Are you tired of those cheap dollar store
whisks always breaking on you? We here
at McGivern, Perry, Smith and Rockefeller
have founded our business on quality,
stainless steel whisks that are built for
durability and 
[static] 
[transmission sounds]
[static]
Bahahaha! Success! Whatever it was
Miracle channel was trying to show is now
pre-empted, cause we just hijacked their
transmitter for our show! - coming right
up: Bill Nye the science guy says the end
is Nye for Creationists - and we shouldn't
teach our children creation!  One person's
junk DNA is another person's treasure,
engineering a virtual cell, and of course,
we dive into our mailbag. This is Genesis
Week
[Music]
And a welcome to this episode of Genesis
Week - the weekly program of Creationary
commentary on news, views and events
pertaining to the origins controversy.
Excellence in pirate broadcasting, this
week we hacked into the Miracle channel
network from our top secret studios in an
old abandoned nickle mine at an
undisclosed location in eastern Ontario,
continuing to bring you the information
the anti-creationists don't want you to see
or here, and giving glory to our Creator
while doing it.  God did not say "be ye
transformed by the removal of your
mind," but rather we here at Genesis
Week believe God gave YOU a brain for a
reason!  Error begs for tolerance, but the
truth demands scrutiny, and we here at
Genesis Week demand scrutiny as we
pursue the truth along with you.
Remember if you get lost in cyberspace,
just punch in wazooloo.com or
GenesisWeek.com you will find us and
can subscribe to our YouTube channel
and get extras like CrEvo rants, and
interviews with our guests.  I'm your host,
Ian Juby
Big Think recently put out a video with Bill
Nye, known as the science guy. I guess
Bill just couldn't take those creationists
anymore and decided to put them in their
place with a series of provocative
comments.  For example, he starts off by
saying that 
Oh come on Bill! You didn't really think
you could pull a bait and switch like you
did without anyone noticing, did you?
Notice that Mr. Bill exchanged the word
"evolution" with "science." Science is not
interchangeable with evolution Mr. Bill.
You're certainly allowed to believe in
evolution, and even though I disagree
with you, you're certainly allowed to
believe evolution is scientific - just please
don't interchange the words, because
evolution is NOT science.  For example, as
I'm sure Mr. Bill knows, Evolution has life
arising from non-life, in complete defiance
of well established scientific and natural
laws. Laws like the law of biogenesis
which states that life ONLY comes from
life.  This scientific and natural law is
testable, observable, repeatable, and
predictable. Violating scientific and
natural law means evolution is neither
scientific, nor natural - it is, by definition
of the word, a SUPERnatural process!
You're welcome to believe it, just please -
I respectfully request that do you not call
it "science."
But that's only the start - Mr. Bill makes
so many major blunders in his short
video, that I felt like a pyromaniac in the
world's largest fireworks factory - where
do I begin???  Mr. Bill seems to think that
"evolution denial is unique to the United
States..."
Uhhhh....no, it isn't.  Canada has
consistently shown about the same
numbers as the US, South Korea is not
far behind, and in fact a 2011 survey of
South Korean biology teachers found that
40% of them concluded much of the
scientific community doubts if evolution
occurs - and we can hardly call South
Korea a stone age technology country!  In
fact, perhaps the reason for Americans
doubting evolution is because of
EDUCATION - people in the US, in the
spirit of proper scientific enquiry, get to
hear the evidence AGAINST evolution and
FOR creation.  We saw the results of such
public education right here in Canada with
the opening of Canada's first permanent
creation museum, the Big Valley Creation
Science Museum in Big Valley, Alberta, in
2007.  When BVCSM opened, Angus Reid
conducted a poll of Canadian beliefs and
found that the belief of Albertans was
consistent with the rest of the country:
58% agreed with the evolution statement
(which included those who believe God
used evolution), 28% agreed with the
strict, young-earth creationist position,
and 14% weren't sure what they believed.
The Big Valley Creation Science Museum
opened its doors, presenting profound
scientific evidence refuting evolution and
affirming that the earth is young and
there was a Creator. Anybody could go
and see and judge the evidence for
themselves.  One year later, Angus Reid
conducted the same poll right across the
country, and the rest of Canada was
pretty much exactly the same as it was
the year before. Alberta however, having
had TWO creation museums open that
year, had taken a complete about face
with the majority of 40% now believing the
young-earth creation statement, 37%
believing the evolution statement, and
23% deciding that they just didn't know
any more.  I discuss the poll results in
more detail in my newsletter here.
Now, Mr. Bill went on to make numerous
ridiculous statements in the Big Think
video.  Let us reverse his replacement of
the word "science" and reiterate what he
was REALLY saying:
Ya, does it ever.
[swoosh]
>>Astronaut William Anders
For all the people on Earth the crew of
Apollo 8 has a message we would like to
send you.
"In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the
deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters. And God said, Let
there be light: and there was light.
[swoosh]
>>Ian Juby
For those of you who don't know, that
was the first astronauts to land on the
moon reading the Bible - the Creation
account in the book of Genesis. Clearly
such beliefs hold people back.  But Mr. Bill
follows up with an even more provocative
and rather insulting statement, saying:
The insinuation of course being that
people who believe in Creation aren't
scientifically literate and can't do
engineering and build stuff.
[swoosh]
>>Jeff
Sooo...you're planning on flying that
rocket to the moon?
>>Ian
Yup. Pretty amazing what you can get
through military surplus eh?
>>Jeff
Um, are you a creationist by any chance?
>>Ian
Ya, how'd you know?
>>Jeff
Your rocket is kinda upside down
>>Ian
Doh!
[swoosh]
 Well, I'm an engineer Mr. Bill! I worked in
research and development for the
company that made the cool suits for the
space shuttle astronauts.  My creationist
beliefs don't hold back my engineering
skills at all! 
Believing in Creation also didn't seem to
hold back other scientists who believed in
Creation.  Scientists like Isaac Newton,
Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Blaise
Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, or
Werner Von Braun. Raymond Damadian
somehow managed to invent Magnetic
Resonance Imaging, in spite of his strict
young-earth creationist beliefs.  MRI is a
powerful tool in the hands of doctors
now.
Nuclear physicist Dr. Russel Humphreys
built a model of planetary magnetic fields
based upon Biblical creation and a young
universe.  He made multiple predictions,
each of which were found to be true while
the evolutionary and naturalistic
predictions and expectations were dead
wrong! 
It is not my intention to be harsh with my
evolutionary friends, but we need to
understand that evolutionary theory has
HINDERED scientific research over the
decades. For example: your appendix is
just a useless leftover from your
evolutionary ascent, right? That is an
evolutionary ASSUMPTION. The
creationary position would be "It's there,
we were created, therefore it has
purpose."  Which world view encourages
finding out the purpose of the appendix
Mr. Bill?  Sure enough, purposes for the
appendix were discovered. Tonsils are
another case - doctors used to be real
quick to cut them out because they were
just a useless evolutionary left over.  Now
we know that tonsils were the only part of
the body that could produce the antibody
for Polio!  How many people died or
became paralysed because of
Evolutionary assumptions and teaching
which HINDERED proper scientific
research Mr. Nye?
"Junk DNA" was another example of an
evolutionary assumption - the claim being
that huge portions of our DNA was
"useless" - had no purpose, was an
evolutionary leftover.  Again the
Creationists predicted it had purpose, and
as you're about to see, were right again.
Lastly, I should remind Mr. Nye of the
1990 study by Bishop and Anderson of
110 college juniors and seniors in which
they concluded that evolution doubters
actually scored higher in understanding
scientific conceptions.
Mr. Bill finished his video with still
another provocative, statement:
No evidence for it? Really? Mr. Bill needs
to watch Genesis Week more often, as
that's pretty much all we deal with here on
this show is the scientific evidence FOR
young earth creation, and refuting
evolution. We find evidence for Creation
in the fossil record in the form of stasis,
the lack of intermediate fossils, and
fossils that are "in the wrong place" only
according to the evolutionary timeline.
Evidence from biology is some of the
most powerful evidence for a young earth
and young population of life which was
recently DESIGNED; evidence like
codepency of systems within the cell,
irreducible complexity, genetic entropy,
and the laws of biogenesis.  Evidence from
astronomy also shows a young universe,
which would preclude the deep time
evolution needs, and let us remember
again how naturalistic theories of the
origin of the Universe have failed every
prediction while creation models, such as
that put forward by Dr. Humphreys, has
nailed the predictions with shocking
fulfillment!  Even the dinosaurs
themselves, which I have personally
excavated on multiple occasions, provide
powerful evidence of design, the LACK of
any change over time, multiple lines of
evidence that the dinosaurs were buried
within the past few thousand years by a
massive, world-wide flood, and evidence
from paleontology, archaeology and
history shows that people and dinosaurs
did in fact live at the same time!
I still like you Mr. Nye, but with respect,
Just because YOU are ignorant of the
evidence does not mean there is no
evidence for Creation.
Speaking of alleged "junk DNA" - this past
week saw a flood of news regarding this
curiousity.  Only a small portion of our
DNA actually provides the coding for the
construction of proteins, which are the
building blocks of life.  The remaining DNA
- estimated to be some 98% of the DNA,
didn't seem to do anything. It was
assumed to be an evolutionary leftover,
and given the unglorious label of "Junk
DNA."  Creation scientists of course
objected to this suggestion - we
creationary thinkers would assume that
because we were created, ALL of the DNA
would have purpose - even if we do not
know what that purpose is.  This past
week saw the publication of the results of
a five year study of this "Junk DNA" by
the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements
Project, better known by the nickname of
ENCODE.  So - did five years, hundreds of
scientists, 185 MILLION US dollars finally
demonstrate that indeed, this
non-encoding DNA is just useless
leftovers from our evolutionary ascent
that have no purpose? Well, let's put it
this way: This past week saw a tidal wave
of THIRTY papers in the science journals
Nature, Genome research, and Genome
biology spelling out SOME -SOME- of
what we now know the "junk DNA" does -
and there's still much more left to
uncover!
As Brendan Maher put it, writing for
Nature news:
And that's what we know so far - so far. 
Richard Myers summed up the "junk DNA"
concept for the Washington Post:
Ewin Birney, data analysis coordinator for
the ENCODE project, said in a Nature
News interview:
The Nature News report summed it up like
this:
So within a matter of a few short years,
we went from only 1% of the DNA actually
did something, to at least 80% of the DNA
does something - and we're not finished
yet.  So let's examine this for a second:
What we do know so far is that when the
non-encoding sections of the DNA fail to
do their job, such as regulating gene
expression, it causes disease and death.
So - which came first, the encoding DNA
which is controlled by the non-encoding
DNA, or the non-encoding DNA which
needs the encoding DNA so it can even
exist?
You also need to understand: We are
talking about information here.
Information in the DNA is conveyed by
chemicals - you can use a whole variety
of mediums to convey information - for
example, ink and paper, radio waves, light
over fiber optic cable, sand - etc...  The
information is not in the medium, but the
medium only CONVEYS the information.
For example, you can convey information
using letters. But letters themselves do
not contain information, they only convey
information.  The information comes from
an outside source.  If you have a book, the
book conveys information - the
information came from the AUTHOR of
the book, not the book itself - the book
only conveys the information from the
author to the reader.
And so it is with the human DNA - just like
our letters do not give us information,
someone put the information INTO the
DNA.   Every single scientific test will show
you that information only comes from
information. You find me a book that
wrote itself, In fact you find me a printout
formed by nature, containing so much
information that it stretched 16 meters
high and 30 kilometers long, then we'll
talk about whether or not natural
processes put that astonishing amount of
information into our DNA. Just as if you
had picked up a book and started reading
the words the author penned, these
researchers are reading the handwriting
of our Creator - the information had to
have come from outside of the natural
realm. How do I know? Well let's discuss
a related story first:
A recent report in the science journal Cell
discussed an impressive piece of work by
Karr et al.  The goal of their research was
to build a living virtual cell. The virtual cell
is based upon the bacteria Mycoplasma
genitalium, which is considered one of
the simplest single celled
organisms out there.  Like the ENCODE
project, what the researchers
accomplished is truly impressive.
Essentially the hope is that one day, they
can have a simulated cell "living" on a
computer so they could test the reaction
to custom designed drugs for example.
However, even the "simple cell" is not at
all simple, but astonishingly complex.
How complex? The researchers built their
program 
Problem was, the virtual cell was TOO
complicated, and so they had to
generalize some of the functions - make
the cell simpler. Because simple cells
don't exist!  To make matters even more
difficult, a number of parameters were
unknown - in other words, we still don't
know enough about the real-world cell to
be able to make a simulated one! The
researchers were bold in what they were
trying to do, attempting to 
They attempted this by breaking down the
internal workings of the cell into 28
different systems, and then modeling
each of those systems, their interaction
with each other, and the results on the
virtual cell as a whole.  
But notice that in spite of this truly
impressive feat of programming and
engineering, the computer model is still
very limited, as acknowledged by the
researchers:
Kudos to them for their efforts, as what
they accomplished truly is impressive.
Now, let's take a step back, and look at
this analytically.  As I previously
mentioned with regards to Mr. Nye's
comments, whether you believe in
creation or evolution, you believe in the
supernatural.  The first life was formed by
a process outside of the natural realm,
because natural law forbids life arising
from non-life.  So if both creation and
evolution are supernatural processes, and
whatever happened was thus outside of
the natural realm and beyond scientific
study, is it still possible to use science to
determine which faith - creation or
evolution, is the correct one? Yes! Enter
the scientific tool of intelligent design.
This virtual cell that was produced on a
computer is truly impressive. Once
complete, that cell could reproduce,
repair itself, do allll kinds of things in its
virtual world. It brings whole new meaning
to the term "computer virus!"  If you knew
nothing about the researchers, but
discovered this "virtual cell" on your computer,
would you conclude that it formed itself, or 
that someone else created it? Would you
conclude that it was the result of a
comptuer crash, or the direct intent of a
designer?
The answer is glaring and obvious: It had
a creator.  Even though you did not see
the creator make it, and you didn't know
who the creator was, you still KNOW it
was created. You are using the scientific
tool of intelligent design.  But now what of
the actual, real-world cell which is
infinitely more complicated than the
virtual cell?  There is only one conclusion:
It too had to have had a creator.  Just as it
would be outrageous to suggest that the
virtual cell formed by natural processes,
such as a computer crash, it is even more
outrageous to suggest that the real-world
cell formed without an intelligent
designer. Now the question is: Who is
that designer?  For multiple reasons, I
would suggest that designer was none
other than the Lord Jesus Christ, who
also created a body to live in in this world,
and to sacrifice for you and for me.
[swoosh]
[scary, dramatic music]
Wahoo! Mail for me?
[scary, dramatic music]
[swoosh]
Aaron M. wrote in an excellent but very
lengthy email that's too long to include
here. I will attempt to include his other
questions in other shows as they were
really good questions and comments.
We'll start off with this one:
Thanks for writing in Aaron, and I'm so
glad you asked!  Let's take a look at some
examples of what has transpired in the
past. I'm sure many of my viewers will
have heard of Piltdown man.  Piltdown
man was parts of a fossil skull and jaw
bone found in a gravel pit near Piltdown in
England.  For over 40 years that skull was
presented as one of our ancient half-ape,
half-human ancestors.  Then it was
discovered that it was a forgery - a hoax.
The jaw bone was that of an orangutan,
teeth were from the Chimpanzee, and the
skull of a human. The bones had actually
been deliberately stained, and later
examination revealed file-marks on the
teeth.
What's my point? Well I'll let my good
friend, Dr. Gary Parker explain. Dr. Parker
was not just an evolutionist teacher, but
believed it so emphatically and taught it
so aggressively that he had Christian
students crying openly in his classes.
Later on, he discovered that evolution
was the faith that the facts had failed, and
creation was the faith that fit the facts.  As
he put it:
So, was that a conspiracy?  Over 500
doctoral dissertations - scientific studies
and papers written on that skull that
earned hundreds of people their doctoral
degrees. Were they all conspirators?
As I mentioned in previous shows, there
was at least six different skeletons found
on the Island of Guadeloupe in the 1800's.
These were completely modern human
skeletons in rocks that were 20 million
years old according to evolution - yet
humans were not supposed to have
evolved until about 200,000 years ago.  So
why aren't these skeletons on display?
One of them was on display for some 50
years at the British Museum of Natural
History, until evolutionary theory took
hold, and it is now relegated to the
basement. Is that conspiracy? Some
claimed that the dating was wrong, that
the rocks the skeletons came from was
actually quite recent, and not 20 million
years old. So my good friend and
geologist John Mackay went to the island
of Guadeloupe, went to the very rocks
from which the skeletons were excavated,
compared the rocks to the geological
maps, and sure enough - the rocks are,
according to the evolutionary timescale,
20 million years old.  When John brought
this information to Chris Stringer,
principal scientific officer at the British
Museum, John asked Chris "How many
human fossils do you know of?" To which
Chris replied "Oh, about 30,000"
30,000????  Now think about this for a
second - do you realize how many bones
that is? If Mr. Stringer knows about them,
who else knows about them? How many
people were involved in finding,
excavating, preparing and documenting
these fossils?  Why have we not heard
anything of these fossils? Is that a
conspiracy?
You can interpret it any way you like, I'm
just pointing out the facts that we know.
I'm even steering clear of several bizarre
stories I know that do sound like a
conspiracy!  Personally, I don't view it as
conspiracy, but rather quite simply human
nature. Scientists are people too, subject
to the same drives, competition, fears,
and similar reactions to the possibility of
God that so many of us feel.  But if you
want to experience conspiracy, just
publically question evolution and watch
what happens.
Well that's it for this week's show - thanks
so much for watching, and please join us
again next Genesis Week. Remember you
can send in your comments and
questions in a number of ways, just
remember that by submitting your
comments you are giving us permission
to use them on the show.  You can email
us at comments@genesisweek.com, or
you can like, follow us on twitter or
somethin, or even send us a tweet
@genesisweek  or you can go to our
YouTube channel at genesisweek.com,
find the appropriate show and post a
comment there - and don't forget to
subscribe to our YouTube channel while
you're there to keep up to date on bonus
videos.  This show will be uploaded the
Friday after airing, and just remember that
comments on YouTube are moderated
and require approval.
 I'm your host, Ian Juby, reminding you of
the words of our Creator, the Lord Jesus
Christ who said "I am the way, the truth,
and the life -No man comes to the Father
but through me." See you next week as
we pursue the truth.
We need your support to help keep this
program on the air. You can help by
making a tax-deductible donation to
CORE Ottawa.
You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter,
You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter,
detailing current research and news items
at www.IanJuby.org
[music]
