The Model
What is the scientific creation model?
What are "kinds" ?
Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic
classification system?
What observations does the creation model explain?
What are the weaknesses of the Model?
Problems with
Evolution
What is wrong with the mutation/natural selection
explanation of speciation?
Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Do creationists deny the evolutionary processes that
promote variation?
Are there transitional fossils?
How old is the earth?
Human
Evolution
What does the fossil record tell us about human
evolution?
Do skull sizes and morphology indicate evolution?
Should Homo erectus really be classified as a separate
species?
Are australopithecines ancestors to humans?
Does fossil evidence confirm the Creation model?
But aren't humans 97% chimp?
But is
Creation Science Really Science?
Doesn't the scientific creation model fall outside of
the realm of science?
Does the scientific creation model require the existence
of a supernatural deity?
But isn't scientific creationism just a back-door method
of getting Biblical creationism introduced?
So what exactly is the difference between scientific
creationism and Biblical creationism?
Why can't evolution be regarded as the method of
creation?
Why should such a small minority as the creationists
expect to impose their beliefs on others?
Why should creationists insist on teaching creationism
in public schools when they do not teach evolutionism in
their own churches and religious schools?
American news media is almost completely opposed to
creation, doesn't this prove that a significant part of
the population opposes creation?
Myths
Myth: The question of origins is not important.
Myth: There are very few hominid fossils.
Myth: Evolutionists are always fair and scientific.
Myth: Only Protestant fundamentalists are concerned with
creation.
Myth: No "real" scientists are creationists.
Myth: Creationists do not publish in the standard
scientific journals or do any original research.
Myth: Creationists constantly quote evolutionists out of
context.
Myth: The hominid fossil evidence virtually proves human
evolution.
Myth: Darwin withdrew or renounced his theories in old
age.
The
Model
What is the
scientific creation model?
Scientific creationism is the theory which proceeds from
the claim that it is possible to employ the results of
natural science to demonstrate that the universe and all
life was created in a mature and fully functioning form;
that the concept of intelligent design can be validated
by the results of scientific investigation.
The model
states that life on Earth originated as the result of
one or more "creation events". A creation event may be
identified as the instantaneous appearance of new matter
out of nothing including but not limited to, fully
functional, completely developed organisms. Creation
events did not transform existing organisms, but
produced entirely new creatures. These creation events
included for example:
o
Creations of the first cells, those without a nucleus.
o
Creations of cells with a nucleus, the dominant kind
today.
o
Creations of the first kinds of Multi-celled animals and
plants
o
Creations of the first kinds of Vertebrates
o
Creations of the first kinds of Mammals
o
Creation of the unique kind: Homo Sapiens.
These
creation events are no longer occurring. As such, they
are not observable or repeatable. This may sound unusual
for a scientific model, but it has all of the
corresponding weaknesses (from a scientific standpoint)
that evolution has. For example, macroevolution
(transition between kinds) cannot be observed, and is
not repeatable in a lab. Similarly, the first occurrence
of life, or the emergence of life from non-life (abiogenesis)
has not been observed or reproduced in a lab.
Essentially, the heart of the controversy comes down to
the origin and condition of first life. The observance
of microevolution does not extrapolate to
macroevolution. Microevolution is an important part of
the creation model, it is the mechanism by which created
kinds have been able to fill the earth and adapt to all
of its various ecological and climatological conditions.
RETURN
What are "kinds" ?
According
to the model, living creatures were not created
individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures
in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and
a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A
species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and
paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some
kinds will include many species as well as higher order
taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only
include one species.
After the
creation, creatures of a kind bred either among
themselves generally, or in segregated sub-kinds,
species. Breeding causes the appearance of variant forms
of the creatures, which is limited by the genetic
variation built into the kind when it was created.
At the
time of its creation, each kind was created with
sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise
to nearly all the varieties within that kind that have
existed in the past and those that are yet in existence
today. Genetic mutations can cause variation in a kind,
but they have the net effect of deterioration of that
kind. Nevertheless, mutations are always horizontal
rather than vertical microevolution, and can never
produce a new kind or a more complex kind. They also
cannot add to the genetic content of a kind, mutations
merely distort already existing information.
This
model denies macroevolution -- transformations of one
kind into another kind.
Some
examples of possible kinds (which would really have to
be determined by an experienced taxonomist):
o Horses
o Cattle
o Dogs,
Wolves.
o Cats,
Tigers, Lions (many species in this kind)
o Spiders
(many species)
o Flying
insects -- many kinds.
o Fish --
many kinds.
o
Dinosaurs -- many kinds.
o Human
Beings of all races (one species)
Some
kinds, such as the Dinosaur kinds, have become extinct.
RETURN
Where does
a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification
system?
It is
often difficult for productive dialog to commence
between individuals that hold distinctly contrasting
worldviews. This is especially true in the area of
anthropology. For example, the word hominid is used by
the evolutionist community to mean humans and their
evolutionary ancestors. It includes the genus Homo, the
genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family
Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in
a creationist worldview. The creationist counterpart
would be the term human, referring to all descendants of
the first created man and woman.
It may be
surprising to some to learn that there is no clear-cut,
accepted scientific definition for any of the taxonomic
categories, including Homo sapiens. While there
is some consensus on these categories, there is enough
uncertainty to cause quite a lot of confusion even among
experienced taxonomists. Fossil finds are sometimes
placed into one classification, only to be switched into
another when the evolutionist finds that it does not fit
well into evolutionary theory.
The
scientist who set up the currently used classification
system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the
species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the
Latin word for kind.
The
problem with the criterion is that it is difficult to
carry out. Performing breeding experiments on organisms
with long lifespans such as elephants is impractical or
impossible. Biologists tended rather to base their
extension of Linnaeus' ideas on external characteristics
rather than genetics.
Hence,
the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as
separate species because of their external physical
characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and
produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be
placed in the same species and the same kind.
Some feel
that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy
used by biologists and paleontologists to group species
into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic
fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so
entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change
all of the classified organisms based on genetics.
RETURN
What
observations does the creation model explain?
Kinds
appear in the fossil record suddenly, with no evidence
of pre-existing creatures showing the characteristics of
the newly-created kind.
Even when
two kinds are seen to share some characteristics, there
is little evidence of "transitional forms" in the fossil
record. Such forms would show a set of characteristics
intermediate between the set belonging to one kind and
the set belonging to another.
One of
the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology
has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major
animal groups--classes and phyla--in full-fledged form,
in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. This would
suggest a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various
groups, in itself a problem. Paleontologists are not
certain whether the soft-bodied forms of the Precambrian
Ediacaran fauna are in fact ancestral to modern groups.
Most species are seen to appear abruptly, to maintain
their typical form for most of their history, and to
vanish as suddenly as they appeared. This failure to
trace coherent lineages of ancestors and descendants is
easily explained via the creation model.
RETURN
What are the
weaknesses of the Model?
Just as
it is impossible to tell from fossil records if one
fossil is truly transitional, or representative of a
distinct form, the ability to make clear distinctions
among kinds is required in order to determine whether a
form which appears to be transitional between species,
actually represents the creation of a new kind. By the
very definition of evolution, there must be transitions,
and by the definition of creation, there cannot be
transitions. So every "transitional fossil" an
evolutionist sees is seen by the creationist as a
distinct kind or a member of the same kind. Created
kinds, by their nature, leave no other traces besides
the appearance of what was created.
Another
serious challenge to the creation model is the issue of
when it occurred. Creationists have failed to
convincingly show scientific evidence for a young
creation, which is generally but not absolutely
associated with the creation model. This issue will be
dealt with separately in the FAQ.
RETURN
Problems with Evolution
Evolutionists commonly criticize creationists for
picking faults with evolution instead of letting the
creation model stand on its own merit. What they do not
understand is that there are only two models of origins.
If life did not evolve, then it was created. Therefore
evidence against evolution is evidence for creation, and
evidence against creation is evidence for evolution.
What is
wrong with the mutation/natural selection explanation of
speciation?
The
biggest problem with this widely held theory as the
mechanism for evolution is that mutations presuppose
creation. Mutations are only changes in already existing
genes. Before a gene can mutate, it must exist. The
results of all mutations are a varied form (allele) of
an already existing gene, which is the variation within
created kinds that is expected in the creation model.
The number of defects in human beings that are the
result of genetic mutations is increasing with time,
which is exactly what is expected in the creation model
in which created kinds started with flawless genes that
continue to degrade over time. This same type of long
term increase in disorder and decay (entropy) is seen in
all closed systems, and in most open systems as well.
Evolution
theory also fails to adequately explain many
observations such as the evolution of symbiotic
relationships, the evolution of stereoscopic vision and
other parts of anatomy that would require thousands of
compounding, complementary, beneficial mutations.
Profound structural changes, no matter how slow to
occur, simply are not observed, but are instead the
result of illogical extrapolation. This is precisely why
Darwin put so much importance on finding transitional
fossils in the fossil record to "prove" macroevolution
(See chapters 6 and 9 of The Origin of Species by
Charles Darwin).
In a
nutshell, the evolutionist logic goes like this:
Birds catch more dark moths from a light background and
more light moths from a dark background, therefore fish
evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into
reptiles, and reptiles evolved into birds and mammals,
including man.
RETURN
Does
evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
The short
answer is no. However most people (evolutionists and
creationists) do not understand this law, its
implications, or this creationist argument. I will
attempt to briefly clarify the problem. . .
"...we know from the second
law of thermodynamics that all complexity, all life, all
laughter, all sorrow, is hell bent on leveling itself
out into cold nothingness in the end. They -- and we --
can never be more then temporary, local buckings of the
great universal slide into the abyss of uniformity."
-Richard Dawkins (Oxford evolutionist author and
speaker. See The Humanist Vol. 57, No. 1 Jan/Feb 1997)
The
second law of thermodynamics specifically states that
the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. The law
pertains to CLOSED systems. The earth, and therefore
evolution, is NOT a closed system (there is essentially
unlimited energy from the sun). Furthermore, the whole
concept of a closed system is purely hypothetical --
there is no such thing anywhere on earth. So in no way
can any living system on Earth directly violate the
second law. If living organisms could escape the second
law of thermodynamics, they would live forever.
Despite
the lack of a closed system, creationists still have
strong arguments related to the second law of
thermodynamics and entropy. Almost from the moment of
conception, loss of information and order in living
systems via mutations, injuries, and disease begins.
This process slows during development, accelerates
during aging, and finally results in death. The long
term accumulation of information over billions of years
necessary for the increase in complexity and capacity of
DNA in the molecule to man theory of evolution is unlike
any process we know. Is it reasonable to believe that
this process has successfully continued for billions of
years (violating the concept of gambler's ruin)? Or is
it more reasonable to believe that life began in complex
basic forms (created kinds) which are in the state of
overall long term decay?
Evolutionists make the argument that order can come from
disorder in nature, for example snowflakes, sand dunes,
tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and
lightning. However, none of these examples represent the
accumulation of information. They sometimes also cite
living examples, like a tree growing from a seed. This
also does not represent increasing information or
complexity, the information was there all along, in the
DNA of the seed. Similarly, a fertilized egg is as
complex perhaps more complex, than any cell in the adult
organism.
Crystal
formation is another common reference, because of the
supposed increase in order and complexity. Contrary to
what is commonly believed, however, there are many
imperfections in the lattice structures of crystalline
solids. These imperfections are thermodynamically stable
because the entropy of the solid is increased by their
presence. A process that accumulates information over
long periods of time (billions of years) producing man
from molecules would be absolutely exceptional and
unlike any process observed in the history of science.
Those who
hold to the general evolution model postulate that the
present universe and all that it contains began in some
primordial disordered state. Evolutionary forces have
been at work throughout the billions of years since that
state existed, it is believed, and have acted in such a
way that the highly structured universe and a vast array
of incredibly complex organisms have arisen here on the
earth. Thus, there has occurred, according to this
thinking, at least in the observable part of our
universe and particularly on the earth, an immense
increase in order and complexity. This supposedly has
taken place solely according to mechanistic,
naturalistic processes which can be attributed to
properties inherent in matter.
If the
above were true, then matter obviously must have
possessed an inherent ability for organization into
higher and higher levels of order and complexity.
Scientists should have been able to recognize this
universal inherent property of matter and to construct
natural laws which describe it. As a matter of fact,
scientists have NOT been able to recognize any such
property of matter.
However,
scientists have recognized just the opposite tendency in
matter. The more probable state of matter is always the
more random state. Every change in nature that takes
place spontaneously always results in a loss of order.
Natural processes always occur in such a way that the
complex tend to become less complex, ordered states tend
to become disordered. Therefore, this universe is
constantly becoming more disordered.
(See "A
Decade of creationist research" by Duane Gish, Ph.D. in
the Creation Research Society Quarterly 12(1):34-46
June, 1975)
For the
evolutionist perspective on the second law see:
"The Second Law of
Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability"
by Frank Steiger. Note that he does not understand the
creationist position.
RETURN
Do
creationists deny the evolutionary processes that
promote variation?
No, these
processes are an essential part of the creation model.
It is the evolutionist who improperly introduces other
mechanisms into the alleged evolutionary process, such
as the founder principle, geographic isolation, and
genetic recombination. While these are legitimate
processes, they are not evolutionary processes. They do
not create new genetic information nor do they
discriminate between creation and evolution. The
evolutionist smuggles these nonevolutionary mechanisms
into the evolutionary process even though they have
nothing to do with evolution. These processes do account
for variation, but they cannot produce evolutionary
changes that result in increased complexity which would
demand the creation of entirely new genetic information.
At the
same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could
change into other creatures, Gregor Mendel, the father
of genetics, was showing that even individual
characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas
were based on erroneous and untested ideas about
inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful
experimentation. Mendel went largely unappreciated for
35 years, but by the end of the 19th century, other
research had so clearly confirmed the principles
discovered by his work that evolutionists had to
incorporate these principles into their theories.
Essentially there are four sources of variation:
environment, recombination, mutation, and creation. A
combination of these four sources can explain any and
all differences between any one creature and another.
Environment includes all of the external factors which
influence a creature during its lifetime. For example,
one may have darker skin than another simply because he
is exposed to more sunshine. Or one may have larger
muscles because she exercises more. These
environmentally-caused variations may have great
importance for the individuals who possess them, but
they have no importance to the history of life, because
these variations die with their owners; they are not
inherited. Charles Darwin believed that variations
caused by the environment could be inherited. This
fallacy no doubt made it easier for him to believe that
one creature could change into another.
The
second source of variation is recombination. This
involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that
children resemble very closely their parents but are not
exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles
of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution
to the science of genetics. Mendel studied seven pairs
of traits in the garden pea. In each of these he showed
that while traits might be hidden for a generation they
were never lost, and when new traits appeared it was
because their genetic factors had been there all along.
Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited
variation within the created kinds. But it is limited
because virtually all of the variations are produced by
a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
Many
varieties of chickens have been produced from the wild
jungle fowl, a lot of variation. But no new varieties
are being produced, because all of the genes in the wild
jungle fowl have been sorted out into the existing
varieties -- limited variation. From the science of
plant breeding we have the example of the sugar beet.
Beginning in 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the
sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very
successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it
was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to
17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further
selection did not increase the sugar content. Why is
that? Simply because all of the genes for sugar
production had been gathered into a single variety and
no further increase was possible.
Finally,
let us consider an example of recombination provided for
us by Charles Darwin. During his voyage around the world
which began in 1831, Darwin observed many fascinating
plants and animals. But none were more fascinating that
those he saw on the Galapagos Islands. Among these were
a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group
we can see wide variation in appearance and in
life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an
essentially correct interpretation of how the finches
came to be the way they are. A few individuals were
probably blown to the islands from the South American
mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those
pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an
example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely
as the result of recombination within a single created
kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough
genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties
we see today.
Now
consider the third source of variation, mutation.
Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.
Each living cell has an intricate molecular machinery
designed for the copying of DNA, the genetic molecule.
But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur,
although not very often. Once in every 10,000-100,000
copies a gene will contain a mistake. The cell also has
machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some
mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are
produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all. The
genetic code has a certain amount of redundancy, so that
some slight changes in the DNA produce no change in the
end result. Other mutations produce so small a change in
the end result that they have no appreciable effect on
the creature. But many mutations have a significant
effect on their owners. Based on the creation model, we
would expect virtually all random mutations to be
harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less
successful than before. And this prediction has been
convincingly demonstrated.
For a
thorough study of the effects of mutations Drosophila
melanogaster, the common fruit fly, is unsurpassed
as a source of information. Geneticists began breeding
the fruit fly soon after the turn of the century, and
since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some
3000 mutations have been identified. All of the
mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce
a more successful fruit fly.
Natural
selection is no more or less than the label we give to
what now seems to be the obvious fact that some
varieties of creatures are going to be more successful
than others, and that they will contribute more
offspring to future generations. As populations
encounter changing environments, or as the result of
migration into a new area, natural selection increases
the combinations of traits which will make the creature
most successful in its new environment. Natural
selection also plays a role in the elimination or
minimization of harmful mutations when they occur.
A
beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible
for its possessors to contribute more offspring to
future generations than do those creatures that lack the
mutation. For example, there occurred in Florida in 1914
a mutation in the tomato which caused a change in its
growth pattern, making the tomatoes much easier to
harvest. Because of human selection for this mutation,
it has been spread throughout the cultivated tomato. The
mutation for antibiotic resistance in bacteria is
certainly beneficial for those bacteria whose
environment is swamped with antibiotic. Of course, none
of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas
about one kind of creature changing into another.
A type of
change of a rather more significant nature involves the
decrease or loss of some structure or function. Darwin
called attention to wingless beetles on the island of
Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings
can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations producing the
loss of flight could be helpful. Similar would be the
case of sightless cave fish. Eyes are quite vulnerable
to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would
benefit from mutations that would reduce that
vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic
and beneficial change, it is important to notice that
they always involve loss and never gain. One never
observes wings or eyes being produced by organisms in
which they had not previously existed.
The
fourth and final source of variation is creation. Why is
it a necessary part of the history of life? Simply
because the first three sources of variation are utterly
inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see
on earth today. An essential feature of the creation
model is the placement of considerable genetic variety
in each created kind. Only thus can we explain the
possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the
same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same
kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well
as jackals, wolves, and foxes from the same kind. As
each kind multiplied, the chance processes of
recombination and the more purposeful process of natural
selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast
array we now see.
(See
"Genetics: Enemy of Evolution" by Lane P. Lester, Ph.D.
Creation Research Society Quarterly 31:4)
RETURN
Are there
transitional fossils?
As stated
previously, one of the most difficult problems in
evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt
appearance of the major animal groups--classes and
phyla--in full-fledged form, in the Cambrian and
Ordovician periods. This would suggest a sudden
acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in
itself a problem. Paleontologists are not certain
whether the soft-bodied forms of the Precambrian
Ediacaran fauna are in fact ancestral to modern groups.
Most species, are seen to appear abruptly, to maintain
their typical form for most of their history, and to
vanish as suddenly as they appeared. This failure to
trace coherent lineages of ancestors and descendants is
easily explained via the creation model.
Many
evolutionists will readily admit that the fossil
evidence is NOT very supportive of the theory of
evolution (this is why transitional fossil evidence has
been removed from or largely abridged in most modern
biology textbooks). These same individuals nearly always
make statements such as "the fossil record is
inessential to proving evolution -- this has been done
by other disciplines." Other evolutionists emphatically
assert that the fossil record does support the theory of
evolution, claiming hundreds of transitional fossils.
The
reason this question will not go away is because even
when two kinds are seen to share some characteristics,
this does not prove that one BECAME the other over time.
The fossil record does show change, but it is NOT
evolutionary change, it's the kind of change one would
expect to find under the creation model, variation
within kinds. In fact, many of these so called
transitional fossils have been discarded due to more
detailed information over the years (some of the more
famous examples being the evolution of the horse in
North America and the giraffe in Africa). Finally, the
concept of a transitional fossil BEGS THE QUESTION --
something most evolutionists do not contemplate.
When an
evolutionist sees a new hominid in the fossil record
(such as australopithecine) he or she is more likely to
give it a subjective title such as "the ancestor of
humans", while the creationist calls it by what it
really is -- an extinct ape-like creature. Most
evolutionary changes supposedly occurred over hundreds
of thousands, if not millions of years, and the
evolutionist would expect there to be hundreds or
thousands of intermediate forms between kinds. This just
isn't the case. For example with human evolution, to go
from the ape-like australopithecines to modern humans,
there are only a handful of supposed intermediate forms
(these are Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and
archaic Homo sapiens). Few evolutionist
propaganda is as humorous as the charts (trees)
supposedly showing the paths of evolution; the only
things shown as definite are the leaves, with a bunch of
question marks and uncertain speculative paths
connecting in between.
Perhaps
the most famous example of a transitional form is
Archaeopteryx
(pronounced ar'-key-op'-ter-iks), an extinct reptilian
bird (genus Archaeopteryx) of the Jurassic
Period, that had teeth, a lizard like tail, and
well-developed wings. This could be a good example of a
transition from reptile to bird if there were
significant transitional forms found that showed a
smooth transition between Archaeopteryx and more
modern looking birds, or between reptiles and
Archaeopteryx. Despite several other fossils such as
Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, and Protarchaeopteryx
evolutionists have failed to demonstrate a convincing
transition between species and many questions remain
unanswered. Archaeopteryx is no more than a
distinct created type with a beautiful mosaic of
complete and fully functional traits.
In many
ways Archaeopteryx is like the platypus which is
a small, aquatic, egg-laying monotreme mammal (Ornithorhynchus
anatinus) of Australia and Tasmania, with webbed feet, a
beaverlike tail, and a ducklike bill. The platypus is
not transitional, but instead it is an evolutionist's
nightmare -- a mosaic of supposedly distant species. For
example, no evolutionist believes that ducks are closely
related to beavers.
RETURN
How old is
the earth?
Well the
answer depends on whom you ask. Evolutionists tend to
change the answer every few years. Some say it is 4.5
billion years old, while others maintain that it is much
older. Creationists generally believe that the earth is
MUCH younger, between 6,000 and 10,000 years. This
invariably brings up the question of radiometric dating.
The evolutionist relies heavily upon radiometric dating
techniques to establish the long ages necessary for
evolution to occur. Therefore it is necessary to examine
the assumptions that are involved with all such dating
methods.
The
following are isochron assumptions made by the
uniformitarian evolutionist:
1.
Geological evidence is sufficient to establish that the
suite of rocks being analyzed is a cogenic unit. The
term cogenic unit implies that time during which the
suite of rocks was formed is sufficiently short,
compared to the true age of the rock, to allow an age to
be estimated.
2. All
samples had uniformity, with respect to the daughter
isotope, when the cogenic unit formed. This means that
over its whole area of occurrence, the geological unit
was sufficiently mixed, with respect to daughter
isotope, that the slope =0 can be assumed to be the
initial conditions of the rock.
3.
Deviations from uniformity, with respect to the daughter
isotope, has been caused within the suite of rocks, only
by radioactive decay of parents. In other words, the
rock remained closed to loss or gain of daughter since
the rock was formed.
4. The
number of parent atoms has not been altered in the suite
of rocks, by any geological process, except radioactive
decay. In other words, the rocks remained closed to loss
or gain of parents since the rocks formed.
5. The
decay constant of the parent is known accurately, and
has not changed during the existence of the rocks.
6. The
abundance of parents and daughters have been determined
accurately (laboratory measurements of Pt and Dt are
accurate).
If any of
these assumptions are incorrect, the dating method is
absolutely worthless and yields incorrect results.
Furthermore, using various radiometric dating techniques
on the same samples often produce wildly differing
results. It is also impossible to calibrate (verify) the
dating method for anything older than approximately
5,000 years.
(See
Grand Canyon Monument To a Catastrophe, Edited by Steve
Austin, Ph.D. p119)
The following is a list of young earth and universe
evidences (in no particular order). Note -- some of
these are better than others. Also, none of these are
100% conclusive. As I have stated before, creationists
have not proven beyond reasonable doubt the young age of
the earth, however, there is a great deal of evidence
for a young age.
Young
Universe Evidence
----------------------------
1)
Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they
occur. A new supernova event is observed about every 30
years, and we see only a few thousand in existence.
2)
Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it
would seem that some galaxies would not be
gravitationally bound and would just spread out in a
"field".
3)
Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of
different ages. If a star cluster is gravitationally
bound, under stellar evolution theory one would expect
all the stars would be the same age.
Young
Solar System Evidence
---------------------------------
1) Rate
of bombardment of meteoritic dust / amount of dust
measured on the moon. Should be several hundred feet of
dust on the moon. Several years ago this creationist
argument was dismissed, and many creationists themselves
stopped using it. However, in light of the latest
scientific research, this argument has been revived.
2)
Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a
maximum of several thousand years because they give off
copious material each orbit.
3)
Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of
the Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect
should sweep the solar system clean of small particles.
4)
Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn.
Rings are not stable and will not last.
5)
Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io.
Inadequate heat sources for a small moon so far from the
sun to still be geologically active.
6)
Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies
(Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus)
without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process
is known which could sustain a magnetic field around
these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed
out of existence if they ever had any.
7) Rock
flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have
eliminated old craters on the moon.
8)
Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving
away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity.
Movement is too fast for earth-moon system to be 4.6
billion years old.
9)
Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each
year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very
far without effecting earth's environment.
10)
Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in
the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments
have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this
is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued
that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not
fusion - this would imply a young sun.
11) Heat
level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended
time period.
12) High
concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have
decayed.
13) High
concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have
decayed.
Young
Earth Evidence
------------------------------
1)
Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field
(half-life of 1400-2000 years). This half-life cannot be
extrapolated back more than about 10,000 years without
the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists
have been criticized for taking the orginal work on this
matter out of context and failing to show that the
magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then strengthening).
However, it is the old earth believers that have
concocted this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic
extrapolation. It is the creationist who has used only
the empirical evidence, to devise a theory that truely
explains that data now available to us.
2)
Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices,
evidence indicates that the human species should have
populated the earth much more quickly if they had been
around for millions of years.
3)
Earliest known human civilizations are only a few
thousand years old.
4) Tree
rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot
be traced back more than several thousand years.
5) Dating
of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is
only a few thousand years old.
6) Dating
of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of
sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few
thousand years old.
7) Lack
of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio
should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some
thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point
yet.
8)
Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided
by net erosion rate (that is, despite accretion due to
volcanism, tectonic activity, and geosyncline) would
wash all of the continents into the ocean in about 14
million years.
9) Amount
of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is
actually many dating methods - one for each salt which
can be measured. For example, all the sodium chloride in
the ocean would have been washed in about 62 million
years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.
10)
Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is
expelled from below ground. Enough water is expelled
from deep below the earth via volcanoes, etc. to rapidly
produce more than all the water on the earth's surface.
11) No
plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs
remaining so high for millions of years.
12)
Existence of uranium halos.
13)
Existence of polonium
halos.
Some
believe that the
polonium halos
disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating
method because they may indicate that the rate of
radioactive decay has not been constant throughout
history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid
(instant) creation of the earth.
Evidence for a Rapidly Formed Geologic Column
---------------------------------------------------------
The
geologic column (representing all the earth's observed
sedimentary rock) in classical geology represents
hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history.
Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather than
over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young
geologic column and a young earth. It should be noted
that the "geologic column" is purely hypothetical and
cannot be found in a complete form anywhere on earth
other than in a textbook.
1) Lack
of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic
column is billions of years old one would expect to find
meteorites throughout.
2) Ripple
marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary
rocks. This implies very rapid burial and hardening
because these fragile features could not survive even
trivial erosion.
3)
Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across
multiple geologic layers that were supposedly laid down
millions of years apart. Fossilized trees and animals
are often found in tact and spanning supposedly millions
of years of geologic layers.
4)
Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes
don't account for regional deposits (covering multiple
U.S. states, for example). This applies to certain types
of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.
5)
Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed
and hadn't hardened into rock.
6)
Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column.
Biological activity soon disturbs sedimentary deposits
formed by modern catastrophes (hurricanes and floods)
but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This
implies that the geologic column was buried very deeply
and rapidly.
7) Lack
of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil
material is seldom found in the geologic column. One
would think that the earth had soil layers in the past,
and if it was slowly buried, some would be preserved.
8)
Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock
layers often show sharp, knife-edge breaks between
layers, with no evidence of erosion between. This is not
realistic if the layers formed over long periods of
time.
9)
Clastic dikes. Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand
squeezed up through newer layers of rock. This implies
that the sandy older (lower) layer was still soft enough
to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a toothpaste tube)
through the younger upper layers.
(See
article by Craig Davis of the 9 Feb 1997 CRSnet Digest)
RETURN
Human
Evolution
"I
don't think so..."
(See the
Myths section for more information related to this
subject)
What does
the fossil record tell us about human evolution?
It is
impossible to go into great detail in this FAQ, but I
strongly urge the interested reader to consult Bones of
Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow which thoroughly
examines the human evolution controversy and
demonstrates its conclusion -- that the fossil evidence
is so contrary to human evolution as to effectively
falsify the idea that humans evolved.
The
fossil known as KP 271 (the distal end of a humerus
found in 1965 by Bryan Patterson of Harvard University
in an excellent state of preservation) has been given by
evolutionists a date of 4.5 million years ago, thus it
becomes virtually the oldest hominid fossil ever found
-- older than Lucy and all of the australopithecines.
Much to the evolutionist's surprise, this oldest
respectable hominid fossil ever found, representing a
part of the anatomy where it is relatively easy to
discriminate between humans and the other primates --
both living and fossil, is virtually identical to that
of Homo sapiens (modern humans). This suggests
that true humans existed before the australopithecines
appear in the fossil record. KP 271 could not be
distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically
or by multivariate analysis by Patterson, his partner,
or by many others who have analyzed it since then. Yet
not surprisingly, this fossil has been called
Australopithecus africanus. It was called
Australopithecus because of its age, in spite of the
scientific evidence. Evolutionists "know" it is
impossible for true humans to have lived before the
australopithecines, even though the fossil evidence
would suggest otherwise, because humans are supposed to
have evolved from the australopithecines, so they come
to the unreasonable conclusion mandated by evolution
theory.
Evolutionists ignore the morphology of fossils that do
not fall into the proper evolutionary time period, and
wave their magic wand to change the taxon of these
fossils. Thus, it is impossible to falsify the concept
of human evolution (proof that it is not a scientific
theory). To the evolutionist, the value of data does not
depend upon its intrinsic quality but upon whether or
not it supports evolution and its time scale. Good data
is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which
does not fit evolution, and it is to be discarded or
manipulated.
The
fossil record shows us that anatomically modern Homo
sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens,
and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at
one time or another. None of them evolved from a more
robust to a more gracile condition; in fact, in some
cases (Neanderthal and archaic Homo sapiens) the
more robust fossils are the more recent fossils in their
respective categories. All of the fossils ascribed to
the Homo habilis category are contemporary with
Homo erectus. Thus, Homo habilis not only
did not evolve into Homo erectus, it could not
have evolved into Homo erectus.
As far as
we can tell from the fossil record, when humans first
appear in the fossil record, they are already fully
human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in
morphologically human form that makes the human fossil
record compatible with the creation model. This fact is
evident even when the fossils are arranged according to
the evolutionist's dates (which are believed to be
grossly in error under the creation model). In other
words, even when we accept the evolutionist's dates for
the fossils, the results do not support human evolution.
The results, in fact, are so contradictory to human
evolution that they effectively falsify the theory.
Paleoanthropologists reinforce the notion that human
evolution is a philosophy, not science, when they refuse
to let observation get in the way of evolution theory.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 57,
178-179)
RETURN
Do skull
sizes and morphology indicate evolution?
In
seeking to establish the concept of human evolution, the
evolutionist leans heavily on skull morphology and, to a
lesser degree in recent years, on skull size. Both are
spurious arguments and prove nothing. Typical of the
charts and illustrations used by evolutionists is a
display at the American Museum of Natural History in New
York City:
Increasing Brain Size
Homo
sapiens 1450 cc
[cubic centimeters]
Neanderthal 1625 cc
Pithecanthropus 914 cc
Australopithecine 650 cc
Gorilla
543 cc
Gibbon 97
cc
So what
is the point of such a display? The evolutionist is
obviously trying to establish that the hominid brain has
enlarged by evolution over time. However, no
evolutionist in the world believes that it happened in
the way the chart implies it did. No evolutionist
believes the evolution went from gibbon to chimpanzee to
gorilla to the australopithecines to Homo erectus
to Neanderthal and then to modern humans. Evolutionists
believe that we evolved from some transitional form that
was the ancestor to both humans and living primates
(despite the fact that this transitional form, if it
ever existed, would readily be called an ape by anyone
who saw it). This type of display is nothing more than a
cheap form of propaganda to convince the uninformed
public of the "truth" of evolution.
The truth
is that relative brain size means very little. The
relationship between brain size and body size must be
factored in, with the crucial elements being
organization and complexity, not size. The human brain
varies in size from approximately 700 cubic cm to 2200
cubic cm with no differences in ability or intelligence
-- that's a difference of over 300 percent! (See
Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups by Stephen Molnar,
pg. 57)
Basing an
evolutionary sequence on skull morphology is just as
futile. For example the archaic Homo sapiens
fossil Rhodesian Man has pronounced brow ridges making
it the most "primitive", "savage", or "apelike" human
fossil in existence. Perhaps the most remarkable feature
of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet
underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc
mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was
in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were
being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high
degree of civilization and technology. Not surprisingly,
many evolutionists report that Rhodesian Man was found
in a cave. While not an outright lie, one has to
consider if calling a mine shaft a cave is not a crude
attempt to minimize the technical abilities of ancient
humans.
In spite
of this evidence, evolutionists continue to base much of
their evidence for human evolution on the alleged
primitive-to-advanced contours of fossil skulls.
Creationists maintain that in light of the evidence of
the wide genetic diversity in the human family, skull
contour is an inadequate basis for determining
relationships. The Selenka Expedition to Java, for
example, succeeded in revealing the nature of the human
fossil record -- that the human family had wide
morphologic diversity (even more so than today) and that
Java Man was not our evolutionary ancestor.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 82-85,
118-119)
RETURN
Should
Homo erectus really be classified as a separate
species?
A number
of evolutionists have expressed the fact that Homo
erectus, while slightly different in morphology, is
not so different from modern humans as to warrant a
separate species designation. The range of variation of
many features of Homo erectus (such as Java and
Peking) fall within that of modern man. When considering
the vast differences that exist between remote groups
such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong
within the single species Homo sapiens, it seems
justifiable to conclude that Homo erectus belongs
among this same diverse species. Changes in locomoter
anatomy from Homo erectus to modern man are
relatively minor, and by earliest Homo erectus
times body size was essentially modern.
Furthermore, many anthropologists believe that a modern
man and a million-year-old Homo erectus woman
could together produce a fertile child. In other words
this species distinction is based solely on the time
element, which is an evolutionary concept -- valid only
if evolution is valid. If one million years would not
produce significant genetic change to inhibit
conception, then the differences between Homo erectus
and Homo sapiens are not the result of evolution
but instead represent genetic variation within one
species. Although I am genetically isolated from my
great grandmother because of time, this does not mean
that she and I are different species. A species
distinction based primarily on time is an absurd
evolutionary necessity.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 134-137)
RETURN
Are
australopithecines ancestors to humans?
This is
yet another evolutionary fable, and an example of the
inevitable circular reasoning behind evolutionary
theory. The australopithecines had nothing to do with
human origins, they are simply extinct primates. There
is already evidence which shows that humans appeared in
the fossil record before the australopithecines and
lived as contemporaries with the australopithecines
throughout all of australopithecine history.
The case
for the australopithecines as human ancestors has been
based on three evolutionist claims: that they were
relatively big brained; that they were bipedal; and that
they appear in the fossil record at the relevant time.
In reality, the fossil record shows us that the
australopithecines do not appear in the fossil record at
the relevant time -- they are far too recent. Although
brain organization is more important than brain size
alone, the significant gap between cranial capacities of
the largest australopithecine and the smallest human has
not been bridged. There is no smooth transition from
nonhuman to human fossils in this regard.
The
evidence for australopithecine bipedality is
controversial. First it should be noted that bipedality
does NOT indicate a human relationship. Birds are
bipedal, but no one suggests that they are closely
related to humans. Evolutionists make much of the
alleged australopithecine bipedality because to make a
case for human evolution they must demonstrate the
origin of bipedality from a primate stock.
If indeed
the australopithecines were bipedal, there is strong
evidence that their locomotion was significantly
different from that of humans (consequently most
paleoanthropologists agree that if they did in fact
walk, it was not in a human manner). This brings us to
the infamous Laetoli footprints, discovered by
associates of Mary Leakey beginning in 1978, thirty
miles south of Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania. The
strata above the footprints has been dated at 3.6
million years ago, while the strata below them has been
dated at 3.8 million years ago (K-Ar). These footprint
trails, preserved in fresh volcanic ash by a unique
combination of circumstances, are one of the greatest
fossil discoveries of the twentieth century.
Mary
Leakey described the footprints as "remarkably similar
to those of modern man." (National Geographic, April
1979, p. 446) Three parallel trails are seen, made by
three individuals, with one individual walking in the
footprints of another. There are a total of sixty-nine
prints extending a length of about thirty yards.
Virtually everyone agrees that these prints are
strikingly similar to those of modern humans, yet in
spite of this fact, evolutionists have ascribed them to
the Lucy-type hominid known as Australopithecus
afarensis. Obviously this is totally unprovable.
The most
extensive recent study of these footprints was done by
specialist Russel H. Tuttle at the invitation of Mary
Leakey. Not only did he confirm the remarkable humanness
of the Laetoli hominid feet, but he described them as
"indistinguishable from those of habitually barefoot
Homo sapiens." He also said that "none of their
features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less
capable bipeds than we are." (see American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, February 1991, p.244) He not only
rejects the notion that the Laetoli footprints were made
by Australopithecus afarensis, but he found that
the former work on the footprints which led to this
conclusion was flawed.
So WHY
then do evolutionists not ascribe these fossil
footprints to Homo? Because that would not fit
the evolutionary timeline. According to the theory of
evolution, those footprints are too old to have been
made by true humans. It is a classic case of
interpreting the facts according to a preconceived
philosophical bias. Evolutionists refuse to call
extremely old fossils by their proper names, in order to
protect evolution theory. Hence, it is obvious we are
dealing not with science but with a philosophy.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 166-168,
173-176)
RETURN
Does
fossil evidence confirm the Creation model?
One way
to discriminate between the two models of human origins
is to place all of the relevant fossil material on a
time chart according to the probable dates for each of
the fossil individuals and to evaluate the results as to
whether the evidence favors an evolutionary or a
morphological continuum. When this is done, the evidence
is strongly in favor of a morphological continuum, both
horizontally across species, and vertically over time.
The horizontal continuum shows that anatomically modern
Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo
sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as
contemporaries over extended periods of time. The
vertical continuum shows that as far back as the human
fossil record goes, the human body has remained
substantially the same and has not evolved from
something else.
This is
what the creation model would predict, that is, it is
what we would expect if creation were true. The
evidence, in fact, is so strong for the creation model
of human origins that it is extremely unlikely that any
future fossil discoveries would weaken it. New fossil
discoveries have only strengthened the creationist
position, which is why it is understandable that
evolutionist books no longer carry this type of human
fossil chart. Charts of bits and pieces of the human
fossil record abound in evolutionary books, but one will
not find a time chart that places all of the relevant
human fossil material on a time chart according to the
morphological description of the individual fossils. If
you are interested in learning more about the
evolutionist perspective on human evolution, check out
the fossil hominids
FAQ by Jim Foley.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 139-140)
RETURN
But aren't
humans 97% chimp?
The
notion that human beings and chimps have close to 100%
similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge.
The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%,
depending on who is telling the story. What is the basis
for these claims and does the data actually indicate
little difference between chimps and humans? The
following concepts will assist with a proper
understanding of this issue:
1.
Similarity ('homology') is not evidence for common
ancestry (evolution) or against a common designer
(creation). Think about a painter. Why do his or her
various paintings have so many similarities? Because
they had the same creator. Whether similarity is
morphological or biochemical is of no consequence to the
lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
2. If
humans were entirely different from all other living
things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely
different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No. If
anything, it would indicate the existence of multiple
creators instead of one.
3. If
humans were entirely different from all other living
things, how would we survive? We must eat food to
provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat
if every other organism on earth were fundamentally
different biochemically? How could we digest them and
how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they
were different from the ones we have in our bodies?
Biochemical similarity is necessary for our survival.
4. We
know that DNA in cells contains much of the information
necessary for the development of an organism. In other
words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect
there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA
of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike
than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not
so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information
carrier in living things would have to be questioned.
Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological
similarities, so we would expect there would be
similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps
are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA
would be most like human DNA.
5.
Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living
things, so there is even a degree of similarity between
the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans.
Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast
can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that
code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types
of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that
code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex)
proteins, are almost identical.
6. What
of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between
humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean
quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and
even some respectable science journals). DNA contains
its information in the sequence of four chemical
compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T.
Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex
translation machinery in the cell to determine the
sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be
incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least
3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Neither human nor
chimp DNA has been anywhere near fully sequenced so that
a proper comparison can be made (this would also require
unprecedented processing time and power). Indeed it may
be a long time before such a comparison can be made
because it will probably be the year 2005 before we have
the full sequence of human DNA ? and chimp DNA
sequencing has a much lower priority.
Where did
the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred
from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization
where small parts of human DNA are split into single
strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex)
with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why
DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is
degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this
somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working
in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from
the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the
97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess
that it served the purpose of evolutionary
indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the
basic data and the reader had to accept the
interpretation of the data 'on faith'. Sarich et al.
obtained the original data and used them in their
discussion of which parameters should be used in
homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable
sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their
data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon
inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if
everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came
from making a very basic statistical error - averaging
two figures without taking into account differences in
the number of observations contributing to each figure.
When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%.
However, there is no true replication in the data, so no
confidence can be attached to the figures published by
Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if
human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would
that mean? Would it mean that humans could have
'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at
all. The amount of information in the 3 billion base
pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated
to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia
size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still
amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to
approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of
information. This is surely an impossible barrier for
mutations (random changes) to cross.
7. Does a
high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences
have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily.
Compare the following sentences:
There are
many scientists today who question the evolutionary
paradigm and its philosophical implications.
There are
not many scientists today who question the evolutionary
paradigm and its philosophical implications.
These
sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite
meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in
which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by
relatively small control sequences.
(See: Dr.
Don Batten, Ph.D., Creation Ex Nihilo 19(1):21-22, Dec.
1996-Feb. 1997)
RETURN
But is
Creation Science Really Science?
Doesn't
the scientific creation model fall outside of the realm
of science?
To answer
this question, one must first understand what a model
is. Webster's New World Dictionary defines a model as "a
generalized, hypothetical description, often based on an
analogy, used in analyzing or explaining something."
Like macroevolution from the evolutionary model,
creation events have not been observed in modern times,
and cannot be simulated in a laboratory experiment and
hence fall outside of the realm of the natural
(observable) sciences. This fact alone does not
invalidate the usefulness of the evolution or creation
models. The scientific model of creation, like any good
scientific model, is useful in explaining and predicting
observations. It is the premise of this document that
the scientific creation model is better than the
evolution model because it explains already known
observations without complex adjustments, it is simpler,
and it readily predicts future observations.
RETURN
Does the
scientific creation model require the existence of a
supernatural deity?
While I
make no attempt to hide the fact that the scientific
creation theory came about as a result of the Biblical
account from Genesis, and the fact that essentially all
creationists believe in this account, it is important to
distinguish Biblical creation from scientific creation
-- two distinct views of creation. This FAQ applies to
scientific creation, which makes no assertions about
religion. As such, it is suitable for teaching in public
schools (notice the absence of Biblical references and
quotes in this document). Scientific creationism is
concerned with genetics, biology, paleontology, physics,
anthropology, and other sciences, not theology.
Conversely, Biblical Creation relies on a literal
interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis which
is common to the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths.
Biblical creation supplies more specifics to the
creation model, such as the times at which creation
events occurred, and insight on the intelligent creator
and designer known as God. Biblical creationism is not
appropriate for public schools because it would require
teachers to be knowledgeable of the Bible (a requirement
which could not, and should not be forced on anyone --
you certainly cannot make someone become a competent
Biblical scholar or submit to Biblical authority).
Biblical creationism would be suitable for churches,
synagogues, mosques, and private schools -- best taught
by biblical scholars who have a scientific background.
Evolutionists assign dates to matter, and an approximate
date on the creation of the universe, but they do not
mention what initially created that matter, or where it
came from. Similarly, the scientific creation model does
not address such issues. As in the evolution model, of
which many individuals believe God guided the process,
one could conceivably believe an atheistic approach to
creation where kinds were created fully functional and
developed spontaneously and instantaneously out of
nothing with no help from any deity. The fact is,
theistic beliefs are irrelevant to the purely scientific
study of creation.
Essentially there are only two models of origins,
creation and evolution. Each model is a complete world
view, a philosophy of life and meaning, of origin and
destiny. Neither can easily be confirmed or falsified by
the scientific method, since neither can be tested or
observed experimentally, and therefore they must both be
accepted on faith. Nevertheless, each is also a
scientific model, since each seeks to explain within its
framework all of the real data of science and history.
Evolutionism is at least as religious as creationism,
these are two fully comparable systems.
RETURN
But isn't
scientific creationism just a back-door method of
getting Biblical creationism introduced?
It could
just as easily be asked, "Isn't evolution a back-door
method to introducing atheism or naturalism?" Scientific
creationism and Biblical creationism can be taught quite
independently of each other.
RETURN
So what
exactly is the difference between scientific creationism
and Biblical creationism?
Scientific creationism is based on scientific evidence.
Biblical creationism is based on Biblical teachings. The
Genesis record includes an account of a six day
creation, the names of the first man and woman, the
record of God's curse on the earth because of human sin,
the account of Noah's ark, the spreading of languages,
and other such details which could never be determined
scientifically. Scientific evidence can point to the
fact of a creation period, for example, but there is no
way that the specific duration of that period could be
determined. Scientific creationism deals with such
physical entities as fossils, whereas the Bible never
refers to fossils at all. It is quite possible for
scientific creationism to be discussed and evaluated
without reference to Biblical creationism at all.
(See What
is Creation Science? by Morris and Parker, p.297-298)
RETURN
Why can't
evolution be regarded as the method of creation?
It is
important to define terms, especially on this issue. The
belief that God used evolution to make man is properly
called "theistic evolution", not creation. Evolution
purports to explain the origin of things by natural
processes, creation by preternatural processes; and it
is semantic confusion to try to equate the two. Theistic
evolution says there is a God behind the natural
processes which cause evolution; atheistic evolution
says there is not. Both forms of evolution assume the
same framework of evolutionary history and the same
evolutionary mechanisms, so there is no scientific way
to discriminate between the two, as there is between
creationism and evolutionism. Theistic evolution must be
judged on the basis of theological criteria, not
scientific. The creation and evolution models, on the
other hand, CAN be compared and evaluated on strictly
scientific criteria. Creationists maintain that
evolution is a poor scientific model of origins,
strictly on the basis of scientific criteria.
RETURN
Why should
such a small minority as the creationists expect to
impose their beliefs on others?
Creationists are not a small minority. I wish I had more
recent statistics, but a 1981 poll commissioned by the
Associated Press and NBC News showed that over 86% of
the population favored having creationism taught in
schools. Nevertheless, creationists only request FAIR
treatment, not favored treatment, in the schools. We
would like both models to be taught, not an elimination
of evolution. The attitude of the liberal humanistic
establishments in science and education, in trying to
maintain an exclusive indoctrination in evolutionary
humanism seems unreasonably intolerant and arrogant in a
free society.
RETURN
Why should
creationists insist on teaching creationism in public
schools when they do not teach evolutionism in their own
churches and religious schools?
This
criticism reveals a serious misunderstanding of the
nature of public schools and other tax-supported
institutions. They are funded by both creationist and
evolutionist citizens, and therefore both basic
scientific models of origins should be taught in them,
as objectively as possible. If Christians want to have
ONLY creation taught, then they should establish private
schools for that purpose. By the same token, if
secularists or others want to have only evolution
taught, they should establish private humanistic schools
for that purpose. For evolutionists to insist that their
evolutionary religion should be subsidized by the taxes
of creationists is both arrogant and unconstitutional.
The two-model approach -- teaching both evolution and
creation on a strictly scientific and objective basis --
is the only approach in the public schools which is
consistent with the constitution, with civil rights,
religious neutralism, scientific objectivity,
educational effectiveness, academic freedom, and general
fairness.
(See What
is Creation Science? by Morris and Parker, p.300-306)
RETURN
American
news media is almost completely opposed to creation,
doesn't this prove that a significant part of the
population opposes creation?
There is
firm evidence that the leaders of the news media are
completely out of touch with the opinions of the
American people, which is unfortunate since they are
supposed to be the opinion makers. An article in Public
Opinion magazine reported on detailed interviews with
the 240 leading editors, reporters, columnists, TV
anchormen, producers, correspondents, and film editors
-- the people deemed most responsible for deciding what
news to report and how to report it. Only 8% of them
regularly attend either church or synagogue, and over
half have no religious affiliation whatever.
There is
a lot of opposition (by liberals) to this "liberal
media" label, yet the statistics strongly confirm it:
The Media's
Bias
- 89% of
Washington reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.
- 7% voted
for George Bush in 1992.
- 61% called
themselves "liberal" or "moderate to liberal."
- 9%
"conservative" or "moderate to conservative."
- 50% said
they are Democrats.
- 4% are
Republicans.
- 59% called
the Contract with America "an election year campaign
ploy."
- 3% thought
it was "a serious reform proposal."
- Source:
Roper Center poll for the Freedom Forum. Survey of
139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional
correspondents, released April 1996.
- 9 White
House correspondents surveyed voted for Clinton in
1992;
- 2 for
George Bush
- 12 for
Michael Dukakis in 1988; one for Bush
- 10 for
Walter Mondale in 1984; zero for Ronald Reagan
- 8 for
Jimmy Carter in 1980; two for Reagan
- Source:
U.S. News & World Report White House reporter
Kenneth Walsh in a personal survey for his 1996
book, Feeding the Beast.
- 44% of
reporters polled nationwide considered themselves
Democrats
- 16%
identified themselves as Republicans
- 34% as
independents
- Source:
Freedom Forum-sponsored poll of 1,400 journalists
across the country, 1992.
- 2% of
journalists nationwide identified themselves as
"very liberal."
- 20% as
"liberal."
- 4% as
"conservative" and one percent as "very
conservative."
- 64%
claimed they were "moderate."
- 81% of
reporters didn't think coverage of the Republican
Congress has been "too cynical, too negative and has
nit-picked too much."
- 19%
agreed.
- 48% of
national media reporters believed the media have
"given too little" coverage to "the achievements of
the Clinton administration."
- 2% said
too much.
- 49%
thought about right.
- 35% of
reporters think Whitewater has garnered "too much"
coverage
- 5% said
"too little"
- 55%
responded "about right."
(See
Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press, May 1995
survey of 248 members of the national media)
Admissions of
Bias
- "There are
lots of reasons fewer people are watching network
news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever,
is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for
good reason. The old argument that the networks and
other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so
blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing
anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and
plan strategies on how we're going to slant the
news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most
reporters."
-- CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg,
February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
- "Everybody
knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy
liberal persuasion among correspondents."
-- Walter Cronkite at the Radio and TV
Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.
- "There is
a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some
statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who
cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for
a long time. There is a, particularly at the
networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and
the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal
bias."
-- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas
on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
With this
kind of profile, it would be surprising to find even the
smallest semblance of sympathy for creationism in the
media. The creation movement and arguments are, as a
result, almost always misrepresented and distorted,
often viciously, in newspaper and magazine articles and
in radio and television coverage.
RETURN
Myths
Myth: The
question of origins is not important.
Even many
Christians embrace this myth. It may be possible to
study the world and life without considering origins,
but it is not natural to do so. The question of origins
has a direct bearing on our behavior, our destiny, our
concept of God, and our philosophy of life. It is
without question one of the most profound matters an
individual must face. It is the difference between zero
and infinity.
RETURN
Myth:
There are very few hominid fossils.
The
public is unaware of the rich harvest of hominid fossils
we now possess. Although many myths about evolution are
not the fault of evolutionists, this one clearly is.
Every competent paleoanthropologist knows about this
wealth of fossils, and when a worker in this field
speaks of the scarcity of the human fossils, he is
actually saying, "Although there is an abundance of
hominid fossils, the bulk of them are either too modern
to help me, or they do not fit well into the
evolutionary scheme. Since we all know that humans
evolved, what is so perplexing is the difficulty we are
having in finding the fossils that would clearly
demonstrate that fact."
The
reality is that by 1976 approximately 4000 hominid
fossil individuals had already been unearthed. The
period since that time has seen the most intensive and
successful search for hominid fossils in the history of
paleoanthropology. No one knows exactly how many have
been found to date, however a conservative estimate
exceeds 6000.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 32, 198)
RETURN
Myth:
Evolutionists are always fair and scientific.
Some
people will trust anyone that wears a white lab coat and
speaks with an impressive vocabulary. Unfortunately in
real life, people always have an ulterior motive. I will
not say that there couldn't be, or have not been
creationists that have used deceitful tactics, but
evolutionists are consistent about it. This deceit can
be subtle, such as the numerous paleoanthropologists
seeking fame and recognition (funding?) who claim that
their latest find is a human ancestor or more
importantly, the oldest human ancestor (a recent example
of this is the 1994 discovery of Australopithecus
ramidus by Tim White which was later found to be too
chimp-like to be claimed as a human ancestor, and has
been renamed Ardipithecus ramidus -- put in a
completely new genus).
The
deceit can also be much more blatant, for example the
Piltdown hoax, or the widespread use of artistic license
in recreating our past. The artists' reconstructions,
riddled with evolutionary bias, are what the general
public sees in newspaper and magazine headlines, and at
museums. For example, the St. Louis zoo in Missouri,
USA, has a $17.9 million exhibition focused on
evolution, which includes a statue, purportedly a
reconstruction of the famous australopithecine
part-skeleton 'Lucy', showing remarkably human looking
feet. These feet are not based on the fossil facts.
The truth
is that australopithecines have hands and feet that are
not at all human looking. They have long curved fingers
and toes, even more so than apes today that live mostly
in the trees. If people visiting this exhibition were to
see an accurate replica of Lucy in the trees, with
features typical of tree-dwelling primates, it would
make them question the whole notion of human evolution;
Lucy would simply be viewed as a form of extinct ape.
When
asked about the dishonest presentation, zoo director
Bruce Carr replied, "We cannot be updating every exhibit
based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is
the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We
think that the overall impression this exhibit creates
is correct."
The
prevailing evolutionary thought seems to be, "it doesn't
matter if people get indoctrinated into evolution by
false evidence, because evolution is a fact."
(See
Creation ex nihilo Vol. 19 No.1 December 1996-February
1997 p.52)
RETURN
Myth: Only
Protestant fundamentalists are concerned with creation.
The
doctrine of creation is of concern to people of a wide
variety of religious views. Evolutionism is the basic
premise of many religions, including Buddhism,
Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Liberal Protestantism,
Modernist Catholicism, Reform Judaism, and others, not
to mention humanism and atheism, so these all would
naturally tend to oppose creationism. In view of these
and other religious implications, it is absurd to claim
that evolution is strictly scientific. On the other
hand, creationism is also basic to a number of religions
-- not only all the denominations of conservative
Protestantism, but also traditional Catholicism and
Orthodox Judaism, as well as conservative Islam and
other monotheistic religions. It is much broader in
scope and importance than as a particular doctrine of
Biblical fundamentalists. Indeed, it is offensive and
discriminatory to these other creationists to hear
constantly that creation is only of concern to certain
Protestant conservatives.
RETURN
Myth: No
"real" scientists are creationists.
There are
thousands of distinguished scientists today who have
become creationists, all of whom have post-graduate
degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who
have records and credentials comparable to those of any
other segment in the scientific professions. Admittedly,
most scientists are still evolutionists -- especially
those who control the scientific societies and journals
-- but the creationist minority is respectable and
growing. There are creationist Ph.D.'s in every branch
of pure and applied science today -- biology, geology,
physics, engineering, medicine, etc. It is obvious now
that a person can be well trained and experienced in any
discipline of science and can understand the factual
data of that science within the framework of the
creation model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known
to be growing most rapidly today among people with
scientific and technological training. This is all the
more significant in light of the fact that practically
all of these scientists were indoctrinated in
evolutionism throughout their training. To become or
remain creationists, they have had to study and think
themselves through the evidences and arguments for both
models, all on their own initiative, and usually against
the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their
scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them were
themselves evolutionists throughout their college years
and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of
later personal critical study and reevaluation.
RETURN
Myth:
Creationists do not publish in the standard scientific
journals or do any original research.
Nothing
could be further from the truth. Creationists are VERY
active in original research, much more so in the last
decade than ever before. Several organizations exists to
facilitate this work, such as the Institute for Creation
Research, the Creation Science Foundation, the Creation
Research Society, the Bible Science Association, Reasons
to Believe, and others.
Many
creationists publish in standard scientific journals for
their own respective disciplines and their publication
records compare well with other groups. For example, the
ten scientists on the staff of the Institute for
Creation Research have published at least 150 research
papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields --
all in standard scientific journals or through secular
book publishers -- in addition to hundreds of
creationist articles and about 50 books on creationism
and related subjects published through creationist
channels. Whenever these articles or books have
creationist implications, however, they must be "masked"
in order to get them published in secular outlets. So
far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books
are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For
example, when the Creation Research Society, with a team
of fully-qualified Ph.D. biologists and other scientists
were ready to publish their high school textbook, not
one of the 15 leading textbook publishers would even so
much as look at the manuscript -- claiming their other
books would be boycotted if they were to publish a
creationist biology textbook.
For
more information on creationists who publish in standard
peer reviewed journals click here.
By the
way, it should be mentioned that there exist some very
high caliber creationist technical journals as well. I
personally subscribe to the, "Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal" which is published out of Australia
by the Creation Science Foundation. For more
information, in the United States contact:
Answers
in Genesis
P.O. Box 6330,
Florence, Kentucky 41022
1-800-350-3232
RETURN
Myth:
Creationists constantly quote evolutionists out of
context.
This
often-repeated charge that creationists deliberately use
partial quotes or out-of-context quotes from
evolutionists is, at best, an attempt to confuse the
issue. Creationists do indeed frequently quote from
evolutionary literature, finding that the data and
interpretations used by evolutionists often provide very
effective arguments for creation. With only rare
exceptions, however, creationists always are
meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context.
Evolutionists have searched creationist writings looking
for such exceptions, and out of the thousands of quotes
which have been used, have been able to find only a few
which they have interpreted as misleading. Even these,
when carefully studied are usually found to be quite
fair and accurate in their representation of the
situation under discussion.
On the
other hand, evolutionists frequently quote creationist
writings badly out of context. The most disconcerting
practice of this sort, one that could hardly be anything
but deliberate, is to quote a creationist exposition of
a Biblical passage, in a book or article dealing with
Biblical creationism, and then to criticize this as an
example of the scientific creationism which creationists
propose for public schools. In any case, evolutionists
much more frequently and more flagrantly quote
creationists out of context than the reverse.
(See What
is Creation Science? by Morris and Parker, p.299-304)
RETURN
Myth: The
hominid fossil evidence virtually proves human
evolution.
The
reality is that this evidence has been a disappointment
to evolutionists and is being de-emphasized. In
actuality, the human fossil evidence falsifies the
concept of human evolution, while remaining in accord
with the creation model.
For a
hundred years evolutionists paraded the fossils they had
found as evidence for evolution. They promised more and
better fossils in the future, hoping that something
would come along to validate their claims. In modern
times, with a more adequate sampling of the fossil
record, the grim reality dawned that those transitional
fossils were not to be found. The punctuated equilibria
model of evolution was born to explain why they were not
found. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the
punctuated equilibria model does not remove the need for
transitional fossils, it merely explains why those
transitions have not been found. Certainly this theory
is unique -- possibly the only theory ever put forth in
the history of science which claims to be scientific but
then explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
RETURN
Myth:
Darwin withdrew or renounced his theories in old age.
First of
all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY
irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue, but it is
something that comes up frequently. Darwin did not
recant. He was not an atheist either. Darwin moved from
an anemic orthodoxy in his early years to a nonorthodox
theism in his middle years to agnosticism in his senior
years. Reports of Darwin's alleged conversion have been
common in some evangelical circles. None of Darwin's
biographers report such an experience, and there are no
other records of it. Even a study of the letters written
by Charles Darwin between the time of his alleged
conversion and the time of his death clearly reveal that
he experienced no such change of mind and heart. As far
as can be determined, Darwin remained an evolutionist
and an agnostic to the day of his death.
It is
also a common misunderstanding to think that Darwin's
major work was an attempt to put the concept of
evolution on a solid scientific foundation; that was
only a secondary matter. His scientific evidence for
evolution was not that impressive. Darwin, who had no
formal training in the natural sciences whatsoever,
believed in the now scientifically defunct theory that
organisms inherited acquired traits. Although Darwin
made useful contributions to many scientific disciplines
including zoology, botany, geology, and paleontology,
his most significant and lasting accomplishment was not
in the realm of science, but in the realm of philosophy.
(See
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 191)
RETURN
