. (Return)

13. Scopes v. State, 289 S. W. 363 (1927). (Return)

14. The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case; A Word for Word Report of the Famous Court Test of the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act, at Dayton, July 10 to 21, 1925 . . . (Cincinnati: National Book Company, 1925), pp. 83-84, Clarence Darrow, July 13, 1925. (Return)

15. The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case; A Word for Word Report of the Famous Court Test of the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act, at Dayton, July 10 to 21, 1925 . . . (Cincinnati: National Book Company, 1925), p. 113, Dudley Malone, July 15, 1925. (Return)

16. See Henry Fairfield Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924); see also Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); see also Edward Clodd, Pioneers of Evolution From Thales to Huxley (New York: Books for Libraries Press); see also Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After, and Examination and Assessment (London: The Paternoster Press, 1958), (Return)

17. Thomas Paine, Life and Writings of Thomas Paine, Daniel Edwin Wheeler, editor (New York: Printed by Vincent Parke and Company, 1908), Vol. 7, pp. 2-8, “The Existence of God,” A Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists, Paris. (Return)

18. Thomas Paine, Life and Writings of Thomas Paine, Daniel Edwin Wheeler, editor (New York: Vincent Parke and Company, 1908), Vol. 6, p. 132, from his “Age of Reason Part Second,” January 27, 1794. (Return)

19. John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), Letter II, pp. 23-24. (Return)

20. John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), Letter II, pp. 27-28. (Return)

21. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1836), Vol. II, p. 526, “A Lecture on the Providence of God in the Government of the World.” (Return)

22. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1836), Vol. II, pp. 526-527, “A Lecture on the Providence of God in the Government of the World.” (Return)

23. John Adams, The Adams-Jefferson Letters, Lester Cappon, editor (North Carolina: University of North Carolina, 1959) pp. 374-375, to Thomas Jefferson, September 14, 1813. (Return)

24. James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 113-114. (Return)

25. From Daniel Webster’s 1801 Senior Oration at Dartmouth, translated from the Latin by John Andrew Murray, received by the author from the translator on February 21, 2008. The oration is titled “On the Goodness of God as manifested in His work, 1801,” and is available at dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/goodness.html

Appendix 3

A) Articles with regards to a varying speed of light

1) Speed of Light Slowing Down?



2) History of the Light-Speed Debate

articles/2002/423

3) A History of the Speed of light

sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml

see also: Speed of Light Bibliography

sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightbiblio.htm

4) Did lightspeed start to decline at the time of the Fall?

000docs/biblicaldisc.htm#cdecline

5) A series of questions that have been asked of Barry Setterfield and his responses to them discussionindex.htm

On the following site (000docs/simplified.html), it says:

Please feel free to email any questions you may have to Barry at

barry4light2@

B) Scientific articles with regards to a varying speed of light

1) Speed of light may have changed recently (Juin 2004)

(Scientific paper “New Scientist”)

2) Varying c cosmology and Planck value constraints



3) Varying-α Theories and Solutions to the Cosmological Problems



4) The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

report/report.html or setterfield/report.html

Scientific citations proving that the speed of light is slowing down

...[It] is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time. ... [V]irtually all aspects of traditional physics are affected, including the presumed steady state of radioactive decay used to measure geologic time. [It] begins with observations that just don't fit currently accepted scientific dogma. ... Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review. It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not. Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light. Within the last 24 months -, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, - Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, -Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis -Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.) Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in the instants following the beginning of time. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the historic near past. Dr. Magueijo recently stated that the debate should not be why and how the speed of light could vary, but what combination of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all. ...



More scientific articles with regards to the variable speed of light (VSL)

1927:

M.E.J. Gheury de Bray: "The Velocity of Light"

(In the official French Astronomical Journal of Science, Vol 66, Supplement X, 30th Sept 1927)

1931:

M.E.J. Gheury de Bray: "The Velocity of Light"

(In "Nature" 4th April 1934, p.522)

1934:

M.E.J. Gheury de Bray: "The Velocity of Light"

(In "Nature" 24th March 1934)

1981:

T.C. van Flandern: "Is The Gravitational Constant Changing?"

(In "The Astrophysical Journal" Vol 248, Sept 1981, p. 813-816)

1983:

Harold W. Milnes: "Faster Than Light?"

(In "Radio-Electronics" Vol 54, Jan 1983, p. 55-58)

1987:

Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman: "The Atomic Constants, Light and Time"[5]

(pub. by Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Aug 1987)

V.S. Troitskii: "Physical Constants and the Evolution of the Universe"

(In "Astrophysics and Space Science" Vol 139, No. 2, Dec 1987, p. 389-411)

1988:

P.Y. Pappas and Alexis Guy Obolensky: "Thirty-Six Nanoseconds Faster Than Light"

(In "Electronics and Wireless World", Dec 1988, p. 1162-1165)

1993:

Alan Montgomery and Lambert Dolphin: "Is The Velocity Of Light Constant In Time?"

(In "Galilean Electrodynamics" Vol 4, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1993, p. 93-97)

1995:

Julian Brown: "Faster Than The Speed of Light?"

(In "New Scientist" 1st April 1995, p. 26-29)

1999:

Andreas Albrecht and Joao Magueijo:

"A Time varying Speed Of Light As A solution To Cosmological puzzles"

(In "Physical Review D" , 15th Feb 1999, p. 043516-9)



2000:

Jon Marangos: "Faster Than A Speeding Photon"

(In "Nature" Vol 406, 20th July 2000, p. 243-244)

Source:



Books with regards to the speed of light

1) The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe, by Barry Setterfield, 1981

2) Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, by Joao Magueijo, 2003

> see also the video with Joao Magueijo underneath (on youtube)

3) Several books with regards to creation, e.g. Stars and the Bible, par H.M.S Richards

downloads/books/cat_view/275-downloadable-resources/105-books/156-apologetics/159-creation

A graph - showing that the speed of light started decreasing about 6000 years ago…

The speed of light – The 2nd monograph



Videos

1) Light Speed and Other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation (by Barry Setterfield)



2) The Speed of Light Problem

watch?v=Jx52Z9DrFeY&feature=related

3) Faster than the Speed of Light - Could the laws of physics change?

watch?v=qlCp1x57pow

Presentation by Joao Magueijo, author of the book: “Faster Than the Speed of Light”

The same presentation in mp3 format:



For the slides of the above presentation (PDF file): see for example page 18 of the document



4) Joao Magueijo 1/5 BIG BANG (ENGLISH)

watch?v=P_mvEd9VN6g

5) How Can Galaxies Travel Faster Than Light?

watch?v=myjaVI7_6Is

6) Our Created Solar System



7) Light Speed Data and a Recent Creation

watch?v=xjqxvpFn-Gs

DVD

Anomalies – What happens when data and theory disagree?

by Barry Setterfield

You may also wish to look up ”variable speed of light” and/or “c decay”, using a search engine.

This article can be found at:

-----------------------

[1] by Alexander Becker, December 2012

[2] e.g.: “cunning craftiness” (Eph. 4:14) or

“strange doctrines” (Hebr. 13:9) – could be relating to (theistic) evolution

[3] Check out the following articles:

New varying speed of light theories:

Speed of light slowing down?: 2004/07/25852/

For a telling graph and more articles, go to Appendix 3.

[4] See also: gnostic.html

[5] Barry Setterfield gave 377 references in his paper "The Atomic Constants, Light and Time" (setterfield/report.html).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download