Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico

Stay tuned for new changes to CSFNM, see NOTICE below:

Do we have a Biblical basis for Creation Science?

[Click here for the answer]


 The answer is a resounding yes!
Hebrews 11: 1-3 Definition of Faith:
1. It is the assurance (certainty) of things hoped for (not wishful thinking but certain in Hebrew language).
2. Conviction of things not seen.
3. The world (earth; and other worlds and the Universe) was prepared by the word of God.
4. What is seen was not made out of things which are visible (made from nothing).
We can go to Genesis and the Psalms and Isaiah (and other references) for details, but space does not permit. Some scientists may argue that things not visible refers to atoms or the pieces of potential atoms and energy radiation and other types of invisible things to the eye, but a careful analysis of the text indicates that anything which we see, measure, visible to us or not, or whatever exists in the known universe was not made of anything that already existed. In other words the Universe and all that is in it was made by the spoken word of God and what is here now did not exist before. God called something from nothing into existence. This contradicts Evolutionary Theory which calls for a “Big Bang” or some other appearance of energy or whatever that has always existed and is now expanding into what we see now. The Theory of Evolution cannot explain what existed before the “Big Bang” or whatever, and certainly cannot explain how the stuff prior to the “Big Bang” became unstable or whatever and started to expand and form what we see now. When it comes to life, we know from experiments and the Scientific Method that life begets life and there is no spontaneous existence from nothing. In other words again, life came from a living omnipotent being that already exists. Some folks, such as Stephen Hawking, claim that physics equations or the Laws of Science already existed before the absolute beginning. No evidence to support that idea.
The only thing that supports scripture is Creation Science because it is Biblically based and derived from that worldview to start with. But at the same time, we must acknowledge that Creation Science cannot deal with the spiritual realm, only the physical universe. The Scientific Method cannot deal with origins, because those things are one time only events and are not necessarily repeatable; and experimentation and verification using the laws of science is not possible. We cannot go back in time.


(Questions will be posted in the beginning of the month or after the monthly General meeting and answers will be posted just before or after the Monthly Meeting date.  If you have a question that you think would be of general audience interest, please e-mail us the question. )

Be sure and check out our Book Reviews,  Article Critiques, and latest PowerPoint Presentations under the “Resources” category!  We update these categories with new issues frequently.  We have a new link to Mark DeSpain’s web site featuring videos of past issues and presentations (Look under our videos section).  More videos are being added frequently.

Feel free to use any of our archive resources listed above for noncommercial educational purposes only. However, if you copy anything from our archives, please identify the source of this material.  CSFNM is not responsible for any mis-use or revisions of copied material, Thank you.

General  Meetings are always the third Tuesday of the month at 7:00 PM, unless otherwise posted. The location is Faith Bible Church, 9600 Central (SE corner of Moon & Central), unless otherwise indicated.  Any special meetings will be announced on this web site or by e-mail.

New Notice for all: We are planning on moving in a few months (Approximately June 2015)

August 18, 2015

[Click here for more info]

Δ We are planning to switch web site locations in about 3-4 months.  Our New Site is already in progress of Construction and we have about half of it done. We are trying to be more interactive and include some HomeSchool groups and some new venues for presenting Creation issues and how science interacts with scripture (Bible) and leads to a ‘Back to Basics’ kind of format and yet present Creation subjects suitable for all ages and levels of Education (High School, College, advanced sciences)! ♣ 

We welcome you to check out 

Click on the above link or Highlight the web address and right click to open link. We welcome any comments you may have.

May 19th Creation Science Fellowship Monthly Meeting

May 19, 2015

[Click here for more info]

This month’s speaker will be our CSFNM Philosopher and Teacher  Kent Powderly

A Hebrew Worldview-based definition of Life and Death: Discusses how Hebrew definitions are not exactly identical to modern biological ones, but that they have a large degree of overlap. Hebrew definitions will not support an exclusively spiritualized view of the death described in Genesis 3. Only a creationistic view of a Curse that changed creation fits the Hebrew model.

The following is a brief excerpt from my 2nd edition of One Faith–Many Transitions: Worldviews in Church History, which covers the topic of my talk

Three Hebrew words (and their varied forms) are relevant to grasping how Genesis deals with the idea of life, and therefore, death: chay, nephesh, and ruach or “breath.”

A comparison of the worldview concepts of death (above): Ancient Hebrew versus Modern Biological—both are true, allowing for language conventions. Corresponding Hebrew idea of life (below)

Ancient Hebrews had a three level understanding of life, functionally speaking. At the bottom, chay applied to all things that grew; plants, animals, and human. On top of, and including that, the Hebrew word nephesh refers to the kind of life found in higher creatures, including man, created on days five and six of the creation week. These are higher creatures with “the breath of life,” able to move and show at least some personality or soul. On creation day 5, chay nephesh is translated “living creature.”

Plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and perhaps some lower animals (sponges etc.), although alive in the biological sense; are not “living” in the nephesh sense of a Hebrew Genesis-based worldview. Nephesh means soul, or personality. It refers to creatures with the ability to move, and show emotion, based on its usage in Scripture. 13 Nephesh is not limited to humanity; it describes all animate creatures, including humans. Humanity has a unique spiritual “breath of life” (Hebrew ruach) directly from God, which is the highest form of life, in addition to nephesh.

Humanity, when God originally created Adam and Eve, had ruach (spiritual life), nephesh (animal life), and chay (met qualifications for being biologically alive). As for animals, it is fair to say that not all chay have nephesh, though all nephesh have chay. Death, in the worldview of Scripture, refers only to loss of the nephesh and/or ruach kinds of life in creatures created with those capacities. Life forms created only with chay, but not nephesh and/or ruach, were always capable of dying in the biological sense, even before the Curse. God and the Hebrews never defined that as “death” in any meaningful way. God made plants to be food in the beginning. This is where the Hebraic worldview idea of death departs from the modern biological one.

To simplify this; it all goes to purpose. Why is it wrong for God to create two classes of living things—one with varied levels of self-awareness; and the other completely non-self-aware, to serve as food for the first class? Death is a curse for the higher classification, while consumption is the normal purpose of the non-aware class. Later forces, after the Curse, modified the situation as need arose; but why should this initial state be a huge problem? Unless one is ideologically predisposed to make it into one, it seems to fit reality quite well.

While Hebrew concepts of life and death make distinctions not made by biological definitions, this does not make the Hebrew concepts wrong, and the modern, right. Nor does it mean that the reverse is true. Both fit reality, even if the exact borderline between “just chay” creatures and those called “chay nephesh” is not always clearly knowable to us. For example, ants and bees have a “hive mind” behavior; they clearly qualify as nephesh; but is the “unit of the living being” the individual ant/bee or the hive? We should not pretend to know such things, just because some people want to make the idea of a pre-Curse creation without death look silly.

Neither should we assume the Hebrew notions mean the same as the modern theological division between physical and spiritual life and death. Saying that the death promised in Genesis resulting from sin is just “spiritual death” undercuts the meaning of the text. Every curse in Genesis 3 involved a material change in nature. Labor pains, death/decay (returning to dust), bodily changes to the serpent/thorns, and greater struggles farming; each involve physical alterations. Such changes imply deeper adjustments made by God to material creation, likely at the sub-atomic level. The changes mentioned in Genesis 3 need not be an exhaustive list. Nature now reflects the conflict within fallen humanity, though we can still see God’s power and majesty in nature, as Romans 1:18-32 reveals. What we can’t see in nature consistently is God’s loving character.

Augustine’s non-literal view of the creation week fit the Neo-Platonic belief that God made the cosmos as a system of perfect, interrelated geometries, some with active spirits; it functioned as a vast living organism. He sometimes taught the sudden creation of a world of interdependent prototypes, none able to operate without the others. Augustine found the entire cosmos “irreducibly complex.” It was impossible, in his mind, for the things created on day 2 to exist even briefly without those things created on days 3, 4, 5, and 6. Though irreducible complexity exists in nature, it does not logically follow that all nature is therefore irreducibly complex; that no staged creation sequence is possible.

Augustine proposed that God made perfect spiritual prototypes of all things in the beginning, from which present things then arose. The creation days were non-literal in his view because he believed they happened instantaneously. He did not imagine non-literal creation days to pigeonhole God’s creative acts into a long, gradual timeframe; rather the opposite. Augustine outdid the brevity of even the literal week of today’s Young Earth Creationist! He also viewed the subsequent events in Genesis as history.

Still, Augustine made the mistake of letting part of a still influential Greek worldview guide his interpretation of Scripture. Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, and Framework Hypothesis advocates do the same sort of thing today with more damaging results; for the worldview of Augustine’s time had a crucial difference from today’s. He made room for an anti-materialist philosophy that accepted an intelligent designer; an idea that at least had something in common with Genesis, even if not in the details.

   By contrast, promoters of less-than-historical views of Genesis in churches today accept beliefs built from materialistic presuppositions hostile to their own confessions of faith.