Saturday, December 20, 2008

Marvin Lubenow's Site

Marvin Lubenow, the author of Bones of Contention, a treatise on the human fossil record that will form the basis of my hopefully soon to be written book Bones of our Ancestors, has a section of the Answers in Genesis site that asks that you support the Creation Museum by giving a message and your name and email. This was my message:

I am afraid that I cannot support the creation museum because I firmly believe that it does not teach an intellectually honest account of the creation of the universe. As a Christian and as a scientist, I am troubled that this world view is seen by scientists and lay people alike as the equivalent to that of support for a flat earth. As Davis Young has said, we do harm to the Christian cause by promoting a view of science that is indefensible. Please accept this dissent in the spirit in which it is meant. Yours in Christ, Jim Kidder

I then put down my name and email address. I wonder what sort of response I will get.


  1. Hello!

    I just wanted to leave a comment for visitors to this page. I truly appreciate the intellecual stimulation given by Lubenow in his book: Bones of Contention (2004, revised version). I truly enjoy the scientific and biochemical knowledge shared. It really does feel like I'm taking a college course! In fact, I am a graduate student studying clinical psychology, but I am first and foremost a Christian (raised a Christian by a grandfather who was a Pastor and mother who was a devout Christian) who fervently seeks well-supported information on creationism, religion and science, and God vs. "Lucy" or "African Eve."

    I have had many, espeically in one philosophy class I had taken years ago, try their hardest to disprove the theory of creationism and pass it as stupidity. When in all actuality, evolution is quite nonsensical once you get into understanding its basics and unsupported assumptions. It's quite saddening to think that our children are being taught evolution in the schools and yet there aren't many supported theories. We need creationism to be taught along-side evolution. That is only fair. That's just like teaching medicine but not psychology. You've got to allow students a chance to learn a little about everything. We need to know about the human body (through medicine) as well as the brain (through psychology) if you will. :)

    In short, I hope that more students in molecular biology, biochemistry, sciene, even psychology, etc. will pick up Marvin Lubenow's book. It is a great pocket book, especially when you find yourself speaking with an athiest, unbeliever, or evolutionist.

  2. I will respond to this in a post.

  3. Do not have time for more than a very brief post. All I can say is that I grew up believing evolution completely and very vocally and considered myself also a "creationist evolutionist". By thirty years of age the inherent and unavoidable naturalism of evolution had brought me to a place of active disbelief in any such thing as a 'god' and supposition that the universality of such beliefs were merely some vestigial holdover in programming from the long evolutionary development of the human brain from our origins as 'pithecines'. Only direct, unlooked for, and unasked for intervention by God Himself in Power in an immediate personal experience with the Holy Spirit brought me back: and subsequent Holy Spirit empowered learning of the Scriptures and renewing of my mind brought me to see more and more that the Bible and evolution were unavoidably and irresolvably at odds with one another. I now look at evolution as my old arch-enemy, whom I hate with a perfect hatred. Admittedly I cannot answer all the questions that there are between these two views, but I am content 'not to concern myself with things too great for me' (Psalm 131) and rest in the assurance that I will never have to stand before Charles Darwin and give an answer as to why I rejected his theory, so-called, and that when I stand before the Lord Jesus I think myself extremely unlikely to be rebuked for taking His Word too seriously. You are not an ape, Jim.

  4. How do you process the evidence, then? You say you are content not to concern yourself with "things to great for me." That is different than rejecting evolution. What was it that made you reject evolution?