Former NASA engineer touts creationism

From Rick Cousins and the Galveston Daily News.

“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.

He’s 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.

“Today’s 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 can’t 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. from his Friendswood home, where he answers questions from both believers, skeptics and the merely curious. “


4 Responses to Former NASA engineer touts creationism

  1. Matt says:

    That’s funny. The same, tired arguments used yet again.
    Proof from design. Refuted and shot down many times a long time ago.
    The ol’ Morality Chestnut. Again, shot down and refuted many times.

    I do wish such people would get some new material.

  2. Chris says:

    Thank you for the comment.

    The evidence for God from the complexities of the universe has never been “shot down” as you put it. The moral argument for God’s existence has not been “shot down” either.

    How do you think the universe came into existence? Are there objective moral laws and duties? How did they come about?

  3. Matt says:

    The Argument from design is a huge logical fallacy and has indeed been shot down by various people at various times. It assumes that something complex needs to be designed when that is false. It also ignores the logical path of that if there is a designer, then who designed him? Who designed the designers designer, etc etc. It creates more questions than it answers. Also, not one case of irreducible complexity has yet to be found.

    All evidence points to the Universe as we know it coming into existence via the Big Bang. From the movement of galaxies, background radiation, speed of light, and so much more … it all points solidly at that.

    Moral are a wonderful little by product of evolution. To put it as simply as I can, human kind (and the vast majority of animal kind as well) learnt that it is far better to work together if you wish to survive. If you go around killing your own kind then your species will soon die out but if you work together in hunting groups then your chances of survival are greatly improved.

  4. Chris says:

    Thank you for your comments. In the future when you make comments please back them up with detail and evidence. For example, when you say that “design is a logical fallacy and has indeed been shot down by various people at various times”, please provide detailed evidence to back up your comments.

    You said “It assumes that something complex needs to be designed when that is false”. This is false. It shows you do not understand the basic definition of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. This is obviously different from your statement. By the way please provide backup as to what things are complex and do not need designing.

    Intelligent Design does not deal with who designed the designer but I can answer your question from my theistic worldview. It is possible an eternal, transcendent and intelligent being is the designer. Since the designer is eternal they do not need to be designed themselves.

    You are wrong that not one case of irreducible complexity has been found. I will give you several cases. They are bacterial flagella, blood clotting, cellular, gated and vehicular transport and cilia.

    Everyone knows the universe began to exist with the Big Bang. What is your point here? Of course scientists for a long time thought that the universe was eternal. The Big Bang certainly points to the possibility of the biblical description of Genesis being possible.

    Your explanation of moral law does not make sense. How could morals have just evolved? How did they begin? What did they evolve from? You compare human morals to animal morals? Have you ever watched the Discovery Channel? I don’t think I want the same “morals” as a great white shark or tiger. Do you believe in objective morals or are you a relativist? Do you believe that rape, murder, incest, etc. are wrong for all people at all times in all places?

    Thanks for the dialogue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: