web metrics

I've just returned from five weeks of traveling around the United States. In that time I taped two television shows and did one radio interview and spoke at two churches. In addition, I spent four days in Dallas manning a booth promoting the Association for Biblical Astronomy at the North American Christian Convention. The latter was sponsored by the gracious Gordon Bane and his wife, Dorothy.

ABA Technical Paper No. 1

Members of the Association will find enclosed with this issue the first of the Association's technical supplements. It's been a long time coming but this first one is by Professor James Hanson. Allow me to describe what the paper does. It is well known in physics that one can model the planetary orbits as if they are balls rolling on a rubber membrane. The more massive a body is, the deeper it will sink into the membrane and the faster a marble orbiting it will have to revolve in order to keep its orbit. The claim, as I said, is well known, but I've never seen it documented. In this paper prof. Hanson has documented the truth of the claim mathematically. Jim found that the analogy has its limits, though. For non- members, the paper may be ordered postpaid for $3.00. Later in the year, perhaps with the next issue, we plan to have another technical paper available, also by Prof. Hanson. This one has the intriguing title of ”Levitating and Moving Large Stones by Ambient Magnetic Fields Prevalent After Noah's Flood.” The paper is in two parts but will be published as a single monograph.

Papers in this issue

This issue has two papers which are related and overlap somewhat. The first is a history of science from its inception in the West to its modern decline, it now being purely political. The second is part I of a multi-part paper which describes a theory of theories. This is not meant as a theory which supersedes all theories but, rather, a theory which describes theories. In subsequent installments we'll see why any theory about origins is always fraught with problems. Finally, Dr. John Byl critiques Jim Hanson's paper about Newton, which paper appeared in the Winter issue this year (No. 75).

A personal note

There may be those who think that some of these papers are too harsh on science and scientists. Actually, the theologians get the worst of it (see “The Killing Fields” article). But we must proclaim the whole counsel of God, and not be respectors of persons. I've been afforded several occasions over the last few months to explain why I am so hard on some theologians and Christian scientists. Most often this is in connection with Hugh Ross, the theistic evolutionist who says that we must reinterpret the Bible in the light of science. I say that if I believe half of what Hugh Ross believes that I would still be a stark-raving atheist. You see, it was people like Ross who made me an atheist.

How was that? Simple: science makes a pronouncement such as “the earth orbits the sun.” Theologians at first say “No way!” and history might bear them witness in time, but some twenty to fifty years later the theologians have reinterpreted the Bible so that they then say, “See, the Bible knew it all along.” The problem is this: if theologians take 30 years to “reinterpret” the Bible to conform it to science, the clearly science is on the frontiers of knowledge and not theology. So science is on the frontiers of knowledge and theology is an afterthought. If the word of God is that unclear, why is God needed at all? If science says “there is no need for God” and theology later says “God is dead,” then where is the Bible and where is God? The role of compromisors such as Ross has become increasingly clear to me over the last few months. And as their role becomes clearer, so has the damnable damage they have wreaked on the Christian church in particular and America and the world in general. So forgive me if you think my judgment hard, dear reader; but we are just beginning to reap the fruits of their labors.

Translated from WS2000 on 14 February 2005 by ws2html.