Skip to comments.Former NASA engineer touts creationism
Posted on 08/04/2007 8:55:32 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Tom Henderson is not much of a watchmaker. He shakes a small glass jar containing a tiny metallic gear, a brass bezel, a scarred watch crystal and dozens of other nearly microscopic, shiny objects.
But, no watch. He vigorously rattles the container again. Still, no watch. For Henderson, a retired NASA engineer and creationist speaker, that is the point.
No watchmaker no watch.
Hes carried the somewhat-out-of favor message of special creation to nine foreign countries in the past several decades because he is convinced that how we believe the world came to be it is important.
His is a radical message that challenges both mainline and some evangelical church assumptions, as well as those of the scientific community as a whole: that the first few chapters of Genesis are just as literal and authoritative as the rest of the Bible.
Years ago, I traveled to Mexico and spoke on the campus of a left-wing university, he recalled. During the Q&A on creationism, some there accused me of being a CIA spy.
Henderson has never been a spy, of course. He has degrees in math, physics and science education and worked at the Johnson Space Center for 37 years.
Creationism is a step beyond the controversial intelligent design movement that has been involved in text book discussions in various parts of the United States.
Todays intelligent design movement has done a really good job of showing the complexity of creation showing that naturalism cannot be the answer, he said. Of course, intelligent design only suggests a creator, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I have come to know and I can appreciate what the creator has done.
Why should the average person in the pew care? Henderson argues that societal decay, theological erosion and moral bankruptcy will ensue if the evolutionary model is embraced.
The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, he said. If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality?
He also said that the evidences he has found for creationism could remove barriers to faith.
For some people, evolution is a barrier to the good news of Jesus. They feel if evolution is true, Christianity cant be and they are right, he said. But if evolution is a myth, then they can take that step to faith.
Although the creationist view has become unpopular in public schools, mass media and other forums, Henderson said that both the Christian school and home-school movement are generally supportive of it.
The Institute of Creation Research, Bob Jones University and other creationist sources produce text books and other materials designed for these groups. National media recently noted the opening of the 60,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.
Creation arguments range from disputes over the validity of radioactive dating, the claim that life is irreducibly complex, the observation that most mutations are unfavorable and the theory that only a finely tuned universe can manage to produce stars.
Now retired from NASA, Henderson coordinates the Web site www.creationsuperlibrary.com from his Friendswood home, where he answers questions from both believers, skeptics and the merely curious.
Good that these terms and the others have been nailed down so tightly that a genuine philosophical discourse is finally possible.
An engineer endorses Creationism
An engineer designed the I35W bridge which fell into the Mississippi River
To be fair, that was probably lack of maintainance. However, Rockets crashing because NASA engineers can't tell feet from metres requires some other explanation
And the belief in a Creator is the basis for our 'God given' rights, as defined in the Bill of Rights.
This from an NASA engineer with no apparent background in theology. Suddenly the complaints about science getting involved in theology fall silent. Go figure.
In a related development, an evolutionary biologist designs a space probe.
They are not producing scientific textbooks. They are producing religious-based texts.
No, despite what evolutionists would like you to do (accept evolution on the weight of “the majority of scientists” accepting it — even though about 45% of scientists believe God created, either through evolution or through special creation), peer pressure and someone’s opinion are not reasons to accept anything.
I don’t think those kinds of jokes are necessarily appropriate right now, do you?
Now wait, if a theologian supports creationism, you proclaim that he has no expertise in science and has no grounds for supporting creation. Now this guy has a science background, and you’re saying he shouldn’t dabble in religion because he is not a qualified theologian? Why, by your standards, no one would be qualified in supporting creationism from a scientific perspective!
Sometimes when people get to retirement they get to do what they are actually good at. Getting to retirement somehow is unfortunately a necessity for most, but then one’s real interest can be engaged in if one remembers what it was.
The word 'belief' has several meanings. Equating scientific belief or mathematical belief with religious belief is making a meaning stew, which the opposite direction from reasoning things out or doing philosophy.
Evolution, no matter how much evidence is interpreted to support it, is still based on unprovable, untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable assumptions about the earth’s past, and as such, constitutes a faith bordering on religious.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. No matter how many times you repeat it, its still not true.
But, if you do want to see "unprovable, untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable assumptions" you need only look to religions.