Creation Studies Institute
Is Evolution a Scientific Fact?

The Limitations of Scientific Truth: Why Science Can't Answer Life's Ultimate Questions

The Limitations of Scientific Truth: Why Science Can't Answer Life's Ultimate Questions (2005)
Nigel Brush - See biography in appendix

"Deductive" and "Inductive" reasoning cannot lead to absolute truth

The most important contribution that Francis Bacon made to modern experimental science was his insistence that the "inductive method" - that is, arguing from specific instances to general/universal statements - was the only proper was to conduct scientific research. Before Bacon, Aristotle had dominated scientific thinking for nearly two thousand years. Aristotle stated that "deduction" (arguing from general principles to specific instances) was the only proper method of logic.

- A deduction starts with a hypothesis without necessarily making any specific observations.

- Hypothesis: Dogs are smarter than cats.

- Confirming the hypothesis
1. My dog can retrieve a ball; my cat can't.
2. My dog can pull a wagon; my cat can't.
3. My dog can protect me; my cat can't.
4. Dogs chase cats; cats don't chase dogs.

- Negating the hypothesis
Although there may be as many (or more) instances that negate the hypothesis as confirm it, because the researcher has started out with a hypothesis that is often based on personal opinion or bias (rather than observation), it is usually far easier to confirm the hypothesis than to negate it.

Because of this asymmetry between confirmation and negation, the deductive method often tells us far more about how the scientist wants to see the world, than how the world actually is. Despite its flaw, scientists and philosophers over the next two millennia continued to follow Aristotle's deductive methodology.

During the 1600's, Bacon championed the "experimental approach" to knowledge. Although Bacon recognized some applications for the deductive approach, he argued in Novum Organum that the only proper method of reasoning for a scientist was by "induction".

Bacon believed that if a scientist really wanted to understand nature, he or she should begin by observing nature. From these observations hypotheses could be formulated in an attempt to explain what had been observed. At a murder scene, investigators look for evidence that will lead to a hypothesis as to who might have committed the murder, rather than beginning with assumptions (hypotheses) and then looking for evidence that proves the preconceived opinion.

Today, inductive reasoning forms the very foundation of experimental science.
Deduction is still used in testing hypotheses but induction is by far the most important of the two reasoning techniques. (Brush 2005)

This philosophy became known as empiricism and was further promoted by John Locke and David Hume. Hume was interested in those things that could be apprehended only through the senses, things that could be experienced. Could you see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it? Could you weigh it, measure it, dissect it? If so, Hume and other empiricists were interested. Hume, however, saw religion (knowledge through divine revelation) and metaphysics (the study of ontology or epistemology) as being essentially meaningless because they did not have these properties. Because of his love for empiricism, Hume decided to accept no knowledge that could not be proven through experience. This decision had disastrous consequences: at the heart of the inductive method is the assumption that an association of events implies causation.

According to Hume, only when one has examined every rock in the universe can one justifiably make the universal statement that "all brightly colored rocks contain iron oxide." Because it is obviously impossible to make an infinite number of observations in one or many human lifetimes, inductive statements can never be absolutely proven. Hume's empiricism eventually led him to the realization that scientific truth cannot be equated with absolute truth. Because all scientific hypotheses are derived from induction, they can never be proven on the basis of empirical observations.

Hume's Problem remained unanswered, and many of the brightest minds of the next three centuries continued to wrestle with the inevitable question that arose from it: "If all scientific theories are equally improvable, what distinguishes scientific knowledge from ignorance, science from pseudo-science?" (Brush 2005)

Mathematics cannot lead to absolute truth

One would, perhaps believe, that anything (such as a scientific theorem) that could be proven mathematically would be the purest form of truth, due in part to the accuracy of mathematics itself. However there are weak links in mathematical methodology and processes. These weak links were first discovered by the Austrian mathematician Kurt Godel (1906-1977). If mathematics was to be the final arbiter of scientific truth, Godel and other scientists wanted to prove that mathematical systems are themselves "complete" - that is, every true statement of number theory can be derived from within the system itself - and "consistent" - that is, mathematical statements contain no contradictions. (Brush 2005)

Godel made the startling discovery that all formal mathematical systems are both incomplete-- in that mathematics would not be able to prove all possible truths - and inconsistent - in that, mathematical theories could not even prove themselves. In 1931, Godel published his findings in a seminal paper on the consistency and completeness of mathematics titled "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I." What Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem did was to show that all mathematical systems are incomplete because they are unable to encompass every possible truth. In other words, some things exist that we absolutely know to be true but cannot prove through the use of any mathematical system.

Godel was also able to show that all mathematical systems are inconsistent in that they contain contradictions. By substituting the idea of "proof" for "truth", Godel was able to introduce into mathematics the famous Epimenides Paradox. Epimenides was a sixth-century B.C. poet from Crete who made the paradoxical statement, "All Cretans are liars." The Epimenides Paradox forever trapped philosophers in a strange loop because they could never determine whether Epimenides' statement, was true or false. Epimenides was a Cretan, so he must be lying. If he was lying, however the statement "All Cretans are liars," must be true. Godel took the core out of the Epimenides Paradox - "This statement of number theory does not have any proof". By doing so, Godel was able to show that mathematical systems can contain contradictions and are therefore inconsistent. (This contradiction is true only of theories or systems, not of mathematical givens such as 2+2 = 4.) Therefore, how can mathematics be used to validate the empirical observations of scientists if it cannot be used even to validate its own consistency? In plain language, it cannot. (Brush 2005)

Based, then, on the work of both Hume and Godel, the conclusion is inescapable that absolute truth cannot be confined within the bounds of logical (inductive) or mathematical (probabilistic) systems. At best, all that can be done with induction or mathematics is to apprehend a part of the larger truth that is out there; the systems being used are simply not robust enough to capture the entirety of this truth. (Brush 2005)

The Principle of Falsification - Karl Popper (1902-1994)

By 1934, Popper had concluded that the mathematical probability of all scientific theories was zero. In his work, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper stated, "My own view is that the various difficulties of inductive logic here sketched are insurmountable. So also, I fear, are those inherent in the doctrine, so widely current today, that inductive inference, although not 'strictly valid', can attain some degree of 'reliability' or of 'probability'. (Brush 2005)

Popper's second major breakthrough was his recognition of the "asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability". For example - based on a casual observation of swans, on might easily formulate the hypothesis, "All swans are white." The only way, of course, to verify this statement would be to examine every swan in the universe to absolutely certain that all swans are, indeed, white. Popper, however, pointed out that an infinite number of observations would not be necessary to prove that this statement is false. A single observation of a black swan would be sufficient to falsify the statement, "All swans are white". Popper showed, therefore, that while it is forever beyond our ability to prove absolutely (verify) a universal statement, it is well within our means to disprove (falsify) such a statement. All truly scientific statements must be written such that they can be falsified - not verified. As Popper stated, "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability". (Brush 2005)

In a perfect world, scientists might be willing to open up their work to criticism by pointing out the weak parts of their theories; under ideal conditions, scientist s might willingly abandon pet theories as soon as they found them to be false. But in the real world things are quite different. Is Popper's falsifiability criterion the solution to the problem of demarcating science from pseudo-science? No. For Popper's criterion ignores the remarkable tenacity of scientific theories. Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems.

Popper's principle of falsification fails, then, to set science apart from pseudo-science. Scientists, naturally having a vested interest in the outcome of their work, are far more prone to justify than to falsify their theories. If neither induction, empiricism, verification, mathematical probability, nor falsification, can be used to separate scientific truth from religious or metaphysical truth, what can? (Brush 2005)

Paul Feyerabend, philosopher of science (1924-1994) - came to the long-overdue conclusion that, in reality, there is no difference between scientific, religious, and metaphysical truth. Truth is truth no matter where you find it; it is the one immutable object in the universe. As Albert Einstein concluded, "All religions, arts, and sciences are branches of the same tree". Science itself, concluded Feyerabend, is a religion. Moreover, in the search for truth, because no preferred or superior methodology exists, the human mind should simply make use of every pathway that it finds available. (Brush 2005)

Science as storytelling

Stephen J. Gould notes in an essay titled "Literary Bias on the Slippery Slope," So much of science proceeds by telling stories - and especially vulnerable to constraints of this medium because we so rarely recognize what we are doing. We think that we are reading nature by applying rules of logic and laws of matter to our observations. But we are often telling stories - in the good sense, but stories nonetheless.

The story of human evolution has great literary appeal because we've been telling stories to our children for generations. The usual basic plots are found in folktales around the world. The appearance of common story motifs and plots in scientific accounts of human evolution should warn us that we are not being given "just the facts." The "facts" in evolutionary reconstructions have been selected and standardized from a much larger body of data and have been organized in such a way that they tell a logical, pleasing story. Discrepancies or missing data are often ignored in the interest of telling a story that is complete and the flows smoothly from one point to the next. (Brush 2005)

Collapse of the Clockwork Universe

Newton's seventeenth-century picture of the world gave time a transcendental status. Time just passed, inexorably and uniformly, entirely unaffected by the events and contents of the universe. Einstein's picture of time was radically different. The geometry of space and the rate of low of time were both determined by the material contents of the universe. (Brush 2005) Time is affected by velocity and gravity. Time runs at different rates in different places.

Martin Gardner, in his book Relativity for the Millions, discusses the problem of absolute simultaneity: It is important to understand that this is not just a question of being unable to learn the truth of the matter. There is no actual truth of the matter. There is no absolute time throughout the universe by which absolute simultaneity can be measured. Absolute simultaneity of distant events is a meaningless concept. (Brush 2005)

Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Weirdness

At the beginning of the twentieth century, when scientists set out to delineate the atomic structure of matter, they assumed that they would find an orderly microcosm within the atom that would operate by the same principles and laws that governed the stars and the planets. Once these rules had been identified and quantified, science would have fulfilled Decarte's and Laplace's dreams of mapping the movement and interaction of the invisible particles out of which the universe was built. Science would then be at the very doorstep of absolute truth, ready to advance to that final and complete explanation for the workings of this vast, clocklike universe. Quantum mechanics, however, transformed this dream into a nightmare, and by the end of the twentieth century, most scientists had given up hope of ever fully understanding the nature of reality. (Brush 2005)

Einstein's theory of relativity undercut the placid assumption that the world is as we see it. He showed that even such fundamental concepts as length, mass, and time are not absolute - they change under the influence of acceleration or gravity. Because of the relativity of time, there can be no "one moment of time" for the entire universe. Relativity thus imposes severe spatial limitations on what scientists can do or know. Planck's quantum mechanics gave a very different picture of reality, a reality best described as "quantum weirdness," where uncertainty, rather than certainty, is the ruling principle. When an electron absorbs a quantum of energy, it doesn't simply move across the space from one orbit to another orbit. Instead, the electron exists either in one shell or another but is never in transition between two shells. The logic of moving from point A to point B across the intervening space is defied. The basic rules of cause and effect that govern events in the macro-world apparently do not apply in micro-world. Instead, things moved in a disjointed or discontinuous manner. They "jumped" from one place to another, seemingly without effort and without bothering to go between the two places. (Brush 2005)

Causes of Quantum Uncertainty - The Micro-universe

Electrons sometimes behave in two ways; sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves. When attempting to determine the exact position of an electron, the focus is on the particle aspect of the electron; when attempting to determine its momentum, the focus is on its wave aspect. Consequently, the exact position of the electron can be determined only when it is treated as a particle; the exact momentum of an electron can be determined only when it is treated as a wave.

Quantum theory takes away the certainty that scientists cannot hope to discover the "real" world in infinite detail, not because there is any limit to their intellectual ingenuity or technical expertise, nor even because there are laws of physics preventing the attainment of perfect knowledge. The basis of quantum theory is more revolutionary yet: it asserts that perfect objective knowledge of the world cannot be had because there is no objective world. (Brush 2005)

The Macro-universe

The special-relativity rule that nothing can be accelerated to a velocity greater than that of light does not apply to galaxies in an expanding universe. That rule is true in static space, but expanding cosmic space can carry galaxies away from one another at velocities greater than that of light. (Brush 2005)

The Hubble radius suggests that there might be a limit to what astronomers can learn about the physical universe. Hubble found that the farther away a galaxy is from the earth, the faster it is receding due to the expansion of space. Some galaxies are moving away from us at speeds representing a significant percentage of the speed of light. If the Hubble constant remains valid, we will reach a point in our observations at which galaxies are so distant that they are receding at the speed of light or even faster. This point will denote the edge of the observable universe. Beyond the Hubble radius, myriad other galaxies may well exist, but astronomers will never be able to see them because they are receding from earth faster than their light is traveling toward earth. If so, scientific knowledge of the universe will forever be limited to the "visible" portion of the universe within the Hubble radius. Thus, in the macro-universe - as in the micro-universe - there are severe spatial limitations to how much scientists can learn about nature. (Brush 2005)

Modern physics therefore is dominated by two theories that arose in the early part of the twentieth century: quantum mechanics and relativity. One theory explains the micro-world of atoms and subatomic particles; the other theory explains the macro-world of stars and galaxies. Obvious questions arise. Why should physicists need two different theories to explain one universe? Why should stars and galaxies be governed by different laws than electrons and atoms?

If physicists try to imagine the universe collapsing back into its initial state at the beginning of the big bang, they run into problems. In a collapsing universe, general relativity predicts that gravity will eventually compress all of the matter in the universe into a singularity. As the universe shrinks we pass a certain point we enter the realm governed by quantum mechanics, not relativity. In order to discuss the beginning of the universe - (without a God), we need a theory that combines general relativity with quantum mechanics. Attempts to merge the two theories, and the forces involved has been described as trying to mix fire and water. (Brush 2005)

Empirical limitation

Although scientists can strive for objectivity in their analysis and interpretation of empirical observations, they are never entirely free from the subjective influence of their backgrounds, experiences, educations, beliefs, hopes, fears, theories, and biases.

There is an old joke about a man who believed that he was dead. To dissuade him of this belief, the man's doctor got him to agree that dead men don't bleed. The doctor then pricked the man's finger with a pin, producing blood, whereupon the man exclaimed, "Doctor, we were both wrong; dead men do bleed!" This is the problem we face when human beings are searching for truth apart from the absolute truth described in Scripture.

Problems with Seeing

Constraints arise from the structure of the human mind. These constraints include temporal, logical, cultural, and physical limitations on what we can know about the universe or how clearly we can understand those aspects of the universe that are knowable. Because scientific truth becomes temporal and relative rather than permanent and absolute, it can easily be molded to accommodate the philosophical orientation of its user. In his famous book A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (1988), Hawking attempted to prove that the universe has neither spatial nor temporal boundaries. If this is true, then the universe has no beginning or end. Consequently, Hawking argued that his model of quantum cosmology had eliminated the need for a God. On the other hand, scientist Banesh Hoffmann found in the workings of quantum mechanics strong support for his Christian faith. Hoffmann stood in awe of the fact that the entire physical universe, including our bodies and minds, is constructed of subatomic particles that constantly flicker back and forth between matter and energy and can never be apprehended entirely by empirical means.

Here we see two physicists, both of whom are using the facts of quantum mechanics, arriving at totally different conclusions about ultimate reality. According to Hawking, quantum mechanics can "eliminate" the need for a Creator; according to Hoffman, quantum mechanics can "illuminate" the work of the Creator. Because science cannot provide us with absolute truth, our interpretation of the limited facts we do have available is very much subject to our preexisting desires, beliefs, and attitudes. Our senses become filters that allow certain types of information to pass into our minds but selectively screen out other types of information. If a person is given to unbelief, as soon as one barrier to faith is dismantled, he or she will erect a new one. If a person is given to belief, models and paradigms of the universe may change, but the handiwork of God is ever present and apparent. In this sense, we are all self-made individuals; we believe only what we want to believe. (Brush 2005)

Problems with Hearing

Eleanor Arroway, the brilliant female astronomer in Carl Sagan's science fiction novel Contact, made the following statement:…if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. And he hardly had to confine himself to writings. Why isn't there a monster crucifix orbiting the Earth? Why isn't the surface of the Moon covered with the Ten Commandments? Why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?

In the last chapter of Sagan's Contact, titled "The Artist's Signature," Arroway discovers that God has indeed left a clear message embedded in the fabric of the universe. Using a supercomputer to analyze pi, she discovers that by using Base 11 arithmetic (which can be written out entirely as zeros and ones), "Hiding in the alternating patterns of digits, deep inside the transcendental number, was a perfect circle, is form traced out by unities in a field of zeroes." Here was clear evidence that the very geometry and mathematics that scientists use to study the universe are themselves formed by the hand of God.

If we choose to hear the message: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20).

Nonetheless, as Jesus said, "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand" (Matt. 13:13), the problem lies not with the existence or clarity of the message, but with one's willingness to hear and understand that message. (Brush 2005)

Problems with Interpreting

The idea that the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the earth, life upon the earth, and the human mind, all arose by random chance and therefore have no real meaning staggers the human imagination - at least some human imaginations. Many ideas are initially appealing to the human mind simply because they are so foreign to common sense. Nevertheless, many scientists have prided themselves in believing the unbelievable and condemning the rest of society for not placidly following their example. As the White Queen boasted to Alice in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast".

In his book The Creator and the Cosmos (1993), Hugh Ross identifies no less than twenty-six physical parameters that must fall within extremely limited ranges in order for life to exist anywhere within the universe. He identifies another thirty-three parameters that must be precisely set for life to be possible on the earth. Science has found repeatedly that the statistical probabilities for life arising by chance in the universe are ridiculously low. Many scientists have looked at the evidence and have not missed the implications inherent in the fine-tuning of the universe, while others have dismissed it as "illusory." (Brush 2005)

It is interesting, however, that when the evidence for intelligent design began to emerge from their studies of the cell; few biologists were ready to shout their discovery from the housetops. Indeed, as Behe points out, no celebration accompanied this major scientific discovery:

But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that. (Brush 2005)

Abandonment of Absolutes

In "Confessions of a Former Cultural Relativist" (1990), Henry H. Bagish bemoans the fact that college students are losing the ability to make value judgments: "I find students generally very reluctant to judge anyone's behavior, to evaluate it in any way. Most of them resist saying that anyone else's ideas or behavior are wrong, or bad." (Brush 2005)

There is a sense of cultural relativism sweeping the country. If science, religion, and philosophy are the primary avenues by which humans have sought truth down through the ages, what happens to these disciplines if cultural relativism continues to spread and humanity completely abandons its belief in absolute truth?

Christ expects us to follow that narrow path by keeping our eyes firmly fixed on Him, who is Truth: Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt. 7:13-14)

Science is but one manifestation of humanity's quest for absolute truth - not the ultimate acquisition of absolute truth. Because scientific truth is constantly changing, it cannot be absolute truth. Because modern science is not absolute truth, it must contain a mixture of truths and non-truths. Whether science can someday overcome these limitations and arrive at absolute truth is certainly open to debate. What cannot be debated is the current incomplete (non-absolute) state of current scientific understanding. (Brush 2005)

Scientific truth is not superior truth. The popular model of science states that scientific truth is the superior form of truth. This belief has been widely disseminated among the general public. Teachers are encourages to teach science in their class rooms, but religion is forbidden. Science textbooks, as well as secular movies, often portray religion as the great persecutor of science and free thought. But is scientific truth really superior to biblical truth? Repeatedly in the Old Testament, when the people of Israel or Judah placed their trust in false gods, they suffered for their idolatry. Perhaps the modern world's deification of scientific truth will have similar dire consequences.

We have seen in this study that each element in the scientific process has been found to have significant problems. If the truths of science are transitory and incomplete, if the study area of science is restricted by spatial boundaries, if the methodology of science is logically flawed, and if the techniques of science are subject to personal and cultural biases - exactly what is it that makes scientific truth superior to biblical truth? The answer is, of course, nothing! (Brush 2005)

Christians are subject to similar limitations. We are finite beings trying to understand an infinite God, but we are not in a position to dictate the terms of that relationship. We cannot know God unless He reveals Himself to us. We therefore have our own limitations in seeking absolute truth. It is unfortunate that with human understanding and interpretation of Scripture come all of the perils of human ignorance, willful blindness, and cultural bias that we have already documented regarding scientific understanding and interpretation of facts in the physical world. Thus, theological truth, like scientific truth, also has it s limitations. However, the combination of biblical and scientific truth is more powerful than the attempts at science at obtaining truth by itself. (Brush 2005)

Brush - Major Points

1. The deductive method of science, due to the asymmetry between confirmation and negation, often tells us far more about how the scientist wants to see the world, than how the world actually is.
2. Empiricism or induction limits itself to what can be measured by the senses.
3. Religion and metaphysics cannot be measured and are eliminated in the process of determining truth.
4. Inductive statements cannot lead to absolute truth because of an infinite number of observations that must be made.
5. Mathematics cannot lead to absolute truth due to weak links in methodology and processes which show them to be inconsistent and incomplete.
6. Scientists do not always abandon theories when the facts contradict them.
7. Scientists tend to justify theories rather than falsify them.
8. Scientists resort to story telling; facts are selected and standardized from a much larger body of data.
9. Time is a relative term and has no simultaneity throughout the universe.
10. Due to quantum mechanics, most scientists have given up of ever fully understanding the nature of reality.
11. Concepts of length, mass, and time are not absolute.
12. The rules that govern events in the macro-world, do not apply in the micro-world.
13. Due to the universe potentially expanding faster than the speed of light, there are special limitations to how much scientists can learn about nature.
14. There exist two theories to explain one universe; one that attempts to explain the macro-universe and one that attempts to explain the micro-universe.
15. There are constraints which limit scientists' ability to see, including those which are temporal, logical, cultural and physical.
16. There are constraints which limit a scientists' ability to hear: Romans 1:20, Matthew 13:13.
17. Scientists are constrained in their ability to interpret. When faced with new "facts", they do not re-interpret to account for the new facts.
18. There is a movement away from searching for absolutes towards cultural relativism.
19. Because scientific truth is constantly changing, it can not be absolute truth.
20. Scientific truth is not superior truth.

Prepared by

Ed Hopkins is a science educator with 32 years of experience teaching science. Ed has an undergraduate degree in chemistry and biology from George Peabody Teacher’s College, TN and a M.Ed. from Atlantic University, FL. Ed has been working closely with the Creation Studies Institute, Ft. Lauderdale, FL since its inception in 1988.

Dig Deeper: Recommended Resources

Brush, Nigel. 2005. The Limitations of Scientific Truth: Why Science Can't Answer Life's Ultimate Questions.
Grand Rapids, Michigan. Kregel Publications. p. 52-56.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 56-60.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 68.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 70.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 71.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 73.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 74-75.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 79-81.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 82-83, 85.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 107-108.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 146.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 146.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 147.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 152-155.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 159, 161.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 170.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 169-171.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 181-182.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 208-211.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 203-207.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 211-213.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 224.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 240-241.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 248, 254.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 265-267.
Brush, Nigel. 2005. Ibid. p. 271, 274.


Nigel Brush - Ph.D., UCLA - is an assistant professor of geology at Ashland University in Ohio. A committed Christian and scientist, he has conducted archaeological, geological, and environmental fieldwork in England, Canada, New York, Ohio, and California.

Morris studies geology, culture, and various creation theories to give a true picture of Earth history. Explodes popular misconceptions about the age of the earth by exposing the shaky reasoning behind radiometric dating; Morris's discussion of these fallacies alone is worth the price of the book. Includes a FREE POWERPOINT CD! Despite increasingly compelling arguments for biblical creation, many still doubt the Bible's clear timescale because, they think, it is impossible for light to have reached Earth in only a few thousands of years from stars that are millions of light-years away. One of the major stumbling blocks to the presentation of the Gospel in our culture today involves astronomy. For decades, public school students (and even seminary students!) have been taught that the world is far older than the Bible chronology suggests, even billions of years older. Some astronomers look at the stars and planets through a telescope. Author Danny Faulkner views them through a biblical perspective in this unique book. Written for the well-read layman from high school through adult, Universe by Design explores and explains the historical development of this science, including current ideas in the field. From a creationist standpoint, Faulkner also addresses common misconceptions, difficulties, and critiques about relativity and cosmology. The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved: A rarely seen look at answering the questions associated with these “terrible lizards” from a creationist perspective TWO DVDs: This illustrated video, was shot live before hundreds of smiling children and their delighted parents! It's "edutainment" at its best, packed with great biblical teaching and dealing with some of children's most burning questions such as: Did dinosaurs actually roam the earth with Adam? Or could dinosaurs have actually fit on the ark? Evolution The Grand Experiment Living Fossil Evolution The Grand Experiment Living Fossil Through stunning computer animation, interviews with leading scientists, and spectacular images of Earth and the cosmos, The Privileged Planet explores a startling connection between our capacity to survive and our ability to observe and understand the universe. Global Warming Global Warming: Emerging Science A geneticist from a major university, Dr. John Sanford examines the validity of evolution’s Primary Axiom—that man is merely the result of random mutations plus natural selection. The quantity of information stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to the content of a pile of paperback books spanning the distance from Earth to the moon 500 times Unlocking the Mystery of Life is the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful, but controversial, idea—the theory of intelligent design. It is a theory based upon compelling biochemical evidence. Through state-of-the-art computer animation, Unlocking the Mystery of Life transports you into the interior of the living cell to explore systems and machines that bear the unmistakable hallmarks of design. Can chance and natural selection turn a frog into a prince? Learn how mutation cannot build the new meaningful sequences of DNA that are needed to drive evolution's upward progress. The quantity of information stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to the content of a pile of paperback books spanning the distance from Earth to the moon 500 times Are students learning the whole truth about Darwin's theory of evolution? In this book, Duane Gish, the author, who has faced evolutionists in almost 300 debates, reviews the history of the controversy, and critiques and challenges the attacks of evolutionists against the theory of special creation and its proponents. He evaluates the major arguments for and against speacial creation and evolution and defends creation scientists against the distorted, inaccurate, and often vicious attacks of evolutionists. Join Lee Strobel on his personal journey from atheism to faith in God. Watch how his road to atheism was paved by science... but, ironically, so was his later journey to God. In The Case for a Creator DVD, Strobel reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. In this remarkable 60 minutes film you will encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, modern biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness. Produced with spectacular computer animations Evolution the Grand Experiment Morris studies geology, culture, and various creation theories to give a true picture of Earth history. Explodes popular misconceptions about the age of the earth by exposing the shaky reasoning behind radiometric dating; Morris's discussion of these fallacies alone is worth the price of the book. Includes a FREE POWERPOINT CD! Take a personal tour of the Grand Canyon, and discover seven evidences of a worldwide flood. Listen and learn as five Creation scientists discuss on-site the secrets and history of the canyon in light of the truth of Scripture. This study includes easy to follow lesson plans for K-12, over 300 activities and experiments, information about radiometric dating, oil and coal formation and Geologic formations and fossils occurred during the time of Noah's Flood. Profusely illustrated, this book presents an accurate view of earth’s natural history. This book will teach you how the Grand Canyon was carved, the age of the Dinosaurs, carbon dating and much more! Peeling back the layers of biblical geology. From the acclaimed Creation Research Society, this technical study of rock strata, and the fossils found therein, gives a solidly scientific rationale for believing in young earth You'll find answers to questions such as, What happened to the dinosaurs? Does radiometric dating really prove the earth is millions of years old? Do fossils show evolution? Why isn't there any evidence from evolutionists to show life forming itself from non-life? and many other topics in this brief and easy-to-read volume.
Education Q&A Curriculum Newsletters/Director's Letters Videos Cedar Operation Salt