Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
“My 5-year-old says, ‘Now that’s what I’m talking about! Let’s read this right now!’ And that comment was not about the kids section! Love it!” Stephanie, Facebook
Many thanks, especially for the report on BioLogos. I have always been suspicious of the compromising nature of the entire “Intelligent Design” movement, but found it hard to put my uneasiness into words. Many thanks, AiG, for helping to protect believers from the type of savage “wolf attacks” the Bible warns us about!
Laura M., Mountain Grove, Montana
I just want to agree how true it is that we must not compromise for the sake of science. For a recently saved Christian (6 months ago), the theory of evolution was a major barrier for me in regard to believing the Bible. I will continue to use [your magazine] to teach a biblically sound young earth creation by our amazing Creator!
Ryan B., Lawrence, Kansas
I enjoyed the special article about “Noah’s World.” The idea that he had the same diversity of land types (desert, rain forest, etc.) is so obvious; and yet I had bought into the idea that there was only one type. I was amazed at how I still have to learn so much to remove the indoctrination that I have grown up with.
Kevin D., Facebook
I subscribed to the Answers magazine for my daughter who is in prison. She was thrilled almost beyond words when she received her first issue. She read it from cover to cover the first night she got it and has allowed others to read, including an atheist friend there. Did you ever think you’d have a prison ministry? You do now.
Audrey D., Franklin Furnace, Ohio
In “A Closer Look at T. rex” you say that “most theropod teeth are thin blades, often possessing serrations, like the edge of a steak knife.” This language makes it sound as if they were designed to eat meat. Your error is in assuming that only meatcutting tools have serrated edges. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are many tools for cutting vegetation that have serrated edges, a saw being the most obvious example. Also the blades of the combine to harvest wheat and similar crops have many serrated and replaceable teeth, and they are even referred to as teeth. If someone already believes in evolution, the steak knife analogy creates another hurdle for them to get over, but the saw analogy makes the eating of vegetation seem as natural for the theropod as it actually was.
Dale F., Colorado Springs, Colorado
Author’s Response: You are absolutely correct that serrations are possessed by both carnivorous and herbivorous organisms, and their presence or absence does not, by itself, determine what an animal ate. The question then moves to what kind of serrations and what other features of that animal point us towards its mode of life. With regard to T. rex, the serrations seen on its teeth are very similar to those of the (decidedly carnivorous) modern Komodo dragon. Serrations of herbivorous dinosaurs like Hypsilophodon or the modern marine iguana look different, as do the overall shapes of their teeth. Other clues about diet come from the muscles of the jaw, the size and shape of the gut, and from coprolites (fossilized feces) from the rock record. While all land-dwelling “beasts of the field” were initially created as herbivores, we must remember that the fossils we have come from the world destroyed at the time of the Flood. That world was “filled with violence” (Genesis 6:13) and far removed from the original goodness of creation. By the time of the Flood, the combined evidence affirms that T. rex was one of the most fearsome predators on earth.
I was thoroughly disappointed to read the following statement in Melinda Christian’s “When Sloth Is Not Sin” article: “In fact, the sloth’s remarkable adaptations—including the metabolism that has made it the slowest living mammal—are necessary for its survival.” As a graduate from a secular university with a B.S. in geology, I can say with experience and authority that this usage/context of the word adaptations was frequently employed by my professors as a catch-all explanation for the intricate design of creatures. I suggest being clear on God’s role in the specific design and equipping of creatures to adapt to their environment, not using the term in anonymity.
Lydia M., Woburn, Massachusetts
Editor’s Response: We agree with the need to be careful with some word choices, even if technically accurate, because of evolutionary connotations. Since the name of the department is “Created Creature” and the focus is upon glorifying the designs of the Creator, we make more assumptions about the reader than we might in stand-alone articles. We’ll try to be more careful. We asked Answers in Genesis researcher and biologist, Dr. Georgia Purdom, to comment on adaptations: “I understand your concern of the word choice of adaptations regarding the sloth’s characteristics, such as its metabolism. As a biblical creationist, adaptations are understood as part of God’s amazing design and care for helping organisms survive in a fallen world. Adaptations by no means allow an organism to gain features that turn it into a different kind of animal as proposed by evolution. The magazine has published numerous articles on this topic such as ‘Creation’s Hidden Potential’ (January 2009).”
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.