Liberty University: Students Flock To School To Study Creationism (VIDEO)

An Agence France-Press report estimates that some 40 percent of the United States believe in creationism, which holds that the Earth was created by God only several thousand years ago. Students are flocking to Liberty University to study this literal interpretation of the Bible, much to the dismay of scientists.

Liberty University was founded by the late and very controversial Rev. Jerry Falwell.

WATCH:

Comments

[mstevens73]

12:28 PM on 03/18/2010

[A quotation attributed to Sir Isaac Newton]

"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."

Junior Post-Docs, please take heed.
-ms

[mstevens73]

04:21 PM on 03/16/2010

"In science, the person who proposes a theory is supposed to present the evidence for that theory. Yet, for the incredible claim that life sprang into being out of non-living materials, no evidence is offered. Just how incredible are evolution's claims about the origin of life?

Given the conditions evolutionists claim existed at the origin of life, the chance of evolving the simple, common, iso-1-cytochrome "c" protein is one chance out of one followed by 75 zeros. But that's not a living, reproducing thing.

Given the same conditions, the chance of getting a DNA molecule with the ability to reproduce is 100 billion, billion to one. The chance of getting a minimal cell works out to one chance out of a 1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros!"

[From Creation Moments with Ian Taylor www.creationmoments.com]

[Cinnamonape]

09:36 PM on 03/16/2010

"he incredible claim that life sprang into being out of non-living materials, no evidence is offered." Ahem,pot calling the kettle black here, aren't you. Just what were the billion or so living organisms created from under YOUR theory? Humans, and the things that creepeth, are created from dust. The sea creatures from H2O. Non-living matter.

And evolution is not about the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the realm of biochemists, organic chemists, and molecular biologists.

But if you are to place Creationism on the same scientific level as "abiogenesis" here's a question. Say you have two theories both who offer no causality...

One says that there is a single origin and diversification:. The odds of the single origin hypothesis is 1:1 followed by 75 zeros.

The other proposes that the hundred million or so species that ever existed had separate origins. Each one has the odds of "creation" of 1:1 followed by 75 zeros.

The first theory is a hundred million times more likely than the second.

[mstevens73]

07:05 AM on 03/17/2010

@Cinnamonape

Ah... not exactly. Add into the equation(s), a Designer, and intelligent (to say the very least) Being, one Almighty and Everliving God who is from everlasting, *to everlasting, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who created the species you mention by the authority of His word. The first theory's probability sores as well as does common sense.

You may or may not believe in this God of the Bible, I would not dare speak for you, but the numbers against the spontaneous generation of life (posted above) do make Darwinistic Evolution, absolutely ridiculous.

Why *wouldn't the students at Liberty University head for the registration lines in light of this truth? --ms

[Cinnamonape]

09:36 PM on 03/16/2010

Now. Straw Man. No biochemist argues that complete proteins, enzymes or full DNA sequences that make up organisms EVER were spontaneously generated from inorganic precursors. The proposals all hold that these systems had to be built up from smaller precursors that had some metabolic functions, could have simple replication (heck, even crystallline lattices can use their surface templates and do a bit of that). For a science that has only been done in the last 50 years and in a few labs the work at producing both the organic precursors to life (amino acids, nucleic acids, fatty acids, multimers -technically an impossibility in your "probability" models), and understanding the variety of processes is nothing short of amazing.

[mstevens73]

08:31 PM on 03/15/2010

"I Stopped Counting at 101"

Here are some Scientist, folks.
If anyone is interested, on this webpage about mid-page begins a very long list of modern day scientist who have accepted the Biblical account of Creation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

After which is a very healthy list of scientist in history who did the same thing. Presented are scientist like Sir Isaac Newton, so the listing is in good company. --ms

[Gamileo]

08:52 PM on 03/15/2010

Sir Isaac Newton would have been burned at the stake if he came up with evolution. So he should not count. This is something that creationists like to do, pick old scientists who believe in god, and say the would believe in creationism if presented with the 150 years of evidence for evolution. This is simply not the case. And one cannot prove it one way or another. The only list should be very simple. How many Geologists, Geophysicists, Astronomers, Biologists, Geneticists, and anyone else who does work requiring an old earth, evolution, or complex systems, believe in creationism of evolution. AIG has a nice list, 192 individuals, but where is the list of all the accredited scientists of their fields who recognize evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life and age of the earth? Hmm... a poll from 1995 counted there are 480,000 scientists in the United States alone, of which there are probably quite a bit more, that were in those fields I spoke of earlier.

Here are some Scientists then who believe in evolution, 480,000 (minimum) - 192 = 479,808 as of 1995.

[mstevens73]

09:58 PM on 03/15/2010

Good evening, Gamileo,
Thanks for your post and data. I'll tell you what- perhaps we can strike an agreement. I won't ask you for the source of your poll data, nor question its totals, if you will not question Sir Isaac Newton's historically documented faith in Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, and accordingly, his word, the Bible. Hope we can agree to this. --ms

[Cinnamonape]

09:37 PM on 03/16/2010

You do know Newton did not believe in the divinity of Jesus...and proved it.

So I assume you accept that Newton was right?

[mstevens73]

07:12 AM on 03/17/2010

ms- I'm turning the floor over to: Please view the last sentence when thinking of whether Darwinistic Evolution is true or false...
---
[Sir Isaac Newton wrote:]

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be doe.... We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.... And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."

"Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."

[grf67]

03:42 PM on 03/15/2010

Excellent - we will have college graduates who are barely qualified for the fast food or custodial industries. They can join the high school gradutes from Texas.

[lesterbud]

03:31 PM on 03/15/2010

It's a good thing we have Liberty University - people too lazy to think for themselves need a place to go to get a "degree", and I need people to make my burgers and mow my lawn.

[Muslimhumanist]

11:16 AM on 03/15/2010

All of this assumes that the Bible (or any religious text) is meant to be read as a high school science book. The accounts of creation in Genesis One and Genesis Two are, in fact, contradictory with differing chronologies. Perhaps pre-Modern readers saw no problem in this because they read these texts not as literal histories buts as allegorical and poetical insights into the mystery of the God and God's relationship with our humanity. Perhaps modern readers would benefit by doing the same.

[mstevens73]

07:56 AM on 03/15/2010

Here's some science folks...

[1] "The Complete Creation" 2nd Edition, by Ian Juby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA
...a 23 part exhaustive presentation on Creationism Vs Evolution using the fossil record.
The presentation is given from a believer's (in God) perspective however it is a scientific presentation, and a very good one, I might add. Ian Juby is an excellent public speaker by anyone's standpoint, in that he holds the audience's attention in the midst of a wide variety of scientific data.
---
[2] "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWvS1UfXl8k
...a 12 part presentation

Dr. Dean H. Kenyon, wrote 'Biochemical Predestination', (from Wiki) "...a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution." If Darwin's book is the 'bible' of Evolution, Kenyon's is an advanced 'study guide' to which a slew of PhD's followed (seeking a bypass of DNA coding instructions) for the spontaneous generation of life.

But- the last 50 years of study in molecular biology, revealed stunning cell mechanisms observed by Kenyon (and colleagues) who were floored at these mechanisms whose functions are determined by DNA instructions. It became apparent to them that Darwin's theory could not possibly be maintained in the face of these discoveries. In Kenyon's integrity as a scientist- he abandoned his own writing for the development of Intelligent Design, along with multiple colleagues. See profiles of their work, and computer animations of Cell mechanisms that are stunning.

[Gamileo]

08:17 PM on 03/15/2010

First rule of Science, you cannot use a supernatural explanation. Period. If you use a supernatural explanation you cannot test the hypothesis, because you cannot test the supernatural. Creationism and Intelligent Design require the use of the supernatural, and you still cannot test it. Therefore it isn't science.

Fossils can be tested, you can make predictions, such as "I find fossil A in this particular layer of rock that we have meticulously dated at time a. I find fossil C in another layer which is set at time c. Fossil A and fossil C share some common parts but are different enough to look for a connection between the two. Perhaps if I look in layers of rock from time b, I should find a fossil with components from both fossil A and fossil B, and be inbetween them in age?" This is a hypothesis that was then tested, and tested again and again, we keep finding these types of fossils in the record.

Dr. Kenyon is not the be all and end all that you state. True scientists don't give up on their work because it has gotten complicated, they work to find the answers and create testable hypotheses. Whatever work that Dr. Kenyon started other bright individuals continued the work, and more than likely have answers for his questions.

Dismissing science in this way is ludicrous and is one reason that we are losing our technological edge that we used to have.

[Cinnamonape]

09:50 PM on 03/16/2010

"In Kenyon's integrity as a scientist- he abandoned his own writing for the development of Intelligent Design, along with multiple colleagues."

Science doesn't work that way. One does research in Science on the processes and tests hypotheses about "HOW" things occur.

One doesn't improve a Scientific Theory by abandoning research.

What Kenyon did was treat Science like a political campaign. Animations are not anything more than models and they can't test or provide new information about anything. There is NO Science in intelligent design since it has no causal mechanism other than saying "we don't currently understand this aspect of things...therefore God did it using a supernatural fiat".

That's even bad theology...because why couldn't God have utilized a natural process that could be studied and investigated. "Natural Law" works with everything else. Essentially ID shuts off Science, and replaces it with credulity.

And as Behe has been forced to admit, his "irreducibly complex systems that are improbable" are so unlikely that they probably occurred only once (otherwise we have no hope of saying any organism is related to descent to another, even within a species). But if so, these complex systems DO in fact indicate that all creatures that have them inherited them from a common ancestor. All Behe has really done is show the great improbability of organisms with the same cell chemistry having distinct, separate origins.

[ThankGodhesgone]

01:40 AM on 03/15/2010

I find it very difficult to believe that over 100 million people in this country believe in creationism. How was this poll done to come up with 40%. Or is this French agency mocking us?

There are none so blind that will not see. The evidence is before them in the museum and they still will not believe that the Earth is greater than 6000 years old and that all creatures were created at the same time.

I would love for someone to provide any evidence (other than their religious beliefs) that man and these gigantic dinasaurs lived at the same time. They also have to believe that all science, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry and physics do not exist or are is a total crock.

If Noah had these 60-100 ton creatures on his ark, how did it float? What did he feed them?

Since everything was supposedly destroyed during the flood, we would also have to assume that Noah collected all kinds of viruses and bacteria, such as STDs, plague, cancer, flu viruses and all the other nasty things that exist today. How do they explain HIV that didn't even exist until late last century, of how flu viruses evolve from ordinary strains to massive killers like the Spanish Influenza that killed millions. What about the Black plague that killed approxiamately 1/3rd of the population of Europe during the middle ages. Did Noah give us that, too?

[BKPSYCH]

01:59 AM on 03/15/2010

Why do I get the feeling that someone out there is thinking (if you can call it that), "Yes, god gave Noah all those diseases, and they were all present in every human since then...they only started turning into those fatal infections because sinners rejected god."

Maybe my blood is boiling because god wants to strike me down - or maybe its because of the knowledge that such cartoonish ignorance exists.

[ThankGodhesgone]

02:05 AM on 03/15/2010

And to think that 40% of our population believes this. And these students of such idiocy will go on to spout nonsense to a greater audience.

As a former hiring manager, I would laugh any candidate out of the room who came to me for a job with a BS (maybe it means B@@llSheet) in creationism.

[redyns]

01:00 AM on 03/15/2010

mstevens is making me laugh

[BKPSYCH]

12:59 AM on 03/15/2010

To even place creationism and evolutionary theory on the same plane is offensive. Evolution, for starters, operates in the realm of science, which is a specific process that I encourage folks to read up on. Science does not mean sitting in a room with graduated cylinders and wearing lab coats - it is a well defined activity that some one does.

Creationism is religion. Religion works with untestable beliefs that people rarely investigate critically (you can't empirically confirm or disprove that god exists etc.). The scientific method just doesn't factor into theology - period. This is OK, and religious people should be free to take the word of whomever they choose.

Honestly, I could care less if you want to have your sunday school all dressed up like a college and talk to paying customers about whatever they are interested in. I could care less if you go to church. This is America after all. What I find deeply offensive is that fundamentalist religion is being wrapped in a pretty bow and being called science. If you really want to study the bible, then buy a copy and study to your hearts content. There is no need to malign everything science stands for by changing the location of your bible study from your church to a classroom.

I wonder, do you malign your religion by dressing it up like Mr. Wizard, rather than stating your belief for what it is?

[Franklin1776]

07:31 AM on 03/15/2010

So true. You can put on a while lab coat and write on a chalk board, but that doesn't mean you're teaching science. Applying the scientific method, making testable predications, breaking a graduated cylinder because your f-ing control didn't work again! That's doing science. Even Mr. Wizard would agree.

[mabinog]

07:34 PM on 03/14/2010

this way, some of these students can later get their teaching certs and go to public schools to teach creationism under the desk as it were. deceit for the Lord.

[XaurreauX]

06:02 PM on 03/14/2010

Evolution is for grownups.

[Klarsonent]

03:15 AM on 03/14/2010

I do not see any conflict in the story of creation in the Old Testament and the modern day theory of evolution. In the bible, it says, "A thousand days is as one day with the Lord." If we assume that the story of creation in the bible is an allegory, then whose to say that the "seven" days were not a reference to "seven" billion years? Jesus himself used parables to teach the people in the New Testament. Why not the same with reference to the prophets in the Old Testament? In the creation story, it is said that God created man from the dust of the ground. Whose to say that in order for that to come about, the water mixed with dust and formed the mud at the bottom of the sea. And over billions or trillions of years, living cells evolved. And eventually man emerged and finally walked the earth, as surmised by Darwin's theory? Perhaps evolution was part of God's plan? Aren't we being a bit presumptuous when we take the story of creation literally? Who are we to say HOW God created man/woman or HOW LONG it took?

[milanst]

10:46 AM on 03/14/2010

You don't see any conflict? Let's see...

- bible says that everything was created in 6 days
- bible says that moon is a light source
- bible says that plants created before sun
- bible says that all animals and people were both created in a single day (on day 5 for animals and day 6 for people in gen 1 and both on the same day in gen 2)
- bible says man created from clay and woman was an afterthought created from a piece of adam

If you go by your allegory of a billion years = day, then they were plants a billion years before the sun, the universe is less than half as old as its true age, and animals would have been around for twice as long as they actually have (unless your talking about bacteria then it would be short about 2.5 billion years), and people would have still popped into existence as Homo sapiens ignoring all of the other Homo species.

[Klarsonent]

11:47 AM on 03/14/2010

It's interesting to me that you "presume" to know all of the statistics as they apply to evolution, in your statement:
". . . the universe is less than half as old as its true age, and animals would have been around for twice as long as they actually have (unless your talking about bacteria then it would be short about 2.5 billion years), and people would have still popped into existence as Homo sapiens ignoring all of the other Homo species.”

On the other hand, I do not "pretend to know the exact number of years" and my post should not to be "misconstrued" to be a thesis in scientific analysis or any such thing! I don't pretend to "know" anything "for sure" about the "timeframe of evolution," as such. My point is that those people who "purport" to believe in the "literal" interpretation of the bible might me "wrong." I am inviting people to "think" for themselves, even if it means "thinking outside of the box." After all, that's why God gave me a brain.

[ThankGodhesgone]

02:10 AM on 03/15/2010

I understand your reasoning, but most creationists believe in the literal, not allegorical, understanding that the Earth is only 6000 years old (based on the number of generations cited in the Bible) and that everything existed at once, including those 65,000,000 year old dinasaurs. Hence the name, Creationism.

[Klarsonent]

12:53 PM on 03/15/2010

My purpose is to light a candle. Check out my website: http://www.psychickaren.com

[mstevens73]

07:34 PM on 03/13/2010

I'm glad this conference is opening to discussion of God's[*1] Creation (and from His word at that). His very first act in that Creation, was the creation of Light in the face of total darkness. It was a literal event which happened at the authority of His word. But there does exist a spiritual truth to that act which stands throughout the ages- that in a world of total darkness, He brought Light.

These Liberty University students are guilty of nothing but seeking an environment of truth for their studies in science. Yet, they have been laughed at, scorned and ridiculed by those who believe that the God they worship, ought not to be mentioned in public. That is darkness which will surely lead to destruction.

But the light of the Life and Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, is a very bright light- shining even now into the darkness of mockery, unbelief, and delusion. It can free one from the counsel of the clay that teaches the Potter is non-existent, and denies the wisdom of His creation (which they enjoy). It can cause one to find life, and that more abundantly. --ms

*1 YHVH, God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac, Israel; the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth

[Funkstronaut]

08:33 PM on 03/13/2010

Speaking of delusion...

You mentioned that light was created by a word.

[mstevens73]

11:22 AM on 03/14/2010

@Funkstronaut
Yes, I stand by that statement... *all things were created by Him by the authority of His word (or command). This- as opposed to bringing out a hammer-and-chisel, idea. God[*1] is *greater than (>) the Universe which He created.
--ms

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
(Hebrews 11:3 KJV)
---
*1 YHVH, God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac, Israel; the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth

[milanst]

09:13 PM on 03/13/2010

"These Liberty University students are guilty of nothing but seeking an environment of truth for their studies in science"

If they are studying creationism then they are not studying science. They are trying to rationalize their religion and make it consistent with reality. Science consists of developing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and then throwing out the hypothesis if it is not supported. That last part is where creationists and religions fail.

Also, why do you think the world is full of suffering (not just human but animal)?

[mstevens73]

11:48 AM on 03/14/2010

@milanst
Well, in a course entitled "Creationism", it is not hard to see how you would say what you have in your first two sentences. I guess, the study is simply seen from a different viewpoint, as opposed to me saying "you are wrong".
Milanst, these people already know their God and are in touch with their Creator. They realize fully that HIs Word is contained in the Bible, spoken through His prophets. I suppose the thought is why not run with the advantage of knowing the truth from the Creator himself, which they *do employ the scientific method.
These particular studies at Liberty are definitely guilty of using a text, the Bible, as a source of truth in their work, so they are busted as far as what you have said.

However, in the less committed "Intelligent Design" some of the best scientist in the world have simply recognized that there is an intelligent origin to the digital DNA coding sequence which Darwinian Evolution can simply not stand up to. And not that *you would, but before these scientist come under ridicule it is interesting to note that some were formerly *leading evolutionists, one- the author of the book "Biochemical Predestination" which is as far away from Intelligent Design as you can get. The film-"Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" is a good one @;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWvS1UfXl8k (presented in 12 parts)

These scientist turned to truth, I hope others will, too. --ms
-ms

[mstevens73]

12:02 PM on 03/14/2010

Milanst asked "Also, why do you think the world is full of suffering (not just human but animal)?"

It *starts with the understanding that this Eternal God whom we are discussing, created "All Creatures Great and Small". Examining that creation (Genesis 1) shows it was perfect in *every way. Mankind wanted for *nothing. He had a perfect Ecology, Economy, and Psychology. No death existed in the Garden of Eden, (animals included), and Man knew directly the fellowship of God. He doeth all things well.

Then- there was that fall-of-Man thing- into sin. A rebellion against God and a disavowing of Him for another. For this, God severed His fellowship with Man as sin *cannot dwell in His presence, and banished him from the Garden. Man assumed the helm and currently is holding that position.

The world we live in, today, is a result of *our doing. We flew the kite... we installed the powerlines next to our houses, we placed the red-dye #5 in the meat we began to consume, we produced the chemicals at the factories we built, we polluted the water, we tested a new weapon in the south Pacific... and have killed our own brother Abel a million times over, literally.

We cannot blame this corrupted world on God, who was rejected then, and obviously now, if you read some of the messages in this conference.

God offers salvation from ourselves and it is ours for the asking, through Jesus of Nazareth --ms

[speakingtruth2power]

04:47 PM on 03/13/2010

Remember how much ridicule there was from the right when liberal arts colleges
taught ethnic studies, basket weaving and investigating (indulging) your feelings?
Now they want us to honor a degree in obviously ratinalized, non-sciencific bushit!