South Korea Ministry of Education Removes Evolution References from Textbooks

Nature reports:

A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx.

…The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website.

…The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

…The STR is an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), according to KACR spokesman Jungyeol Han. 

The KACR website can be seen here; it seems that an event to promote the revisions will take place on 16 June. A news report here has further details; unfortunately, the Google Translate version is of very limited use.

The popularity of Creationism in  Korea is long-standing; in 2000, New Scientist ran a special issue on how “From Kansas to Korea, Creationism is Flooding the Earth”. The Institute for Creation Research has some general background, in an article by Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, who was the first president of the organisation. It appears to be an old article, dating from 1985:

The Korean creation science movement was inspired by a large international creation seminar held during August 12-15, 1980, at the Worldwide Evangelization Crusade Meeting in Seoul, Korea. The seminar, entitled “Creation? Evolution?” attracted great attention, and the total number of attendees was about 4,000.

This first creation science seminar in Korea had a great impact on many people, especially evolutionists. The seminar was covered by Korea’s national TV and radio stations. The invited speakers from the USA were Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish from the Institute for Creation Research, Dr. Walter Bradley, of Texas A & M, and Dr. Charles Thaxton, of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

…KACR has published five books, including several translations of ICR books. One Korean-authored book, entitled Is Evolution a Scientific Fact?, has become one of the best-selling books in Korea.

…KACR is now writing a college textbook, Introduction to Natural Science, in terms of the creation model. The writers of the book are Professor Harriet Kim of Seoul National University (Biochemistry), Professor Eun-Ho Lee of Yonsei University (Biology), Professor Jung-Han Kim of Yonsei University (Chemistry), Professor Jung-Wook Kim of Seoul National University (Environmental Science), and Professor Seung-Hong Yang of Kyoungbook University (Physics). 

A second ICR article, by Chon-Ho Hyon, has further details:

…a considerable number of pastors are realizing the importance of creation science education for the youth in their churches. In 1994, Rev. Hongnam Lee, Pastor of Chanyang Presbyterian Church in Daejeon persuaded a few other fellow pastors to join him in support of the KACR mission, especially to give financial assistance for the Creation Science Exhibition Center. In 1995, they founded an organization called “The Creation Science Supporters’ Association.” The purpose of the association was to support the mission of KACR and at the same time to reclaim the younger generation in their churches who had been tainted by evolutionary ideology.

KACR’s achievements are listed; for example:

A project recently completed on “Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway” by Dr. S. W. Hong and others at Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, demonstrated that the Ark’s design was the best of all possible designs.

Also, interestingly:

It is our vision to strengthen world missions by using creation science as a tool. Drs. Bunsam Yim and Chongsung Kim in Indonesia, a Moslem country, are already using this missionary approach with positive results.

41 Responses

  1. Bizarre that Creationism can be used to convert Muslims when Christianity and Islam share practically the same Creation account.

    If this plays out over a long time, I’d be interested to see if this plunges Korea into some kind of scientific dark age, as Neil deGrasse Tyson warns:

  2. Mohammed studied the old testament so it is no surprise that the creation accounts are similar.

    Evolution is not science but an unproven theory . Science can continue without evolution , after all
    science flourished in the church when creationism
    was the major belief.

    Darwin’s finches are still finches albeit with created built in adaptable beaks.
    All the so called evolutionary milestones have been
    Well done South Korea.

    • Evolution is not science but an unproven theory . Science can continue without evolution

      Fair enough, Charlie, but what are you gonna do when those damn viruses evolve. I know which world I’m gonna live in.

      • Viruses and bacteria prove that there is no evolution
        they have bred trillions of times but remain viruses
        and bacteria which have built in adaptability. They don’t morth into animals or fish etc.

        Evolution is irrelevant to science.

        Scientists can combat viruses and bacteria whether
        they believe in creationism or not.
        Pasteur and many other scientists were Bible believers.

  3. Charles – Mohammed was unable to study the Old Testament/Tanach properly, as he was illiterate. However, he would have known Bible stories as he would have heard these during his time on caravan trails.

    However, when he repeats these he sometimes misconstrues them. He quotes the story of Solomon and Sheba (Sura 27 of the Koran) but adds an insert that describes the Hoopoe acting as the messenger of Allah (it is listed as an unclean bird in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). He also presents a variation on the Exodus/Nehemiah story of the Golden Calf in the Tanach/OT in Sura 20 of the Koran.

  4. But the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution since the time of Vatican II, treating the six days of creation as allegorical.

    You state that the finches that were studies by Darwin were created with inbuilt beak adaptations… but you provide no supporting evidence.

    In fact, your statement that “All the so called evolutionary milestones have been
    debunked” is preposterous.

    Please provide some evidence to support your claim, from a scientific source please, and not from some looney-tune Evangelical site…..

    • Thanks for that comment Adrian. I was trying to summon the patience to say something similar, but you did it better.

    • But Vatican II was initiated and then concluded by John xxiii and Paul vi respectively. Both failry rational popes. John Paul ii turned his back on all that and encouraged the worst extremes of popular superstition and along with the proliferation of Marian apparitions, creation science has crept back into the Catholic agenda.

  5. Adrian – Evolution is “your” theory – this means “you” have to prove it. If it is true give me ONE example out of the billions of examples there should be of one species changing into another.

  6. No Charles – you introduced the claim that evolution is not science and other equivalent bullshit, there fore do not throw a burden of proof logical fallacy into the arena.

    You pronounced that evolution is not science, and that Darwin’s finches were still finches (of course they were, but you preposterously denied their speciation), therefore, provide some evidence.

    In short – put up or shut up.

  7. And while you are at it – please explain to me something short and sweet to define what “science” is.

    If you are so knowledgeable to claim that you know what is not science, I would like to know what parameters you would employ to define science.

    It seems to me, you rely upon the unprovable statements of the BIble and assorted pro-Bible websites to affirm your view of science.

    You wouldn’t – I believe – know science if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

  8. Adrian – Science proposes a theory then tries to prove or disprove it with evidence. Are you telling me
    that you believe the theory without evidence ? Is this
    not blind faith.
    Surely you can give ONE example.
    The finches were merely adapting not turning into another creature. The beaks revert back and forth
    depending on the diet available.
    This adaptation is already built into their DNA similar to a labourers hands being calloused when
    they use a shovel.

    • Charlie, science proposes hypotheses. If a hypothesis has been tested, found to be accurate i.e. it works and there is no current evidence disputing it, then it is called a theory. That’s it.

      • Even a proper hypothesis of evolution does not exist – there is no mechanism for adding DNA to the genome of a creature – only damage and information loss.

        Darwin hypothesised that selective breeding would
        change one creature into another – eg breed a fish
        into a land animal – a fairytale for grownups.

  9. Adrian – talk origins is an evolutionary website which I have visited often.
    What I want you to do is give me ONE example in your own words of evidence of evolution – not the address of a website which I could also have given
    supporting creation.

    • You’ll note that it was me, not Adrian, who wrote the above. If you want a debate, please read the responses.

      I am not a scientist, so if I were to describe speciation, I would only be quoting someone else’s findings outside my own area of expertise.

      That does not make my position one of blind faith, but before I discuss this further, please explain to me the evidence you would require to reject Creationism and accept evolution. Most Creationists believe that any evidence which contradicts the Bible must be wrong, since the Bible is infallible. If this is your position, you are trolling, not debating.

  10. Jonny and Adrian – speciation of created DNA is
    not evolution . Eg dogs speciate by losing DNA but
    they all started with the two dogs that came off the
    ark – with enough DNA for all the species of dogs
    and wolves foxes etc.
    To reject creationism I would need only ONE example of evidence that one kind of creature changed its DNA code into another kind of creature.

    Can you give me one example in your own words.

    Can either of you explain even the mechanism of evolution.

    Eg How would an air breathing land mammal (which came from a fish) change its DNA into that
    of a whale – involving billions of code changes.

  11. I accept that repeatable experiment is the definition of science. And one’s knowledge of the cosmos etc can only progress incrementally from small experiments.

    I suggest you go back to Mendel’s studies of sweet peas and heredity. After a period of isolation for long enough, the chances of earlier recessive forms repeating in later generations become less.

    You are wrong to suggest that the finches can revert back to being what they were before their adaptations changed the shape of their bills.

    Darwin was studying finches located on isolated islands, though his commentary on finches had been edited out by the sixth and final edition of his Origin of Species (published January 1872). There has been no subsequent report of the finches regressing to their “original forms” as a result of diet.

    A labourer’s hands may get calloused, but is this built into his DNA? If one’s skin grows callouses in response to pressure, then talk to a vet and you will find examples of widely varying mammals showing the same trait.

    But as for the example of DNA, that is where Creationism falls down and where Evolution has its proofs. The study of DNA shows that creatures which have evolved from each other or have come from a common ancestor share common DNA.

    Mitochondrial DNA is used to trace female ancestry/inheritance, but mitochondria (the energy centres of cells) have their own genetic inheritance that is not affected by chromosomes. In keeping with a notion that they originally were “captured” prokaryote bacteria – their DNA is found in one region alone of the organism, and is not carried in chromosomes. All cells of a human contain mitochondria, but they are only passed down via the (XX-combined) chromosomes of the mother. Any offspring I have would have none of my mitochondrial DNA, only those of their mother. My Y-chromosomes are inherited from my father and his father etc, and would be passed down via the male line.

    The point at which speciation occurs can be traced quite effectively from mitochondrial DNA sequencing in higher animals
    and also in plants:

    Evolution is a theory and a fact. Ancient Chinese knew that by selective breeding of carp, they could eventually produce ornate goldfish, and in the case of dogs, over a comparatively short time-period we have drastically altered the morphology and temperament of the wolf, Canis lupus, to produce sharpeis, great danes and chihuahas. They are still the same species, as they can produce fertile offspring if mated.

    But when mules (horse-donkey), zonkeys (zebra-donkey) liger (m. lion- f. tiger) and tigon (m. tiger and f. lion) hybrids come together, they are invariably incapable of producing their own young. Therefore, horses are separate species from donkeys, as donkeys are separate species from zebra, lions from tigers etc.

    But mitochondrial DNA analysis – which is scientific as it can be repeated in another laboratory to produce repeatable results – is enabling scientists to accurately establish the historical timing of when speciation has occurred.

    The sad thing with Creationism is that is has no means of proving itself. It has had to become adapted to become “Intelligent Design” to drag it out of the pre-medieval base of superstition and raise it up into the realms of Panglossian pseudo-science, to give it a veneer of science, though cherry-picking from some scientific data while ignoring other data.

    The thing with science is – it has to progress via baby-steps. Even climate change as proposed by Rajendra Pachauri at the IPCC is not true science as it rests upon extrapolation and prediction – using computer models which are only as good as the data and the variables pumped into their programs.

    Evolution as a theory works, as it explains facts and now – with the advent of the study of DNA/RNA/MtDNA – the methods and means whereby evolution takes place are being elucidated and can be accurately measured and such evidence can be proved by others’ experiments.

    Creationism is crass because it posits that God snaps his fingers, and hey presto! Life appears.

    It requires no study, no facts, only belief in bullshit, that some imaginary figure creates everything, and to believe such crap one has to assume that this invisible deity somehow came into existence by himself. Despite claims from false prophets and lunatics, this deity has never yet shown any discernible evidence of his own existence.

    The beauty of evolution is that it makes sense, and has helped to explain the emergence of creatures with notochords, evidenced in the fossil records of the Burgess Shales, and can now be measured in a laboratory via DNA sequencing.

    When Creationism can reproduce experiments to prove the invisible sky-daddy exists and has some effect upon the world, then it may have some claim to be “scientific”.

    Until that point in time arrives, I can only dismiss it as a load of retrogressive crap specifically tailored for superstitious retards…

  12. Eg dogs speciate by losing DNA but
    they all started with the two dogs that came off the
    ark – with enough DNA for all the species of dogs
    and wolves foxes etc.

    Off the Ark?

    So where the fuck did kangaroos and wombats come from? DId Noah have the ability to travel to Australia?

    And what about dinosaurs? Were they on the Ark too? Or did Noah and Hashem come to some agreement that dinosaurs were not very nice creatures and would probably go around chasing the sons and daughters of Adam, just as they gave problems to Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC, so were left behind in their ante-diluvian mud.

    I am sorry I even bothered to respond… but then again.

    Have a look at the Zoroastrian tale of Yima, the first man:

    Who did the same as Noah, preserving the next generation of animals (and plants, something that foolish Noah forgot to bring onto the Ark) – but instead of building a big boat, he was ordered to build a walled enclosure to keep the floodwaters out.

    Why should the story of Yima be any less credible than some bullshit Bible story?

    And if you believe in the ark, fine. You are entitled to believe in bollocks. But don’t pretend to have any substantial knowledge of the world…. It seems you are too blinkered by your credulity to be able to see facts elsewhere.

  13. Adrian
    FINCH BEAKS CAN RE ADAPT – google up this
    article by a couple who have 30 years of research.
    Though this does not apply to an individual finches life :-

    “This strong selection pressure caused the medium ground finch to return to its smaller-beaked form. In just two years their beaks decreased by 5% in length and 9% in depth, a dramatic example of character displacement. The Grants had predicted that once the large ground finch arrived, competition would force the medium ground finch back to its smaller-beaked form. They were, however, surprised by the rapidity with which it occurred.”
    I agree with mendel’s study -similarly you can’t
    get a poodle to breed into its ancestral dogs
    easily due to loss of DNA information.

    Calloused hands MUST be in the DNA or it would not happen.

    Like Darwin (he did not know about DNA) you are
    confusing breeding with evolution.
    Breeding from existing DNA is NOT evolution.

    With a creator God who created DNA to design all
    creatures we should have DNA in common – eg
    we share DNA with jellyfish – up to 60%
    This does not prove evolution – just because cars
    use similar materials does not mean they have
    “evolved” from one another – they have to be designed and made.
    Breeding an animal to the extent that it loses so much DNA information that no further breeding can take place does not prove evolution but rather disproves it.


    You have not given a single example of evolution
    nor have you explained how even the mechanism of evolution works – eg how is more information
    added to the genome to make a animal out of a fish.
    The reason why athiests cling to evolution is simple
    – they are trying to hide from God.

    It must be the longest lasting ridiculous unproven
    theory in mankinds history.

  14. I don’t hide from God.

    I want the fucker to appear before me so I can give him a piece of my mind.

  15. Adrian – the kangaroos and the wombats came off
    the ark and spread throughout the world just like the other animals.
    The land was “altogether in one place” only later
    did the continents separate (in peleg’s time) and certain species became isolated – kangaroo fossils have been found elsewhere.
    Dinosaurs were on the ark but gradually became
    extinct. Job describes a dinosaur.

    Only air breathing animals went onto the ark – no living plants were necessary – no insects except
    those which hitched a ride etc.

    The ark was enormous about half the size of the titanic – it could easily hold the ancestors of
    all air breathing animals.

    You need to do more research.

    I was an evolutionist for 35 years and then started to believe the creation account but few people
    become Christians through scientific logic – more
    through heart knowledge. So I have made mistakes in debating too much and leading
    people into anger – not my intention – sorry

  16. I would like to see the reference for Job’s dinosaur…..

    You need to do more research.

    Perhaps…. but I am wondering if – considering the ark was made of (shittim wood) there is not a maximum size for which a load-bearing and sea-faring boat could be constructed.

    If it were possible to build a wooden boat that would float that is of larger volume than the Titanic, I wonder why no-one in the last 2,000 years has made one.

  17. Google up ” dinosaur described in the book of Job”

    Half the size of the titanic.

    Noah and his three sons took 100 years to build it
    – that is 400 man years – assuming the women did the cooking and cleaning.

    Google up pictures of ” drogue anchors of Noah’s
    Ark in the mountains of Ararat”

  18. Richard, what business is it of yours if they don’t teach evolution in Korea?

  19. james – this is relevant to richard’s website, surely.

  20. The people that worship marian apparitions are looking for signs and wonders.
    But God tells us that everything we need for salvation is taught in the Bible which is Jesus the
    “WORD”. Jesus is the WORD made flesh.

    The Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not
    agree with evolution. Indeed it has not changed its
    view on Galileo and therefore agrees with Hubble and Einstein who maintain geocentrism or heliocentrism are both provable.

    The Popes have made announcements from time to time implying that evolution is still under investigation.

    The church fathers did not embrace evolution – especially the early ones.

  21. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not
    agree with evolution. Indeed it has not changed its
    view on Galileo and therefore agrees with Hubble and Einstein who maintain geocentrism or heliocentrism are both provable.

    What? Surely, some evidence would be in order to back up these claims – especially since the Catholic Church has issued an official (and very posthumous) apology to Galileo.

    The proof of geocentrism is something I would like to see, especially an argument made by either Hubble or Einstein to this effect….

  22. Galileo was very well treated.

    Google up “Galileo as wrong the church was right “-
    lots of websites especially Mr Sugenis’s which shows how both solar systems work – with a demonstration model. I was surprised how many astromers and physicists agree with geocentrism.

    It is to do with relativity. Hubble agreed the geocentric equations worked but he preferred not to let the Divine foot in the door.

  23. You mean Hubble stated that the Ptolemaic model of geocentrism worked – and in some sense perhaps you should mean “computed” within a purely geocentric “perspective”.

    Newton was able to employ the eclipse data from Ptolemy’s Almagest to work out that the moon was slowing down very slightly.

    So, as tablature, the data (heliacal risings of planets, eclipses, comets etc) that had been compiled under the geocentrism of Ptolemy had worked. But it does not mean that either Hubble or Einstein believed in the geocentric model per se. They obviously did not.

    And Galileo was “well treated”, was he? I have heard that. He had recanted because he was scared of the consequences. He knew he was right, but he had been “shown the instruments of torture” – even if he had not been made to endure them.

    So his recantation had not been made willingly, he had done it under duress.

    And what of Johannes Kepler, who had demonstrated that Copernican heliocentrism was almost certainly the order of the universe – his mother was jailed as a witch…

    And poor old Giardano Bruno….

    I do not think that you are presenting a good argument for a church-based interpretation of science if you are trying to justify it by referring to the Catholic Church of 400 and more years ago – when it was responsible at that time for the suppression of free thought and inquiry in all aspects of science and philosophy.

  24. Adrian
    It was not so much the church but the Bible which
    says the earth is still – see psalms and Job with
    many references to the stillness of the earth.
    The church was merely following what they read in the bible.

    Einstein and Hubble says either system “fits”

    Plus Dr Sugenis seems to have a few scientists
    agreeing with him.

  25. The sun was still not the earth :-

    Then spake Joshua to JEHOVAH in the day when JEHOVAH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
    And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
    And there was no day like that before it or after it, that JEHOVAH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for JEHOVAH fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14).
    He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Job 26:7).

    JEHOVAH reigneth, he is clothed with majesty;JEHOVAH is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished (stabilized), that it CANNOT BE MOVED. (Psalm 93:1).

    Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. (I Chronicles16:30).

    The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. (Ecclesiastes 1:5).

    The mighty God, even JEHOVAH, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof (Psalm 50:1).

  26. Adrian – the sun also went back to convince Hezekiah that he would recover from his illness

  27. You are discussing eschatology/theology here, Charles, and not science.

    Velikovsky tried to work this slowing of the sun into the basic premise of his “Worlds in Collision” book, but Velikovsky’s works are now treated as hokum…..

  28. Adrian
    Dr Sugenis and his physicist colleague Dr Bennet were arguing science not theology.
    Galileo was also trying to argue science versus the Bible – but since God is the author of science this
    stance is impossible to win.

    The science Dr Sugenis and Dr Bennet argued then proved that God wrote the truth in the Bible.

    Velikovsky was probably trying to find a secular or “natural” reason for a miracle of God which is
    natural thing for a natural man – who cannot believe
    in the supernatural.

  29. which is natural thing for a natural man – who cannot believe in the supernatural.

    The thing about “supernatural” issues is that they require such a low burden of proof. Only faith. People always believe what they want to believe.

    In the ancient world, many amazing things were discovered/created – Thales of Miletus’ discovery of an aspect electromagnetism (with rubbed amber attracting wood shavings) and an aspect of centrifugal force (by spinning a bucket of water by a cord, the water did not fall out) but these were phenomena that he arrived at by curiosity and experiment, propelled by his desire to add this knowledge to his philosophy.

    But it was only in the Age of Enlightenment that science emerged from the theatre of “natural philosophy” to become science – requiring repeatable experiments to prove its points.

    Supernaturalism requires only credence, or more precisely credulity, to define and propagate itself. But ideologies that treat with the supernatural – unless they have a strong moral/humanitarian core – cannot even find common ground with other “brands” of supernaturalism.

    In ancient Greece, philosophers like Democritus and Leucippus are credited with the origins of atomic theory, and Anaximander posited in the 3rd century BC that all four legged creatures had evolved from fish.

    But these philosophers did not claim to have absolute answers, as do religionists, nor did they fight with each other about their beliefs, as do religionists.

    And so that is where supernaturalism fails – it encompasses absolutes, requires only an act of choice (faith) to legitimise itself, and is geared to make war on other supernaturalists, or those who are worse – those who have no natural propensity to genuflect before the pronouncements of supernaturalism.

  30. Adrian – you are right people always believe what they want to believe – so an athiest not wanting to believe in God chooses to believe in evolution
    which has never been demonstrated by science and cannot be replicated in any lab by any scientist in the world.
    Science can only discover what has already been
    created – science cannot create something from nothing.
    The strongest Moral code can only be found in
    the commandments of Jesus.

    Four legged animals did not evolve from fish since
    it cannot be done in the lab even with scientists
    using intelligent design. Nor is there any evidence
    that this happened in the past by selective accident.
    So evolution is a faith based religion requiring no scientific proof.
    Evolutionists do claim to have absolute answers
    as did the communists in Russia and China and Vietnam who based their approach of crushing all religionists on evolution.

    Darwin provided rationalisation for Stalin Mao and
    Hitler to crush their peoples with superior strength.

    Since Darwin admitted he had found nothing to support his theory which he still believed means he was exercising blind faith.

  31. found nothing to support his theory which he still believed means he was exercising blind faith.

    Not nearly as blind as expecting to find scientific proofs in religious texts. At best, scriptures attempt an allegorical explanation of the universe. There are absolutely no criteria laid out by which a person can test or evaluate the claims made by religionists.

    Science at least attempts to provide a workable and testable framework by which parts of the universe can be understood. So I will stick to having more faith in the tangible outcomes of science than in the unprovable assertions of mysticism.

  32. Adrian – by all means have faith in tangible outcomes of science but evolution theory has no
    tangible outcomes or evidence.
    Understanding how the universe works is not the same as understanding the creator of the universe.

    Christianity is the opposite of mysticism –
    “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” Romans 1.20

    Since science proves that nothing has ever made itself ( 1st law of thermodynamics ) – evolution stays
    a theory.

    There are lots of provable assertions in the Bible.
    Prophecy for instance – Daniel’s four empires
    and his details of them were so accurate that
    unbelieving historians had to pretend that the prophecies were written after the event.

    But now scrolls have been dated that show his prophecies were written before the events when he was in Babylon.

    The country born in day – Israel – when Jews returned from the diaspora (predicted) and are
    now surrounded by their hostile cousins through
    Hagar (predicted). It goes against all human logic.

    After the great flood of Noah we would expect to find evidence as sedimentary layers inundated with fossils – this is exactly what we find – also with no
    intermediates as Darwin admitted – proving the instant creation of the drowned creatures initial ancestors.

    Pontious Pilate’s stone in Jerusalem can be seen.

    So many of the assertions of the Bible can be tested by scientific and historic observation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.