Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter www.parentcompany.com/csrc/ by Robert E. Kofal, truth4free@aol.com. Table of Contents Preface The Author / Creation-Science Research Center Introduction 1. Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution 2. The Crucial Failure of Darwin: Design in Nature 3. Life from Chemicals: Theory and Improbability 4. Would Evolution Violate Known Physical Law? 5. Can Mutations and Natural Selection Create New Species With New Complex Organs? 6. Molecular Biology and Evolutionary Theory 7. Fossils: Created or Evolved 8. Fossil Man: Separating People from Apes 9. Fossils and Geology: Slow or Fast? 10. Evidences for Evolution: Can Creation Explain Them? 11. The Core Scientific Argument for Creation 12. How Old Is the Earth? 13. Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth 14. The World We Live In Appendix 1: What the Bible Is All About and the Reason for Handy Dandy Appendix 2: The How & Why of Teaching Origins Interpretations & Theories In The Public Schools Appendix 3: What Students Can Do to Counterattack Evolution and Change Their Schools For Further Study Preface When Bob Kofahl and I first discussed this project, I knew we were on to something. "Kelly, we should put together a book for students and parents that answers the major questions concerning evolution. A single volume with references would be ideal." "Great," I said, "Why don't we put together a Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter." And so Bob smiled, put on his thinking cap, and did just that. The results will startle and amaze you. For in this volume he has compiled the major answers to the bold claims of evolutionists. Each question has its own answer with full references and a guide to additional material on that particular subject. The answers are given in an easy to understand manner, with a simplified answer for most questions and a more detailed discussion on some of the major issues. All in all, it's an ideal reference guide and tool for the new sport of evolution refuting. Although you may not wish to read it straight through as a book, you will find the answers you need at your fingertips. The answers are excellent and will really prove helpful to you as you discuss the beginning of all that is. Written from the creationist's viewpoint, this tool will go a long way toward refuting the claims of evolutionary theories. After all, it is a Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. Kelly L. Segraves, Director Creation-Science Research Center The Author Robert E. Kofahl believed the gospel of Christ in 1947 as an undergraduate in chemistry at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., where he received the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 1949 and 1954, respectively. Active in campus witness and a co-founder of the Caltech Christian Fellowship, he soon developed an interest in the evolution-creation issue which became a long-term avocation. In 1972 after 21 years in the faculty and administration of a small Christian college, Dr. Kofahl joined the staff of the Creation-Science Research Center in San Diego, where he serves as Science Coordinator. Co-author with C-SRC Director, Dr. Kelly Segraves, of the book, The Creation Explanation, and author of numerous articles and papers on evolution and creation, he has had many opportunities to lecture on this subject at schools, churches, colleges and universities. If you would like to contact Dr. Kofahl, his e-mail address is truth4free@aol.com. The Creation-Science Research Center The Creation-Science Research Center was founded in 1970 and incorporated in California as a non-profit educational and scientific corporation and is officially designated by the State Attorney General as a public-service corporation. C-SRC may be described as a public education and advocacy organization. The overarching operating principle of C-SRC is the development and application of a constitutional-legal strategy for redressing philosophical imbalance wherever tax-funds are being used to promote a particular philosophical-religious belief system. The Center's primary objective has been to change the manner in which the public schools teach about evolutionary theories. The purpose is to protect the faith of Christian children from illegal offense against their faith in the God of Creation. In 1981 the Center sponsored a lawsuit, Segraves vs. the California State Board of Education, which was tried in the Sacramento Superior Court. A landmark trial judgment and a court order were achieved which forbid the State from teaching evolution dogmatically as fact. The task of forcing the State fully to obey the court order continues. The Center's service activities include providing students, parents, teachers, schools and churches with scientific and legal information, bibliographic materials, and answers to specific questions. The Center has prepared and published numerous books, films and videos audiovisuals, and study guides and materials for use in home-schools, private schools, public schools, and churches. These materials relate scientific data to the biblical record of creation and thus promote a biblical Christian world view. C-SRC participates in the broad-spectrum public education effort, in obedience to our Lord's Great Commission to bring the nation to a decision--for the Creator-God and Redeemer of the Bible, or against Him. Introduction The question of origins is the most fundamental issue in every age and culture, but especially in the modern world. Where we come from determines who we are, why we are here, and what our destination may be. For many centuries in the Western world the record of creation given in the opening chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis was almost universally received as true history. But after the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's revolutionary book, The Origin of Species, a rapid shift began to take place in the public mind. Now in the last decade of the 20th century, some lip service is still given to God the Creator. Nevertheless, various forms of evolutionary thinking have strongly influenced and changed the thinking of probably a majority of the people of America. They have been led to believe that science has proved some type of evolution to be a fact. Or perhaps both evolution and creation are facts, because God "used evolution to do His work of creation." But has science proved the case for evolution? To hear the boasts of many in science, education, and the mass media, the case has been proved. One of the purposes for Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter is to show that the scientific case for evolution has not been proved. There is, in fact, a strong scientific case against evolution, and this is automatically a scientific case for the only alternative, creation. In other words, the burden of proof is on believers in evolution, not on believers in divine creation, for God's work of creation cannot be explained by science. Evolutionary science is aimed at explaining how dumb, dead atoms transformed themselves in people in just three billion years. This means that evolutionists must prove that it really happened and also explain with testable scientific theories how it happened. Our little book shows that they have not achieved their goal. Therefore, creation by God continues to be a scientifically acceptable alternative. Furthermore, in the absence of an acceptable, demonstrable evolutionary explanation, all of the marvelous complex designs in living things speak authoritatively for the God of creation. Extremely pertinent to the creation/evolution controversy is the problem of knowledge and how we get it. The study of this subject is called epistemology. For example, how do we gain knowledge about the natural world? Secular scientists and other scholars who opt for an evolved world generally hold that only by scientific research can we gain valid knowledge about the world. In other words, man must find out for himself how the world got here. By faith the believers in an uncreated world rule out the possibility that there might be some other source of such knowledge. In contrast, scientists who are Christians believe that there is an additional source of valid knowledge about the natural world. This source of knowledge is divinely revealed truth in the Christian Bible. Christians accept by faith what God tells them in the Bible about the creation of the world. And what God has revealed, they use to construct in their minds a framework of thinking to use in criticizing all theories and in interpreting or understanding the facts that science discovers about the world. Therefore, in Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, we make no apology for starting with what God has revealed to us in the Bible. We find that the biblical record of creation contradicts the evolved world in which secular scientists glory. We examine the claims of evolutionary science and find that the scientific case for evolution has not been proved. Without question an imposing structure of evidence has been erected for evolution. Nevertheless, the evolution case is laden with crucial deficiencies and failures. Consequently, the alternative to evolution, creation of all things by God, is and continues to be a valid option for scientists, students and teachers of science to hold. But the final decision for every person is one of faith, of surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. But more than this, belief in and advocacy of divine special creation is also a right and a freedom of all Christians. This includes Christian scientists, students and teachers of science. And it is more than a right and a freedom; it is also a responsibility of Christians. As long as the Lord Jesus Christ delays His return, we must do what we can to restore to all peoples knowledge of the biblical faith in the creation of all things by God. This must be foundational to effective evangelism in the last days. Remember that the final proclamation of the gospel to a lost world will point all rebel sinners to the God of creation. Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth -- to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people -- saying with a loud voice... "Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water." Revelation 14:6, 7 We trust and pray that Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter will continue to be used by God to help Christians remain faithful and ever more effective in their witness for Christ. And we pray that the book may also be used by the Holy Spirit to bring lost souls to repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ, the only Savior of sinners. Chapter 1 - Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution 1. What is science? Answer: Science is a human activity in which people look carefully at things in the world to learn more about them. New information is discovered by means of careful observation, measurement and controlled experiments. Scientists also imagine theories to explain what they observe. Then they make more observations and experiments to test their theories. If a theory is designed so there is no possibility to test it and prove it false, even if it is false, it is not a scientific theory. It is a theory of philosophy or religion.1 2. Does science discover absolute knowledge and thus lead to absolute truth? Answer: Science cannot discover absolute truth because science is always changing. Any scientific finding or theory may be discarded or revised tomorrow or a hundred years from now. All scientific observations and theories must be open to criticism and to possible correction or rejection. No scientific theory should be protected from criticism, because it may some day be proved to be wrong. This is the central policy of the scientific method. 3. Do not scientists approach their work with a completely open mind, totally free of preconceived ideas? Answer: All human activities are influenced by assumptions or opinions, and this includes scientific research. Every scientist has in mind some expectations or theories when he begins a research project. The new observations will tend to falsify (prove false) or corroborate (support) the ideas he had in mind. 4. What is the theory of biological evolution? Answer: Strictly defined, biological evolution is the theory that all forms of life, both living and extinct, have developed by descent with variation from one or a few original simple organisms. This concept in various forms has existed for more than two thousand years, since the time of the classical Greek philosophers. Charles Darwin adapted from other scientists the concept of natural selection in an attempt to provide a totally naturalistic or materialistic explanation of how evolution happened. His book, The Origin of Species, published in 1859, made him the principal salesman of the idea of evolution. Since Darwin's time scientists have also attempted to discover a materialistic explanation for the origin of the original simple living cells by chemical reactions of non-living chemicals on the primeval earth. The term given this hypothetical process is abiogenesis, which means the beginning of life from non-life. The chemical reactions that supposedly led to the production of the first living cells are encompassed in the term, chemical evolution. During the past two centuries scientists and philosophers have also struggled to explain how the entire universe evolved from some original simple form. This concept is called cosmic evolution. Thus secular scientists, philosophers and scholars in general see the whole history of the universe as one continuous process of cosmic evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. Therefore, Darwin and his modern followers consider that everything in the universe can be explained totally as a result of materialistic cause and effect. So to them there is only physical reality, and no spiritual reality exists. God, if He exists, is locked outside of the universe and has no significance inside. Therefore, there are no intelligence, purpose, plan, meaning or goals in the universe. This includes the human race, personal human consciousness, and all of human society, religion, and culture. To them human consciousness is "an illusion," although they avoid the question of who is experiencing the illusion.2 In its modern form, somewhat simplified, the Darwinian theory of evolution may be outlined as follows: Each organism reproduces itself. Random, slight, heritable variations appear in some members of each new generation. The environment of each organism, both internal and external, enables individuals with some variations to reproduce more rapidly than the original type and than other variant types. As a result, a new type comes to dominate the population. This process of descent with variation was able, tiny step by tiny step, to transform a microbe into a university professor in only 3 billion years. 5. What is the biblical doctrine of creation? Answer: The Bible teaches in the first chapter of Genesis that God created all things, and that His work of creation had the following characters: Ex nihilo Out of nothing Fiat By His word or command Special Each created "kind" of organism reproduces separate from the other kinds Perfect Good, very good, to glorify the Creator and make His creatures happy God's image Intellect, affections, moral responsibility, and will in man Six-day creation At some time after the creation week, when Eve had been created from Adam's side, our first parents disobeyed God and carried the entire race into an estate of sin and misery, but also the entire creation came under the divine curse. This is very important to the creation explanation of the world, for it tells why an originally perfect creation became filled with imperfection and misery as it now is. 6. Is not evolution a science and therefore based upon fact, whereas creation is religious and therefore based upon "blind faith"? Answer: Neither evolution nor creation can be either proved or disproved by science, so believers in evolution or creation must accept either view by faith. The idea behind evolution is materialism, a belief which is accepted by faith. Materialism is the view of the world that sees matter and the laws of physics and chemistry as the only ultimate reality or, at least, the only reality with any practical importance in the world. A scientist who is a materialist and is interested in the origins of things will naturally pursue research aimed at discovering natural, i.e., materialistic explanations for the origin (the beginning) and development of all things including the universe, solar system, earth, life, species, and man. On the other hand, the belief underlying creation is theism, especially biblical theism. Biblical theism is the world-view that sees infinite-personal Spirit as the source of all reality. The biblical theist believes that the infinite-personal Creator of all things has revealed truth about the creation in a book, the Bible. A scientist who is a biblical theist will naturally approach scientific research with a view to understanding more about the Creator's handiwork. He will expect his results to agree with his faith, to fit into the framework of the biblical record of creation. It is clear, then, that evolution and creation are equally religious (or irreligious). Each requires faith in a basically philosophical or religious understanding of the world. On the other hand, advocates of both evolution and creation adduce from the data of science circumstantial evidence in support of their competing views of the world. In this sense evolution and creation are equally "scientific." 7. Can any theory about supposed processes of origins -- for example, the beginning of life or the origin of the solar system -- be tested in a way that might conclusively falsify the theory? Answer: Theories about the beginning of the world or of life generally cannot be tested experimentally. This is because nobody observed or can repeat what happened in the ancient past history of the earth. Since no humans were present at the beginning, no scientists could be on hand to record the conditions and the events. Furthermore, those conditions and events cannot be repeated experimentally. Therefore, the only evidence available is that found in the present world*in the rocks, fossils and living things. The data collected by observation and experiment in the present world, and advanced in support of one or the other theory of origins, is circumstantial evidence.3 By "circumstantial" we mean that the meaning or interpretation given to the data depends strongly on the assumptions and presuppositions of the interpreter. Furthermore, any objection raised against a theory of origins can often be answered by some additional new assumption. And this new assumption generally cannot be tested experimentally either. Thus theories of origins, be they evolutionary or creationist, cannot conclusively be proved false by experimental test.4 Therefore, they are, strictly speaking, outside the realm of scientific theories. 8. Is creation a scientific theory or a scientific fact? Answer: No, creation is not a scientific theory or a scientific fact. It is divinely revealed truth. Christians accept it as fact because of their faith in the Bible as the Word of God. A scientific fact is knowledge that can be gained by means of scientific research. But, for example, the truth revealed in the Bible about the creation of all things from nothing, the creation of Adam from the dust in the image of God, and the forming of Eve by cloning tissue from Adam's side could not be found out by science. 9. How can one make a decision about creation and evolution? Answer: A decision between creation and evolution involves questions of faith as well as of science. Each person must weigh the evidence offered in support of evolution and of creation, deciding for one's self on which side the evidence is most persuasive. Due account can properly be taken of one's own personal philosophical-religious commitment. The natural tendency is to feel most heavily the evidence which is on the side of one's personal beliefs. Everyone has the right to his personal beliefs, including scientists and students of science. In considering scientific questions, of course, all pertinent facts should be recognized, even those which seem to threaten one's beliefs. Evolution and creation are equally scientific and equally religious. Faith is involved in the acceptance of either view, and scientific data is advanced in support of both. 10. But could not God have created everything by some evolutionary process? Perhaps He created the universe and then let evolution do the rest. Answer: This idea, called theistic evolution, does not agree with what the Bible plainly says about creation, and it is not acceptable to the scientists who have developed the modern theory of evolution, although it does satisfy some professing Christians. Darwinian evolution in both its original and its modern form proposes evolution only by completely random chemical and physical processes. In this theory no trace of intelligent purpose, plan, design or goal is allowed. Therefore, theistic evolution which assumes divine direction to achieve divinely ordained goals is an entirely different and incompatible theory. As a result, belief in theistic evolution cannot logically be used as an excuse for accepting the modern evolutionary theory held by secular scientists. In addition theistic evolution leaves the believer with a God who really did not do what the Bible says He did, a God who apparently is not able to do what the Bible says He did. It makes man a half-evolved, half-created being who is a remodeled ape, so to speak. It also makes the Lord Jesus Christ into a very specially made-over ape. But the Bible says that He is the Creator of the universe, and the New Testament records His approval of the Genesis record of creation.5 Thus it would appear that those who accept theistic evolution are standing in an intellectual and religious no-man's land where they will be shot at from both sides of the battlefield -- by the materialists as well as by the Bible-believers. 11. I thought Darwin proved the theory of evolution in his book, The Origin of Species. Answer: No scientific theory can be "proved" in an absolute sense, and the general theory of evolution cannot even be tested as can the theories of experimental science. Moreover, Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book. In 1956 W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist (entomology - study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin, ...Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."6 Chapter IV of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 Mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases: "may have been," "is supposed to," "perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," "we have only to suppose," "as I believe," "it is probable," "I have assumed," "are supposed," "will generally tend," "may," "will generally tend," "If," "If...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," "and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not. Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote in his Introduction to The Origin of Species, ...Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory... The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation [change of one species to another] has been given.6 12. Has Christianity hindered the progress of science? Some people think so. Answer: True biblical Christianity alone gives lasting purpose and meaning to scientific research. Bible-believing Christians laid its foundations and have made outstanding contributions to its progress. The biblical Christian faith provided the philosophical foundation for the structure of modern science. This foundation is the concept of an orderly, rational, reproducible universe purposefully designed, created, and sustained by the infinite-personal, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Creator. Many of the greatest names in the history of science, people who laid the groundwork in theory and experiment for modern science, were devout believers in Jesus Christ and in the Bible. Notable in the last century were Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Faraday, who pioneered in experimental chemistry, electricity and magnetism, is called the greatest experimental scientist of all time.7 Maxwell developed the famous Maxwell equations for electromagnetic waves (such as radio waves) before such waves were even discovered.8 Lord Kelvin, a great British physicist, made important contributions to thermodynamics, geophysics, and many other fields of science.9 Each of these men was a Bible-believing Christian and a man of sterling character as well as a great man of science. Every field of science today owes much to the efforts of these and other Christians who have labored in scientific research, and many scientists today are Christians.10 How sad it is, not to say absurd, that so many people have been led to think that science must be tied to atheistic materialism. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257. ...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical. Popper, Karl, Unended Quest (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Pub. Co., 1976), p. 168. ...I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme*a possible framework for testable scientific theories. References 1 Popper, Karl R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1959), pp. 40-42. 2 Crick, Francis, Scientific American, 241, Sept. 1979, p. 224. 3 Matthews, L. Harrison, Introduction to Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971), p. xii. 4 Birch, L.C. and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, 214, 22 April 1967, p. 352; Popper, Karl R., Federation Proceedings, Amer. Societies for Experimental Biology, 22, 1963) p. 964; Olson, Everett C. in Evolution After Darwin, 1, Sol Tax, Editor (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 530-537. 5 John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 5:45-47, Matthew 19:4-6. 6 Thompson, W.R., Introduction to Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (E.P. Dutton and Co., New York, 1956). 7 MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwell, and Kelvin (Doubleday and Co., Inc., Garden City, N.Y., 1964), pp. 10-11; Tyndal, John, Faraday as a Discoverer (Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, 1961), pp. 43-48, 176-199. 8 MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwwell, and Kelvin (Doubleday and Col, Inc., Garden City, N.Y., 1964), pp. 63, 97-98; Watson, Dwight, The Scientists: James Clerk Maxwill and Michael Faraday (Bible-Science Association, Minneapolis, MN, 1973). 9 Ibid., MacDonald, D.K.C., p. 63. 10 Morris, Henry M., Men of Science--Men of God (Master Book Pub., San Diego, CA, 1982). The Creation Research Society with membership office at P.O. Box 14016, Terre Haute, IN 47803, is a professional society with some 450 voting members having advanced degrees in science, a number of them on university faculties or in industry, who believe the biblical record of creation and the flood. Chapter 2 - The Failure of Darwin: Design in Nature 1. What is the theory of organic evolution? Answer: Evolution is the theory that one or a few simple, single-celled organisms gradually changed to give rise to all of the many complex species that have ever existed. This process supposedly took several billion years. According to this theory, several billion years ago very simple, single-celled organisms appeared on the earth. They reproduced themselves, each new generation the same as the preceding, except that in some of the new individuals random or chance changes called "mutations" occurred. Most of the mutations were bad and the individuals having them died out, but a very few of the mutations conferred some advantage on the individuals possessing them. These individuals were better adapted (adjusted) to their environment (surroundings) and so were able to reproduce more of their kind. Thus individuals having the advantageous mutations gradually came to dominate the population. The favoring of a certain type of organism by the environment (nature) is called "natural selection." According to the theory, by this stepwise process of mutation and natural selection the few original simple life forms were able to evolve (change) to more complex kinds, better adapted to their environments, to changes in their environments, or to other environments nearby. By this process ever more complex creatures supposedly originated. Many new kinds evolved to fit into new parts of the world, such as the oceans, the soil, ponds, and on the surface of and even inside of other creatures. Thus, through many millions of years new kinds of organisms evolved and flourished. Then they were replaced by new kinds, becoming extinct and sometimes leaving their fossil remains in the rocks. The alleged history of evolution began with single-celled animals, followed in order by single-celled plants, invertebrate (no backbone) animals, vertebrate (backboned) fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds, primates (monkeys, apes, etc.), and finally, man. So man is, according to the theory, simply the most advanced of the animals, and really only a highly organized form of matter.1 2. Does the theory of evolution by random (chance, undirected) mutations (changes) and natural selection explain where all living things came from? Answer: For many kinds of living plants and animals, their origin by evolution cannot be explained or even imagined. The only other explanation is that they were created. The crucial question is "What is the source of biological designs (biodesigns)?" The world is filled with what appears to be evidence that all things are the result of intelligent, purposeful design and creation by an infinitely wise, all-powerful Creator. A scientific theory of evolution should take into account all of the pertinent observed facts. For example, it should be able to explain the origin of all of the known fossil and living species of plants and animals. So if the theory of evolution is correct, it should be possible to explain how a series of slight changes could produce any existing species from some previously existing species. And it should be possible to show how each successive change would give an advantage to the creature possessing it. It should be possible to outline such a series of steps leading to each creature and every bodily structure, organ or behavioral characteristic. Such imagined histories would not prove evolution either could or did happen, but they would at least make the theory seem more plausible (likely, reasonable). It would help if the fossil record contained series of intermediate fossil types to provide historical evidence that such a process of change really took place. A testable theory for the evolution of new biological designs must be devised. Finally, genetic processes or mechanisms must be found which are actually capable of producing new useful biodesigns by chance. The fact is that many species and many organs completely baffle even the imaginations of evolutionary scientists. And it is certain that no genetic mechanisms have yet been found which can produce new biodesigns. In other words, the theory of evolution fails to explain the observed facts -- except by faith. It does appear that a more reasonable explanation is that all living things were designed by an intelligent, purposeful Creator. 3. What are some examples of species which evolution cannot explain? a. Sea Slug With Borrowed Spear Guns The nudibranch or sea slug, Eolidoidea, about two inches long, lives in the shallow tidal zone along the sea coast. It feeds primarily on sea anemones. On the tentacles of the anemones are thousands of tiny stinging cells. They explode at the slightest touch, plunging poisoned whips into intruding fish or other creatures. These are paralyzed and drawn into the anemone's stomach to be digested. But Eolidoidea can violently tear apart, chew up, and digest anemones without being stung and without exploding the stinging cells or digesting them. What happens to the anemone's stinging cells is one of the most amazing mysteries in nature. Connecting the sea slug's stomach with pouches on its outer surface are tiny tubes lined with cilia (moving hairs). The cilia sweep the undigested stinging cells from the stomach to the pouches where they are arranged and stored for the sea slug's defence. Thus when a hungry fish tries to take a bite of sea slug, it gets stung in the mouth by the stinging cells which the hapless anemone manufactured for its own defense!2 No suitable explanation for the evolution of this mystery has surfaced to date. As long as this failure of evolution continues, divine special creation of Eolidoidea continues to be an acceptable explanation of its origin for any scientist, teacher or student to hold. b. Microbe With Rotary Motors A bacterium commonly found in our intestinal tract, Escherichia coli, is a sausage-shaped cell about 1/10,000th of an inch long. Each microbe is fitted with five or six long, flexible flagella with which it propels itself through the fluid medium. Until about 1972 it was thought that the flagella undulated or wiggled. Then it was found that they actually rotate! This startling discovery initiated intense research which has elucidated some amazing facts about the propulsion system of E. coli.3 The flagella are not entirely flexible but have the form of a corkscrew or helical propeller. Each flagellum connects by a universal joint to the shaft of the motor. This shaft protrudes from the side of the bacterium, and since its flagellum must trail behind, the universal joint is needed to transmit the rotary motion around a right angle. On the inner end of the shaft is the rotor of the motor. The shaft passes through two disks fixed in the bacterial wall. The first is the stator of the motor. The second, outer disk serves as a sleeve bearing. Figure 1 is an engineering sketch of this amazing micro-mechanism. The motor is a constant torque, variable speed, reversible rotary motor! It is also an electric motor, energized by a flow of positively charged protons through the cell membrane. The sensory and control system is also complex and sophisticated. Figure 1. The E. coli bacterium cell is about a ten thousandth of an inch long. Protruding from its sides are some half-dozen flagella that trail behind and propel it through the aqueous medium Can evolutionary theory explain the origin of this propulsion system? Dr. Robert Macnab, at the close of a fifty-page review article admitted it could not.4 Prof. Howard Berg of the California Institute of Technology, a leading authority on the subject, could not in a private conversation provide an explanation. In fact, Darwin's own theory predicts that such a complex combination of complex, interdependent parts could not evolve. This is because if any of the parts began to evolve, they would be a costly, useless burden to the organism. Any microbes which began to evolve the system would have to expend energy and building materials to produce something useless. They would not be able to compete with the unchanged microbes around them and therefore would be eliminated from the population by natural selection. Thus evolution would be stopped in its tracks.5 Figure 2. The rotary motor of E. coli. The rotor is attached rigidly to the inner end of the shaft, the outer end of which connects to the hook (a universal joint) which attaches to the inner end of the flagellar filament. The stator and the bearing are fixed rigidly to the inner and outer membranes of the cell. The rotor, hook and flagellum rotate at approximately 100 revolutions per second. [Adapted from Bruce Alberts et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland Publishing, New York, 1983), p. 758, by Bible-Science News, Vol. 32, 1994, No. 2, p. 11.] In view of all these facts and more, it is not "unscientific" in the least to believe that E. coli was designed and created by God. c. Birds, Stars, Maps and Compasses Migrating birds perform amazing feats of navigation which are still not fully understood by scientists. The lesser whitethroated warbler summers in Germany but winters near the headwaters of the Nile River in Africa. Toward the close of summer, when the new brood of young is independent, the parent birds take off for Africa, leaving their children behind. Several weeks later the new generation birds take off and fly, unguided, across thousands of miles of unfamiliar land and sea to join their parents. They have never been there before. How so they know where to fly, and how do they navigate? German researchers raised some of the warblers entirely in a planetarium building. Experiments proved that in their little bird brains is the inherited knowledge of how to tell direction, latitude, and longitude by the stars, plus a calendar and a clock, plus the necessary navigational data to enable them to fly unguided to the precise place on the globe where they can join their parents! Many other species of birds, and insects such as the Monarch butterfly, perform similar feats. How did all of this knowledge and ability get packed into a little bird's egg?6 More recent investigations at Cornell University have revealed that homing pigeons determine direction by observing the position of the sun in relation to the bird's internal calendar and clock. But pigeons were also shown to have direction-finding ability in cloudy weather when the sun was not visible. Electromagnets placed on the pigeons' heads destroyed this ability in cloudy weather, but not in sunny weather. Thus, the pigeon has two ways of determining direction, by the sun in clear weather and by an internal magnetic compass in cloudy weather. Sensitivity to magnetic fields may be provided by small deposits of magnetic iron oxide which have been discovered in tissues in the heads of birds. There is also good evidence that pigeons have an internal map of the earth which they use in conjunction with their compasses to enable them to navigate accurately over distances of hundreds of miles.7 Science cannot explain how these remarkable abilities of "scatterbrained" birds could have evolved by chance. Is it not more reasonable to believe that they were designed and created with those abilities required for a happy life with the birds? d. The Venus Flowerbasket Sponge and Blind Building Crews Sir Allister Hardy describes some mysterious natural wonders in his book, The Living Stream.8 The Venus Flowerbasket sponge(Euplectella aspergellum), about the size and shape of a cucumber, has a rigid skeleton constructed of silica(mineral glass) needles called spicules. It is a cylindrical framework of the needle-like spicules which form lengthwise struts and circular hoops at right angles to them (see Figure 3). Resistance to twisting is provided by the insertion of diagonal bars to form spiral geodetics in the framework . Now consider in Figure 4 the sketch of the construction of a single three-spiked spicule by a scattered group of about five tiny cells. The construction of larger more complicated spicules is carried out by larger cells having many nuclei. The question comes to our minds, "How can these blind little cells that have no brain and no nervous system connecting them together know how to build just a single spicule, let alone the entire marvelous complete skeletal structure of the Venus Flowerbasket sponge?" Science has no answer. That God alone knows and can know is, in the light of the available evidence, still a viable position to hold. Figure 3. The silica skeleton of a Venus Flowerbasket sponge. It is constructed like the steel framework of a high rise building, with longitudinal members, circumferential members as right angles to them, and with diagonal braces to prevent twisting. Figure 4. A multinucleated sponge cell constructing a complex spicule made of silica extracted by the cells from the sea water. The spicule will be glued to others to construct the marvelous three-dimensional skeletal structure of a Venus flowerbasket sponge Our next mystery begins with the death of a sponge such as the one we have just described. The dead cells and other soft materials decompose, leaving the framework to break up into tiny silica spicules and settle down into the ooze on the bottom of the sea. Other species of tiny, single celled organisms called arenaceous foraminifera, look under the microscope like formless amoebae. Most species of foraminifera secrete tiny shells of lime in which to live, but the species with which we are concerned build tiny houses from spicules of lime or silica dropped from dead sponges! In Figure 5 we see sketches of these houses magnified about 35 times. Technitella legumen builds a home shaped like a hollow cigar a little more than 1/16th of an inch long (Sketch A). Sketch B shows an enlargement of the structural detail, two layers of spicules arranged at right angles for strength. Sketch C shows a different design used by another species of foram. In sketch D we see a much enlarged view of how different lengths and shapes of spicules are fitted and glued together by our tiny amoeboid architect/craftsman. The sketches have been adapted from The Living Stream. Figure 5. A: This hollow cigar-shaped structure a little over 1/16th inch long is home to a single arenacious forminifera cell. B: The fine structure made of silica sponge spicules cemented in two layers at right angles for strength. C: Another species of foram make a spicule home shaped like a many-sided prism. D: Fine structure of C, showing how the foram selects and fits together many different lengths and shapes of spicules to make its home. Let us now think together about the origin of these remarkable abilities and activities of the industrious and cooperative single cells of the sponge and of the enterprising amoeba-like foraminiferan architects. Can science show how the architectural plans for the Venus flowerbasket and for the foraminiferan homes are "remembered" by the single cells? Supposedly these plans are stored in the DNA coded information of these organisms. Are they? Can this be proved? No, it cannot be proved. If it cannot be proved, how can we be sure? We can be sure only through an invincible faith, but faith is not science. Can it be proved, then, that these abilities were produced by evolution, rather than being created by the Creator of all things? No. Thus we are left with a choice between competing faiths. If a scientist believes in evolution, he must assume that some process of gradual evolution taught these cells how to do what they do. Let us imagine the little amoeba-like foram squishing around in the dark ooze at the bottom the shallow sea. Perhaps he finds himself in an area where there is not really enough calcium in solution to form the little lime shell that most species of forams live in. So our little foram finds himself with no home on his back. But this is dangerous, so there is selective pressure to "figure out" a new kind home that can be built with available materials. One day while he is squishing through the ooze, he stumbles onto a bit of building material, a tiny silica spicule from some poor dead sponge. Our foram just has by chance a mutation which gives him the behavioral trait of hanging on to that first spicule and, perhaps, to a second one. But what is he to do with them? They are of no value to him now, and it is tiresome to drag them around. Nevertheless, we must imagine him and thousands of his descendants doing so until, finally, another mutation endows some of them with the ability to produce an underwater glue. Next, another mutation gives some of them the behavioral trait of gluing two spicules together, for no reason at all and with no advantage except, perhaps, that it is easier to drag them around glued together in one piece. You see, in this evolution business, both forams and scientists must be quite resourceful and imaginative in order to have a reason for existence. The forams have no intelligence and evolution has no goal. Their only hope of escaping extinction lies in an amazing sequence of chance, undirected, stumbling, unplanned mutations that finally enable them to construct from the spicules tiny boxes in which to live. Now by further mutations and natural selection, they "learn" to improve the quality of the house design, how to select just the right lengths and shapes of spicules, how to reinforce their walls with two layers of spicules set at right angles to each other, how to use spiral struts to increase the strength of tubes, how to go in and out, etc., etc. Does this foray into speculation and imagination a la Darwin sound like science? Does it even sound plausible? Only if one is forced to think this way because of a previous choice to reject divine creation in favor of "creation" by some chance process of evolution. But the assumption is not a scientific conclusion. It is a philosophical or religious belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove that the complex designs of any living things originated by chance, without God the Designer and Creator of all things. In all of human history no complex new design has been observed to come from any source other than intelligent human minds. Therefore, we conclude that belief in creation by God is better in accord with the sum total of evidence than is belief in evolution. A scientist who is a Christian believer can investigate such wonders of the natural world with the glory of God as his goal. Furthermore, research with this motivation and faith commitment can be and has been every bit as fruitful for the advancement of scientific knowledge as research carried on by scientists who have other faith world views and motivations to guide their research. Sir Alister Hardy, in his little book, The Living Stream, cited above, came to see that classical evolutionary theory cannot explain much of the data of biology. He concluded that there must be an intelligent Spirit in nature, which he referred to as God. He identified himself as not being an orthodox Christian, but he believed that some kind of a God must exist to guide evolution to produce the marvels he observed in nature. This is the concept of theistic evolution, not biblical creation. But most scientists are so totally given over to a materialistic world view that they will never listen to Hardy with much more than condescending skepticism. But the uncompromising biblical position is superior to Hardy's mixing up of materialism with theism. The facts of biology support the biblical record of special creation of the original kinds of plants and animals, which were made to reproduce after their respective kinds, not to evolve into new kinds. The Christian who simply believes the Bible and pursues the service of God and of his fellow men in obedience to the law of God and the gospel of Christ possesses the Truth and has the key to wisdom. Let us not compromise God's Truth, regardless of who or how many around us may reject the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus. In concluding this topic, let it be emphasized that the Venus Flowerbasket sponge and the scavenger forams are absolute mysteries to scientists. They have not the slightest hint of how these creatures can exist and function without God. e. Good Engineering in the Human Body The human body is amazing not only because of its excellently engineered structures and mechanisms such as bones, joints, muscles, communications networks, and circulatory systems, but also because of the many sophisticated control systems that regulate all of the bodily functions. In general these control systems use the principle of negative feedback which is basic to the control mechanisms designed by engineers for use in automobiles, air conditioning systems, and manufacturing plants. Physiologist (physiology - study of life processes, activities, and functions) David A. Kaufman lists ten different classes of control systems in the human body: internal environment and homeostasis (keeping internal conditions such as temperature constant), nervous control, hormone control (hormones are messenger chemicals), contractile control, circulatory control, and absorption, resting and energy metabolism (producing energy from food), and regeneration and reproduction. There is not space here even to define all of the bodily functions, but one example will be described.9 The human body has a temperature control system which keeps the body core temperature relatively constant at 99.6°F. The hypothalamus, a gland in the brain, contains an unknown device that provides the standard or ideal temperature signal. This signal goes to a comparison device where it is compared with the temperature signal from a temperature sensor which reads actual body temperature. From the comparison device an error signal of too hot or too cold is sent to either the body's antirise or its antidrop center. If stimulated, the antirise center turns on the sweating and vasodilation (expanding of blood vessels) mechanisms. These release heat to the surroundings and reduce bodily heat production. On the other hand, the antidrop center, if stimulated, turns on the shivering and vasoconstriction (constriction of blood vessels) mechanisms. These preserve heat and increase bodily heat production. Scientists only vaguely understand the details of this efficient control mechanism, which are undoubtedly highly sophisticated. What great faith in the abilities of "dumb atoms" is needed for an informed person to believe that these intricate engineering techniques used in the human body and absolutely essential to human existence could be the end result of blind, purposeless evolution. The four examples just considered illustrate the fact that evolution fails dismally when the structures and functions of living things are examined in detail. We have presented these and other such examples of intelligent, purposeful design in nature before many college and university audiences. Not once has a qualified scientist or faculty member offered to explain their origin by evolution through many intermediate steps. A theory which majors on broad generalities but fails on the details is not very satisfactory science. 4. What is the central logic of the scientific case for creation? Answer: Divine special creation is by definition a miracle. In a miracle natural law is supervened or transcended by a Power outside of nature. Therefore, a miracle cannot be described or explained in scientific terms or reproduced experimentally. Consequently, there can be no scientific theory of creation and no naturalistic mechanisms of creation. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists claim to have proved that evolution is a fact. They claim to be developing theories which explain the evolution of complex living organisms and to be discovering materialistic mechanisms which can produce these organisms. So they should have fossils which prove that the process of evolution really is a fact of earth history. Also, they must devise and test theories which successfully explain the origin of complex biological designs, and discover and demonstrate mechanisms which are capable of producing these biodesigns. Thus far, as we show in this book, evolutionary science has failed to achieve this, its central goal. As long as the failure of evolutionary theory to explain the origin of anything important continues, belief in the only alternative, divine special creation, continues to be a scientifically acceptable option for anybody to hold. 5 . But isn't this a negative argument? Answer: Yes, but necessarily so by the nature of the case, as we have shown. Nevertheless, the argument is logically airtight, unless and until such time as evolutionary science really succeeds in solving its crucial problem, that of design. Some Christians bridal at having to rely principally on a negative argument. They then try to make creation into a scientific theory, but it is not, and trying to make it so only creates confusion. 6. Is there a positive scientific case for creation? Answer: Yes, there is also a positive case for creation. In all of history humans have never seen a new, useful design arise except from an intelligent mind. Since there is no other explanation for the origin of biodesigns, it is logical to believe that they, too, came from the intelligent mind of the Creator. Therefore, based on both negative and positive logic, every existing complex biodesign is powerful evidence for divine special creation. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Deevey, Edward, Jr., Yale Review, 61, Summer (1967), pp.634-635. ...Of course these things are marvels, and of course, the fossil record being what it is, no one can say with confidence exactly how any one of them came about. References 1 Simpson, G.G., The Meaning of Evolution (Bantam Books, Inc., New York, 1971), pp. 314-315. 2 Zeiller, Warren, Natural History, 80, Dec. 1971, pp. 36-41. 3 Berg, Howard C., Scientific American, 233, Aug. 1975, pp. 36-44; Lipkin, R., "A new twist on bacterial rotary engines," Science News, Vol. 144, Dec. 1993; p. 388; Berg, Howard C. and Linda Turner, "Torque Generated by the Flagellar Motor of Escherichia coli," Biophysical Journal, 65, pp. 2201-2216, Nov. 1993. 4 Macnab, Robert M., CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, 5, Dec. 1978, pp. 291-341; 5 I am indebted to Mr. Art Battson for this argument against evolution based on the principle of a complex combination of complex interdependent parts. 6 Sauer, E.G.F., Scientific American, 199, Aug. 1958, p. 42; Emlen, Stephen T., ibid., 233, Aug. 1975, pp. 102-111. 7 Keeton, William T., ibid., 231, Dec. 1974, pp. 96-107. 8 Sir Alister Hardy, The Living Stream, Meridian Books, World Pub. Co., New York, 1968 9 Kaufmann, David A., A Challenge to Education II-A, Walter Lang, Editor (Bible-Science Association, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 1974), pp. 119-130. Chapter 3 - Life From Chemicals: Theory and Improbability 1. Many scientists seem quite sure that in the atmosphere and oceans of the early earth large quantities of life's building-block molecules, such as amino acids, were formed and accumulated. Is this a reasonable theory? Answer: This theory is purely a set of guesses which cannot be proved to be true. There are many difficulties with this idea. a. The oxygen-ultraviolet dilemma The assumed primeval atmosphere can contain no oxygen, for oxygen eats up amino acids. But without oxygen there could be no ozone layer high in the atmosphere. The ozone layer in our present atmosphere stops the sun's ultraviolet rays which would destroy amino acids and others of life's building block molecules. So here are the horns of the oxygen-ultraviolet dilemma: (1) oxygen present ¾ amino acids destroyed by oxygen, and (2) oxygen absent ¾ amino acids destroyed by ultraviolet light. To get around this difficulty more assumptions are made. Perhaps amino acids were protected in bottom waters of shallow lakes, or the ocean surface may have been covered by a layer of tar-like chemicals which stopped ultraviolet light. Or amino acids and other vulnerable chemicals may have found caves or other hiding places in which to lurk while waiting to be evolved into the first living cells. Thus the theory becomes a web of unprovable assumptions.1 b. Oxygen-free atmosphere only an assumption. The presence on the early earth of a reducing (no oxygen present) atmosphere containing methane, ammonia and other reducing gases is only an assumption required to make the theory work. There is no conclusive evidence to justify the assumption, and there is considerable geological evidence that the atmosphere has always contained a substantial amount of oxygen.2 Some of the other planets, notably Jupiter and Saturn, have reducing atmospheres, but Mars, the most earth-like planet, has a very thin oxidizing atmosphere. Evidence against an early reducing atmosphere on earth has been accumulating.3 c. The destructive effects of sunlight The sun's ultraviolet light breaks down water molecules to release free oxygen at such a rate that the ancient atmosphere could not be free of oxygen for long.4 Ammonia also is decomposed by ultraviolet light and would soon drop to a concentration too low to participate in a chemical beginning of life.5 Methane gas in the atmosphere would rapidly be converted by the sun's ultraviolet light into heavier hydrocarbons.6 d. The ocean of "organic soup" is highly problematic. Most of the basic building block molecules of life have been synthesized by chemists under conditions similar to those assumed for the ancient earth. This includes 19 of the 20 amino acids needed for proteins and the five bases and the several sugars used in the genetic code DNA and RNA molecules. However, it appears to be quite certain that they never could have accumulated sufficiently in the oceans to take part in the origin of life. The following are some of the difficulties:7 (1) Some of the molecules that might form in the upper atmosphere would be largely destroyed by sunlight before they settled to the ocean. (2) Along with the 20 amino acids of interest a much larger number of amino acids would be formed which have no part in living systems. By becoming incorporated into any chains of amino acids formed in the organic soup, these would prevent the assumed production of the amino acid chains called proteins that ate needed for living cells. (3) Many of the building block molecules are too unstable and would decompose rather rapidly in the ocean. (4) The amino acids, sugars and other chemicals such as hydrocyanic acid which supposedly collected in the ocean would be used up rapidly in reactions of no value for beginning life. (5) Phosphate which is essential for life would be precipitated from the ocean by plentiful calcium and magnesium ions. (6) Lipid (fatty acid) molecules are essential to forming living cells. But any lipids in the oceans would be rapidly precipitated out by calcium and magnesium ions (i.e., by the "hard water reaction"). 2. Could amino acids have linked together by chance to form long-chain protein molecules, and could nucleotides have combined accidentally to form the long-chain DNA and RNA molecules? Answer: The tendency (because of the entropy effect - See Chapter 4-1) is for the protein and DNA chains not to form, but to be broken up, hydrolyzed by the abundant water in aqueous solutions.8 Nevertheless, chemists have discovered several types of reactions by which small protein-like molecules might be produced spontaneously under certain very special conditions.9 However, that these unlikely conditions ever existed on the earth is only an optimistic assumption. But even if protein-like molecules were actually to form by such random processes, the probability is vanishingly small that the right ones to start life would ever form. For a calculation of this improbability see the next question. 3. Admittedly the chance chemical beginning of life was a very improbable event. But wasn't there enough time for it to happen anyway? Answer: Even with trillions of years there would not be enough time to make it probable that chance chemical reactions could form even the simplest living organism. The argument that sufficient time makes anything possible or even probable sounds plausible only if it is not analyzed carefully. It starts with the admission that, since even the simplest living organisms are exceedingly complicated, the beginning of life by accidental chemical reactions is very improbable. The probability is very, very low that just the right molecules would form, come together, and spontaneously fit together to start life. But if a very unlikely thing is tried many times, the probability increases that success will finally be achieved. If there is enough time to make a large enough number of tries, the mathematical probability that it will finally occur becomes almost certainty. Mathematically, this argument is correct. But to see if the mathematical theory really proves that life could have started accidentally, it is necessary to apply the theory to a reasonable model of the real world. We do this in some detail in our book, The Creation Explanation.10 We begin with very generous assumptions about the beginning of life. Then, we assume that for a billion years the surface of the earth was covered each year with a fresh layer one foot deep of protein molecules. This would be 260 trillion tons each year, a fantastic number of molecules. Yet, at the end of the billion years, the probability that just one protein molecule required to start life had been formed is only one chance in about 100 billion. This means that it is really mathematically impossible for life to start by accident, even if the beginning would require only a single suitable enzyme molecule. Dr. H.P. Yockey made a similar but much more thorough calculation based on the information content of the cytochrome c molecule and obtained a probability 100,000 times smaller than ours.11 Some workers have claimed evidence that certain origin-of-life experiments have produced chains of amino acids which were non-random in order. Supposedly certain sequences of amino acids tend to form, and reportedly these sequences are similar to those found in true proteins.12 On the other hand, Miller and Orgel challenge such claims and say, "There is no evidence to show whether the amino acids within a chain are highly ordered or not."13 In any event it is quite certain that life could not start with a single protein molecule. It has been estimated by Harold Morowitz that the simplest possible living cell would require not just one, but at least 124 different proteins to carry out necessary life functions.14 Writing in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, Prof. Morowitz also estimates the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known today.15 He comes up with the unimaginably small probability of one chance in 10340,000,000. This means one chance in the number one followed by 340 million zeros. This is about the same as the probability of tossing a coin 1,129,000,000 times and getting all heads! Nevertheless, thousands of other capable scientists believe that life happened on earth by accident. But must you and I accept their unreasonable faith in materialism? Is not the biblical faith in the all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite-personal Creator the more reasonable, the better faith? 4. Could the genetic code have originated by chance? Answer: Scientists who believe it did happen, and there are many of them, have failed to find a plausible explanation of how the genetic code could have arisen spontaneously. The genetic code is the code by which the long DNA chain molecules carry the instructions for arranging the amino acids in the proper order along the long chains called protein molecules. Four different link-molecules called nucleotides make up the DNA chain. These are referred to by their abbreviations, A, C, G, and T. A group of any three of these "code letter molecules" in a DNA chain is called a "codon." There are 4x4x4 = 64 of these codons. Two of the codons are "stop" signals. The other 62 codons are code words for the 20 amino acids that make up the protein chains in living cells. For example, the DNA codon, CTA, is the code word for the amino acid leucine. A gene consists of a long chain of the DNA three-letter code words corresponding to a long chain of the twenty different amino acids to be linked together to form a particular protein molecule. How is the meaning of the code message translated into the protein molecule? It is a very complex process. The DNA code message or gene is transcribed into a similar code message on a messenger RNA (m-RNA) molecule. The message on the m-RNA molecule is read and executed by a ribosome. A ribosome is a very complex structure made of some 55 different protein molecules and a roughly equal weight of long RNA molecules. Each kind of amino acid molecule is recognized by special protein molecules that attach it to a transport RNA (t-RNA) molecule. Each type of amino acid is attached to its own special type of t-RNA molecule which carries the anti-codon corresponding to the amino acid. The anti-codon is attracted to its corresponding codon on the m-RNA molecule. The ribosome then moves along the m-RNA molecule and connects the amino acid to the end of a growing protein chain according to the code message in the m-RNA molecule. All of these many steps are made possible by the assistance of various protein molecules that are enzymes that catalyze the necessary chemical reactions. A protein chain grows at the rate of 20 to 40 amino acid residues per second, and with high accuracy in accord with the coded message in the m-RNA molecule to which the information was transcribed from the DNA gene.Miller and Orgel admit in their very honest book, "We clearly do not understand how the code originated. New ideas that can be tested experimentally are needed."16 5. Could not life have started with very simple cells? Answer: The simplest organism that is theoretically capable of existing and reproducing would actually not be simple at all. To get the simplest possible living cell operating would require at least the following functioning, coordinated elements and conditions: (1) 126 different complex protein molecules, (2) long-chain DNA RNA and molecules to store and transmit information, (3) six or eight different nucleotide molecules, (4) various lipid (fat) molecules, (5) sugar molecules, (6) at least twenty different amino acid molecules, (7) chemical machinery to assemble the large complex protein, RNA and DNA molecules from the building block molecules, (8) a very accurate, information transmission and translation system like that described above, (9) efficient error correcting systems to correct errors(mutations) that occur when DNA is copied during cell division,(10) chemical machinery to capture energy from outside the cell and use it inside, (11) a cell membrane to hold the parts together and separate the inside from the outside, (12) while allowing the right substances to pass into and out of the cell, (13) suitable supplies of phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium and other inorganic elements, (14) and chemical and physical conditions suitable for the accumulation and proper chemical combination and structural arrangements of all of these parts. Is it not amazing that so many scientists have faith so strong as to believe that all of this complexity and interlinked processes arose without any Designer, plan, or purpose? 6. Have not four decades of intensive research brought scientist close to explaining life's origin? Answer: No, between any chemical compounds or reactions imagined for the beginning of life, and the fact of living organisms, there still exists a huge barrier or gap of ignorance. Scientific American for February, 1991, carried a ten-page survey article by staff writer John Horgan. His review of forty years of research and interviews with the current leaders showed that the principal problems we have mentioned in this chapter are still unsolved.17 In the final paragraph Prof. Stanley Miller of the University of California at San Diego is quoted admitting the failure of the enterprise to date. "I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. ...When we find the answer, it will probably be so d----d simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?'" 7. Does the recent "RNA World" theory bring researchers closer to the origin of life? Answer: The RNA research has led to important discoveries, but RNA has still not been able to replicate itself without the involvement of protein molecules. The central element of RNA World research is the ability of some RNA molecules to act as enzymes. Some short RNA chains can promote the assembly of their complementary chains. In a complementary chain A is replaced with T and G with A, and vice versa. In Scientific American for October, 1994, Prof. Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute, explains that years of effort have failed to get the next crucial step to take place without the help of protein molecules.18 This is the step in which the initial RNA chain and its complementary chain are separated, and the complementary chain becomes the template on which a copy of the initial chain is constructed. As G.F. Joyce and Leslie Orgel had commented a year earlier, without the previous evolution of specialized protein molecules, "...it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme(an RNA molecule having some enzyme activity) could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme."19 Thus we can see that forty years of zealous research have not eliminated the ancient "chicken and the egg" question. That is, since nucleic acid molecules(DNA and/or RNA) cannot do their thing without protein molecules, and the codes for protein molecules are carried by the nucleic acid molecules, how could life start without both? A more solemn question is, "How could life start with God the Creator?" 8. Is it true that there is scientific proof that life once existed on Mars? Answer: No, life on Mars has not been proved. The claim that recently published evidence from a meteorite points to life on Mars has met with both support and skepticism on the part of scientists. A meteorite found in Antarctica some years ago has been offered in 1996 as evidence that life once existed on Mars.20 It contains chemical elements and isotope ratios that point to its origin on Mars. In addition, electron microscopic examination has revealed some carbonaceous inclusions that could have organic origin. Also, some electron microscope images reveal forms that could possibly be fossilized micro-organisms. However, some specialists in the field of fossilized micro-organisms are skeptical. And no scientist is willing at this point to say that the existence of life on Mars has been proved. Geologist David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Center stated, "We are not claiming that we have found life on Mars. ...We're just saying we have found a lot of pointers in that direction." On the other hand, Prof. Kenneth Nealson of the University of Wisconsin noted that the carbonate deposits found in the meteorite could have been deposited from warm fluids circulating through the Martian crust, without any connected to living organisms. Another group led by meteorite specialist Jim Papike at the University of New Mexico showed that the altered ratio of sulfur isotopes produced by living organisms is not found in the pyrite particles found in the meteorite. But David McKay's group responds with the fact that the magnetite the iron monosulfide particles found in the rock are similar to those left in earth sediments by bacteria. Joseph Kirschvink of the California Institute of Technology agrees the combination of micro-particles is "definitely peculiar" so that it is "not unreasonable at all" to suggest that they had a biological source.21 The exceedingly small objects found in the meteorite that McKay and some others offer as fossilized micro-organisms are met with considerable skepticism by other scientists. Prof. Schopf, probably the world's leading expert on fossil micro-organisms, points out that these objects are roughly 100 times smaller than the smallest ancient bacterial micro-fossils ever found in earth rocks. He notes, in addition, that there is thus far no evidence that the tiny inclusions have any preserved structures of bacterial cells, such as cell walls. He also observes that thus far none of the reputed Martian micro-fossils have been found in the act of reproducing (i.e., cell division), which is something that is found in terrestrial micro-fossils.21 Some have commented on the possible significance of the timing for this new research on a four-pound meteorite that has been on the shelf for a dozen years. It happens to coincide with an effort by NASA to loosen up the congressional purse strings to fund more planetary exploration. They hope to send a joint U.S.-Russian mission to Mars bring a load of geological specimens back from the Red Planet. Some dozen reputed Martian rocks are to be studied intensively for two years by scientific teams in Great Britain, Japan and the U.S. The object is to bring to Congress as much persuasive evidence as possible in order to sweep up the gullible public and their legislators in a wave of interplanetary enthusiasm for so-called exobiology. Won't it be wonderful to know that we are not alone in the universe? So in the idea of extraterrestrial life there is a kind of secular-religious emotional appeal for "those who dwell on the earth." These are shown in the New Testament book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ experiencing the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation. Some of these worldlings are NASA scientists and administrators whose bread and butter comes from interplanetary escapades. Fortunately, there is resistance to spending billions of public money to collect rocks on Mars. Representative Ralph Hall(D-TX) told team of NASA scientists/sales people, "You're really dealing with circumstantial evidence. And I've had letters ... from some who have said not to spend a dollar on this as long as we have a baby's bottle empty in this country."22 Conclusion Life's probability without the God of creation is effectively zero, even when the calculations are made by a believer in evolution and by some believers in no God. Nevertheless, Darwin's quest to explain all of life without God is now being extended out into space, out into the heavens. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork"(Psalm 19:1), but the worldling scientists are intruding in the heavens to prove that God the Creator is not needed. They want to prove their faith in dumb atoms, that given enough time, atoms and energy, life without God is inevitable. But their time will come to an end, and "the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."(2 Peter 3:10) Then what will happen to their theories that the universe originated without God and that atoms created life without God? Revelation 20:11-12 pictures all rebels against God the Creator standing on nothing before the Lord Jesus Christ seated on the great white judgment throne. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Miller, Stanley L., and Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974), p.33. ...Geological and geophysical evidence is insufficient to allow us to state with any precision what conditions were like on the surface of the primitive earth. Arguments concerning the composition of the primitive atmosphere are particularly controversial. It is important, therefore, to state our own prejudice clearly. We believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions. Yockey, H.P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," J. Theor. Biology (1977) 67, pp.393, 396. ...With regard to the appearance of a single molecule of the cytochrome c family, even the deus ex machina needs 1036 "acceptable planets" with just the right conditions for 109 years... One who finds the chance appearance of cytochrome c a credible event must have the faith of Job.... ...The "warm little pond" scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found. Even if it existed, as described in the scenario, it nevertheless falls very far short indeed of achieving the purpose of its authors even with the aid of a deus ex machina. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 116-125. Subtitle: "Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and -- most important -- how life first emerged on the earth." References 1 Miller, Stanley L. and Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life On the Earth (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974), p. 59. 2 Ibid., p. 33; Abelson, P.H., Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences, 55, 1966, pp. 1365-1372. 3 Summer, David P. and Sherwood Chang, Nature, 365, 14 Oct. 1993, pp. 630-632; Schopf, J.W., Editor, Earth's Earliest Biosphere (Princeton University Prewss, 1983), pp. 543-592; Kasting, J.F., Precambrian Research, 34, 1987, pp. 205-229; Gregor, C.B., et al. Editors, Chemical Cycles in the Evolution of the Earth (Wiley, New York, 1988), pp. 42-79. 4 Brinkman, R.T., Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 1969, p. 5335. 5 Ferris, J.P. and D.E. Nicodem, Nature, 238, 1972, pp. 268-269. 6 Lasaga, Antonio C., Science, 174, 1 Oct. 1974, pp. 53-55. 7 Thaxton, Charles B., et al., The Mystery of Life's Origin (Philosophical Library, New York, 1984), pp. 42-68. 8 Watson, James D., Molecular Biology of the Gene, 2nd Edition (W.A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1970), p. 149. 9 Paecht-Horowitz, M., et al., Nature, 228, 14 Nov. 1970, p. 636. 10 Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL, 1975), pp. 98-100, 239. 11 Yockey, H.P., J. of Theoretical Biology, 67, 1977, pp. 337-398. 12 Kenyon, D.H. and C.D. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969). 13 Miller, Stanley L. and Orgel, Leslie E., The Origins of Life on the Earth, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974), p. 144. 14 Morowitz, H.J., Progress in Theoretical Biology, 1, 1967, pp. 50-58; Coppedge, James F., Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 110. 15 Morowitz, H.J., Energy Flow in Biology (Academic Press, New York, 1968), p. 99. 16 Miller, Stanley L. and Leslie E. Orgel, ref. 13, p. 164. 17 Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 116-125. 18 Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, 271, October 1994, pp. 76-83. 19 Joyce, G.F. and L.E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World" in The RNA World, ed. R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins (Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1993), p. 19. 20 McKay, David S., et al., "Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001, Science, Vol. 273, 16 Aug. 1996, pp. 924-930. 21 Kerr, Richard R., "Ancient Life on Mars?", ibid., pp. 864-866. 22 Williams, Nigel, "Mars Meteorite Quest Goes Global," Science, Vol. 273, 20 Sept. 1996, pp. 1653-1654. Chapter 4 - Would Evolution Violate Known Physical Law? 1. Is evolution contrary to the natural law of degeneration? Answer: One of the most firmly established laws of physics (it could be called the Natural Law of Degeneration) states that all natural processes of change in a closed system produce in the system a net decrease in information and a net loss of free energy. Free energy is energy available to cause continuing change in the system. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.1 The origin of living cells from non-living chemicals is said to begin with a process referred to as chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is supposed to be a natural process which from disordered and simple molecules gradually produced increasingly complex sets of integrated chemical reaction systems and more complex molecules. Finally there resulted complex living cells that require much information for their description and contain much free energy. Thus the spontaneous origin of life (sometimes called abiogenesis) requires a spontaneous (natural, automatic) local increase in both information and free energy. Therefore, it appears that chemical evolution contradicts the law of increasing entropy. The burning of a candle illustrates the Second Law in action. The paraffin in a candle is composed of hydrocarbon molecules. Paraffin consists of long chains of carbon atoms to which are attached hydrogen atoms. Thus, paraffin molecules are structured; also, they possess much chemical energy stored in the chemical bonds of the molecules. If a candle is lit, it will burn spontaneously. Oxygen from the air combines with the carbon and hydrogen to produce water vapor, carbon dioxide gas, and light and heat energy. The ordered chemical energy concentrated in the chemical bonds of the paraffin molecules is changed into heat energy. This is the energy of chaotic motion of the heated atoms and molecules in the combustion products. The candle burns spontaneously, but never will a candle "unburn" itself spontaneously. The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes this uniform behavior of the natural world as follows: In a closed system the combined result of all natural processes is to change information-rich complexity into random information-poor disorder and to change organized or free energy into random heat energy in the environment. The increase in the disorder or randomness of the structure and energy of a physical system is measured as an increase of a property of the system called "entropy." So the Second Law predicts that entropy will increase. But according to the evolutionary view of the world, entropy decreased when life arose from non-life and more complex species arose from simpler ones. Evolution is supposed to be a natural process which occurred according to the laws of physics, yet transformed completely disordered matter into highly ordered, complex, energy-rich living plants and animals. This supposedly has been going on for billions of years. There does appear to be a contradiction here between evolutionary theory and a firmly founded law of physics. 2. Do evolutionary scientists offer a solution to this difficulty with the law of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder? Answer: The standard answer to the entropy problem is that the flow of high free energy light photons from the sun and of energy rich chemicals from the earth's crust could reverse the processes of degeneration locally on the earth's surface without violating the entropy law in the earth-sun system taken as a whole. This argument is based upon the fact that the earth's surface layer where life supposedly evolved from dead chemicals is an open system, not a closed system. That is, energy from the sun continually flows through the earth's atmosphere and to its surface. Therefore, the earth and the sun must be considered together. There can be a large increase of entropy in the sun at the same time a small decrease occurs on the earth's surface. Supposedly, then, life could begin by chance on the earth, with a modest local decrease in entropy, an increase in complexity and free energy. At the same time the sun would have expended a huge amount of energy, with a very large increase in entropy. So the net result in the earth-sun system would be an increase in entropy. Life could begin and the Second Law would still be satisfied in this system. Let us develop this idea further to see if it is valid. It is a fact that when some chemical mixtures are irradiated with light, energy is absorbed and new reactions occur.2 Some molecules are produced that are more complex and energy-rich than those in the original mixture. The argument is that, if this can happen to a small extent in the laboratory, a similar process continued for billions of years on the earth's surface could have initiated life. It supposedly could have formed the entire biosphere out of non-living chemicals, without violating the entropy law for the earth-sun system. 3. Is this open-system argument really valid? Can it stand critical analysis? Answer: Local reversals of natural degeneration (i.e., of entropy increase) can be only very limited and temporary. The open-system argument cannot be shown to be valid unless scientists can show experimentally that chance or random chemical reactions can actually bring about virtually unlimited increase in chemical complexity and produce something having the properties of life. All chemical research on the origin of life has thus far failed at both of these points. First, when light is absorbed by a chemical mixture, any formation of molecules with more complex structures and more energy content reaches a dynamic balance and stops progressing. Pushing the process farther by pumping in more radiation or higher energy (shorter wavelength) light photons would soon start breaking up molecules and overheating the mixture. Only limited increase in chemical complexity has ever been achieved in such experiments. Second, to capture light energy and use it to build up the structures in living things requires the complex machinery already present in those organisms. The photosynthetic apparatus of green plants is the prime example. Without such energy-capturing and energy-organizing systems, the effect of light energy is mainly to break down complex structures. An example of this is sunburn, the destruction of skin tissue by the sun's ultraviolet light. Third, no laboratory experiments have demonstrated the production of coded information, reproduction, or other essential attributes of living systems. By random chemical reactions no self-contained structure has been produced that exhibits the unique set of nine properties characteristic of life. These are (1) a stable, complex structure, (2) metabolism (use of materials and energy from outside to build and operate the system), (3) growth, (4) homeostasis (maintaining constant internal conditions, e.g., body temperature or chemical concentrations different from the environment), (5) response to environmental effects, (6) reproduction, (7) adaptability, (8) a genetic code and coded, heritable information, and (9) genetically transmitted heritable variations. Until it can be demonstrated that some mixture of non-living chemicals can originate structures with these nine characteristics of life, the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes the spontaneous generation of life under any conditions extremely improbable. In particular, in the absense of a structural/chemical system capable of capturing radiant or chemical energy from the environment and directing it for the construction of the other complex and sophisticated functions listed above, the spontaneous origin of life from non-life would have to violate the second law of thermodynamics. In Chapter 3 we showed that the probability of the spontaneous origin of the first living cell is extremely small*from two perspectives. First is the statistical improbability of the chance chaining together of the twenty different biologically useful amino acid molecules in a correct sequence to form a working protein molecule. Second is the thermodynamic improbability for the chance concentration of free energy contained in the chemical bonds that tie those amino acid units together in the chain. The most thorough study of these problems is the excellent 1984 book, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen.3 The authors show that both the statistical and the thermodynamic probabilities can be related mathematically to the second law of thermodamics. Thus this most thoroughly established law of physics makes the origin of life without God the Life-Giver effectively zero. 4. Does the entropy law have anything to do with mutations? If so, can mutations be expected to produce increasingly complex order in living creatures? Answer: Since mutations occur according to the law of increasing entropy (disorder), it seems unreasonable to believe that they could produce increasing order and complexity. The majority of observable mutations do, in fact, appear to be bad, destroying the order of complex biological designs. Many mutations are apparently neutral, however, causing no visible effect. Each time cell division occurs the DNA molecules that are genes must be copied so that the resulting daughter cells have the same coded information as the parent cell. A large proportion of the mutations in wild populations probably result from errors in the copying process. These may well be caused by the random heat motion of the molecules when the DNA is being copied.4 Radiation, certain chemicals, and other physical influences can also cause mutations. In accordance with the Second Law the effect of mutations should be to make the sequence of the letters of the genetic code message carried by the DNA molecules become more disordered or random. That is, the coded message carried by the DNA molecules should become on the average less meaningful, more and more scrambled, until it becomes nonsense after many cell divisions. Therefore, mutations should not be expected to produce increasingly complex and meaningful information content in the DNA of any species. Rather, the result should be just the opposite. This is verified in nature where most visible mutations appear to be bad for any organism.5 5. But does not natural selection solve this problem and reverse the effect of the second law of thermodynamics by filtering out bad mutations and preserving good ones? Answer: It has not yet been shown that mutations and natural selection can change DNA to produce new complex structures or organs. There is no question that the pressure of the environment acts to remove from the population those types that are not so well adapted. Thus natural selection is primarily conservative, preserving the normal or wild type.6 But the vital question is whether or not mutations can be preserved and accumulated by natural selection so as to produce creatures with new structures, new organs, new behavioral patterns, etc. This is the essential point which has yet to be demonstrated by observation or controlled experiment. The belief that evolution can happen and that it has happened in the past is more a faith than a scientific theory.7 6. Do living cells violate the second law? Answer: Living cells do not violate the second law. They do, however, overcome its effects for a limited time. Living cells, while not violating the entropy law, do overcome it for a while by feeding on free energy (energy available to do work) in food taken from the surroundings.8 Non-living systems cannot do this. The structures in living cells are held together only by fairly weak bonding forces. Therefore, they are easily broken down by the random heat motions of the molecules. This is an entropy effect. In a dead cell this process soon reduces the cell to formless rubbish. In a living cell energy imported from outside powers a multitude of repair projects that operate continually. They are guided by the plans carried in the DNA molecules, the genes, so that the correct cell structure is preserved. The DNA molecules are held together by stronger forces than is the general cell structure; therefore the plans are not normally altered by the molecular heat motions. Gradually, however, the degenerative entropy effect does cause the breakdown of some of the permanent structures of the cell, including probably alteration of the DNA, and this leads to aging and death. Non-living systems cannot duplicate the entropy-overcoming activities of living cells. 7. What is a good example of this unique capability of living cells, and what does it mean for theories of the spontaneous generation of life? Answer: A living cell, say a micro-organism, continuously pumps selected chemicals in and out through its outer membrane to maintain homeostasis. These processes consume energy that the cell abstracts from the environment. The overall result is an increase in entropy in the system comprised of the environment plus the cell. Therefore, the living cell does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. It does, however, for a while counteract and delay the effects of the second law on the organism. Ceasing to do this, the organism dies. A particularly amazing and crucial ability of cells is seen in their mechanisms for correcting or editing errors when genes are copied during cell division. Many errors occur due to the degenerative second law effect on chemical reactions. However, the cell can detect the errors and correct almost all of them. Thus the actual probable error rate in copying any single genetic code letter is only about one part in a billion. This is a very high degree of accuracy. Now here is a serious problem for the origin of life theories. The assumed original cells had to be primitive, very simple compared with modern, fully evolved cells. Therefore, their process for copying genes would have been comparatively inaccurate. Furthermore, they could not yet have evolved the error-correcting machinery possessed by modern cells. Recent research has led to the conclusion that, without error-correcting machinery, the gene copying, transcription, and translation of the first simple cells would have been so inaccurate that they would rapidly have self-destructed. Life would have perished, so to speak, before its first full breath, without producing a second generation. Grant R. Lambert's quantitative study led him to the conclusion that the spontaneous origin of life has not been explained until this problem has been solved. [Abstract] Current knowledge of enzymic editing mechanisms in DNA replication, transcription and translation can be used to predict error rates in the absence of editing. Primitive enzymes which possessed synthetic activity but not yet editing mechanisms would have had extremely high error rates resulting in heterogeneous proteins. Based on present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry, it is concluded that the evolution of contemporary information transformation systems from primitive systems lacking such editing mechanisms remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology.9 8. Would the second law of thermodynamics be violated by the evolution of a more complex organisms from a simpler one? Answer: This question is difficult to answer in a precise, quantitative manner. However, a more complex organism certainly requires more information for its description. Therefore, the evolution of increased complexity certainly does appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionary change is supposed to occur in a species population as a result of interaction with the environment. The quantitative measurement of the entropy of such an extremely complex system is simply not possible. Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would presumably carry more information in its genes. Evolution would have to create this stored information. The process of natural selection is supposed accomplish this because the living organism is able to use free energy from its environment to pay for the creation of the new information, but without violating the second law. This is, however, a proposition that has yet to be proved experimentally. Production of greater biological complexity by the allegedly natural process of evolution would, on the other hand, certainly appear to be a violation of the natural law of degeneration. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page References 1 Williams, Emmett L., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Creation Research Society, Norcross, GA, 1984); Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves, ref. 24, pp. 21-38; Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Inquiry Press, East Lansing, MI, 1976), pp. 239-263. 2 Morowitz, H.J., Energy Flow in Biology (Academic Press, N.Y., 1968), pp. 21-43; Groth, W., Photochemistry in the Liquid and Solid States, F. Daniels, Editor (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1960), p. 21. 3 Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York, 1984). 4 Watson, James D., Molecular Biology of the Gene, 2nd Edition (W.A. Benjamin, Inc., N.Y., 1970), pp. 268, 269, 302. 5 Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action (Harper Bros., New York, 1953), p. 41. 6 Simpson, G.G., Biology and Man (Harcourt, Brace, World, New York, 1969), p. 127; Williams, George C., Adaptation and Natural Selection (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1966), pp. 54, 139. 7 See Chapter 1, refs. 1-3. 8 Williams, Emmett L., Jr., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 8, Sept. 1971, pp. 117-126. 9 Lambert, Grant R., "Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer," J. of Theoretical Biology, 107, 1984, pp. 387-403. Chapter 5 - Can Mutations and Natural Selection Create New Species Having New Complex Organs? 1. Isn't it possible that slight changes produced by mutations could add up over many generations? Doesn't this explain how evolution could form new structures and organs and even entirely new kinds of plants and animals over long periods of time? Answer: The important question is not the origin of new species. There is no question that new species have developed within the boundaries of the separate kinds that God created in the beginning. But these new species did not have complex new organs or structures, only limited variations of what already had been created by God. The vast majority of visible mutations are admitted by the evolutionists themselves to be bad. Furthermore, it has not been shown experimentally that mutation and natural selection can produce new structures or organs. Limited changes have been observed in all species, but that does not prove that these species could evolve in millions of years into entirely different kinds of creatures. Scientists merely assume that this happened in the past when no scientists were present to observe the process. A mutation is a random change in a gene. Every individual organism inherits a set of genes from its parent or parents. Most genes contain coded instructions for building the thousands of different protein molecules found in living cells. The average gene contains 600 to 1800 precisely ordered code letters. A mutation which changes, adds, or subtracts a single letter can change the coded message and thus modify the resulting protein. A very slight change -- in fact most changes in a protein molecule -- can cause it to function poorly or not at all. As a result the organism usually is not as viable (able to live) as the wild strain of the organism before mutation, and many mutations are lethal (deadly). Geneticists have concluded that the vast majority of visible mutations are disadvantageous for the organism. Sir Julian Huxley estimated that perhaps less than one-tenth percent of all mutations could be advantageous to an organism.1 This cannot be quantitatively demonstrated by experiment, however. Of the remainder some are apparently neutral, but the majority either weaken or kill the individual.2 The pressures of the environment and the necessities of life tend to eliminate from the population those mutations that lower the ability of the organism to reproduce itself. This effect is called natural selection. Thus natural selection is seen to be a conservative process which tends to preserve the normal wild type in the population and to eliminate most alterations. According to the current theory, however, the tiny percentage of beneficial mutations and those which are neutral provide the new design information. These, when added to many other mutations occurring in the course of many generations, result in a population better adapted to the environment. Supposedly this leads to new structures and organs and even to entirely new creatures. So, for example, reptiles supposedly evolved their scales into feathers and changed into birds. 2. Are there many difficulties with evolution by mutation and natural selection as a scientific theory? Answer: Yes, there are many difficulties with the mutation-natural selection theory of evolution, for example: a. History can't be proved by science. The alleged historical process of evolution from amoeba to man was not observed by man and cannot be reproduced experimentally. Thus the claimed fossil evidence is only circumstantial (See Chapters 1-5). That two fossils from extinct species are genetically related through a long series of mutations in many generations is an unverifiable assumption in every case. It is often even difficult to demonstrate that two living similar species are genetically related. b. Biological structures are too complex. The genetic structure, the proteins coded by the genes, the bodily structures, and the biochemistry and metabolism of all organisms are exceedingly complex and very delicately balanced systems. The theory that such systems could have been produced and can be improved by random mutations is like saying that an electronic computer could be produced and then improved by shooting bullets into a room stuffed full of computer parts.3 c. Wild types stronger than mutated types. A very few experimentally observed mutations in the fruit fly, Drosophila, reportedly confer slight advantages under special conditions in the laboratory.4 However, the observed mutated flies have proved generally inferior to the wild type, and under ordinary conditions populations tend to revert to the wild type. The DDT-resistant populations of houseflies illustrate this fact. They do not reproduce as effectively as the wild type in the absence of DDT. d. Change is limited in microorganisms. In the case of microorganisms, many mutations have been observed that reportedly confer advantage in specialized environments -- for example, in the presence of antibiotics. Nevertheless, new species have not been produced, only new strains. Under normal conditions such populations tend to revert back to the original wild type, and bacterial populations tend to have great genetic stability.5 e. Mutations only modify what already exists. Mutations only modify what already already exists, for example, changing size, color, efficiency of operation, etc. The tendency is to preserve, not to innovate.6 There is no evidence to prove that a mutation or series of mutations has ever created a new complex structure or organ. f. Theorists are still arguing. The actual mechanism of supposed evolution is still a matter of debate among evolutionary theorists. A continuing discussion concerns whether evolution progresses mainly by natural selection of advantageous mutations or by the accumulation of neutral mutations.7 If after over a hundred years the specialists can't agree on the essential mechanisms of their theory, perhaps the whole idea is wrong. g. Conclusion: mutations and natural selection are inadequate. We conclude that the production of new design information by gene mutations and natural selection is entirely inadequate to explain evolution. This process can bring about only limited variation of already existing designs. The majority of mutations seems to be bad, not creative. The accumulation of mutations appears to be limited, leading to destruction, not to new designs. h. Chromosome are changes also inadequate. The other types of genetic changes, such as the translocations and inversions of parts of chromosomes, only rearrange or disorganize already existing design information. Such processes cannot explain evolution of entirely new biodesigns.8 i. Theory of new genes inadequate. A suitable mechanism for forming new genes has yet to be demonstrated with certainty. The popular theory is that a duplicate unused gene -- sometimes termed a floating gene -- can be "preadapted" by random mutations until it becomes useful for another purpose.9 That a new gene could thus arise by chance with all of the necessary controls attached to make it operate correctly is hard to imagine. Gene transformations reported in bacteria are all limited to moderate changes in function. In any event, only a new strain, not a new species has resulted. 3. Are there not many examples today of plants and animals that have changed and thereby shown evolution in action? Answer: All of the examples are far too limited to explain evolution "from amoeba to man." There is no question that change in populations occurs, but those changes which have been observed are very minor compared to what is needed to make evolution possible.10 The changes actually observed are merely variations in already existing structures. The uniform testimony from genetics indicates only limited change, and that absolute boundaries exist between different kinds of organisms. This is consistent with the biblical record of the creation of original kinds designed to reproduce each after its kind. The Bible does not precisely define the boundaries of the created kinds, and thus this question is a basis for scientific research.by Christian biologists. As an example, almost all the Canidae (dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, and jackals) are apparently capable of interbreeding. They must, therefore, belong to the same original kind. Likewise, the various cattle, buffalos, and bison also interbreed, so they must belong to the same kind. But as is well known, there is no interbreeding between dogs and cattle. They are certainly different biblical kinds. In the original creation several different types, having the potential to interbreed, may have been created within an original kind. 4. Is not Kettlewell's moth in England a proven example of evolution in action by means of mutation and natural selection? Answer: Kettlewell's moth population possesses a gene for color having two different forms called alleles. These alleles produce two different color phases in the species population. What was observed in the population was a change in the relative numbers of the two phases, not even the origin of a new species. This was not evolution. Before air pollution associated with the industrial revolution darkly stained the tree bark and killed the light colored lichens on the trees, the moth population was primarily light colored. However, the dark phase apparently existed in the population also.11 As the trees gradually grew darker, birds could better see the light colored moths to pick them off the tree bark. So the population became dominated by the dark colored moths. The frequency of the dark phase allele of the color gene increased in the population gene pool and that of the light phase allele decreased. Nevertheless, the species, Biston betularia, remains the same.12 And now that the English air is being cleaned up, it is reported that the proportion of light colored moths is again on the increase. The case of Kettlewell's moths demonstrates natural selection in action, but not evolution of a new kind of insect. This is evidence for amoeba-to-man evolution only to one who already believes. And that is what evolution is, a belief, just as much as is creation. 5. Do scientists know how new species are produced in nature? Answer: No, the process by which new species are formed is not well understood. In 1952 Prof. Richard B. Goldschmidt at the University of California at Berkeley wrote: ...It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutations. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations....Neither has anyone witnessed the production of a new specimen of a higher taxonomic category by selection of micromutants. ...Neither has anyone witnessed the production of a new specimen of a higher taxonomic category by selection of micromutants.13 The formation of new species is not evolution, for it occurs with only minor changes in the structure of organisms. Thirty years later Guy L. Bush wrote: Although the importance of speciation is clear and convincing, the processes involved are, for the most part, unknown.14 6. Formation of new species is a part of the creation explanation of life. The formation of new species is not evolution. The scientific evidence indicates that a new species can split off from a source species population through exceedingly slight alterations that do not constitute evolution. There are numerous examples of pairs of related species that are so similar, that to distinguish them requires microscopic examination of serial sections by a specialist. This obviously is not the production of complex new biological structures that evolutionary theory demands. Thus, formation of new species within the limits of created kinds is a part of the creation explanation of biology, as we pointed out in Chapter 4. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Wald, George, Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Moorehead & Kaplan, eds. (Philadelphia: Wistar Inst. Press, 1967), pp. 18, 19. ...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance....The restrictions are enormous. References 1 Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action (Harper Bros., New York, 1953), p. 41. 2 Wills, Christopher, Scientific American, 222, March 1970, p. 98. 3 Crow, James F., Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 14, Jan. 1958, pp. 19-20, quoted in The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris., p.401. 4 Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1970), pp. 262-265. 5 Moore, Jerry P., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 10, March 1974, pp. 187-190. 6 Simpson, G.G., Biology and Man (Harcourt, Brace World, New York, 1969), p. 127; Williams, George C., Adaptation and Natural Selection (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1966), pp. 54, 139 7 Weinberg, Janet H., Science News, 107, 22 Feb. 1975, pp. 124-127. 8 Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1970), pp. 291-313. 9 Campbell, J.H., et al., The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S., 70, 1973, pp. 1841-1845. 10 Mayr, Ernst, Population, Species, and Evolution (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970). The variations cited by Mayr are of this limited type. 11 Bishop, A.J. and Cook, L.M., Scientific American, 232, Jan. 1975, pp. 90-99. 12 Matthews, L. Harrison, Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971), p. xi. 13 Goldschmidt, Richard B., Amer. Scientist, 40, 1952, p.97. 14 Bush, Guy L., "What Do We Really Know About Speciation?" in Perspectives on Evolution, R. Milkman, Ed. (Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass., 1976), p. 119. Chapter 6 - Molecular Biology and Evolutionary Theory The frontier of biological science is molecular biology and molecular genetics. The fundamental assumption is that all biodesign information is contained in the genes and that changes in genes produce evolutionary change in species. Therefore, molecular biology should explain how evolution occurs.1. Has molecular biology explained development of the embryo? Answer: In 1984 Nobel Laureate biologist Paul Berg of Stanford University said No: At present, there is no general theory that can be formulated to explain development; for example, the progress from a fertilized cell to an adult organism... Another aspect of development that intrigues many people is trying to translate cell phenomenology or organ morphology into molecular terms. For instance, what governs the liver's growth and shape? What regulates the growth of cells? What triggers a cell into the division cycle? All of these questions require molecular explanation. Ultimately they will be defined in molecular and chemical terms.1 Take note of Prof. Berg's faith for the future. Ten years later in of 1994 much progress has been made in understanding the genetic control of embryonic development. However, the location of designs for complex biological structures is still shrouded in much mystery. As we shall see, neither the embryonic development nor the evolutionary origin of complex structures and organs has yet been adequately explained. Below under Question 6 we have quoted from an authority on embryonic development and evolutionary theory, Prof. Lewis Wolpert. Take note of the fact that in 1994 Lewis Wolpert affirmed the same faith in the future that Paul Berg did in 1984. We are still waiting for them to prove their case. They are still seeking their holy grail, the origin of life without God the Creator. 2. Has molecular biology explained speciation? Answer: No, the process by which new species form is not well understood. Prof. Richard C. Lewontin of Harvard University wrote in 1974, "...we know virtually nothing about the genetic changes that occur in species formation."2 Eight years later Prof. Edward O. Wilson, also of Harvard, said, "It [molecular biology] doesn't have much to say about speciation, about macroevolution or about rates of evolution."3 3. Has molecular biology explained embryonic development and evolution? Answer: Although much has been learned about this subject, the big questions are still unanswered. In Section 7 below we have quoted at some length from Lewis Wolpert's 1994 survey of recent progress in the study of embryonic development. He makes it clear that, at the level of molecular genetics, it is still not known why an egg becomes a chicken in 21 days. If this be so, it is certain that evolutionary science cannot explain how a microbe became a university professor in three billion years. 4. Has molecular biology explained the evolution of new complex organs or structures? Answer: No, only limited variation has been partially explained. Two internationally respected biologists, G. Ledyard Stebbins and Francisco J. Ayala, said No: The most dramatic changes in thinking about evolution stem from new knowledge about genetic processes at a molecular level, and yet the implications of that knowledge for evolutionary theory remain obscure. The molecular pathways that lead from genes to visible characteristics are long, complex, and as yet largely unexplored. Until the relation of genes to development is better understood at a molecular level the full impact of molecular biology on evolutionary theory cannot be assessed.4 A family of genes, homeobox genes, are found in many different organisms to have important influence in the embryonic development of basic body plans. In 1992 Jean Marx surveyed recent progress in the coordination of two fields of evolutionary biology, embryonic development and molecular genetics. She observed that homeobox gene research, ...is starting to bring together developmental and evolutionary biologists, a merger that is badly needed, considering the intractability of certain evolutionary puzzles, such as the long-standing quandary of how the body plan of multi-celled organisms arose. ...While the final marriage of developmental biology and evolutonary theory is clearly some way off, perhaps one day it will produce an offspring that can explain in satisfying molecular detail, how new species evolved.5 By the term "new species" Marx actually refers to new organisms characterized by new complex biological structures. 5. Does molecular biology explain the origin of complex new biochemical systems? Answer: No, such an explanation has yet to be published. Biochemist Michael Behe has dealt with this question very effectively in his 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box.6 He shows that the crucial issue at the molecular level is that of "irreducible complexity." This is logically related to the principle of a complex combination of complex interdependent parts that was outlined in Chapter 2 in our consideration of the molecular rotary motors that power the flagellae of the microbe E. coli. For example, the step-by-step sequence of many biochemical reactions needed to synthesize one important molecule, adenosine monophosphate (AMP), in a living cell is amazingly complex (pp. 142-161). The process starts with a foundation molecule, ribose-6-phosphate. This foundation molecule is then modified in a series of reaction steps that leads finally to the product, AMP. Could such a complex biochemical system evolve step-by-step by a random process of mutations and natural selection (M&NS)? Evolution is defined as a blind process that does not know what its goal is. So what is NS selecting for? Each new intermediate step that is added by evolution must make a product molecule that has some value to the organism that causes it to be selected. Furthermore it presumably carries the process nearer to the AMP molecule that is the unknown goal. Therefore, an evolutionary theorist trying to explain the evolution of this chain of reactions leading to the desired amino acid must dream up some benefit offered to the organism by each reaction step and its product molecule that M&NS adds to the evolving series of reactions. And finally this unguided process stumbles on the final product, AMP. Has such an explanation ever been published in the biochemical literature? NO, not yet. And the principal reason for this failure is the fact that the existing system of chemical reactions that produces AMP is useless if any one of the reactions and its intermediate product is missing. If the complexity of the biochemical system is reduced by deleting just a single step, the system is non-functioning. The system as it exists for producing AMP is irreducibly complex. Other irreducibly complex biochemical systems treated in Prof. Behe's book include the chemistry of vision (pp. 18-25), Bombardier beetle's artillery (pp. 31-36), cilia (pp. 59-69), bacterial flagellae (pp. 69-73), and the human immune system(pp. 74-97). Prof. Behe made a thorough survey of the scientific literature of molecular biology. He reports that the Journal of Molecular Biology in the past 25 years published about 100 papers per year on molecular evolution. Not a single paper attempted to explain in any detailed scientific manner the evolution of any complex biochemical system. The many hundreds of papers on this subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yield the same zero result (pp. 165-179). 6. Does not molecular biology prove that protein molecules have evolved? Answer: The comparison of amino acid sequences of corresponding proteins in different species has been interpreted in terms of homology. It has been assumed, for example, that the cytochrome c molecule has evolved with time as new species have evolved from pre-existing species. However, a series of proteins with systematic differences and similarities no more proves evolution than does a series of fossil skeletons or of living creatures. (See Chapter 10, sections 1 & 2) The fundamental protein chain of cytochrome c contains 101 amino acid residues, and the amino acid sequence (the order of the different amino acids along the chain) has been determined for about a hundred species of plants, bacteria and animals. The differences have been analyzed in terms of the assumption that the cytochrome c molecules have evolved by mutations at a constant rate for years. If this were the case, then the number of differences in the cytochrome c molecules from two different species should be proportional to the length of time back to the separation of their two lines of descent from a common ancestor. These times are obtained from the theory of evolution and the time table of historical geology. Graphs of this relationship have been published which show a fair straightline relationship, reflecting that the number of differences is proportional to the time.7 This may be taken as circumstantial evidence for the theory of molecular evolution. On the other hand, :Michael Denton in his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, shows that the data can be interpreted in accord with the creation model of origins.7 The essential structure of the enzyme is the same for all of the hundred or so species studied. For example, thirty-five of the 101 positions in the chain are invariant, being filled by the same amino acids in all of the species. Also, eleven of these unchangeable positions are together at the vital action center of the molecule where its enzyme function is performed. All of the cytochrome c molecules from the different species fold up into the same basic three-dimensional shape so that they can do the same job in cell chemistry. This accords with the view that the design was created, not evolved. The differences in the amino acid sequences of the cytochrome c molecules of different species may be understood as either the result of mutations, or created differences, or a combination of these. The fewer differences generally observed between similar species is in agreement with the creation model. Denton has shown that the differences in the sequences, when arranged in a matrix, reveal that groups of similar species are separated from other such groups.7 There are no intermediates between the groups. These groups distinguished by the similarities of their cytochrome c molecules correspond precisely to their traditional biological classifications based on their bodily forms. And, finally, the molecular separations between these groups correspond numerically to the degree of their differences. For example, the difference between horse and dog (two mammals) is six percent, between horse and turtle (2 vertebrates) is 11 percent, and between horse and fruit fly (vertebrate and insect) 22 percent. The differences in cytochrome c molecules may in some cases be necessary or advantageous in certain species. Finally, the theory and the graphs mentioned earlier were sharply criticized by prominent evolutionary scientists. It was charged that the time periods used in making the graphs were not really in line with current geological theory.8 It has been pointed out that, in order to interpret the protein sequence data and get results in line with current evolutionary theory, considerable computer "massaging" of data is practiced.10 Christian Schwabe of the Department of Biochemistry, Medical University of South Carolina, has raised serious questions about this theory. In 1986 he wrote an article entitled, "On the validity of molecular evolution," in which he said: ...many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.11 For example the data of different molecular homologies often, in the same set of species, suggest different rates for the evolutionary "clock." It is not uncommon for the data from the same protein studied in different species to lead to ridiculous conclusions concerning the supposed evolutionary relationships of the species. 7. What bold assertions can we make about the failure of evolutionary biology? Answer: We can assert that at the level of the molecular biology of the genes, where final explanations are supposed to be found, there are today still no testable theories or demonstrable mechanisms for biological inheritance, embryonic development, speciation, or the evolution of anything new. Let us explain this sweeping claim. From the above quotations from leading evolutionary scientists we see that it is not known how or where in the DNA the design information is stored for the structures of organisms. Further, it is not known how any such stored information is translated into biostructures as the embryo develops from egg to adult. Biologists are struggling to solve this riddle. Humanly speaking, they might succeed someday. But as long as we are ignorant of this basic information, it is clear that we do not know how any new structures could be produced by evolution. It is pretty well understood how genes are inherited, but just what the genes mean with respect to the structures of the organism is not known. Most genes apparently code for particular protein molecules, but it is not known what the proteins mean with respect to biostructures of the organism. Therefore, when chromosomes and their genes are inherited, we actually do not know what biostructures are being inherited. In other words, we really have only a very incomplete theory of biological inheritance! The complexity ot he situation is rendered almost infinite by the fact that most structural features of an organism are influenced by many genes (called pleotropy), and many genes influence many different structures in the organism. Lewis Wolpert of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College London, is a leading authority on molecular biology and developmental biology, and their relation to evolutionary theory. In a brief survey of recent research published in 1994 he discussed findings in studies of the embryonic development of the fruitfly, Drosophila, raising serious questions: ...How, for example, does the change in just one gene change the antenna of the fly into a leg? It may well be that no general principles are involved in the control of morphogenesis and cell differentiation. Even so, we do not yet have an example where we understand in detail the development of a single adult organ. We remain largely ignorant of timing mechanisms and how the size of different structures is controlled. How many genes control development -- as distinct from providing the housekeeping functions of the cell? The answer is not known, but one can guess. ...If one thinks of, say, 100 genes for each multicellular structure in the adult, then 50 different structures in Drosophila would require 5000 genes. For mammals, for which there are some 350 distinct cell types, tens of thousands of genes might be needed. Understanding the function of so many genes is made even more difficult by cases of apparent redundancy. that is, it is possible to knock out certain genes in mice without there being any obvious effect on the phenotype. It is likely that true redundancy is illusory and merely reflects the failure to provide the correct test for an altered phenotype. It may thus be very difficult to work out the true function of such genes. Will the egg be computable? That is, given a total description of the fertilized egg -- the total DNA sequence and the location of all proteins and RNA -- could one predict how the embryo will develop? This is a formidable task, for it implies that in computing the embryo, it may be necessary to compute the behavior of all the constituent cells. ... What will the next 20 years bring? ....We can also look forward to great progress in the area of evolution and development. We may then see the solution to grand problems like how basic body plans emerged, how they are conserved, and the origin of developmental novelty. We will thus come to understand how development constrains and directs the form of all multicellular organisms.12 (Developmental novelty refers to new, complex biostructures.) It is clear from Wolpert's discussion that biologists cannot explain why an egg becomes a chicken in 21 days. He also makes it clear that the evolutionary origin of neither general body plans nor of new complex organs(developmental novelty) has been explained theoretically. But these are the primary, the most crucial problems for evolutionary theory. If secularistic science cannot explain how an egg becomes a chicken in 21 days, in it certain that a scientific explanation of how an amoeba could become a university professor in 3 billion years is far from achievement. Why is it then that the public is continually propagandized to believe that evolution is a fact and that science has it all explained? Could it be that science and education is now dominated by unbelievers who are falsely using science as a weapon against the God of creation? 8. Can we even be sure that all biological inheritance and all cellular activities are determined by the DNA of the genes in cells? Answer: No, until it can be proved just where and how inherited information is stored in the genes, we cannot be positive that the genes do determine all inheritance. To begin with, it is definitely known that some important biological information is transmitted in the structure of the plasma and outer cortex of the cell, not in DNA. This is the case both in fertilized egg cells and in protozoans which produce new generations by cell division.13 And so long as we remain ignorant of where and how the bulk of inherited information is stored in the genes, there is a possibility that important biological information is not stored in physical structures of the cell at all. In fact, it has been suggested that perhaps the genes cannot store enough information to describe and construct an organism.14 Let us indulge in a far-out speculation. Perhaps the information which determines the distinctive structures of the created kinds is provided through an immaterial channel, by special divine providence! In the current state of scientific knowledge and ignorance, it is not possible to prove that this speculation is false. Under this model for genetics, the information carried in the chromosomes and their genes provides for fundamental housekeeping in the cells and in the whole organism. This information would also provide for limited genetic variation and adaptation to changing environments. In Chapter 2, Section 3-d, we described at length the mysterious construction of the Venus flowerbasket sponge by disconnected, blind, brainless single cells. Then we described the mysterious ability of blind, brainless amoeba-like arenacious foraminifera cells to build little houses from sponge spicules found in the dark ooze on the sea floor. Scientists are helpless to explain how DNA in genes can empower and direct these cells to accomplish their tasks. It is certain, therefore, that scientists are also helpless to explain how these tiny creatures evolved with their mysterious powers. We conclude that Christians cannot be faulted on scientific grounds if they believe that some aspects of living organisms are actively directed by special divine Providence. The Scriptures suggest that God is actively involved in the lives of all of His creatures. ...These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season. What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good. You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth. (Psalm 104: 27-30) ...If He should set His heart on it, if He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust. (Job 34:14-15) As we said. we are offering a far-out speculation. But there is no law against speculation in science. This idea is not a testable scientific hypothesis, because it involves a supernatural element. But the definition of science does not prohibit a scientist from believing in divine special creation and in a supernaturally imparted aspect of living matter. These ideas can also be a part of his conceptual framework for his scientific work. We have proposed here a type of divine "vitalism." Vitalism is the idea that living matter possesses some character radically different from non-living matter, something beyond the laws of physics and chemistry. This concept was repudiated by most scientists after the mid-19th century, for two reasons. First, they had begun to have some success in showing how living organisms function according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Second, following Darwin, they were moving toward the belief that everything in the universe has a completely materialistic cause and effect explanation. But this view of the world has yet to be validated by science. A scientist who believes in a created, divinely directed world is entirely free to do so, and the data of science afford him much support for this belief. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page References 1 Berg, Paul in Chemical & Engineering News, 62, 13 Aug. 1984, p. 62. 2 Lewontin, Richard C., The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1974), p. 159. 3 Wilson, Edward O. in Lewin, Roger, "Molecules Come to Darwin's Aid," Science, 216, 4 June 1982, p. 1092. 4 Stebbins, G. Ledyard, and Ayala, Francisco J., Scientific American, 253, July 1985, p. 72. 5 Marx, Jean, "Homeobox Genes Go Evolutionary," Science, 255, 24 Jan. 1992, pp. 309, 401. 6 Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, 1996) 7 Dickerson, Richard E., ibid., 226, April 1972, pp. 58-72. 8 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1986), pp. 274-307; see also Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL, 1975, pp. 165-169. 9 Crowson, R.A., Nature, 254, 3 April 1975, p. 464. 10 Dwinell, Mark, Origins Research, 8, No. 2, Fall/Winter 1985, p. 10. 11 Schwabe, Christian, Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 11, July 1986, p. 280. 12 Wolpert, Lewis, "Do We Understand Development," Science, 266, 28 October 1994, pp. 571-572. 13 Sonnenborn, T.M., "Gene Action in Development," Proc. Royal Soc. London. B. 176, 1970, pp.347-366; Jones, A.J., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 19, June 1982, pp. 13-18. 14 Bremmerman, Hans, Progress in Theor. Biol., 1, 1967, pp. 70-72. Chapter 7 - Fossils: Created or Evolved? 1. Do fossils illustrate a gradual change of life, in minute steps, from very simple to more complex creatures, from bacteria to primitive invertebrates to vertebrates to man? Answer: The fossil record displays systematic gaps, so that the many sequences of intermediate forms needed to connect different kinds of creatures are missing. This information from the fossils fits the idea of special creation rather than evolution. The most thorough general study of this problem, by Duane Gish to whom we are deeply indebted, is presented in his book, Evolution -- the Challenge of the Fossil Record.1 The accompanying chart shows a simplified geologic column with the different theoretical geologic eras and periods assumed by paleontologists, with some of the principal types of fossils. The order shown from bottom to top is that in which life supposedly evolved. This is the order in which fossil types normally are expected to be found in the rocks, if evolution really happened. This chart looks neat and comprehensive and agrees with the accepted evolutionary history. When one looks at all of the facts, however, the picture is not really that convincing. The theory demands sequences of intermediate fossil types. But, as we shall see, there are no such fossil sequences to document an actual process of evolutionary change that produced new kinds of plants and animals possessing complex new biological structures. Evolution is supposed to be a process of change, but the process must be assumed. It is not true that no fossils have been discovered that are plausible intermediate species to fit into any of the numerous gaps in the assumed evolutionary series. Some have been found. However, it takes not just one, but many "missing links" to fill in a gap in the fossil record. What is required for "proof" is a finely graded sequence of intermediate forms to demonstrate that a historical process of evolution converted one kind of organism into another one that possessed new complex biological design features. 2. Does the fossil record show gradual evolution from single cells to simple invertebrates to complex invertebrate animals? Answer: Fossil gaps, i.e., missing sequences of presumed intermediate forms are systematic throughout the fossil record. It has been said that the fossil record is "composed mainly of gaps."2 The most striking gap is that between single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates. The rocks containing the reportedly oldest assemblage of marine invertebrate species are called Cambrian rocks. The fossils are supposed to represent "simple, primitive" forms. In actuality many of the Cambrian creatures are highly organized and complex, and some are almost indistinguishable from modern forms. Furthermore, in the Cambrian rocks are found 2000 or more fossil species. They represent every major phylum or grouping of animal life, including the vertebrate fish.3 The Ediacaran rock formation in Australia, supposedly a little older than Cambrian rocks, contains an assortment of strange invertebrate fossil forms for the most part unrelated to the Cambrian fossils. However, this does not change the lesson learned from the Cambrian rocks. The supposedly oldest rocks containing unambiguous fossils of complex creatures composed of many cells include thousands of different complex species. Evolutionists refer to this as "the Cambrian explosion." But according to evolution one would expect a limited number of very simple kinds, if any organism can really be considered simple. 3. What fossils are found in the rocks that are said to be older than the Cambrian rocks? Answer: These rocks, grouped under the term, Precambrian, contain only micro-fossils, principally single-celled bacteria and algae. The Cambrian rocks contain a wealth of complex fossils as indicated above. Where, then, are the intermediate forms which represent the greater part of the history of evolution? They are nowhere to be found. This is the most striking and, to evolutionists, the most perplexing gap in the fossil record.4 Darwin admitted this,5 and for over a century paleontologists have searched without success for fossils to fill the gap. One might suspect that the entire fossil record has been misinterpreted because of the materialist assumptions of the geologists. Rather than a gradual evolution from simple to complex, the Cambrian fossils can be interpreted in terms of sudden creation of many complex types of marine creatures that lived together in shallow sea bottom environments. Since they lived together, sudden dumping of sediments trapped and fossilized them together. 4. Are the invertebrate ancestors of the vertebrate animals known? Answer: In evolutionary theory some unknown Cambrian invertebrate evolved a backbone and became the first vertebrate fish. However, the fossil gap between the unknown Cambrian invertebrate ancestor and the first vertebrate fish is said to be 100 million years with no fossil evidence.6 Furthermore, the various orders of fish appear from the fossil record to have arrived on the scene completely separate and distinct from the beginning.7 5. Does fossil evidence exist for gradual evolution of fish into amphibians? Answer: The gap between fish and amphibians is a period of assumed millions of years without necessary fossil transitional forms. There should have been a multitude of intermediate forms leading from the fin of the crossopterygian fish to the leg of the ichthyostegid amphibian. No such sequence of intermediate forms has been found.8 Another difficulty stems from the forms of the vertebrae in supposed evolutionary series. Both the crossopterygians and ichtyostegids had arch type vertebrae.9 On the other hand, three allegedly more modern fossil orders of amphibians which are assumed to have evolved from them have supposedly more "primitive" vertebrae of the so-called "husk vertebrae" type. Strangely, the three living orders of amphibians also have the "primitive" type of vertebrae. Finally, none of these groups of fish or amphibians are connected by series of intermediate types.10,11 6. Is the alleged evolution of amphibians into reptiles well documented? Answer: The gap between the amphibians and the reptiles is found in the fact that the foremost candidates for the key transitional amphibians, Seymouria and Diadectes, are found in the wrong rocks. They reportedly appeared some twenty million years after the appearance of the original reptiles and also after the appearance of the reptile group from which the mammals are said to have evolved.12 How could the parents appear after the children, so to speak? Another problem is the requirement that the simple gelatinous amphibian egg, designed to develop in water, be transformed by slow, minute changes into the complex amniotic egg of the reptiles, designed to incubate in air. There is no direct fossil evidence for this transformation, and it is difficult indeed to imagine how it could have occurred.13 7. Is there a fossil gap between reptiles and mammals? Answer: Striking fossil gaps exist between mammals and all proposed reptilian ancestors. Evolution would have had to resolve numerous fundamental differences in anatomy and physiology in order to change a reptile into a mammal. There are no intermediate fossils to show that this happened, and nobody has been able to imagine how a gradual transition could have occurred.14 The evidence is all circumstantial. Duane Gish thoroughly examines these problems in his 1985 book, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.15 All reptiles have roughly four bones on both sides of the lower jawbone, whereas all mammals have a single bone, the dentary. The mammalian lower jaw bone or dentary forms a joint with the squamosal bone of the skull, whereas in reptiles the joint is between the articular bone and the quadrate bone of the skull. Several "mammal-like" fossil reptiles, notably Diarthrognathus, Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium, are said to have had both types of jaw joints at the same time. Thus, they were supposedly reptiles on the way to becoming mammals. But no skulls have been found that show the dentary actually in contact with the squamosal. Furthermore, all of these fossil reptiles have a powerful reptilian jaw joint. Two of the reptilian lower jaw bones are supposed to have migrated into the ear to become the malleus and incus, joining the stapes, to make up the three delicate, precisely engineered inner ear bones, or ossicles, of the mammals. However, all fossil and living mammals have three ossicles, but all fossil and living reptiles have a single inner ear bone. And it is difficult to imagine how jaw bones, by chance mutations and natural selection, could have evolved into the marvelous inner ear bones of mammals. Nevertheless, this is glibly asserted by leading scientists to be real history.16 Another problem is the origin of the exceedingly complex micro-electronic organ of Corti in the mammalian ear. No reptile possesses this structure, and there is no fossil evidence to prove that it gradually evolved. In the presumed evolution from reptiles to mammals other amazing new designs had to be produced by chance, including new modes of reproduction and breathing, mammary glands, temperature regulation and hair. In reptiles the thorax is not expansible as in mammals, nor do reptiles have a diaphragm. There is no fossil evidence for the evolution of any of these features of mammals from the reptiles. The imagination is strained to the breaking point to explain how evolution did it all. To believe that mammals were specially designed and created by God the Creator is not at all "unscientific" and seems to many to be more reasonable. 8. Do the fossils show gradual evolution of reptiles into birds? Answer: The gap between the thecodont reptiles and the birds is said to be a period of about eighty million years with only the fossil Archaeopteryx to offer as an intermediate.17 This fossil does not display characters partially transformed from the reptilian to the avian(bird) type. Rather, it has been called a "mosaic" or mixture of bird-like and reptile-like characters.18 For example, it was fully feathered, therefore definitely a bird, and the fossil feather imprints indicate feathers identical to modern feathers. Numerous intermediate forms would surely have been required to originate feathers from scales and change reptiles into birds. But fossil evidence for this process of change is missing.19 Some of the allegedly reptilian features of Archaeopteryx are possessed by some modern birds, and others are not found in some modern reptiles.20 Another problem is the fact that reptile lungs contain millions of alveoli, tiny air sacs with in-and-out airflow, as do mammal lungs. But bird lungs have tubes rather than sacs, with air flowing through in one direction only.21 How could a creature with a lung made half of sacs and half of tubes make both function for breathing? In any event, this fossil bird now must be discarded by evolutionists as an ancestor of modern birds. It appears that fossil bones of true birds of more modern type have been found in rocks reportedly as old as or older than those in which Archaeopteryx was found.22 9. Does fossil evidence show the gradual evolution of the power of flight? Answer: The evidence is nonexistent also for the origin of the other three types of flying animals. The flying insects were always flying insects,23 the now extinct flying reptiles have no transitional fossils connecting them to non-flying reptiles,24 and the flying mammals (bats) appear always to have been well-engineered flying bats.25 Flying creatures were apparently designed to fly from the very beginning, just as recorded in the biblical record of creation. 10. Have not many fossil gaps admitted by Darwin now been filled in with new finds of fossil "missing links"? Answer: If anything, since Darwin's time the gaps in the fossil record have become more pronounced, accentuated by a century of largely fruitless search.26 In recent years some new fossil finds have supplied fossil forms interpreted as important intermediates. However, large gaps still exist, according to the secular scientists' own geological time scale. Stephen Jay Gould holds that newly discovered intermediate fossils prove the land mammal to whale transition.27 Nevertheless, there are still gaps of millions of years by their own evolutionary chronology. Michael Novacek of the American Museum of Natural History has pointed out that the new fossils "cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant."28 Similarly, there is still a 40 million year gap in the sequence of alleged turtle ancestors.29 Thus, while some scientists are enthusiastic about their limited progress, they are still short of the evolutionary goal of proving that evolution really happened. 11. Have not scientists traced the evolutionary tree connecting all forms of life, from single-celled forms to the present complex forms? Answer: Examination of a standard book on fossils such as Vertebrate Paleontology by Romer reveals that the supposed evolutionary tree is actually a bundle of disconnected twigs.3 The charts in Romer's book are filled with dotted lines, both between the major groups and within these groups. The charts in The Fossil Record give the same picture.7 The intermediate forms are missing, the twigs without connections to the branches, and the branches disconnected from the roots.30 This condition is characteristic of both fossil and living kinds of both plants and animals. And the plant fossil record has been said to be even worse for evolutionary theory than the animal record.31 Zoologist Bolton Davidheiser in his book, Evolution and Christian Faith, cites eighty statements in the technical literature in which evolutionary scientists admit they do not know the origin of eighty different kinds of animals and plants.32 Prof. Steven M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution[evolution of a whole species population into a new species] accomplishing a major morphologic[structural form] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."33 12. What about the fossil horses? Aren't they proof of evolution? Answer: The illustrated fossil horse series in school and college textbooks and in museums are highly simplified and rather misleading. They make the theory of horse evolution appear very neat, historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually there are important problems with the theory and some disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists.34 a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth. b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed. c. Hyracotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved.35 d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all no larger than a fox.36 These genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind." e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap.37 The size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed. These, perhaps, were members of another created kind. f. Merychippus, the next genus in the supposed horse evolution series, and the first of the (large) "new horses," was about 50 percent larger than the group of genera just discussed. It was three-toed, but the two side toes on each foot were quite small and unimportant, and the animal looked very horselike. Pliohippus, the next genus in the series, was a one-toed horse. These animals had some characteristics of skeleton and teeth which differed from modern horses, but they may, perhaps, be classified as members of the same original created kind. g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horselike ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus with two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia.38 But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved. h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.39 i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures.40 Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, believers in evolution must assume that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern in modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow. Intelligent, purposeful creation provides a more rational explanation. j. In summary, the alleged horse evolution series actually appears to be three groups of genera. The first in the series has no connection by fossil intermediates to the supposed ancestors. The three groups may well have no connection one with the other, and the overall fossil horse data can be fitted into the framework of the biblical creation model. There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created. The faith of atheistic materialism leads one to evolved horses. The faith of biblical theism leads to created horses. 13. Do fossils of now extinct creatures such as dinosaurs show that evolution has occurred? Answer: The fact that dinosaurs once lived and are now extinct is not proof of evolution. Such fossils merely show us that certain species once living were destroyed and became extinct. Theorists have been able to reach no general agreement on the cause or causes of extinction. The theories on this subject are numerous and sometimes very imaginative.41 Since most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks and show signs of catastrophic burial (See Chapter 9), they seem to point to a global flood as the principal cause of extinction. The currently most favored theory is that a large meteorite struck the earth in the Carribean area, the resulting dust produced drastic weather changes that brought about the extinction of many species, including dinosaurs. The great ages which are commonly assigned to dinosaurs are also no proof of evolution. These ages depend upon methods of dating rocks which cannot be proved to be correct. And even if all that time were available, the fossil evidence for an actual historical process of evolutionary change is still lost in the gaps which plague scientists at every crucial point in the fossil record. 14. Does the fossil record show living forms continually changing, with ancient types becoming extinct and replaced by new, different forms? Answer: This is the traditional evolutionary view, but there are quite a few so-called "living fossils," plants and animals living today, which are almost identical or very similar to fossils found in rocks supposedly millions of years old. If all populations have continually been evolving, why are these creatures so constant and unchanging? The following list of living fossils with their alleged ages in millions of years was assembled by R.L. Wysong in his book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy:42 bat (50MY),43 tuatara reptile (135MY),44 neopilina shellfish (500MY),45 cockroach (250MY),46 dragonfly (170MY),47 starfish (500MY),48 metasequoia tree (60MY),49 Ginko tree (200MY),50 cycad tree (225MY),51 coelacanth fish (65MY),52 Port Jackson shark (180MY),53 sea lily (160MY),54 sea urchin (100MY),55 and Vampyroteuthis or squid-octopus (200MY).56 Is it not incredible, if evolution is the central fact of earth history, that these creatures could so long have remained relatively unchanged? One evolutionary explanation is that these creatures have been living in environments which have not changed much. But it is agreed that there really is no such thing as an unchanging environment throughout earth history. Perhaps the millions of years and the theory of evolution are both myths created by materialists to get rid of the Creator. 15. Is there evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Answer: While it is true that no finds of human fossil remains are associated with dinosaur fossils, absence of such data proves nothing. There have been many reports of both animal and human footprints in strata in which, according to evolutionary theory, they do not belong. Around 1915 human footprints were reported in Cretaceous limestone surfaces near and in the Paluxy River in Texas. The same rocks are famous for their numerous dinosaur tracks. In 1970 the Creation-Science Research Center (C-SRC) co-sponsored with Films for Christ an expedition to the Paluxy River. New tracks were exposed to view by lifting off the limestone overburden. Some of them looked very much like human footprints. The work and findings of this first expedition were made available in a color film, "Footprints in Stone."57 In 1971, on a second independent expedition sponsored by the San Diego-based C-SRC, new human tracks were uncovered. Kelly Segraves, now C-SRC director, fit his bare foot into some of the tracks, and he took his own photographs of them. (Soon those pictures will be shown here.) In the early 1980s secular researchers finally examined the reported human tracks displayed in the Films for Christ film. They found many of them badly eroded. But, more importantly, both they and Christian researchers found that in the interim mysterious stains had developed around some of the tracks. These stains seemed to suggest the toes of dinosaur feet. As a result of these new findings the film, "Footprints in Stone," has been withdrawn, and the true meaning of the observed tracks is now in a state of suspension pending new studies. The first major, detailed report of these new findings questioning the validity of the Paluxy footprints appeared in a creationist quarterly published by Students for Origins Research in Goleta, Calif., near Santa Barbara.58 One group of Christian researchers has now reported new tracks in the area which appear to be human. However, to date, there has been no evidence to question the new tracks discovered by the 1971 expedition, a trail of barefoot tracks (eight of them) in sequence as photographed by Dr. Segraves and discussed in some detail in his book The Great Dinosaur Mistake. Perhaps in time the validity of the Paluxy man tracks will be established. In any event, in these developments we see Christians involved in scientific research and controversy under the rules of the scientific method. It is important to remember that evolutionary scientists have on numerous occasions made serious blunders and been taken in by outright fraud which took decades to correct.59 16. Is there an evolutionary explanation for the gaps in the fossil record? Answer: Since about 1972 a new theory has been promoted. According to the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," evolution took place not slowly, gradually, but rapidly in spurts.60 The fossil record is interpreted to mean that a species existed a long time with little variation. This is the "equilibrium" phase. Then a small group of individuals became isolated from the main population in a new environment and underwent relatively sudden evolutionary change. This is the "punctuation" phase. Supposedly the small, changing isolated group existed such a short time that very few intermediate fossils were preserved. Therefore, none have been found. This theory of rapid change has, however, the same problem as Darwin's idea of slow change. One may choose to believe in slow change ala Darwin, or in rapid change à la punctuated equilibrium. But in either case the historical data -- sequences of intermediate forms -- are not available to document the claim that a process of change actually occurred. Conclusion It cannot rightly be claimed that no fossil evidence can be adduced in support of the evolution scenario of earth history. Neither can it rightly be claimed that the fossil record offers no support for special creation. The systematic absence of intermediate fossil sequences is just that kind of evidence. Moreover, all of the fossil record can provide only circumstantial evidence for either creation or evolution. This is to be expected when we speculate about alleged ancient events that were not observed by humans and that cannot be repeated experimentally. In the end our differing philosophies tend to control our conclusions. The Christian philosophy comes from the Scriptures, as does Moses' account of the special creation of the original kinds of life by God in the beginning. And the Lord Jesus Christ commanded Christians to believe what Moses wrote. "...If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words.?" John 5:46-47 Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Gould, Stephen J., Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24. ...The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. ...All paleontologists know the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. White, Harold, Proc. of the Linnaean Soc. of London, 177, Jan., 1966, p.7. ...I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law. Corner, E.J.H., in Contemporary Botanical Thought, MacLeod and Cobley, eds. (Oliver & Boyd, London, 1961), pp. 96, 97. ...I still think that, to the unpredjudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ...Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced...and examples are added ecclectically in support of one or another theory*and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. References 1 Gish, Duane, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (Master Books Pub., San Diego, 1985), pp. 74-76. 2 George, T. Neville, Science Progress, 48, Jan. 1960, p. 3. 3 Romer, Alfred, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd Edition (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966), p.314; Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma (Master Book Pub., San Diego, 1984) p. 62. 4 Simpson, G.G., The Meaning of Evolution (Bantam Books, Inc., New York, 1971), pp. 16-19; Axelrod, Daniel I., Science, 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7. 5 Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971), pp. 314-316. 6 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, pp. 15, 23; Ommanney, F.D., The Fishes (Time Inc., New York, 1964), p. 60. 7 Romer, Alfred, ibid., pp. 25, 47; Harland, W.B., et al., Editors, The Fossil Record (Geological Soc. of London, 1967), p. 630. 8 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, p. 79. 9 Ibid., pp. 79, 87, 88. 10 Ibid., pp. 87, 98, 100, 101. 11 Gish, Duane, ref. 1, pp. 74-76. 12 Harland, W.B., et al., ref. 7, pp. 686, 696; Gish, Duane, ref. 1, p. 77; Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, p. 173. 13 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, pp. 95, 102, 103. 14 Ibid., pp. 104, 187, 188, 191; McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1 (New York, 1971) , pp. 359, 360. 15 Gish, Duane, ref. 1, pp. 88-103. 16 Gould, Steven Jay, "Evolution by Walking," Natural History, 104, No. 3, March 1995, pp. 10-15. 17 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, pp. 166-167, 368, 374, 18 Gould, S.J. and Niles Eldredge, Paleobiology, 3, 1972, p. 147. 19 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, p. 140. 20 Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Inquiry Press, East Lansing, MI, 1976), pp. 300-301. 21 Schmidt-Nielsen, Knut, Scientific American, 225, Dec. 1971, pp. 72-79. 22 Science News, 112, 24 Sept. 1977, p. 198; Weisburg, S., Science News, 130 , 16 Aug. 1986, p. 100. 23 Harland, W.B., et al., ref. 7, pp. 107, 117, 508. 24 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, pp. 144-147. 25 Ibid., p. 338; Jepsen, G.L., Science, 154, 9 Dec. 1966, p. 1333. 26 Simpson, G.G., in Evolution After Darwin, 1, Sol Tax, Editor, (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), p.143; also Simpson, G.G., ref. 4, p. 209; Kitts, David B., Evolution, 28, Sept. 1974, p. 467. 27 Gould, Stephen Jay, Natural History, 103, May 1994, p. 8. 28 Novacek, Michael J., Nature, 368, 28 April 1994, p. 807. 29 Lee, Michael, Natural History, 103, June 1994, pp. 63, 64; see also Lee, Michael S.Y., Science, 261, 24 Sept. 1993, pp. 1716-1720. 30 Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1944), pp. 105-108; White, Errol, Proc. Linnean Soc. London, 177, Jan. 1960, p.8; George, Neville T., Science Progress, 48, Jan. 1960, p. 3. 31 Nilsson, Heribert (Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953), reprint of English summary published by Evolution Protest Movement of North America, Victoria, B.C., 1953, pp. 1211-1212; Corner, E.J.H., in Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, Editors (Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961), pp. 96-97; Arnold, C.A., An Introduction to Paleobotany (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1947), p. 7. 32 Davidheiser, Bolton, Evolution and Christian Faith (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., Nutley, N.J., 1969), pp. 303-313. 33 Stanley, Stephen M., Macroevolution*Pattern and Process (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco), 1979, p.39. 34 Simpson, G.G., ref. 30, p. 167; Cousins, Frank W., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 8, Sept. 1971, pp. 99-108; Nilsson, Heribert, ref. 30, pp. 1193-1194; Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution (Pergamon Press, New York, 1960), pp. 144-149; Wentworth, Baroness, Thoroughbred Racing Stock (Charles Scribners, Sons, New York, 1938), p. 379. 35 Simpson, G.G., Horses (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116. 36 Ibid., pp. 116-117, 121; Simpson, G.G., The Meaning of Evolution (Bantam Books, Inc., New York, 1971), p. 135. 37 Ibid., p. 124. Other fossil horse data cited below can be found in the same work. 38 Gish, Duane, ref. 1, pp. 83-84; Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, pp. 260-261. 39 Nevins, Stuart E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 10, March 1974, p. 196. 40 Simpson, G.G., ref. 35, pp. 177-179; Davidheiser, Bolton, Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 12, Sept. 1975, pp. 88-89. 41 Kurten, Bjorn, The Age of the Dinosaurs (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1968), pp. 234-235. 42 Wysong, R.L., ref. 20, pp. 287-288. 43 Jepsen, G.L., Science, 154, 9 Dec. 1966, p. 1333. 44 Harland, W.B., et al., ref. 7, Sphenodontia, p. 702; Bogert, C.M., Scientific Monthly, 76, March 1953, p. 165. 45 Ibid., ref. 7, Tryblidioidea, p. 423; Hickman, C.P., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 2nd Edition (C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1961), pp. 348-349. 46 Ibid., ref. 7, Blattodea, p. 510; Brues, C.T., Scientific American, 185, Nov. 1951, p. 57. 47 Ibid., ref. 7, Odonata, pp. 510-511; Science Digest, 49, Jan. 1961, p. 6. 48 Ibid., ref. 7, Asteroidea, pp. 592-595; Nelson, Byron, After Its Kind (Bethany Press, Minneapolis, 1967), quote from Smithsonian Institute Bulletin 88. 49 Chaney, R., American Scientist, 36, Oct. 1948, p. 490. 50 Harland, W.B. et al., ref. 7, pp. 260-261; Delevoryas, T., Morphology and the Evolution of Fossil Plants (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1962), pp. 164-165. 51 Ibid., ref. 7, Cycadales, pp. 261, 263; Stokes, W.L., Essentials of Earth History (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1960), p. 266. 52 Romer, Alfred, ref. 3, pp. 74-75; Life Magazine, 3 April 1939, p. 26. 53 Harland, W.B., ref. 7, p. 41. 54 Ibid., ref. 7, Articulata, pp. 574-575; Idyll, C., Abyss*the Deep Sea and the Creatures that Live In It (Crowell Pub. Co., New York, 1971), pp. 237-238. 55 Ibid., ref. 7, Echinoidea, pp. 586-589. 56 Ibid., ref. 7, Teuthoidea, pp. 463; Idyll, C., ref. 53, pp. 251-253. 57 Footprints In Stone, Films for Christ, 2628 W. Birchwood Circle, Mesa, AZ 85202. 58 Kuban, Glen J., Origins Research, 9, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1986, p. 1. 59 Bowden, M., Ape-Men*Fact or Fallacy?, Second Edition (Sovereign Publications, Bromley, Kent, 1977), pp. 3-55, 90-137. 60 Gould, S.J. and Niles Eldredge, Paleobiology, 3, 1972, p. 147; Stanley, Stephen M., Macroevolution*Pattern and Process (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1979). Chapter 8 - Fossil Man? Separating People from Apes 1. Do fossils of prehistoric man-like creatures prove the evolution of apes to ape-like men to modern man? Answer: Most of our alleged fossil ancestors were merely animals having no connection with the human race. Some of the fossils which are true human remains completely contradict the theory of human evolution. Several famous fossil finds were frauds upon the scientific world and the public. If human evolution from ape to primitive cave man to modern man had really occurred, the fossils should have been found in that order from the lower to the higher rock strata or layers. That is, the more ape-like fossils should be found in rocks dated as older, and the fossils more similar to modern man should be found in the rocks dated younger. Contrary to what is presented in the the textbooks, newspapers and television, this is not always so. The actual picture is not so simple. 2. Have true human fossils been found in the wrong strata to support the evolution theory? Answer: Yes, but for the most part fossil finds not fitting the theory are ignored or explained away. Fossil remains the same or essentially the same as modern man which were found buried very deep or in strata dated very old have been ignored and are no longer reported to the public. Examples are the Calaveras, Castenedolo, and Olmo skulls. British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith in his book, The Antiquity of Man, described these and other like fossil-man finds in detail and stated that they would have been readily accepted by scientists if it were not for the fact that these fossils, because of their locations in the strata, contradicted the accepted theory of human evolution.1 3. Are there cases of fraud in the history of fossil man finds? Answer: The Piltdown fossil found in England in 1912 was shown in 1953 to be a cleverly contrived hoax.2 The greater part of the scientific world had accepted the fraud for forty years. 4. Have the various fossil candidates for a place in our human ancestry stood the test of time? Answer: One by one, various fossil man finds have flashed across the front pages of the newspapers and been the subject of many scientific studies and reports, only to be at last either discredited or just forgotten, replaced by newer finds which also eventually fade away. In 1981 British scientist John Reader commented on this Hollywood character of some of our former alleged ancestors: Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast. ...We already know that the fuss attached to some revealed more of human nature than of human origins; eventually we will know the truth about them all.3 5. Were the Neanderthal people really crude, hunched over, bestial creatures that evolved into modern man? Answer: For many decades most anthropologists were completely wrong. Neanderthal has now been found to have been an intelligent human being who walked perfectly upright, not a stupid, hunched-over half-ape-half-man. Human remains were discovered in 1856 in Germany in a cave in the Neander Valley, which was the source of the name, Neanderthal.4 A Neanderthal skeleton found in 1908 was the model for textbook drawings and museum displays of Neanderthal men and family groups used for decades afterwards. These illustrations portrayed them with bestial features, bull necks, hunched-over posture, and knees which could not be straightened. In 1956 respected evolutionary scientists reexamined the bones and concluded that they were of an elderly man who suffered from severe skeletal malformation resulting from rickets and arthritis. They determined that Neanderthals walked as upright as we do and that, dressed in modern clothes, they would probably draw no special attention among the crowds in the New York subway.5 Other evidence shows that the Neanderthals were intelligent, skillful, artistic people who believed in life after death. They were true men, Homo sapiens. We would speculate that the Neanderthals were a branch of Adam's race which through the effects of environment and other factors suffered changes in the shape of their skulls, a character of the human body which is actually somewhat plastic. In fact, a number of the man fossils may represent peoples which had suffered degeneration as the result of sin, crude pioneer living conditions, and inbreeding in small frontier population groups after the Flood. 6. What became of Java Man? Answer: Java Man, also called Pithecanthropus erectus or, more recently, Homo erectus, discovered in 1891, apparently represents a case either of fraud or misinterpretation, or both. The finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted some thirty years later that he had found in 1889 at Wadjak, Java, a true human skull of very large brain capacity. It was located in a layer of sediment not necessarily younger than that in which the bones of Pithecanthropus were found. Some authorities always considered that the Pithecanthropus skull belonged to an animal, and in 1936 Dubois himself concluded that the creature was actually a giant gibbon.6,7 7. What happened to Peking Man? Answer: The Peking Man or Sinanthropus fossils are now classified with Homo erectus. The fossils reportedly found in 1928 and succeeding years were never permitted to leave China. Only plaster casts and models were exported. A jumble of conflicting reports were published over a period of a decade after the initial report. When carefully compared, these reports show that Peking Man was an animal, probably a large monkey or baboon, not a man. Moreover, true human skulls were found in the same huge ash pit. Two outside authorities were permitted to examine the bones and the discovery site. Abbe Breuil described the massive lime burning pits in which the bones were found and also raised serious questions about the theory that the Sinanthropus fossils were ancestral to humans. Later Marcellin Boule, international authority on fossil skulls, made a careful study of the bones and the site and published his conclusion that Sinanthropus was an animal that was eaten by the true men who had manufactured lime at the site. There is much appearance of fraud in the history of the Peking fossils. Funding for the project was obtained from the Rockefeller interests by Teilhard de Chardin, who was also implicated in the Piltdown fraud.8 8. Are the fossils called Homo erectus human? Answer: There is divided opinion among Christians on this question. Pekin Man, Java Man and other fossils found in Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia have been classified as Homo erectus. This author has long been under the impression that Homo erectus was not human and, therefore, was not a son of Adam. However, Marvin L. Lubenow, in his recent and most thorough examination of the fossil evidence, concludes that Homo erectus was in fact Homo sapiens.9 His evidence for this conclusion includes the following: a. The cranial capacity of H. erectus fossils, 750-1250 cubic centimeters, falls within the range for modern humans (700-2200 cc). b. The body skeletons are very similar to modern humans, except that they are heavier and thicker. c. Of the 77 sites of H. erectus fossil finds, 42 have yielded stone tools and 11 show evidence of controlled use of fire. On the other hand, the form of H. erectus skulls, and jaws and teeth are in some respects strikingly different and more gross than that of modern man. In addition, the tools found near H. erectus fossils are not plentiful and do not necessarily pertain to the H. erectus fossils. In any event, H. erectus fossils do not support H. erectus as an ancestor of modern man. The reason for this is that H. erectus fossils have been found scattered in sedimentary strata that the evolutionists date all the way from 2 million to only 6000 years old. Thus they were contemporaneous with and cannot be considered as ancestors of Homo sapiens. They may have been a degenerate branch of mankind. Marvin Lubenow concludes that, "In actuality, the human fossil evidence falsifies the concept of human evolution."10 9. Is the fossil genus, Australopithecus, man's ancestor? Answer: Over the past fifty years various fossil species assigned to the genus, Australopithecus, have successively dominated the competition for places in man's supposed ancestry. The currently popular sequence is from Australopithecus afarensis to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. Prof. S.J. Gould of Harvard University has pointed out, however that there are substantial fossil gaps between these types.11 Therefore, the alleged evolutionary inheritance cannot be proved. In addition, only Homo sapiens fossils can be firmly related to evidence of culture and tools. Richard Leakey published evidence in 1971 indicating that the Australopithecines were "knucklewalkers" not unlike the living African apes which are long-armed, short-legged knucklewalkers.12 In 1975 a quantitative computerized comparison of the bones of modern apes, Australopithecines and man placed the three kinds of creatures in three separated groups. The results showed that they represent different kinds of locomotion.13 The most famous candidate for our ancestor in the early 1980s was the fossil "Lucy," found by Donald Johanson and called Australopithecus afarensis after the Afar region of East Africa. In just a few years Lucy suffered severe criticism, however. The supposed evidences for upright walk and other affinities to man have come under attack.14 Professors R. Susman and J. Stern of the State University of New York at Stony Brook commented that Lucy not only spent a lot of time in trees but that she probably also nested in the trees and lived a lot like other monkeys.15 And Dr. Johanson himself said, "There is little evidence that Australopithecines made or used tools."16 10. Was Homo habilis really a tool-using creature, as its name implies? Answer: As it turns out, there is no persuasive evidence the the Homo habilis fossils are the remains of a creature that used tools. 11. What does genetic variation between people groups indicate about the origin of the human race? Answer: The limited number of different forms (called alleles) of particular genes established now among the human population suggests that the human race may have expanded from a very small population only thousands, not millions of years ago. The geographic variations of human genes indicate that the human race radiated from the Middle East.17 Both of these conclusions are in agreement with the biblical record of creation and a catastrophic flood thousands of years ago, followed by the radiation of Noah's descendants from the region of eastern Turkey. 12. What about the "African Eve" theory of the origin of the human race? Answer: A more recent genetic study of the DNA of genes found in mitochondria of various racial groups was reported to have shown that the human race originated in Africa.18 It was said that an "African Eve" was the progenitor of the race. However, re-examination of the research showed that this conclusion was arrived at through erroneous use of a computer program.19 The "African Eve" theory has now been placed on the back burner. 13. Have not archaeologists found that human culture evolved through successive stages from cave dwellers to nomadic hunters to farm village dwellers and, finally, to builders of great city-states? Answer: Actually, no. The evidence from archaeology shows the sudden appearance of the advanced Sumerian civilization without signs of its slow evolution upward from cave men. The observed facts really fit what the Bible says. Archaeologists have discovered little or no evidence of historical roots for the first great civilization in Sumeria.20 When the Sumerian people appeared in the Mesopotamian River Valley, they brought with them metallurgy, art, and the potter's wheel, as well as writing, religion and government, all in a highly developed state. Archaeologist C. Leonard Wooley estimated at least a thousand years of cultural development before this point in their history, but where this happened he does not know. Thus, evidence for the slow evolution of civilization is lacking, but the facts do fit the biblical record. In Genesis 4 we are told of the early development of cities and of technology and art*metallurgy, domesticated animals, and musical instruments. Genesis 6-9 tells of a family of eight people who survived the judgment of the global flood and who must have preserved much knowledge of the former culture and technology. Thus as the race became reestablished in the post-flood world and population began to swell, civilizations could flower rapidly without long evolutionary growth. Archaeology supports this biblical model for the origin of ancient civilizations. 14. Isn't modern man much more intelligent than ancient man? Answer: There is no evidence for the evolution of human intelligence. Since man is a cultural being, modern men have the benefit of the knowledge discovered by earlier generations, but not a higher level of intelligence. This was the view of the noted French social anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss.21 The ancient peoples were highly intelligent, accomplishing marvelous feats of architectural design and engineering without the help of the refined instruments and massive power machinery available today. Lacking mass-produced books, and having no computerized data banks, they had to make much greater use of their memories than do moderns. If it were possible to interview the ancients, we might perceive that human intelligence has actually degenerated. On the other hand, modern man has available more knowledge than the ancient peoples and possesses more advanced technology, because man is a cultural being. Each successive generation stands upon the shoulders, so to speak, of former generations, benefiting from their labors and scholarship. Man is the only cultural being, for he alone can bind time, preserving present advances for the future and drawing upon past accomplishments for the present. 15. Isn't the idea of Eve's being created from Adam's rib pretty weird? Answer: The creation of Eve from Adam's side is not really so wild scientifically as some people think. This teaching of the Bible agrees with the modern science of genetics. Few people realize that, as Dr. Robert Koontz pointed out, the Genesis account of the creation of woman from man accords with the modern knowledge of genetics which was unknown to Moses.22 In humans sex is determined by the two sex chromosomes. The female has in each body cell two X chromosomes, whereas the male has an X and a Y. Thus, if the female had been created first, it would not have been possible to create the first man from genetic material entirely related to the woman. This is because God in making Adam would have had to create Y chromosomes, for Eve had no Y chromosomes in her cells. As a consequence the resulting race would have been a hybrid race. But because man was created first, woman and man could be completely related to each other. Eve was the first clone! This unity of the race in Adam is theologically very important, for we all sinned in Adam and fell with him in his first transgression. The Redeemer of the fallen race, Jesus Christ, receiving human nature by a miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary, became in a sense -- and we say it reverently -- a hybrid being, the God-Man. And all those who believe in Him are united with and in Him and receive a new nature, becoming the children of God by a spiritual rebirth. (See Romans 5 & 6 and I Corinthians 15.) 16. But where did Adam and Eve's sons, Cain and Seth, get their wives? Answer: They married their sisters in order to begin the expansion of the human race. We are told in Genesis 5:4 that after the birth of Seth, Adam begot sons and daughters. So the answer to the question is that Cain married one of his sisters. But some will complain, that's not safe, is it? Is not close intermarriage dangerous because of possible genetic problems? Yes, it is now, when all humans carry in their chromosomes a "genetic load" of bad mutations. In the early generations of the race few bad mutations had accumulated in the human gene pool, so close intermarriage was not genetically dangerous. In the beginning history of the race close intermarriage was necessary. But when the race had multiplied sufficiently, close intermarriage was forbidden by God. 17. Does human nature provide evidence for the existence of the Creator God of the Bible? Answer: The essential attributes of personal human nature are intellect, affections (i.e., our feelings of love, fear, compassion, etc.), moral capacity, and will. The human body is composed of the material atoms found in the dust of the earth, just as the Bible teaches. But is there any scientific evidence that atoms or molecules have any of the four attributes of human nature listed above, or evidence that chemical reactions can give these attributes to dust? No such evidence exists. There is no reason to believe that non-living matter thinks, has emotions, has any sense of moral responsibility, or exercises will. Nor is there evidence that chemical reactions can create an organism that does. Personal nature, therefore, must have come from a higher personal spiritual Source, not from an impersonal material source. This conclusion from the scientific evidence is just what the Bible teaches. And we are not being at all "unscientific" if we believe that we were created in the image of the infinite-personal Spirit, God the Creator. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Leakey, L.S.B., in Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 2, Sol Tax, ed. (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 23. Almost all anatomists and paleoanthropologists are, however, in general agreement that the roots of the human stock must be sought in the group...Australopithecinae. Oxnard, C.E., Nature, 258, 4 Dec. 1975, pp. 389, 394. ...The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage....If these estimates are true, then the possibility that any of the australopithecines is a part of human ancestry recedes....We may well have to accept that it is rather unlikely that any of the australopithecines, including "Homo habilis" and "Homo africanus," can have had any direct phylogenetic link with the genus Homo except perhaps at earlier times. Zuckerman, Sir Solly, Beyond the Ivory Tower (Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1971), p. 64. ...The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all. References 1 Keith, Sir Arthur, The Antiquity of Man, Second Edition (Williams and Norgate, London, 1927), pp. x-xvi, 123, 169-172, 232-340, 471-473. 2 Weiner, S.J., The Piltdown Hoax (Oxford Univ. Press, 1955). 3 Reader, John, New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 805 4 Davidheiser, Bolton, Evolution and Christian Faith (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., Nutley, N.J., 1969), pp. 330-334. 5 Straus, Wm. L., Jr. and A.J.E. Cave, Quarterly Review of Biology, 32, Dec. 1957, pp. 348-363. 6 Cousins, Frank W., Fossil Man (Evolution Protest Movement, Hants, England, 1971), pp. 40-42. 7 O'Connell, Patrick, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis (Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, Calif. 1969), pp. 139-142. 8 Ibid., pp. 108-138. 9 Lubenow, Marvin L., Bones of Contention*Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), pp. 120-143. 10 Ibid., p. 183 11 Adler, Jerry and John Carey, Newsweek, 29 March 1982, p. 45-46. 12 Leakey, Richard E., Nature, 231, 28 May 1971, pp. 241-245. 13 Oxnard, C.E., Nature, 258, 4 Dec. 1975, pp. 389-395; Zuckerman, Sir Solly, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. II (2), pp. 87-114; _______, Beyond the Ivory Tower (Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1971), pp. 76-94. 14 Herbert, W., Science News, 21 Aug. 1982, p. 116; Cherfas, Jeremy, New Scientist, 97, 20 Jan. 1983, pp. 172-177; Leakey, Richard E., New Scientist, 93, 18 March 1982, p. 695; Zihlman, Adrienne, New Scientist, 104, 15 Nov. 1984, pp. 39-40. 15 Herman, W., Science News, 121, 21 Aug. 1982, p. 116. 16 Johanson, Donald, Science '81, March 1981, p. 51. 17 Smith, John Maynard, On Evolution (Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1972), pp. 109-112; Calder, Nigel, The Life Game (Viking Press, Inc., New York, 1974), pp. 24, 68-70; Bass, Robert W., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 12, March 1976, p. 199. 18 Vigilant, L, M., Stoneking, H. Harpending, K. Hawkes, A.C. Wilson, Science, 253, 1991, p. 1503. 19 Maugh, Thomas H. II, Los Angeles Times, 9 Feb. 1992, Section A, pp. 11,12; Barinaga, Marcia, Science, Vol. 255, 7 Feb. 1992, pp. 686-687; Templeton, Alan R, ibid., p. 737; Hedges, S. Blair, Sudhir Kumar, Koichiro Tamura and Mark Stoneking, ibid., pp. 737-739. 20 McCone, R. Clyde, Symposium on Creation IV, Donald W. Patten, Editor (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1972), pp. 123-133. 21 Time, 30 June 1967, p. 34. 22 Koontz, Robert F., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 8, Sept. 1971, pp. 128-129. Chapter 9 - Fossils and Geology: Slow or Fast? 1. How are fossils formed, according to the theory of uniformitarian historical geology? Answer: The traditional accepted view is that fossils were the result of processes pretty much like those taking place on earth today. The term "uniformitarian" refers to the idea that geological processes such as erosion, sedimentation, and earth movements have remained pretty much the same in character and rate for most of earth history. Fossils are generally found encased in sedimentary rock, rock which was deposited by water in the form of loose sediments which were then compressed and cemented to form solid stone. Since in the traditional theory most sediments were laid down very slowly, those plants and animals which left fossils must for the most part have been covered and fossilized slowly. Also, the vast deposits of the fossil fuel, coal, supposedly were formed from forests and peat bogs which grew slowly, died, were covered with sediments slowly in the same location in which they grew, and were finally compressed to make coal. 2. Where can fossils be seen being formed today? Answer: Present earth conditions are not producing fossils such as are found in abundance in fossil bearing rocks. Fossils like those found in the rocks are not today observed being formed anywhere on the earth by the gradual processes just described. When plants and animals die they are immediately attacked by scavengers, fungi, and bacteria, which destroy them before they can be buried by sediments and fossilized. Any appreciable formation of fossils apparently requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process.1 3. Do fossils generally give the appearance of having been formed by slow or by rapid processes? Answer: A great many facts point to rapid, catastrophic burial of the plants and animals which are found as fossils today. a. Fossil caves, fissures, mass burial sites, and sedimentary strata discovered in Europe and America were jammed with masses of mixed bones of many sorts of animals from widely separated and differing climatic zones, for example:2 (1) Cumberland Cavern in Maryland, containing remains of animals from cold northern regions, warm, damp semi-tropical regions, and from more arid environments, (2) Norfolk forest-beds in England, which contain remains of temperate zone plants, and large numbers of both northern cold-climate and tropical warm-climate animals, all mixed together, (3) rock fissures in England and France contain masses of broken bones of many kinds of animals from both cold and temperate zones. b. The Baltic amber deposits and the Geisaltal lignite seams in Germany contain fossil insect, plant and animal remains which must have been collected by some cataclysmic process from different areas all over the earth, from near arctic to tropical zones, and transported from Africa, the East Indies, and South America to be dumped in northern Europe.3 c. Numerous fossil graveyards contain stupendous quantities of fossilized bones of many different kinds of animals thrown together in jumbled masses so as to be explainable only in terms of catastrophic water action of vast proportions. These include the Agate Spring Quarry in Nebraska, the Siwalik Hills fossil beds in India, and the fossil fish graveyard strata of Lompoc, California, the Old Red sandstone in Scotland, and many other fish graveyards in Italy, Germany, Switzerland, etc.4 d. In many locations in the world are found extensive rock strata containing sometimes billions of fossilized animals, frequently densely packed together. They often display evidence of terror and struggle. These facts seem to suggest anything but slow, calm conditions of formation. e. The vast coal deposits of the world generally do not give evidence of having been fossilized in the same location in which the plants originally grew. Instead they appear to have been dumped into place by flood action.5 Usually there is no evidence of a soil layer in which the supposed forest once grew. There are also many examples of "polystrate fossils," fossilized tree trunks which extend through a number of layers of sedimentary rock and coal, some of them up to one hundred or more feet in length.6 These surely must have been covered up very rapidly in order to be fossilized into coal before the termites got to them. Sometimes up to one hundred layers of coal separated by rock layers have been found at one location. It is not uncommon to find marine tube worms embedded in coal, attached to the coalified wood. Also not uncommon are pairs of coal layers separated by sedimentary rock, which over a distance of some miles are found to merge into a single coal layer. Thus, the rock layer cannot represent a long period of time. These data strongly indicate that the vegetation was rafted in from other locations by great ocean currents, dumped, covered with sediments, and rapidly converted to coal by the pressure of deep overlying sediments. Finally, pressure and heat can convert wood to coal in days,7 and garbage can be changed to oil in less than an hour by a recently developed commercial process. The entire fossil record is much more easily understood to be the result of global flood action of great rapidity and violence, rather than of the relatively slow processes mostly observed today. British paleontologist Derek V. Ager believes that most fossils were produced in short periods of catastrophic activity separated by long periods of relative quiet.8 However, as we shall see, there is much evidence that the sediments which he believes to represent slow deposition were also laid down rapidly. 4. Are sixty-five petrified forests stacked one on top of the other at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park? Does this famous geological formation represent a vast span of time? Answer: Much evidence shows that the Specimen Ridge "fossil forests" are not the remains of forests which grew one on top of the other during long periods of time. Rather, it appears that trees from distant forests were ripped up and transported by water to be dumped at Specimen Ridge. The facts strongly indicate that the standard view long held by geologists is completely wrong. The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view. Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9 a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken. b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs. c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over). d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match. e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current. f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew. g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found. h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another. i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers. j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks. These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. 5. Do the erosion and deposition of sediments seen today explain how sedimentary rock layers could have been formed in the past? Answer: The major features of the sedimentary rock strata cannot be explained in terms of the processes seen on the earth today. Two excellent reviews of this subject have been published by Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, to whom we are heavily indebted for much of what follows.10 a. Vast horizontal strata point to a global flood. In our southwestern states, where they are well exposed by erosion, but also across the continent and everywhere in the world, thousands to hundreds of thousands of square miles of flat, horizontal strata, from a few feet to hundreds of feet thick are found. At no location on the earth may the production of similar sedimentary deposits of like extent be observed today. These formations are composed of sandstone, graywacke, shale, conglomerate, limestone and other types of rock. Some of them extend for thousands of miles, spanning whole continents. For example, the St. Peter sandstone, composed of clean quartz grains, has been traced in twenty states from California to Vermont.11 The Shinarump conglomerate in the Southwest covers some 125,000 square miles,12 and another conglomerate blanket is reported to extend from New Mexico to Saskatchewan and Alberta.13 A continental blanket of clean sandstone, before being deposited, required a steadily flowing current traversing a great distance to separate the sand from silt and gravel. A continental blanket of conglomerate required a continent-sized maelstrom of water in violent, chaotic motion to dump an ungraded mixture of material of all sizes across thousands of miles of terrain. Tremendous water action such as that which would be produced by a global flood seems to offer the only reasonable explanation for the observed facts. b. Sedimentary rock strata have features which suggest continuous and simultaneous deposition.14 If the contact surface between two successive parallel sedimentary rock layers is smooth and regular, showing no signs of erosion, the two layers are said to be "conformable." If there is evidence of erosion of the lower surface before the upper layer was deposited, the contact is called a "disconformity." Since erosion begins as soon as a land surface is exposed, conformable contact surfaces indicate uninterrupted deposition of sediments. What is found through the greater part of the world's sedimentary rocks, conformable surfaces or disconformities? Conformable surfaces are the general rule, whereas disconformities are relatively rare. Thus, the sedimentary rock strata appear to have been laid down rapidly, without large periods of time between them. In fact, it is not uncommon for two layers with a conforemable contact surface to grade into a single layer, without a definite contact line. Also, in some cases a disconformity at one point becomes a conformable contact some distance away. The combined effect of these facts is to do away with the vast time scale assumed for geological history. A catastrophic global flood may be the correct explanation after all. A striking example of missing time has recently been studied in the Grand Canyon.15 Along the North Kaibab Trail the Mississippian Redwall Limestone is seen to intertongue with the lower and supposedly much older Cambrian Muav Limestone. There is no evidence of a disconformity. It appears that the two strata were deposited almost simultaneously. Yet according to the evolutionary time scale a period of 200 million years separates these two limestone deposits. c. Finer structure of strata is explained in terms of the flood. The finer structure of sedimentary strata, called stratification, is also difficult to explain satisfactorily in terms of the more or less gradual processes observed in action today. The four common types of stratification seem to be more easily explained in terms of the kind of very rapid water action which a global flood would have produced. Simple lamination,16 cross lamination and cross bedding,16 ripple lamination,17 and graded bedding18 all are equally well or better explained in terms of the global flood hypothesis than they are in terms of the uniformitarian principle. d. Many massive sedimentary rock formations contain thousands of thin, horizontal laminations. Traditional interpretation takes these to be annual layers or "varves" laid down over multiplied thousands of years in lakes and seas. Thus these laminated formations are adduced as evidence for long time spans required to accumulate the many layers. However a large body of information in the recent geological literature has undermined this view. In the excellent 1994 book, Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe, edited by Steven Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, reviews this evidence at some length.19 There are numerous examples of sediments composed of many thin lamminae that were laid down rapidly in short periods of time, even in minutes. For example, such a thinly laminated deposit was formed in a few hours during the catastrophic flows of water and volcanic ash released by the explosion in 1982 of Mount St. Helens in Washington. Similar laminated sedimentary deposits have also been produced experimentally by moving, silt laden water in a hydraulic tank. In addition, such laminae have also been deposited from stationary water in a laboratory by French scientist, Guy Berthault.20 In addition, there are finely laminated sediments up to hundreds of feet thick that are now known to have been deposited rapidly under catastrophic conditions in mere hours. An important type of evidence for geologic time has thus become highly questionable. e. Composition of many sedimentary rock strata is to a large extent still unexplained. Not only the structure, but also the composition of sedimentary rock formations bears witness to catastrophic deposition of most of the sedimentary rocks in the earth's crust. Limestone,21 dolostone (limestone containing much magnesium carbonate),22 cherts (flint-like stone),23 graywacke,24 and "evaporites" (such as gypsum or rock salt)25 cannot be suitably explained in terms of processes observed on the earth today. In fact, they apparently were formed by water currents and oceanic chemical reactions on a scale which is incomprehensible in terms of present earth activities. Geologists cannot agree on the explanations for these facts, and there is much mystery still. One thing is certain: a global flood seems to offer the best possibility ultimately of explaining all of the facts. f. Vast volcanic lava outpourings. In the states of the Pacific Northwest, in India and elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory were engulfed by floods of basaltic lava which must have flowed like rivers and stacked up layers thousands of feet thick. Volcanic action on this scale is unheard of in the modern world.26 g. Earth's crust violently altered. Many other characteristics of the rock structures of the earth's crust suggest catastrophic activity on a giant scale not seen today. Large scale folding, faulting, and uplifting and sinking are examples. Great river canyons in the ocean bottoms and shallow water deposits on the sea floor indicate that the oceans may have been thousands of feet lower than at present.27 Striking evidence from archaeology indicates that the Andes and Himalaya mountain chains were pushed up thousands of feet in historic times.28 h. Mount Ararat submerged. On Mount Ararat, a volcanic mountain complex, pillow lava is found at the 14,000 foot level.29 Pillow lava has been extruded under water and is recognized by its high glass content caused by very rapid cooling. All of the igneous rocks examined on Ararat by geologist Clifford Burdick were highly glassy. Ararat apparently was submerged in water to above the present 14,000 foot level. It probably was built up under the water during the flood. The entire world must have been inundated at the same time. All of these evidences from geology and many more point to a violent, catastrophic past history of the earth. They imply global flood with associated volcanic and mountain building activity which changed the face of the earth. 6. Are the rock layers and their embedded fossils always found in the same order, with simple fossils on the bottom and complex ones on the top, in the same order in which evolution is said to have occurred? Answer: There are many places on the earth where rock strata and fossils are found in the reverse order from that predicted by evolutionary theory. Many of these are very difficult for geologists to explain. If they cannot be explained, the evolutionary history gets turned around backwards, which is embarrassing for the theory ofhistorical geology. Dr. Walter Lammerts has compiled references in the scientific literature to hundreds of such reversals of evolutionary geology.30 Sometimes a reversal can be shown to be caused by the overturning of a fold in intensely deformed sediments. But in other cases folding cannot explain it. The stock explanation in such cases is that a "thrust fault" allowed older strata containing simple fossils to be slid out on top of younger rocks contain complex fossils. The most famous example of a so-called thrust fault is the Lewis Overthrust, covering some 13,000 square miles of mountain ranges in Montana and British Columbia. However, the physical evidence that an entire system of mountain ranges slid thirty to sixty miles out on top of underlying strata is absent. A thick layer of ground-up mixed rock from the two layers should be found between the upper and lower members of the supposed overthrust structure. It is nowhere to be found, not at any of the known exposures of the contact surface. The rock layers appear to have been conformably deposited one on the other in the normal manner. If the simple algae fossils in the upper layers (rocks classified as Precambrian dolomite) were not supposedly a billion years older than the complex marine fossils in the lower layers (classified as Cretaceous shale), the idea of a thrust fault in that area would never have occurred to geologists. but the theory of evolution must be saved at any cost, so heroic feats of geological imagination are performed to explain away the obvious facts.31 Another related type of evidence which is embarrassing to the defenders of the traditional geological claims is the discovery of many different kinds of pollen in Precambrian rocks.32 This information would have flowering plants appearing on the earth up to a half billion years too early to fit in the theory of evolution. Perhaps the evolution and the years are really imagination. 7. What is the biblical picture of earth history? Answer: While the Bible does not give a detailed picture of earth history, it does provide a framework for interpreting the fossils and rock strata. The opening verses of the Bible indicate that in its original form the earth was surrounded by water, perhaps in violent activity. Thus the earliest sedimentary rocks formed would be devoid of fossils, for life had not yet been created. This was on the first day of creation, ten thousand or so years ago. On the third day of creation God lifted the original continental mass from beneath the waters. Probably until the Flood, thousands of years later, the level of the dry land was generally lower and more even than today, the mountains much lower than today's mountain ranges. Sea level was considerably lower and the land surface therefore greater than at present. When God judged the sinful human race with the Flood of Noah, rain fell and perhaps additional water was brought to earth by special divine provision, and juvenile waters poured out through fissures in the crust of the earth in tremendous volume. In addition, the ocean bottoms and the land surface may have changed their relative levels, the former rising and the latter sinking. The effect was to cover the land surface totally and subject the entire earth to the action of global water currents and wave action of cataclysmic violence. The land surface was deeply eroded and every living thing swept away. The sediments with the dead plants and animals were deposited to form the strata observed today with their content of fossils. Great earth upheavals, volcanic activity, vast lava outpourings, and rapid mountain building accompanied the latter part of the Flood and continued for centuries afterwards on a diminishing scale. Perhaps in the centuries after the Flood the original land mass began to separate into the present continents. Genesis 10:25 may refer to a crucial stage in this separation, as well as to the division of the nations at Babel. In the post-flood period glaciers advanced and retreated. Gradually the conditions on the earth stabilized, the land and seas were filled again with living creatures, and the descendants of Noah spread around the world. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Gregory, Herbert E., U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 188, 1938, p. 49. ...The physiographic conditions under which the Shinarump[conglomerate blanket, ed.] was deposited are difficult to visualize. What conditions could be so persistent and so uniform as to permit the deposition of a thin sheet of material essentially alike over thousands of square miles in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada? Dunbar, C.O. and Rogers, John, Principles of Stratigraphy (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1957), p. 245. ...Chert has been the subject of as much controversy as dolostone, and for about the same reasons: neither is known to be forming anywhere today, and the chemistry of formation of each presents difficult problems. Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung (Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, reprint by Evolution Protest Movement of N. America, Victoria, B.C., 1973), pp. 1194-1195. Let us study...the formation of amber. The largest deposits...in East Prussia...estimated...at 5 milliard (5x109 kilos). ...In the pieces of amber...insects are of modern types. ...It is then quite astounding to find that they belong to all regions of the earth, not only to the Palaearctic region. ...Typically tropical species occur, from the Old World as well as from the New. The same is the case with the plant fragments. Leaves of tropical trees from East India, Borneo, Australia and South America are mixed with those from...homely shrubs. ...The genus Pinus...needles...are Japanese or North American. ...The geological and paleobiological facts concerning the layers of amber are impossible to understand unless the explanation is accepted that they are the final result of an allochtonous process, including the whole earth. ...Exactly the same picture as the one just given is offered by the well-known studies of certain fossil-carrying strata of the lignite in Geiseltal (Germany). References 1 Whitcomb, John C., Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 84, 128-130, 155-157. 2 Ibid., pp. 154-161; Velikovsky, Immanuel, Earth in Upheaval (Dell Pub. Co., Inc., New York, 1955), pp. 50-60. 3 Nilsson, Heribert, ref. 31 of Chapter 7, pp. 1194-1196. 4 Velikovsky, Immanuel, ref. 2, pp. 18-22, 64-69, 78-81. 5 Nilsson, Heribert, ref. 31 of Chapter 7, pp. 1196-1198; Morris, Henry M., Editor, Scientific Creationism (Creation-Life Pub., San Diego, 1974), pp. 107-109. 6 Rupke, N.A., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 3, May 1966, pp. 16-37. 7 Whitcomb, John C., Jr. and Henry M. Morris, ref. 1, pp. 278-279. 8 Ager, Derek V., The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973). 9 Coffin, Harold, A Challenge to Education II-B, Walter Lang, Editor (Bible-Science Association, Caldwell, Idaho, 1974), pp. 36-43. 10 Nevins, Stuart E. (Steven A. Austin), A Symposium on Creation III, Donald W. Patten, Ed. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1971), pp. 33-68. 11 Wheeler, Harry E., Bull. of the Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists, 47, p. 1507. 12 Stokes, W.L., Bull. of the Geological Soc. of Amer., 61, 1950, p. 91. 13 Nevins, Stuart E., ref. 10, pp. 59-60. 14 Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Creation-Life Pub., Inc., San Diego, 1982), pp. 213-218. 15 Waisgerber, William, George F. Howe, and Emmett L. Williams, Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 23, March 1987, pp. 160-167. 16 Jopling, Alan V., Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 36, 1966, p. 883. 17 McKee Edwin D., Primary Sedimentary Structures and Their Hydrodynamic Interpretation, Gerald V. Middleton, Ed. (Soc. of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Tulsa, Okla., 1965), p. 83. 18 Kuenen, Ph.H. and C.I. Migliorini, Journal of Geology, 58, 1950, pp. 91-127. 19 Austin, Steven A, editor, Grand Canyon*Monument to Catastrophe (Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 1995, pp. 37-39. 20 Berthault, Guy, Compt Rendue Academie des Sciences, Paris, Vol. 303, 1986, pp. 1569-1574. 21 Morris, Henry H., Editor, ref. 5, p. 104. 22 Dunbar, C.O. and John Rogers, Principles of Stratigraphy (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1957), p. 237. 23 Ibid.., p. 245. 24 Pettijohn, F.G., Sedimentary Rocks, 2nd edition (Harper and Row, New York, 1957), p. 313. 25 Ibid., 2nd edition, p. 483. 26 Baker, C.L. Journal of Geology, 31, 1923, pp. 66-79; Wadia, D.N., Geology of India, 3rd Edition (MacMillian & Co., London, 1953), pp. 292-292. 27 Daly, Reginald, Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries (Craig Press, Nutley, N.J., 1972), pp. 242-243; Whitcomb, John C., Jr. and Henry M. Morris, ref. 1, pp. 125-126, 324-325. 28 Velikovsky, Immanuel, ref. 2, pp. 81-87, 151. 29 Read, John G., The Mountains of Ararat, filmstrip by Creation-Science Research Center, San Diego, 1973). 30 Lammerts, Walter E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly: Vol. 21, 1984-1985, pp. 88, 150, 200; Vol. 22, 1985-1986, pp. 127, 188; Vol. 23, 1986-1987, pp. 38, 133; Vol. 24, 1987, p. 46. 31 Burdick, Clifford L., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 6, Sept. 1969, pp. 96-106; ibid., 11, June 1974, pp. 56-60; Slusher, Harold S., ibid., 3, May 1966, pp. 59-60; Read, John G. and Clifford L. Burdick, Fossils, Strata, and Evolution, a photographic essay book and a filmstrip of same title (Scientific-Technical Presentations, Culver City, CA, 1979). 32 Stainforth, R.M., Nature, 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292-294; Burdick, Clifford L., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 9, June 1972, p. 25; Lammerts, Walter E. and George F. Howe, ibid., 23, March 1987, pp. 151-153. Chapter 10 - Evidence Adduced for Evolution: Can Creation Explain it? 1. Do the many similarities among different species prove the theory that they are descended from a common ancestor? Answer: Such similarities do not prove, for example, that apes, monkeys and men are descended from a common ancestor. The similarities can also be understood in terms of creation by a common Designer who used a basic plan with modifications for particular applications.1 For example, the basic plan for vertebrates is the quadrupedal (four-footed) design, because it is a practical arrangement in most instances. Consider, as an illustration, why all automobiles with few exceptions have four wheels. The reason is not that they all came from the same production line, but that four wheels is a good basic design. It can be modified to serve in a sports car (special suspension), off-road vehicle (four-wheel drive), passenger sedan (softer suspension), heavy duty truck (dual wheels), etc. The designers used modifications suited to specific purposes. The bones of the different vertebrate animals often correspond almost bone-for-bone, though they may have different functions in the different species. This fact is combined with the assumption of evolution from a common ancestor to form the concept of "homology." At the same time homology is taken as evidence for evolution, and close similarity is interpreted as proving close evolutionary relationship. But as we said above, the creation interpretation is equally logical. Thus the forearms of the vertebrates have many forms, including the legs of salamanders, lizards, horses, apes, and men, as well as the wings of birds and bats. Each type of appendage suits its purpose admirably, as would be expected of the work of an infinitely wise Creator. Furthermore, as was shown in Chapter 7, fossil candidates for intermediate forms are scarce, and intermediate forms are generally difficult to conceive. For example, could a half-shrew-half-bat exist? There are serious difficulties with the theory of homology.2 It has been assumed that homologous structures are controlled by homologous genes. Thus, the genes for a leg are assumed gradually to have evolved into genes for a wing. Therefore, the leg evolved into a wing. There is much evidence, however, that homologous structures are not controlled by homologous genes.3 Thus it must be assumed that in the history of evolution, salamander leg genes passed their job on to other genes which became reptile leg genes, which then passed their job on to other genes which became bird wing genes. Combine this fantastic notion with the fact that it is simply not known where the genes for the design of either the leg or the wing reside in the chromosomes, and homology loses much of its force as an evidence for evolution. Yet homology has historically been a principal evidence for evolution. In his 1971 monograph, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, the great British embryologist Sir Gavin de Beer, posed the question for evolutionary theory which is still unanswered: ...But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible(in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.4 2. Is evolution proved by the fact that plants and animals can be classified into groups, i.e., kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species? Answer: Modern biologists commonly hold that the system of classification is the end result of a long history of evolutionary development. They generally reject the idea of fundamental "types" or "typology" in biology. The fact is, however, that living things can be classified into a system which very much appears to be based upon types which are separate from other types. Michael Denton, in his book published in 1986, Evolution A Theory in Crisis, explains this fact most persuasively.5 The modern system of biological classification was first proposed in 1758 by Carolus Linnaeus, who believed he was classifying the types conceived and created by the Creator. The evidence for typology in nature was so overwhelming that, prior to the conquest of their thinking by Darwin's theory, the great majority of leading biologists believed that the classification system represented archtypes or original types of organisms. After Darwin typological thinking was suppressed, but in recent decades it has reappeared. The new cladistic method of classification rejects speculation about imagined common ancestors, emphasizing only common characters in existing species, either living or fossil. And, in fact, even during the century since Darwin, when most taxonomists were thinking in terms of evolutionary ancestors, the actual system of classification did not change in the least. It has always displayed groups of species separated by sharp divisions from other such groups. Species which could be classified as intermediate between such groups simply do not exist. The smaller groups of species are nested together within larger groups which are also separate from the other larger groups. For example, apes and kangaroos are classed together as mammals, whereas frogs and salamanders are classed together as amphibians. And the mammals and amphibians are classed together as terrestrial vertebrates which are separate from fish. This is called a "hierarchical" system. A hierarchical system of classification can be portrayed in a tree-like diagram. Such tree diagrams are commonly thought to correspond to a historical process of descent by evolution from common ancestors. However, in an evolution tree all of the existing species end up as leaves at the ends of the outer twigs of the tree. No species, either living or extinct, are intermediate so that they fit down on the branches, at the connecting nodes, or in the trunk of the tree. Nothing is necessarily ancestral to anything else. Therefore, contrary to the claim of some vocal apologists for evolution, this nested box or hierarchical system of classification really offers no proof for a succession of evolved species. It can properly be viewed as circumstantial evidence for either common ancestry or special creation. Extinction poses another serious problem for the evolutionary interpretation of the system of classification. In order for the species living today all to fit so neatly as they do into an orderly hierarchical system of classification, it is necessary for all of the ancient evolutionary intermediate types to have died out completely. For if any of them still existed, no such orderly system of classification of separate types would be possible today. There would just be too many oddball mixed up intermediate types running around that would mess up the orderly system observed today. But why should the intermediates all have become extinct, for there must have been millions of them * if evolution really occurred? The fact is that they are found neither in the fossil record nor among the living species, just as if they never existed. The facts fit a created, not an evolved world. Prof. Keith Thompson of Yale University wrote in 1981 concerning the impact of cladism on evolutionary thought, ...to the thesis of Darwinian evolution...has been added a new cladistic antithesis which says that the search for ancestors is a fool's errand...It is a change in approach that is not easy to accept for, in a sense, it runs counter to what we have all been taught.6 3. Are there vestigial organs in some creatures which suggest that an evolutionary change from use to disuse has occurred? Answer: Advancing knowledge of physiology has shown that most of the supposed vestigial organs are useful and even essential. If there are any true vestigial organs, they show the loss of structure and design, not the production of something new. For the support of the theory of evolution, evidence for the production of new organs is required. At one time one hundred and eighty vestigial organs or structures were listed for the human body. As the knowledge of physiology increased the list dwindled, uses being discovered for them, until now only a very few are offered as evidence for evolution.7 One still suggested in some biology books is the human appendix. However, it is now thought that this organ, containing much lymphoid tissue, provides protection against infection, especially in infants. Under certain conditions loss of organs or their function may possibly occur. Examples are insects, amphibians, or fish isolated in dark caves, which have lost the power of sight, and certain insects on windy islands which have lost their wings because insects with large wings are easily blown off the islands. However, loss of a function or structure means the loss of genetic information from the gene pool. Just the reverse is required for evolution to occur. 4. Does the sequence of stages or forms of the human embryo display a history of evolution from a single cell to a worm-like creature to vertebrate fish to man? Answer: This theory, called "embryonic recapitulation" (embryo retelling a story), is now almost entirely discarded by scientists because there are simply too many exceptions.8 Examples of exceptions include the following: in man the tongue develops before the teeth, vertebrate embryos form the heart before the rest of the circulatory system, some creatures are very similar in the adult stage but quite different in the egg or larval stages, there could be no ancestor corresponding to the formless jelly stage in the pupae of moths and butterflies, and the respiratory surface of the lung is the last to appear in the embryo, whereas it must have been present throughout the alleged history of evolution since the appearance of the land animals. The so-called "gill slits" (actually pouches) and gill arches in the human embryo never have anything to do with respiration of the embryo, as they should if the recapitulation theory were valid. In the course of embryonic development they are incorporated into such organs as the Eustachian tube, the tympanic cavity of the middle ear, the palatine tonsils, the thymus, parathyroids, the carotid arteries, the subclavian artery, the aortic arch, and the ductus arteriosus. The theory that the gill pouches and gill arches are related to the gills of a fish ancestor is now discredited. It was based upon inaccurate and incomplete knowledge of the facts and upon inadequate understanding of the process by which the embryo develops.9 The logical understanding of the course of embryonic development is that a rational building plan is followed. The most complex structures generally start to appear first because they require more time for completion, and they must also be integrated with the other structures which develop later. Thus the facts agree quite logically with the creation viewpoint. 5. Wasn't biblical creation defeated by evolutionary science in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee? Answer: This infamous trial has been grossly misrepresented in the mass media for a half century, with the result that very few people know the truth. For example, are you aware of the following facts?10 a. The idea of such a trial was originated in New York City by officers of the American Civil Liberties Union. The legal defense was arranged and paid for by the ACLU and by members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. b. The ACLU released to the Tennessee newspapers a call for a teacher who would break the state law against teaching evolution. c. The basic plans for John Scopes, a football coach and a substitute science teacher, to be the defendant and for instigating the charges against him were made in an informal meeting in a Dayton ice cream parlor, without his knowledge and before he was contacted. d. John Scopes never testified in court to having violated the anti-evolution law by actually teaching evolution. He has since on at least four occasions apparently admitted that to the best of his knowledge he never did so. In other words, the ACLU, long noted for its defense of left-wing causes, perpetrated a fraud on the court and on the public. e. Clarence Darrow, agnostic lawyer for the defense, not only displayed ignorance concerning both the theory of evolution and the teaching of the Bible, but also knowingly offered in evidence to the court bald-faced lies about the Bible. Moreover, through the trial he leveled a merciless barrage of insult and vilification against defense counsel William Jennings Bryan, who never responded in kind. How can it be that the mass media have glorified and praised Darrow and ridiculed Bryan ever since? f. William Jennings Bryan was actually the hero of the trial, evidencing good understanding of the theory of evolution and its implications, of the teachings of the Bible, and of the relationship of the two. Yet for fifty years the mass media have portrayed him as a bigoted ignoramus. g. The notorious Hollywood film, "Inherit the Wind," portrayed Mr. Bryan at the end of the trial as loosing his mind, falling to the floor frothing at the mouth, and carried out on a stretcher. In actual fact, at the urgent request of news reporters, he went from Dayton to his publisher in Chattanooga where he edited the manuscript of his lengthy closing address that time did not allow him to deliver to the court. Then he spoke that weekend at two churches in the morning and evening services. That night he died peacefully in his sleep in his hotel room. He was a great Christian gentleman and statesman and an American patriot. The misrepresentation and smearing of William Jennings Bryan ever since by the press and media is an indictment of their own degenerate character. h. There is evidence to support the contention that the ACLU leaders, in consort with assorted detractors of the biblical Christian faith, arranged the Scopes Trial with the chief objective, as reported by one historian of the event, "to educate the public on evolution," and we might add, against Christianity. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page Quotations Sir Gavin de Beer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised (Oxford Univ. Press, 1940, 1954), pp. 6, 10. ...Until recently the theory of recapitulation still had its ardent supporters...It is characteristic of a slogan [Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny] that it tends to be accepted uncritically and to die hard. ...the prestige so long enjoyed by the theory of recapitulation had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology. Paul Weatherwax, Plant Biology (W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1942), p. 240. ...Botanists still disagree widely on the proper grouping of many plants, but this is because they do not agree in their theories as to the origin of the differences which separate the groups. Alfred Romer, The Vertebrate Body (W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1962), p. 358. ...This [the appendix] is frequently cited as a vestigial organ supposedly proving something or other about evolution. This is not the case; a terminal appendix is a fairly common feature in the cecum of mammals, and is present in a host of primates and a number of rodents. Its major importance would appear to be in the financial support of the surgical profession. Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford Biology Readers, J.J. Head and O.E. Lowenstein, editors (Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), p. 15. ...characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous. ...The converse is no less instructive...homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. References 1 Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1970), pp. 128-131. 2 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1986), pp. 142-156. 3 de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford Biology Readers, J.J. Head and O.E. Lowenstein, editors (Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), pp. 15-16; Hardy, Sir Alister, The Living Stream (Harper & Row, Pub., New York, 1965), pp. 209-219. 4 de Beer, Sir Gavin, ibid., p. 16. 5 Denton, Michael, ref. 2, pp. 93-141; see also, Klotz, John W., ref. 1, pp. 120-128. 6 Thompson, Keith, Paleobiology, 7, 1981, p. 153. 7 Klotz, John W., ref. 1, pp. 131-136. 8 de Beer, Sir Gavin, Embryos and Ancestors, Revised Edition (Oxford Univ. Press, 1954), pp. 6, 10; Leach, James W., Functional Anatomy -- Mammalian and Comparative (McGraw-Hill Pub. Co., New York, 1961); Davidheiser, Bolton, Evolution and Christian Faith (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, N.J., 1969), pp. 240-254; Anon., Evolution -- Science Falsely So-Called, 19th Edition (International Christian Crusade, Toronto, 1974), pp. 20-25. 9 Klotz, John W., ref. 1, pp. 145-154; Ehrlich, P.R. and R.W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (McGraw-Hill Pub. Co., New York, 1963), p.66. 10 Davidheiser, Bolton, ref. 8, pp. 88-105. Chapter 11 - The Core Scientific Argument for Creation and against Evoluton We have now considered the major fields of biological evidence pertinent to the creation/evolution controversy. We can see that a crucial problem confronts members of the secular scientific establishment. They assume for themselves, and wish to prove to us all, that amoeba-to-man evolution is a fact of earth history. Their problem is posed by the unnumbered complex biological designs displayed by all micro-organisms, plants and animals. How could such marvels of high technology applied to solve hard problems have come into being entirely by chance, without a Master Designer? Just a few of these wonders are described in Chapter 2 of this book. There is no testable scientific theory that explains the evolution, for example, of a hair follicle, the immune system, or the organ of Corti in the mammalian ear. Nor is there fossil evidence to prove that they evolved. It is our view that this central failure of evolutionary science provides the basis for the most powerful argument against evolution and for creation. It is the argument from design in modern form. It is given below in outline, supported by recent references to the pertinent scientific literature. Our readers are invited to use this argument with anybody who will listen. It can be photocopied or otherwise reproduced and circulated wherever it may help open minds to the claims of Jesus Christ by whom the Father "made the worlds."1 A. What the theory of evolution proposes 1. In some ancient puddle, lake or ocean, life began when chance chemical reactions produced the first single-celled organism, some kind of self-reproducing bacterium. 2. These bacteria were able to reproduce themselves by cell division, but with occasional very slight changes(called mutations) from generation to generation. 3. Very gradually, very slowly, this process of change was able to "create" new complex biological designs. 4. In some three billion years the original single-celled organisms were able to change step-by-step as follows: single cell -- many-celled worm without a backbone -- worm with a backbone -- fish -- amphibian -- reptile with scales -- mammal with hair -- ape -- university professor. 5. This process obviously had to "create," one after the other, thousands of new, complex designs, in order to change a bacterium into a university professor. 6. Evolutionary science must prove this happened and explain how. The origin of complex new biological designs is the crucial problem facing evolutionary scientists. B. What is required to prove the case of evolution to you and to me? 1. Show us thousands of fossil series to prove that a slow process of evolution "created," one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, show us a series of fossils to document the gradual step-by-step evolution of a backbone. Or a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into mammals' fur or bird feathers. In fact, show us just one such fossil series anywhere in the fossil record. We need more than just one or two "missing links" to stick in the middle of a huge gap in the fossil record. 2. Devise an experimentally testable theory of evolution to explain how mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development "created" a backbone or changed reptile scales into mammals' fur or bird feathers. 3. Show us the evolution of complex new biological designs happening in nature today. After all, supposedly "[t]he unifying theory of biology is evolution."2 So why can't we see it happening today? Why can't we see new complex biological designs in the process of evolving in living species? C. Have the requirements of Section B above been achieved by evolutionary science? NO! 1. The beginning of life has been neither explained theoretically nor demonstrated experimentally.3 2. Not even one sequence of fossils has been found which demonstrates that slow, gradual evolutionary change ever "created" a single new complex biological design.4,5,6 3. There is no experimentally testable theory to explain the "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution.7 4. The required theories and the mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development that "create" new biological designs have not been identified and demonstrated experimentally.8,9 5. The "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution has not been observed in nature. All that is observed is limited variations of what already exists.10 D. Conclusions So long as the required reproducible scientific evidence continues to elude evolutionist enthusiasts, their grand evolutionary scenario -- from amoeba to man -- remains a faith proposition. Furthermore, all of their failures constitute circumstantial evidence for faith in divine special creation of the complex biological designs of living things. Secularist persecution and exclusion of Christian believers in creation should cease at once in the halls of academia -- in the interest of correct, philosophically neutral science. And in the science classrooms at all levels there should be an end to indoctrination in darwinian dogmas. Everything in science must be perpetually open to critical evaluation. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page References 1 Hebrews 1:2. The word "worlds" is the Greek word aionas meaning ages. Through Christ the Son the Father created not only the universe but also His entire plan for the ages. 2 Science Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (California State Board of Education, Sacramento, 1990), p. 126. 3 Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 116-125. Subtitle: "Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and -- most important -- how life first emerged on the earth." On p. 125 Prof. Stanley Miller of U.C. San Diego, "Mr. Origin of Life," expresses a hope that he or some other scientist will some day repeat life's origin in the laboratory: "I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. When we find the answer, it will probably be so d----d simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?'" 4 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J. M. Dent, London, 1972), p. 441. "...geological research...does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it." 5 Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24. "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." 6 Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39. "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." 7 Lewis Wolpert, "Do We Understand Development?" Science, 266, 28 Oct. 1994, p. 572. "So what will the next 20 years bring? ...Even so, we do not yet have an example where we understand in detail the development of a single adult organ. ....We can also look forward to great progress in the area of evolution and development. ....We may then see the solution to grand problems like...how basic body plans emerged...and the origin of developmental novelty. [Note: "the origin of developmental novelty" means the evolution of complex, new biological designs.]" 8 Jean Marx, "Homeobox Genes Go Evolutionary," Science, 255, 24 Jan. 1992, p. 399. "It [i.e., homeobox gene research] is starting to bring together developmental and evolutionary biologists, a merger that is badly needed, considering the intractability of certain evolutionary puzzles, such as the long-standing quandary of how the body plan of multi-celled organisms arose." 9 Ibid., p. 401. "While the final marriage of developmental biology and evolutionary theory is clearly some way off, perhaps one day it will produce an offspring that can explain, in satisfying molecular detail, how new species evolved." 10 No example has been observed in nature or in the laboratory of a new complex biological structure or organ appearing in any species by a spontaneous evolutionary process. Neither is there in any species an example of a biological structure that can be understood as a partly evolved structure that is on the way to becoming a new complex biological structure. Some plants are highly variable, and intelligent humans have selectively bred and cross-bred plants to produce strikingly different varieties and forms. It is probable that ancient wild teosinte and modern corn varieties are at least to some degree an example of this. Chapter 12 - How Old is the Earth? 1. Haven't scientists proved that the earth is billions of years old? Answer: As was shown in the first chapter where science was defined, the study of origins and earth prehistory is, strictly speaking, beyond the powers of the scientific method. No humans were present to observe the events, and the events which occurred are unknown and cannot be repeated experimentally. All of the evidence from the rocks is circumstantial and can be interpreted in various ways. Thus it is not possible to "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. A number of surveys of the subject from the biblical creation perspective have been published. They are essentially critiques of the methods used by the secular establishment to estimate the ages of minerals, rocks and other geological materials.1 2. What are the requirements for a clock which measures time correctly? Answer: a. The clock must run at a known constant rate. Nothing must happen to speed it up or slow it down. b. The clock must be set correctly at the beginning of the time period being measured. c. The clock must not be disturbed by resetting the hands during the time period being measured. 3. How do the radiometric methods for estimating the ages of rocks work? Answer: The radiometric dating methods rely upon radioactive elements contained in the rocks. An example is the uranium-238/lead-206 system. If a rock contains "parent" uranium-238 atoms, these continually decompose through a series of radioactive decompositions to produce, finally, "daughter" lead-206 atoms. It takes about 4.5 billion years (BY) for half of any quantity of U-238 atoms to decompose. This is called the "half-life" of U-238. If a sample of a rock is analyzed for its content of U-238 and Pb-206 atoms (Pb is the chemical symbol for lead), the ratio of lead to uranium atoms can be interpreted as a clock which tells how long ago the rock crystallized. The assumptions which must be made are: a. the rate of radioactive decay has not varied, b. the rock's content of daughter lead at time zero is known, and c. no parent uranium or daughter lead was either added to or taken from the rock since time zero. These assumptions correspond to the three requirements given above for a clock. Assuming these assumptions to be correct, if a sample of rock is found to contain the daughter and parent atoms in the ratio Pb-206/U-238=1/1, half of the uranium has decomposed to lead, so the rock is judged to have an age equal to one half-life or 4.5 BY. If the ratio Pb-206/U-238=3/1, three quarters of the uranium has decomposed, so the rock is judged to have an age equal to two half-lives or 9 BY. 4. Do the radiometric dating methods possess the three qualifications to measure time correctly? Answer: The radiometric dating methods cannot be proved to fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock. a. The evidence generally supports the constancy of radioactive decay rates within narrow limits. However, some research suggests that special conditions may, perhaps, appreciably alter some radioactive decay rates.2 It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.3 In addition, according to a recently developed theory, the speed of light has varied since the Creation, and this would have affected radioactive decay rates drastically. (See answer 7c below.) b. The daughter products of the various systems are all found widely distributed in the earth's crust, e.g., Pb-206, Pb-208, argon-40, and strontium-87. It is generally not possible to be sure that some daughter product atoms were not present in the rock at time zero. c. Finally, all of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as "metamorphic events" or "second" or "third events."4 From the above facts it can be seen that the radiometric dating methods do not in general fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock. 5. If the earth is really young, only thousands of years old, why do the radiometric methods usually give such large ages, millions or billions of years? Answer: The half-lives of the parent atoms used in dating the rocks are very long, from hundreds of millions to billions of years. Since the daughter product atoms are found everywhere in the rocks -- and they are equated to time -- it should not be surprising to find that these methods yield large values for the age of the earth. 6. Are there special difficulties with some of the radiometric methods? Answer: Yes. Dr. Henry Morris has pointed out that all of the radiometric methods involve difficulties because of assumptions which are not necessarily correct.5 a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures.6 It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time.7 Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.8 b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water,9 and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained.10 In the potassium/argon system another adjustable "constant" called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.11 Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give very high erroneous age results.12 In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock.13 c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth's crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat. All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems. 7. Does any new information cast doubt on the alleged great age of the earth and of the universe? Answer: Yes, much lead/uranium data can be accounted for without time, radioactive halos indicate instantaneous creation, and the theory of a decreasing speed of light, if it turns out to be correct, completely collapses the radiometric great age chronology. a. Prof. Russell Arndts and William Overn have recently discovered that lead/uranium data can be explained without great spans of time.14 In explaining many discordant results obtained by the uranium/lead method, scientists often use a special graph called a "discordia curve." This is a graph of the ratio of Pb-206/U-238 versus Pb-207/U-235. Theoretically this should be a curved line, often it is a jumbled cloud of points, but sometimes it is a straight line. To explain the straight line, it is assumed that the rocks being dated suffered a second event or metamorphic event which heated and softened the rocks, allowing lead to migrate. This reset the radiometric clock, they say. The discordia curve, however, repairs the clock and yields an age for the rock and the date of the metamorphic event. Arndts and Overn, however, have now established that the straight-line discordia curves may be explained by the simple mixing of two source rocks which had different ratios. And there is no way to prove that any alleged discordia curve used to infer hundreds of millions of years is not just a mixing curve produced when two source rocks were mixed a few thousand years ago. Secular scientists interpret strontium/rubidium data by means of a graph called an "isochron." The ratio of Sr-87/Sr-86 is plotted versus the ratio of Rb-87/Sr-86. Often the graph is just a cloud of points, but sometimes a straight-line graph results. The slope of the straight-line isochron gives the "age" of the rock or mineral crystal. Arndts and Overn have shown that these isochrons can also be explained by the simple mixing of two source rocks having different ratios of the strontium and rubidium atoms. This mixing could have occurred just a few thousand years ago, and there is no way to prove that the straight-line graphs are true isochrons resulting from millions of years of radioactive decay.14 b. Dr. Robert Gentry has studied radioactive polonium halos which are found in the deep basement rocks of the earth's crust.15 These are produced in crystalline rocks by radioactive decay of very short-lived isotopes of the element polonium. The half-lives of these isotopes are measured in days, seconds and microseconds. But if the igneous rocks containing the halos were formed naturally, they crystallized very slowly from molten rock called magma. By the time they had solidified to the crystalline form, the polonium would all have disintegrated. There would be no polonium in the crystals to produce halos. Therefore, the existence of these polonium radio-halos indicates that the rocks were formed instantaneously. That is, the basement rocks of the earth's crust were created miraculously, very rapidly, in the beginning. Supporting this view is the fact that all efforts to produce granite rock experimentally have failed. Thus, unless the origin of polonium radio halos is successfully explained, the alleged 4.5 billion years of earth history vanishes. c. Two Australian scientists, Dr. Trevor Norman, a mathematician, and Dr. Barry Setterfield, a physicist, have analyzed the values of the speed of light measured during the past three centuries.16 They have strong evidence that the speed of light has changed with time. They conclude that at the instant of creation it probably was 10,000,000 times the modern value, decreased rapidly at first, and has finally reached a constant value over the past several decades. This conclusion, if correct, solves the old problem of why we can observe light from galaxies billions of light years away if the universe is only thousands of years old. Another very important consequence of Norman and Setterfield's work stems from the fact that a number of physical constants vary with the speed of light. In particular, rates of radioactive decay depend mathematically upon the speed of light. The mathematical relationship requires radioactive decay rates to increase as the speed of light increases, and vice-versa. Thus, if the speed of light thousands of years ago was vastly greater than at present, so were the rates of decay of the various radioactive elements which are now used to estimate the ages of rocks. Therefore, the ages now calculated assuming a constant speed of light are very much too large. Perhaps the ages of the earth, the solar system, and the universe can all be collapsed to values within the biblical time frame of thousands of years. Setterfield's theory has been strongly criticized by other active creation scientists. The theory does have problems, one being that it seems to require violation of the law of conservation of energy. Norman and Setterfield's statistical analysis of the measurements of the speed of light has been criticized. Critics hold that the data do not show a decrease. However, Setterfield's analysis has been strongly confirmed by a professional statistician, Alan Montgomery.17 At present the theory of decreasing speed of light has largely been discounted in creation circles, as well as by the secular establishment. Perhaps future developments will bring it back into serious consideration. 8. Do the radiometric dating methods give consistent results? Answer: Often they do not. Consider a few examples.18 a. Volcanic rocks on Reunión Island in the Indian Ocean yielded lead/lead and uranium/lead ages from 2.2 to 4.5BY, but potassium/argon ages of only 100,000 to 2 million years.19 Secular scientists respond that the time-zero contents of these rocks are not available to make the lead/lead and lead/uranium methods applicable. This is, however, based upon their assumption that these rocks were formed billions of years after the earth. In fact, they cannot be sure that they ever have the correct time-zero data needed for using the lead/uranium dating methods on any rocks. b. Lunar soil from Apollo 11 gave ages by four different lead methods varying from 4.67 to 8.2BY and nearby rocks gave potassium/argon ages of around 2.3BY.20 Certain Apollo 2 rocks gave strontium/rubidium and lead ages ranging from 2.3 to 4.9BY.21 A certain rock from Apollo 16 gave lead ages from 7 to 18BY but was chemically treated until it yielded an acceptable "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22 c. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system ages varying from 1.16 to 2.55BY.23 d. Certain Russian volcanic rocks gave ages from 50 million to 14.6BY., although they are considered to be only thousands of years old.24 e. Volcanic rocks from Hawaii extruded under water only 170 years ago gave potassium/argon ages from 160 million years to 3BY.12 Secular scientists explain that water pressure trapped argon gas in the rapidly cooled volcanic lava. Perhaps, but on one island the potassium/argon method is supposed to be correct and the lead/uranium method wrong(see example a above), but in the Hawaiian Islands the reverse is alleged to be true. How can we ever be sure which method is correct? Maybe they are all wrong. f. Recent studies of radiometric age measurements in the Grand Canyon area have raised serious problems for the great age chronology. Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research reports the results of his work in Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe.25 The most striking contradiction between age measurements in the Grand Canyon is seen in the basalt lava flows that poured from a volcano on the high Uinkaret Plateau over the brink of the canyon and down into the deep canyon. These lava flows are obviously some of the youngest rocks in the area, yet sitting on the top of some of the oldest rocks in the bottom of the canyon. The radiometric "ages" of these lava flow rocks are as much a 500 million years greater than the "ages" for rock strata that lie beneath them. None of the excuses offered for these and other radiometric age contradictions in the Grand Canyon appear to be satisfactory. Dr. Austin also cites a potassium/argon "age" of 6 billion years obtained for a collection of ten diamonds mined in the African nation of Zaire.26 The Cretaceous rocks in which they were found are supposedly only about 100 million years old, and the earth itself is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. The excuse offered by secular scientists is that the diamonds retained excess argon from the magma in which they crystallized. But then, how can one be sure that any potassium/argon age is valid? 9. How ancient is life on earth according to the carbon-14 dating method? Answer: A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years. b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as "infinite." c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years. d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years. If the earth and life on earth were really as ancient as evolutionary theory requires, a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured. 10. Is there scientific evidence to indicate that radiocarbon dates are in need of correction? Answer: As we have seen, the large majority of carbon-14 ages are either within the range of biblical chronology or not far beyond it. There is evidence that radiocarbon dates should include a correction factor, and that the resulting corrections would bring them into line with the Bible. The basic assumption of the radiocarbon method is that the rate at which carbon-14 (radiocarbon) is produced in the upper atmosphere has been constant for well over 50,000 years. This radiocarbon has supposedly become well mixed in the earth's circulating or exchangeable carbon supply and has built up to its maximum or equlibrium concentration. Taken in by plants and animals, it has been assumed to have been at its equilibrium concentration in living things throughout all of this time. Therefore, whenever a plant or animal has died and stopped taking radiocarbon into its tissues, the radiocarbon started to decrease by radioactive decomposition. Thus the amount of radiocarbon remaining in a fossil plant or animal can be measured and used as a clock to determine the time since the creature died. If the assumptions are correct, carbon-14 should provide a pretty good clock. However, several kinds of difficulties with radiocarbon dating have come to light. Research on the radiocarbon content of tree growth rings indicates that the rate of radiocarbon production has varied considerably in the past.28 It seems clear that the concentration of radiocarbon in the earth's exchangeable carbon inventory has not been constant. In addition some radiocarbon age estimates are obviously incorrect: a. Age determinations of materials from a prehistoric village site that was occupied for only about 500 years showed a spread of 6,000 years.29 b. The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years.30 c. Mortar from an English castle only 785 years old has yielded an age of 7,370 years.31 d. Seals freshly killed have yielded an age of 1,300 years and mummified seals dead only about 30 years were dated at 4,600 years.32 It does appear that radiocarbon dates should be considered with caution. In particular some correction formula is needed to rectify radiocarbon ages greater than about 3,500 years in order to obtain true ages. 11. What would be the basis for a correction formula for radiocarbon ages? Answer: An estimate of the possible range of corrections has been worked out based upon possible variation in the rate of carbon-14 production, but principally on a change in the size of the exchangeable carbon inventory. Dr. Robert H. Brown of Geoscience Research Institute has shown from radiocarbon dates of ancient peat deposits that the concentration of radiocarbon in living organisms has followed an increasing trend. He suggests two most probable causes.33 First, the production of radiocarbon before the Flood may have been reduced by a geomagnetic field stronger than the modern field. Dr. Brown's analysis shows that the pre-flood geomagnetic field could have been greater than the modern value by a factor of four. This stronger field would have deflected more of the incoming cosmic radiation which produces the radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere. The effect would have been to increase the radiocarbon ages of pre-flood fossils by 6,000 years. Second, the huge deposits of coal, petroleum and other organic carbon in the earth's crust are evidence that the global Flood removed a very large amount of carbon from the exchangeable inventory. As a consequence the radiocarbon produced each year before the Flood was mixed in a much larger carbon inventory and was therefore highly diluted. Dr. Brown estimates that this factor could add 34,000 years to the radiocarbon ages of pre-flood or flood fossils. In addition, there is evidence of the formation of large carbonate rock deposits which immobilized much circulating carbon. Dr. Brown estimates that this could have added another 6,000 years to the radiocarbon ages of fossils dating from the time of the Flood or before. The maximum correction forseen in Dr. Brown's analysis of radiocarbon age estimates is, therefore, 51,000 years. With this range of possible corrections, it is entirely possible that all radiocarbon dates could be corrected to fall within a plausible biblical time frame. The information required to make the actual corrections is not yet in hand, however. 12. Do the radiometric dating systems offer a serious challenge to the biblical chronology? Answer: There is no question that a large body of radiometric age data has been organized to give strong apparent support to the view that the earth is billions of years old. On the other hand, questionable assumptions, discordances and anomalies such as those we have cited suggest that another interpretation of the data is possible. In applying the radiometric methods to earth rocks, the time schedule currently accepted for the theory of evolutionary history controls which results are accepted and which are adjusted or discarded.34 This in itself indicates that radiometric age estimates are far from absolute. On the other hand, while believers in creation have scientific evidence for a young earth(See Chapter 14), it must be admitted that we do not have all of the answers we would like to have. Furthermore, some sincere believers in creation accept the great-age earth chronology, believing that it can be reconciled with the biblical data in Genesis. Thus the time issue is a tough one which should be sprinkled with much grace. We should always be aware of and ready to admit our ignorance. Also, it should be recognized that, while belief in creation does not rely on either a young earth or an old earth, evolution must have an old earth to maintain any credibility at all. Finally, as we have indicated in Answer 7 above, scientists who believe in creation are making important progress, both experimentally and theoretically, in the defense of the young earth view. We need more trained and committed Christian thinkers and researchers in science to pursue science for the glory of God. Who knows what the results of their work will be? After all, much of scientific progress has started with criticism of old, long-accepted ideas. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page References 1 Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL, 1975), pp. 181-213; Morris, Henry M., Editor, Scientific Creationism (Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, 1974), pp. 137-149; Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Creation-Life Pub., Inc., San Diego, 1982), pp. 219-259; Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Inquiry Press, East lansing, MI, 1976), pp. 145-158; Cook, Melvin A., Prehistory and Earth Models (Max Parrish, London, 1966), pp. 1-89. 2 Anderson, J.L. and G.W. Spangler, Journal of Physical Chemistry, 77, 1966, p. 3114; Bull. of the American Physical Soc., 10, 1971, p. 1180; Pensee, 4, Fall, 1974, pp. 31-32. 3 Juneman, F.B., Industrial Research, 14, 1972, p. 15; Cook, Melvin A., ref. 1, pp. 41-62. 4 York, D. and R.M. Farquhar, The Earth's Age and Geochronology (Pergamon Press, New York, 1972), pp. 75-92; Hamilton, E.I., Applied Geochronology (Academic Press, New York, 1965), pp. 142-149. 5 Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Creation-Life Pub., San Diego, 1974), pp. 140-149. 6 Driscoll, Evelyn, Science News, 101, 1 Jan. 1972, p. 12. 7 Cook, Melvin A., ref. 1, pp. 53-62. 8 McDougall, I., Report: The Present Status of Decay Constants, Subcommission on Geochronology, Bern, Switzerland, 19 Sept. 1974, p. 3. 9 Rancitelli, L.A. and D.E. Fisher, Planetary Science Abstracts, American Geophysical Union, 1967, p. 154. 10 Armstrong, Richard Lee, "Proposal for Simultaneous Calculation of Radiometric Dates," unpublished paper, Dept. of Geological Sciences, Univ. of British Columbia, 1975; _________, "Report on Decay Constants," 10 May 1975. 11 Cook, Melvin A., ref. 1, pp. 65-66. 12 Funkhouser, J.G. and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research, 73, 15 July 1968, p. 4601; Laughlin, A.W., ibid., 74, 15 Dec. 1969, pp. 6684-6689. 13 Engles, Joan C., Journal of Geology, 79, Sept. 1971, p. 609. 14 Arndts, Russell and William Overn, Radiometric Dating Isochrons and the Mixing Model (Bible Science Assoc., Minneapolis, 1985); Austin, Steven A., Editor, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe (Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 1994), pp. 127-128. 15 Gentry, Robert V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, TN, 1986). 16 Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time (Stanford Research Institute International, Menlo Park, CA, 1987). 17 Montgomery, Alan, "Statistical Analysis of C and Related Atomic Constants," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 26, 26 March 1990, pp. 138-142. 18 For other examples see Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves, ref. 1, pp. 200-202. 19 Obersby, V.M., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 36, Oct. 1972, p. 1167. 20 Wang, R.K., et al., Science, 167, 30 Jan. 1970, pp. 479-480. 21 Tera, F., et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 14, 1972, pp. 281-303. 22 Nunes, P.D. and M. Tatsumoto, Science, 182, 30 Nov. 1973, p. 916. 23 Zartman, et al., Science, 145, 31 July 1964, pp. 479-481. 24 Cherdyntsev, V.V., et al., Geological Institute Academy of Sciences, USSR, Earth Science Section, 172, p. 178. The data is reproduced by Sidney P. Clementson in Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 7, Dec. 1970, p. 140. 25 Austin, Steven A., Editor, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe (Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 1994), pp. 111-131. 26 Ibid., p. 128. 27 Whitelaw, R.L., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 7, June 1970, pp. 56-71, 83. 28 Renfrew, Colin, Scientific American, 225, Oct. 1971, p. 67. 29 Reed, G.A., Science, 130, 11 Dec. 1959, p. 1630. 30 Kieth, M and G. Anderson, Science, 141, 16 Aug. 1963, p. 634. 31 Baxter, M.S. A. Walton, Nature, 225, 7 March 1970, pp. 937-938. 32 Dort, W., Antarctic Journal of the U.S., 6, 1971, p. 210. 33 Brown, R.H., "Interpretation of Carbon-14 Age Data," Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda Univ., Loma Linda, CA, unpublished paper, 1981. 34 Schindewolf, O., American Journal of Science, 255, June 1957, p. 394. Chapter 13 - Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth 1. Does human history offer any evidence for a young earth? Answer: Yes, there was enough time from the flood for the population to grow to the estimated value at the time of Christ. But the entire solar system could not contain the population that would have developed in a million years. Estimates of the total human population at the time of Christ center at about 300 million.1 If the Flood was at about 5000 B.C. and if the average length of a generation was forty years, Noah's family of eight people would reach 300 million by Christ's time if each family had an average of just 2.3 children. This is an average annual population increase of only 0.35 percent, whereas the present world population growth is almost two percent annually. Thus the theory that the human race had been multiplying for a million years or more seems farfetched, even considering the fact that modern medicine and technology were not available. For example, with an annual growth rate of only 0.01 percent, in a million years the population would be over 1043 people, enough to fill 3500 solar systems solidly with bodies out to the orbit of the planet Pluto. This assumption of a simple exponential rate of increase is an oversimplification, however. Occasional population collapses caused by environmental changes or disease could greatly reduce the overall rate of population increase. We should be cautious about any dogmatic assertions, for occasional plagues and other catastophes could greatly decrease the cumulative population increase. Nevertheless, it does seem unlikely that humans could have lived here for a million years without long ago completely overrunning the globe. 2. Does the earth itself offer evidence that it is young, not old? Answer: Yes. We will list four types of such evidence. a. Careful studies of the volume and rate of accumulation of the delta of the Mississippi show that it could not be older than about 5000 years.2 This age is obtained by dividing the weight of sediments deposited annually into the total weight of the delta. b. Petroleum and natural gas are held at high pressures in underground reservoirs of porous rock and sand. These fluids are retained in their reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. However, in many cases the pressures are exceedingly high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock show that the oil or gas pressure could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years or perhaps a maximum of 100,000 years. (Permeability is a measure of how easily fluids under pressure will seep through the rock.) If these fossil fuel deposits were actually millions or hundreds of millions of years old, they would long ago have leaked out through their cap rocks to the surface.3 c. Meteorites supposedly have been plunging to the earth's surface during the entire history of the earth, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, if the thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks which blanket much of the earth required several billion years for their deposition, large numbers of meteorites should be embedded in them. In actual fact meteorites have been found only in the surface or younger sedimentary layers, none being discovered in the deeper, "older" strata.4 These observations fit well with the flood geology model in which the major sedimentary strata were deposited during the creation week or during the year of the flood of Noah. In the course of the flood year only a relatively small number of meteorites could fall to be entrapped in the flood sediments. Many more meteorites would have fallen in the thousands of years since the flood, and some of these would be preserved in the recent surface sediments deposited over that period. The failure to find meteorites in the deeper sediments is difficult to explain on the evolutionary model of earth history. According to the scarcity of fossil meteorites, the earth appears to be young. d. Lord Kelvin, the eminent British physicist of the past century, was a Bible-believing Christian. He showed that if the earth were once in a molten state, the time for cooling, from the first appearance of an initial solid crust to the present temperature could not have required more than about 22 million years. More recent studies show that even taking into account the heat produced by radioactive decay in the earth's crust, the cooling time could not be more than about 45 million years.5 This is simply not enough time for evolution to occur, in the opinion of evolutionary scientists. 3. Do the oceans speak for a young earth? Answer: Yes. From the dissolved salts and from the sediments on the ocean floor we can conclude that the earth is young. a. The concentrations of various elements and salts contained in sea water, when compared with the estimated annual amounts being added by rivers, subterranean springs, rain water, and other sources, uniformly point to a young age for the ocean and thus for the earth. Of fifty-one chemical elements contained in sea water, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in 1000 years or less, nine additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and eight others in no more than 100,000 years.6 The nitrates in the oceans could have accumulated in 13,000 years, according to one estimate.7 b. The average depth of sediments on the ocean floors is only a little more than one-half mile. If the total weight of these sediments is divided by the estimated annual addition of sediments from the continents, the age thus calculated for the oceans is only about 33 million years. This is less than one percent of the currently accepted earth age of 4.5 billion years. In this calculation a correction has been made for the possible subduction (burial in the crust) of sediments underneath sliding tectonic earth plates. At present rates of erosion the continents should erode down to sea level in only about 14 million years, but there is no proof that they have yet been worn down even one time. Another way to put it is that billions of years of erosion and sedimentation should have loaded sixty miles of non-existent sediments on the ocean floors.8 From another perspective, the present load of sediments was probably mostly deposited very rapidly during the period of the global flood of Noah's time. 4. Does the earth's atmosphere have anything to say about its age? Answer: Yes, helium gas in the atmosphere points to a young atmosphere and earth. Just as many dissolved salts are building up in the oceans via drain-off of continental rivers, in a similar manner helium-4, the most abundant isotope of helium(the nuclei of which contain two protons and two neutrons), is flowing into the atmosphere from at least three sources: (1) principally helium-4 produced by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust and oceans; (2) from cosmic helium raining on earth, mainly from the sun's corona and in meteorites; and (3) from nuclear reactions in the earth's crust caused by cosmic rays. In addition, the earth's original atmosphere may have contained helium-4. At the present rate of flow of helium into the atmosphere, the content of helium in the atmosphere could have been built up in only a small fraction of a billion years. This difficulty for an old earth has yet to be solved. Dr. Larry Vardiman's 1990 book, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, is the most recent survey of the helium problem.9 The atmosphere now contains about 4.1 billion tons of He-4. It is estimated that about 2400 tons per year of He-4 is released from the crust into the atmosphere. The theoretically calculated rate of escape of He-4 from the atmosphere into space averaged over an eleven-year solar cycle is only about 70 tons per year.10 This is only 1/33rd of the rate of inflow from the crust. If we assume a zero content of He-4 in the original atmosphere, the maximum age of our atmosphere calculated from these figures is only about 1.8 million years. The atmosphere of an earth 4.5 billion years old should contain 2,500 times more helium-4 than it does. Joseph Chamberlain and Donald Hunten at the close of a detailled examination of atmospheric helium concluded, "The problem will not go away and it is unsolved."11 Vardiman discusses three possible solutions considered by secular scientists for the missing helium problem. He shows that these solutions have not yet made the helium problem go away.12 Are we not justified in concluding that the atmospheric helium clock continues to report a young age for the earth? Dr. Robert Gentry has studied another helium clock provided by radiogenic helium trapped in very hot rocks deep in the earth's crust. The rate of escape and diffusion upward of such trapped gas is greatly increased at high temperatures. These deep rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, yet much of the helium-4 produced in them has not escaped. This suggests that these rocks are not billions of years old or millions of years old.13 5. Does the solar system have anything to say about its age and the age of the earth? Answer: Yes. The objects orbiting in the space between the planets suggest that the solar system and the earth are not very old. a. Comets are loose clumps of rocky chunks, dust and frozen gases. Each time one of them swings close to the sun it is warmed up, disturbed by the sun's gravitational force, and loses a small part of its matter. Careful analysis of the effect of this process of dissolution on the short-term comets (those returning every couple of centuries or oftener) reveals that all such comets should be totally dissipated in about 10,000 years. Since there are still many comets orbiting the sun, the solar system must not be much more than 10,000 years old. All attempts thus far to explain away this evidence for a young solar system have failed to stand critical examination.14,15 b. Meteoritic dust accumulates on the surface of the moon, but British geophysicist R.A. Lyttleton asserts that the continual bombardment by ultraviolet light and X-rays produces much more dust.16 He suggests that this energetic radiation would spall several ten-thousandths of an inch annually from exposed rock surfaces. In 4.5 billion years this erosion by radiation would produce a layer of dust hundreds of feet deep. The Apollo astronauts, however, measured only fractions of an inch to several inches of dust and other loose materials on the highlands. The loose material in the lowland areas is estimated to be at most only about 18 feet deep. The absence of thick moon dust has yet to be explained -- if the moon is really billions of years old. c. Very fine dust particles orbiting the sun are pushed out into space by the pressure of solar radiation. Orbiting objects which exceed a certain minimum size, as a result of absorbing and reradiating solar energy, experience a drag effect which draws them slowly into the sun. Thus, if the solar system were just two billion years old, all objects three inches in diameter or smaller should have been swept out of space all the way to the planet Jupiter. But there are still large quantities of such materials in orbit, so the solar system must be much younger.17 6. Do the stars which declare the glory of God also support Biblical chronology? Answer: Yes, a number of facts about the stars suggest a young universe.18 a. Some of the very bright O and B class, Wolf-Rayert, and P Cygni stars are radiating energy perhaps 100,000 to one million times as fast as our sun. They do not contain enough hydrogen to continue the necessary atomic fusion energy production at these rates for more than some tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. This would suggest that perhaps the idea that stars are millions or billions or years old is wrong.19 b. A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving like a swarm of bees, held together by gravity. In some clusters, however, the stars are moving so fast that the clusters could have held together only for thousands, not for millions of years.17 c. Binary stars (two stars orbiting around their common center of gravity) are very numerous. Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved.20 d. The galaxies are vast swarms of billions of stars interspersed with clouds of gas and dust. They supposedly evolved from great rotating clouds of gas and dust over periods of billions of years. However, if they are that old, the spiral galaxies should have their spiral arms all twisted up, wrapped around until they disappeared. Furthermore, the strange "barred" galaxies offer a particular problem which is poorly understood. Explanations of the physical forces which might preserve the barred structure for millions of years are highly speculative.21 Furthermore, it has recently been concluded that the spiral galaxies appear to have the wrong amounts of random and rotational kinetic energy for stability. According to this view they all should long ago have degenerated into the barred form if they were actually billions of years old.22 e. Another difficult problem is posed by clusters of galaxies. The members of such a cluster are moving in different directions like a swarm of bees, and are supposedly held together by their mutual gravitational attraction. However, careful study has indicated that in some clusters there is not enough mass in all of the galaxies and the observed intergalactic matter to hold them together for millions of years.23 In some clusters there appears to be only one-tenth to one-seventh of the required total mass. This suggests that the clusters and their member galaxies were created rather recently and are not actually billions of years old. 7. Is the "Big Bang" a fact? Answer: No, although the large majority of astronomers and astrophysicists hold this belief, it is not a fact. It is only a belief in a network of complex, unproved and unprovable theories. Furthermore, a considerable number of prestigious scientists have been raising serious criticisms of the Big Bang idea. These have been reviewed by Wendell R. Bird in his 1987 book, The Origin of Species Revisited,24 and by others.25 The main evidence for the Big Bang theory is the fact that the light from more distant galaxies is shifted toward the red end of the light spectrum. This is interpreted according to Einstein's general theory of relativity as a frequency shift caused by the expansion of space since the Big Bang" that supposedly originated the universe. However, a number of eminent of scientists have suggested that the red shift may have other causes. Therefore, the distant galaxies may not be moving away from the earth, and the universe may not be expanding after a Big Bang in the beginning.26 Furthermore, the red shift may not provide a correct measure of distance in the universe. Halton C. Arp, a noted astronomer associated with the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, has found many examples in which quasars and galaxies which are obviously associated together in groups have quite different red shifts.27 If they are close together, then, how can their different red shifts all be a measure of distance? The second principal evidence offered for the Big Bang is what is called the "cosmic microwave background radiation." This is microwave radiation coming uniformly from all directions in space. The intensity of different wavelengths in this radiation corresponds to radiation from a very cold black body at a temperature of about 2.69 kelvins. Scientists believe that the hot radiation from the Big Bang would have expanded and cooled to this temperature. Thus the microwave background radiation is offered as evidence for the Big Bang. However, very prominent scientists have shown that there are other explanations for this radiation than a Big Bang. In addition, the microwave background has been found to be only about 1/1000th as intense as the theory predicts.28 Nobel Laureate physicist Hannes Alfven has for many years rejected the microwave background as evidence for a Big Bang.29 There is as well a cosmic X-ray background radiation which supposedly remains from the hot Big Bang. However, the X-ray intensity from different directions is much too uneven to fit the theory. Wendell Bird gives a concluding summary of the Big Bang difficulties,24 quoting first astronomer Fred Hoyle: "...a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers. Jayant Narlikar, an Indian professor of cosmology, is a leading theoretical physicist who also shares this view."30 That is why [Bird continues] Allen concludes that "the big bang is not needed."31 Bondi suggests that the theory has "been disproved by present day empirical evidence,"32 and many others reinterpret its proposed evidence.33 "The evidence has always been*and will by definition always remain*a borderland between science and philosophy*some would say religion," Alfven adds.34 8. Are scientists forced by the facts to believe that the world and the universe are billions of years old? Answer: No, it is their commitment to materialism and thus to evolutionary theories that forces them to adopt the great age chronologies. Materialism requires evolution to explain origins, and evolution requires long time spans in order to seem even plausible. Therefore, scientists have been looking for evidence of vast ages of time in earth history. However, the actual facts of science may be interpreted within the framework of biblical creation, a young earth and a young universe. The most recent research on the age of the universe has reduced the estimated age of the universe from 15 to 20 billion years to only 8 billion years.35 If this smaller age for the universe is confirmed, it causes serious problems for the Big Bang cosmology. For example, the estimated ages of some stars in globular star clusters are around 13 billion years. How could individual stars in the universe be older than the universe itself? Thus after more than half a century of Big Bang theory and such age estimations, the subject is still vexing the theorists. The numbers for the age and the size of the universe have bounced up and down about four different times through the decades. A wag might wonder if, instead of an expanding universe, we have an oscillating universe. 9. Is there a scientific theory for a young earth that explains the evidence offered for the Big Bang? Answer: Yes, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has published such a theory in his 1994 book, Starlight and Time*Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.36 Dr. Humphreys explains how secular scientists built their Big Bang cosmology on the assumption of an unbounded material universe that has no center and no outer surface or edge. When this assumption is fed into the mathematical equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the Big Bang theory automatically results. In contrast, Humphreys began with biblical information about the creation of the universe and fed it into the equations. The result is a startling new theory that allows for an earth only 6000 years or so old. At the same time it explains the three principle kinds of evidence that are used to support the Big Bang cosmology. These are (1) the fact that light from galaxies billions of light years away has reached the earth, (2) the red shift of the light from the distant galaxies, and (3) the cosmic microwave background radiation that is observed coming in from all directions. Dr. Humphreys is careful to point out that his radical new theory must be critically examined, perhaps for years, before it can become established as a scientific theory. He began his eight years of study of this problem by carefully searching the Scriptures to obtain his fundamental scientific assumptions. This is an example of how Christians ought to function in scientific research. It will probably will be a few years before this new theory either gains substantial corroboration or is falsified. This author feels that Dr. Humphreys interpretations of Genesis 1 designed to fit the Scriptures with his theory are a little bizarre. They may have to be modified, but all new theories need adjustments before reaching their final form. In any event, Dr. Humphreys' work does suggest that those Christian creationists who have opted to accept the secular great age chronology may have capitulated too soon. 10. If the world was created in six days as the Bible reports, did not God create things with a false appearance of age? Isn't this deceptive? Answer: The Garden of Eden was filled with false appearances of age, it is true -- mature plants, full-grown trees, animals, an entire biosphere. In fact, Adam and Eve themselves were created as adults from the beginning of their existence. any created universe must, by the nature of the case, display some false appearance of age. Furthermore, this is not deceptive, since God has in His word told us what He did, and we need but believe what He tells us. It is those who insist that the world made itself who are deceiving themselves. Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page References 1 Coale, Ansley J., Scientific American, 231, Sept. 1974, p. 43. 2 Allen, Benjamin F., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 9, Sept. 1972, pp. 96-114. 3 Cook, Melvin A., Chapter 12, ref. 1, pp. 254-262; Dickey, P., et al., Science, 160, 10 May 1968, p. 609. 4 Heide, Fritz, Meteorites, Edward Anders and Eugene DuFresne, translators (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119ff.; Nininger, H.H., in The Moon, Meteorites, and Comets, Barbara M. Middlehurst and Gerard P. Kuiper, editors (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 164; Steveson, Peter A., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 12, June 1975, pp. 23-25. 5 Ingersoll, Zobel, and Ingersoll, Heat Conduction With Engineering, Geological, and Other Applications (Univ. of Wisc. Press, Madison, 1954), pp. 99-107; Slusher, Harold S. and Thomas P. Gamwell, The Age of the Earth: A study of the cooling of the Earth under the influence of radioactive heat sources (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, 1978). 6 Riley, J.B. and G. Skirrow, editors, Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 2 (Academic Press, London, 1965), pp. 164-165. 7 Martin, Dean F., Marine Chemistry, Vol. 2 (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1970), pp. 228-263. 8 Nevins, S.E., Creation -- Acts, Facts, Impacts (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, 1974), p. 164. 9 Vardiman, Larry, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux Through the Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA 92021, 1990). 10 MacDonald, G.J.F., "The Escape of Helium from the Earth's Atmosphere," in The Origin and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans, P.J. Brancazio and A.G.W. Cameron, editors. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964), pp. 127-182; see p. 127. 11 Chamberlain, Joseph W. and Donald M. Hunten, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Edition (Academic Press, new York, 1987), p. 372. 12 Vardiman, Larry, ref. 9, pp. 24-25. 13 Gentry, R.V., et al., "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Management," Geophysical Research Letters, 9, Oct. 1982, pp. 1129-1130. 14 Slusher, Harold S., Age of the Cosmos (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, 1980), pp. 43-54. 15 Lyttleton, R.A., Mysteries of the Solar System (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1968), p. 147; Joss, P.C., Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, No. 2, 1975, pp. 271-273. 16 Lyttleton, R.A., The Modern Universe (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950), p.72. 17 Slusher, Harold S., ref. 14, pp. 55-64; Abell, George, Exploration of the Universe (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969), p. 364. 18 Slusher, Harold S., Bible-Science Newsletter, 13, Jan. 1975, pp. 1-3; ibid., 13, Oct. 1975, pp. 1-3. 19 Clason, Clyde B., Exploring the Distant Stars (P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1958), pp. 220-227; Bergamini, David, The Universe (Time-Life Books, New York, 1971), pp. 112-113. 20 Flammarion, Camiolle, The Flammarion Book of Astronomy (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1964), pp. 435, 469; Batten, Alan H., Binary and Multiple Systems of Stars (Pergamon Press, New York, 1973), pp. 222-253. 21 Hoyle, Fred, Astronomy (Rathbone Books Ltd., London, 1962), p. 285. 22 Ostriker, J.P. and P.J.E. Peebles, Astrophysical Journal, 186, No. 2, Pt. 1, 1 Dec. 1973, pp. 467-480. 23 Margon, Bruce, Mercury, Jan./Feb. 1975, p. 6. 24 Bird, W.R., The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance (Philosophical Library, New York, 1987), Chapter 7; 25 Narlikar, Jayant, New Scientist, 2 July 1981, pp. 19-21; Horgan, John, Scientific American, 257, Sept. 1987, pp. 22-24. 26 Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic constants, Light and Time (Stanford research Institute International, Menlo Park, CA, 1987); Arp, Halton, Astrophysical Journal, 263 (1982), p.54. 27 Arp, Halton and Sulentic, Astrophysical Journal, 291 (1985), p. 88. 28 Hoyle, Fred, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983), p. 181. 29 Alfven, Hannes and Asoka Mendis, Nature, 266, 21 April 1977, pp. 698-699. 30 Hoyle, Fred, ref. 28, p. 186. 31 Allen, Foundations of Astrophysics, 6 (1976), p.59. 32 Bondi, Herman, New Scientist, 87 (1980), p. 611. 33 Narlikar, Jayant, ref. 25, p. 19. 34 Alfven, Hannes, Cosmic Plasma (1981), p. 123. 35 Travis, John, "Hubble War Moves to High Ground," Science, 266, 28 Oct. 1994, pp. 539-541. 36 Humphreys, Russell D., Starlight and Time -- Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Master Books, Colorado Springs, CO, 1994). Appendix 1 - What the Bible is All About and the Reason for Handy Dandy The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen hundred years through almost forty prophets and apostles to bring us the Bible is given in a verse in the New Testament. John 20:31 says, "But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." So the Bible is really about Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, what He did to save us from our sins, how we can have forgiveness and eternal life by faith in the Lord Jesus, and what His will is for our lives. But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a sinner must believe what the Bible says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything, therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the Savior Whom they must know or perish. Supposedly scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus hinder them from coming in humble faith and repentance to Jesus Christ for salvation. The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter provides logic and scientific evidence to show that materialistic evolutionary theories have really not been proved by science to be facts, and that there is actually no scientifically based reason for ignoring or refusing the gracious offer of God to save those who will believe in His Son Jesus Christ. It is our hope that our readers will come to faith or to stronger faith in the Bible and in the God of the Bible Who is Creator, Lord, and Judge of the world. Appendix 2 - The How and Why of Teaching Origins Interpretations and Theories in the Public Schools A. The Present Treatment of Origins Is Wrong. 1. Evolutionary interpretations and theories are taught: a. Dogmatically as facts of earth history, b. Protectively, without criticism of weaknesses and failures, c. Exclusively, without competition, as the only scientifically acceptable way of thinking about the world. d. Under an erroneous definition of science distorted by injecting belief in a totally materialistic, uncreated universe. 2. This is wrong because: a. It is poor science. 1) There is no place for dogma in science. What cannot be proved to be fact should not be taught as fact. 2) Theories in science should not be protected. They must always be open to critical evaluation. 3) All ideas in science should be open to competition with alternative ideas. 4) Science properly defined is a method, not a belief. b. It is poor teaching methodology to stifle criticism or competition of ideas. c. Dogmatic, protective, exclusive teaching of evolution denies to Christians and other religious students their constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of their faith. B. How It Should Be Done 1. The observable, reproducible scientific data should be clearly distinguished from theories, interpretations and speculative historical scenarios. 2. Students should understand that in interpreting scientific data: a. Science correctly defined does not require scientists to believe in a materialistic universe that is closed off from divine activity and intervention. b. It is no less "scientific" to believe in creation rather than in evolution. c. The core competing principles of evolution and creation are the origin of biological designs (1) by spontaneous materialistic processes or (2) by intelligent purposeful design, respectively. (Note: "Spontaneous" means without any input of intelligence, purpose, plan, design, goal, etc.) d. It is proper in science to consider the evidence for and against both explanations for the origin of biodesigns. 3. The assumptions basic to each interpretation should be clearly understood. They are: a. For evolution (1) That spontaneous materialistic processes produced all characteristics of all organisms. (2) That all species are related by descent from one or a few common ancestors. (3) That biological variation has in effect been unlimited (i.e., from amoeba to university professor in just 3 billion years.) b. For creation (1) That the origin and basic characteristics of each species are the product of intelligent purposeful design. (2) That living and extinct species of organisms exist in groups or "kinds" which have always been separate from each other. (3) That variation is limited within the boundaries of the created kinds. 4. Both of these opposed ways of looking at the world are assumptions or beliefs. Neither can be proved conclusively by science to be either right or wrong. They are faith propositions grounded in two mutually contradictory philosophical views of the world. 5. It is very important to distinguish carefully between assumptions, observed reproducible data, theories and speculative scenarios. 6. Competing interpretations and theories should be critically evaluated in science. This means that both their weaknesses and strengths should be examined in the light of assumptions, data and logic. In particular, students should have access in the classroom to information in the secular scientific literature which reveals the weaknesses, difficulties and failures of evolutionary theories. 7. No interpretation or theory of origins should be taught as a fact of earth history unless it can be proved, demonstrated conclusively to be factual. 8. Students should have the opportunity to introduce and place alternative interpretations in competition, in classroom discussion and debate, as well as in special research papers written from an alternative perspective. 9. Students should be charged with the intellectual responsibility of assessing the relative merits of the two sets of assumptions (given in 3, a-b, above), in the light of pertinent scientific data and logical arguments. 10. Each student should be left free to come to a personal decision as to which explanation of origins, evolution or creation, is preferred, superior or correct. Appendix 3 - What students can do to Counterattack Evolution and Change the Schools A. Basic Personal Preparations 1. Be sure you are personally trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. 2. Know what you believe and why you believe it. Study the Bible and pray daily, asking God's help to give you understanding and guidance. 3. Commit your life and all of your daily comings and goings to Christ for Him to use for His glory. 4. Be as good a student as you can with the Lord's help. This increases your credibility. 5. Pray for opportunities to promote God's truth whenever error is being taught. B. Tactics To Use In The Classroom 1. Develop a sharp eye for dogmatic statements, i.e., statements of "fact" that cannot be demonstrated to be factual. 2. Learn how to ask intelligent, probing questions that expose dogma for what it is. 3. Demand empirical evidence for all statements of faith. 4. Learn some of the weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theories. 5. Introduce these failures and weaknesses into classroom discussion. Do this either by asking questions or by reporting pertinent facts. Be sure you can back up what you report. 6. If you are challenged, either be prepared with documentation, or turn the challenge around to put the burden of proof on the evolutionists. 7. If the critical information is not made available in the classroom (as proposed in Appendix 2), if dogmatism, protectionism and exclusivism seem to control what goes on in the classroom: a. Respectfully ask the teacher why a science course should be taught this way. Do dogmatism, protectionism and exclusivism make for good science? b. Ask for critical information to be made available in the classroom. c. Ask that qualified resource personnel be invited to speak to the class on the scientific evidence for the alternative creation perspective. 8. If science or evolutionary theories are in any way set up to contradict or disparage your biblical Christian faith, respectfully point out to the teacher that: a. Science instruction is not supposed to be used as a weapon against God or against anybody's religious faith. b. This misuse of science is highly offensive to you as a Christian believer. c. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees your protection from any such offense by any government agency or agent. 9. Always be respectful and calm, humble but confident, in your classroom interactions with teachers and students. 10. Pray for your teachers and fellow students, that God may be gracious to them and give them light. 11. Pray that God may be glorified in all that you and other Christian students do concerning this difficult and controversial issue. 12. Pray that God may be pleased to change the public schools for the good, if it is His will. C. Christian Community Action As the Lord leads, join with other Christian students to organize a joint community action with pastors, parents and Christian students to petition the school board to introduce the changes recommended in Appendix 2. D. Our Strategy And Goals For America Our goal is not to bring a study of the Bible or the reading of the Genesis record of creation into the science classroom. Rather, if evolution or any other theory of origins is to be taught in a science class or textbook, it should be dealt with in a scientific manner. This means that dogmatism, protectionism and exclusivism should be excluded. Our goal is not to give Christians or the Christian world view a place of special advantage or monopoly control in the public schools, since this would be considered unconstitutional. Rather, if other belief systems are given a place, the biblical Christian alternatives should be placed in properly balanced competition with them. We do not want to attack anybody else's religious faith in the science classroom, but we want an end to the use of science and science instruction falsely as a weapon against God and our Christian faith. Our goal is not that everybody in science and science education should be forced to think like a Christian. Rather, we want the system opened up again so that Christians can be free to think like Christians and function openly as Christians in science, education, scholarship, and other life callings without discrimination or prejudice because of their faith. We want all citizens to be judged in society on the basis of their performance, not on the basis of whether or not they are willing to give in to what the majority believes or disbelieves. Under these conditions Christians, as well as those of other beliefs, will be better able to demonstrate the validity and value of their faith by the quality of their lives and accomplishments. Christians can give glory to God who has made it all possible. E. The Constitutional Rights of Christian Students The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [i.e., a government sponsored church or religious belief system], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." We have emphasized the Free Exercise Clause. This clause means, among other things, that the government may not offend any citizen by telling him that his religious belief is false and that he should believe in some other belief mandated by the government. Thus, when the State's schools teach a student who believes in creation by God, that evolution is a fact, even though it cannot be proved to be a fact, the State is telling the student that his or her religious belief is a falsehood. The State is illegally offending the believing student by violating that student's Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment. When the State protects evolutionary interpretations and theories from intelligent criticism, the State is making a religious (or irreligious) dogma of evolution and again is violating the Free Exercise rights of the student who believes in creation. When the State exclusively teaches materialistic theories and speculations concerning origins, without allowing for competition with alternative interpretations of the observed data, the State is teaching that a materialistic view of the universe is the only scientifically and intellectually respectable one. This constitutes a distortion of science that falsely makes science a weapon against religious faith. This violates the constitutional rights of Christian students. Let's get the religious (or irreligious) indoctrination out of public school science and other subject areas by stopping the present policy of teaching evolutionary ideas dogmatically as fact and protecting them from criticism and competition. Let's stop the public schools from promoting atheism by teaching as science the belief that everything in the universe is the product of accident and that there is no Creator who created anything. Let's stop the public schools from promoting immorality by indoctrinating students in the belief that they are chance cousins of apes and therefore are no more subject to God's Moral Law than are the apes. If you would like to know more about the topics discussed in Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter check out the following:

The Creation Explanation - A book by Robert E. Kofahl & Kelly L. Segraves

Jesus Christ Creator - A book by Kelly L. Segraves

Creation Essays by Robert E. Kofahl

The Way It Was - A book by Kelly L. Segraves

The Great Dinosaur Mistake - A book by Kelly L. Segraves

or contact us at:
feedback@parentcompany.com

 

or contact us at: feedback@parentcompany.com Other Books and Periodicals Books Arndts, Russell and William Overn, Radiometric Dating--Isochrons and the Mixing Model (Bible-Science Assn., Minneapolis, 1984). Austin, Steven A., Catastrophes in Earth History (Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 1984). Austin, Steven A., Editor, Grand Canyon, Monument to Castastrophe (Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 1994). Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional (Creation Research Society Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990). Bird, W.R., The Origin of Species Revisited (Philosophical Library, New York, 1989). Brown, Walter T., Jr., "In the Beginning," (Center for Scientific Creation, Phoenix, AZ, 1989). Davidheiser, Bolton, Evolution and Christian Faith (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., Nutley, N.J., 1969). Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: the Central Question of Biological Origins (Haughton, Dallas, TX, 1989). Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1986). Friar, Wayne and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation, Third Edition (Moody Press, Chicago, 1967, 1983). Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe (Mentor, New York, 1982). Gish, Duane, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (Creation-Life Pub., San Diego, CA, 1982). Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time*Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Master Books, Colorado Springs, CO, 1994. Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (University of California, Berkeley, 1991). Lester, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bolin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984). Lubenow, Marvin L., Bones of Contention*Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992). Moreland, J.P., Editor, The Creation Hypothesis*Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1994). Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Creation-Life Pub., El Cajon, CA, 1982). Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time (Barry Setterfield, Box 318, Blackwood, S.A. 5051, Australia, 1987). Read, John G. and C.L. Burdick, Fossils, Strata and Evolution (Scientific-Technical Presentations, P.O. Box 2384, Culver City, CA, 1971). Segraves, Kelly L., The Great Dinosaur Mistake (Creation-Science Research Center, San Diego, CA, 1987). Steidl, Paul M., The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979). Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma (Master Book Pub., San Diego, CA, 1984). Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York, 1984). Periodicals and Newsletters Bible-Science News, Bible-Science Assn., 2911 E. 42nd St., Minneapolis, MN 55406. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 14016, Terre Haute, IN 47803. CURRENTS in Science, Technology & Society, Colorado Springs, CO 890937-8069 Impact, Institute for Creation Research, 10946 Woodside Ave., North, Santee, CA 92071. Origins, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, CA 92350.