The dead body of Jesus could not be found. There are four possible ways to account for this. 1. His foes stole the body. If they did (and they never claimed to have done so), they surely would have produced the body to stop the successful spread of the Christian faith in the very city where the crucifixion occurred. But they could not produce it. 2. His friends stole the body. This was an early rumor (Matthew 28:11-15). Is it probable? Could they have overcome the guards at the tomb? More important, would they have begun to preach with such authority that Jesus was raised, knowing that he was not? Would they have risked their lives and accepted beatings for something they knew was a fraud? 3. Jesus was not dead, but only unconscious when they laid him in the tomb. He awoke, removed the stone, overcame the soldiers, and vanished from history after a few meetings with his disciples in which he convinced them he was risen from the dead. Even the foes of Jesus did not try this line. He was obviously dead. The Romans saw to that. The stone could not be moved by one man from within who had just been stabbed in the side by a spear and spent six hours nailed to a cross. 4. God raised Jesus from the dead. This is what He said would happen. It is what the disciples said did happen. But as long as there is a remote possibility of explaining the resurrection naturalistically, modern people say we should not jump to a supernatural explanation. Is this reasonable? I don’t think so. Of course, we don’t want to be gullible. But neither do we want to reject the truth just because it’s strange.
John Piper

Teaching Creation Part 3

This entry is part 3 of 7 in the series Is There Any Justification for Teaching Creation in School?

Is There Any Justification for Teaching Creation in School?

Teaching Creation Part 3

Is There Any Justification For Teaching Evolution In School?

Part 3

theories exist. However, with a model available, predictions could be made related to what data would be expected. As data became accessible, the model that identified itself closer to the data based upon its predictions would be the more probably correct model (Morris, Creationism 9). With this proposal in mind, the following table will illustrate the basic predictions that are addressed in this thesis.

Category______________Evolution Model___________Creation Model____ Natural Laws Evolving Constant All Systems Building Up Breaking Down Fossil Record Innumerable Transitions Systematic Gaps Life Time of Earth Millions of Years Time not Necessary The field of cosmology, the theory or philosophy of the

nature and principles of the universe, is perhaps the best area to start a comparison of the two models. The evolution model proclaims that the universe can be explained in terms of natural laws and processes without need of external intervention.

Therefore, the very laws themselves must have developed on this same naturalistic basis. The creation model, on the other hand, infers that all matter and energy, along with the laws controlling their behavior, were called into existence. As illustrated in the above table, the evolution model would predict that the basic laws of nature, matter, and energy are “still evolving since they must have evolved in the past and there is no external agent to bring such evolution to a halt (Morris, Creationism 18).

The creation
model would predict that matter, energy, and the basic laws of nature are not changing.

The fact is, of course, that the basic laws of nature are not changing at all. They are constant and invariable. Two of the most proven laws in science are the Law of Mass Conservation and the Law of Energy Conservation. These laws ascribe that although mass and energy can be changed in state, they can never be destroyed or created.

As a candle burns, it appears as if
matter is lost, but if the candle was to be burned within a closed container, the total mass of the candle would be observed not to dissipate. The product of the burning candle is given off in gases, retaining its total content. In reference to these laws, even a current college chemistry text book states, when the term `law’ is used, it refers to a physical law or a law of nature. Such a law is an expression of an apparently consistent pattern in nature for which … no exception to the law have been noted using current methods of observation” (Dickson 37).

The same could be said about all other conservation principles in physics. This is exactly as predicted by the creation model!

This law of Energy Conservation, naturally leads to the the Law of Energy Decay. Both of these laws make up the two laws of Thermodynamics. Energy Conservation (The first law of Thermodynamics) assures that no energy can be destroyed.

The law
of Energy Decay (the second law of Thermodynamics) tells us that energy continually proceeds to lower levels of utility. That is, although energy is never destroyed, the level of available energy for constructive use is always decreasing. This means that all

Series NavigationPrevious in Series: Teaching Creation Part 2Next in Series: Teaching Creation Part 4