NEWS & VIEWS
Creation Update is our quarterly full-colour, 4-page magazine containing news and articles on creation/evolution. It is sent out on a donation basis. On this page are some items from the latest issue, No. 87
CREATION TORCH’ EVENTS SUCCESS
The special "Carrying the Creation Torch" day conferences organised by Creation Ministries International were attended by hundreds of people. The series got off to a good start at The Kings Centre, Chessington, Surrey on May 19th (above right) when over 300 people attended, and attendance at all venues averaged 150. Other venues were Leicester, Exeter, Carlisle, Cork (Rep.of Ireland), Belfast, Pembroke (lower right) and Edinburgh. Each event featured at least five experienced speakers drawn from several UK creation ministries, and were intended to convey topical and accurate information that would build people’s faith and encourage evangelism. Reflecting on the series, Philip Bell CEO of CMI said: “Feedback has been unanimously positive. Revelation TV filmed the entire Surrey conference and these talks have been shown a number of times already, reaching many more people than were able to attend the conference.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CREATION MINISTRY IN PERU

 

 

CREATIONISTS PROVED RIGHT ABOUT "JUNK"
Until recently most evolutionary scientists believed that around 98% of DNA had no function, labelling it “junk DNA.” Creation scientists, on the other hand, rejected this view, suggesting that we simply had not yet discovered the purpose of these “pseudogenes.” In his book The Greatest Show on Earth Professor Richard Dawkins even claimed that they were “useful for embarrassing creationists”, asking why an intelligent designer would create something useless. However, he said that pseudogenes were just what would be expected according to evolution theory. Then, in September 2012, a study by the International ENCODE project revealed that “Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as ‘junk’ are in fact crucial to the way our genome works.” So what does Professor Dawkins have to say now? In a debate with Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks, he accused creationists of “jumping on [the ENCODE] results because they think that’s awkward for Darwinism,” and claimed that the discovery that so-called “junk” DNA has a function after all, is “exactly what a Darwinist would hope for”! (1) He has clearly done an about-face, but this is yet another instance where the predictions of creation scientists have been borne out. 1. BBC RE;Think Festival, 12th September 2012.

 

 

Professor Andy McIntosh spent 10 days in Peru in September, speaking at churches, schools, universities and colleges. The tour was coordinated by Canopy Ministries, based in Lima. There was a great openness among the students, who were willing to ask questions and think things through. Books and other creation resources were in heavy demand. About 500 students attended the meeting at the private University in Arequipa, and at the Collegio San Andres 500 secondary and 300 primary pupils attended the lectures (above). A new creation ministry has recently been set up — Centro des Estudios de Los Origenes y La Sciencia (CEOS –—Centre for the study of Origins and Science).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When faced with the very real threat of invasion by Hitler’s forces in 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (above) made his famous “we shall never surrender” speech.

 

JUST over 70 years ago the Second World War was taking place. The forces of Hitler’s Germany had already taken control of large areas of western Europe, and on May 20th 1940, just 10 days after Winston Churchill became British Prime Minister, German troops reached the English Channel. There was a real possibility that they would cross the Channel and invade southern England.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO SURRENDER!
Let’s imagine that, faced with this threat, the British Government had offered a deal to Hitler. For example, he would be permitted to take control of the counties bordering the English Channel, provided he advanced no further. Initially, this might have saved many lives, but even if he had agreed to such a compromise, Hitler would never have kept his word, and sooner or later would have advanced to take control of the whole of the British Isles. Winston Churchill was adamant that there would be no appeasement. In his famous 4th of June speech he said, “We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” We owe our freedom today to Churchill’s uncompromising stand and the brave sacrifice of thousands of courageous people who were emboldened by Churchill’s determination not to give in.

By surrendering belief in Genesis as true history, the Church has simply opened the way for further compromises which seriously undermine and weaken the Christian faith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exciting new Creation-based Holiday Bible Club materials

FIRST COMPROMISE
When Charles Darwin published his famous Origin of Species in 1859 most scientists were sceptical. However, many leading churchmen readily embraced Darwin’s ideas, and devised ingenious ways of trying to marry evolution with Genesis, which inevitably resulted in compromise. Even before Darwin, the view that the earth was millions of years old had become popular. This meant that the days of Genesis needed to be redefined as long periods of time, death and suffering were seen as part of God’s creative plan, Adam and Eve became little more than a myth — or at the very best, representative figures — and “The Fall” was no longer seen as an historical event. Although many of those who advocated this compromise were godly people who genuinely (but wrongly, in our view) believed that it was necessary to accommodate Darwin’s theory, the result has been disastrous for Christianity. Dr Michael Denton, an agnostic molecular biologist, commented: “As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution.... was catastrophic... the decline in religious belief can probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the intellectual community of the Darwinian version of evolution than to any other single factor”(1)

NOT CONTENT
Just as Hitler would never have been content simply to have control of the southern counties of England, so the secularists — who have always used evolution as their main weapon against Christianity — are not content that many theologians and church leaders have surrendered the early chapters of Genesis. Why are many Christians so ready to “fly the white flag”, and give more and more ground to those whose aim is the total destruction of Christianity? By surrendering belief in Genesis as true history, the Church has simply opened the way for further compromises which seriously undermine and weaken the faith, because Biblical authority has been undermined. There are some strong voices calling for the watering-down of Bible-based sexual ethics, although tully, most of the main-stream denominations have expressed strong opposition to the Government’s plans to introduce “gay marriage.” Some within the Church have reached a state of total apostasy, as, for example the Sea of Faith network, which “explores and promotes religious faith as a human creation.” Some of its members even describe themselves as “Christian atheists”! There is nothing new about error in the Church. In the 1st century, the apostle Jude wrote: “I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”2 However, there was never a greater need to “contend for the faith” than today, since it is under attack as never before. This is why CRT has developed a special apologetics CD resource. To attempt to defend our faith without the Genesis foundation is short-sighted, even foolish. That’s why, as creationists, we echo Churchill’s famous words: “We shall never surrender!”
1. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) p. 66. 2. Jude 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

This joint Go Teach-CRT project will provide teaching for 5-11 year olds, with reproducible puzzle pages for 3 separate age groups. There is an accompanying set of visual aids, posters and 2 CDs with much supplementary material. One of those will be the CRT Resources CD and CRT has provided extracts from “Our World” for inclusion on the other CD. This second CD includes publicity material, Powerpoint presentations, and much more. There are many craft and activity ideas and suggestions for an additional family event in the main teaching book. CRT will also be involved in monitoring the work produced by any Creation Clubs which may be formed as a result of using this resource The whole pack will cost £25 + £5 P & P, and should be available from CRT in early 2013. Orders can be placed now.

 

 

CONFIRMED: SOFT TISSUE IN DINOSAUR BONE!

 

 

 

 

TO SEE OUR RANGE OF BOOKS AND DVDs. TAKE A LOOK AT OUR
ONLINE SHOP

SEE ALSO OUR MEDIAWATCH
PAGE

Also in Creation Update
No. 87

Media Watch
Quotable quotes
'Creation Moments
Creation activities
Resource News

Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an “astonishing discovery” as she examined a slice of fossil bone from a T. Rex dinosaur. She spotted what looked like red blood cells. It was astonishing because the fossil was claimed to be 67 million years old, and it seems impossible for soft tissue to survive that long. Many were sceptical, arguing that the organic material must have come from microbes which had invaded the bone. Scientific American (18th October 2012) reported that Dr Schweitzer and her colleagues continued to do tests and she has now published a paper confirming her original claim. Incredibly, because Dr Schweizer is committed to the evolutionary time-scale, she refuses to question the fossil’s supposed age, but expresses amazement that soft tissue has lasted so long! We believe this evidence proves the fossil must be considerably younger than this, and that a drastic re-evaluation of dating methods