INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH

www.icr.org

FEBRUARY 2009

VOL. 38 NO. 2

Darwin’s Dangerous Doctrine Get Daily Updates @ icr.org!

he world is bombarded with ICR’s knowledgeable staff of scientists accuracy and authority through scien- false messages and compro- and writers are dedicated to: tific research, educational programs,

mise on the issue of origins. and media presentations. Founded by Secular media portray them- » Providing you with the latest the late scientist and Christian apolo- Tselves as fair and balanced, but often updates on scientific research gist Henry M. Morris, the Institute come up short in reporting all sides of » Deconstructing errors in secular for Creation Research is dedicated to science news, employing “boilerplate” reports communicating the wonders of God’s phrases and definitions rather than pro- creation. » Highlighting current issues in the viding original and objective reporting. creation/evolution debate And for more in-depth coverage of Now you can stay informed with ICR » And more! today’s scientific developments, sub- News, your online source for daily scribe to our free publications online news commentary on today’s hottest For nearly 40 years, ICR has equipped at www.icr.org today! science topics. believers with evidence of the Bible’s

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.…” Hosea 4:6 FROM THE EDITOR

Unraveling the Deeds of a Dangerous Man

o say that influenced ber, the title Darwin gave to his treatise on evolution was On the Origin his world greatly cannot be disputed. of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured To say that he was a great man is an Races in the Struggle for Life. Contrast this message with the other famous unfortunate exaggeration. birthday in February: , the man who fought to set the TNevertheless, much of the world will cele- slaves free. brate the life and work of Charles Darwin during Dr. James Johnson describes the dangerous predicament of many his 200th birthday on February 12. “Celebrate” is Christians today who seek to please men rather than God by giving false an understatement; “worship” better describes the veneration given to testimony about the creation, allowing evolutionary ideas to interpret (and the man who popularized the notion that God had nothing to do with thus contradict) Scripture. Sadly, many leaders in ministry and Christian the origin or development of the universe and all it contains. education have adopted a syncretistic approach to theology, satisfied that “Notion” is an appropriate description; “theory” is too generous. experts in science today know much more than the Expert of Genesis 1:1. For the philosophy of science called “evolution” is just that—a philo- In American schools, as Dr. Patti Nason explains, the danger of sophical system of belief that cannot be substantiated by any observable Darwin’s philosophy of evolution is seen in the erosion of sound science evidence, either in action today or through nature’s record of the past. education and an alarming increase in lobbying efforts to curb critical Even Darwin admitted that certain evidence might later be uncovered thinking skills in the classroom. More and more state legislatures are that would contradict his conclusions. wrestling with science education standards and finding that atheist or- This special double-issue of Acts & Facts focuses on Darwin’s dan- ganizations are pushing to eliminate any mention of evolution’s weak- gerous influence, not his supposed greatness. nesses in school. For instance, Dr. Randy Guliuzza reports on the thousands of Of greater concern than the battle over public school education is people victimized right here in the United States due to eugenics, the the war being waged over what private Christian schools are allowed to evolution-based practice that sought to genetically purify the races by teach, such as in the case of the University of California’s discrimination eliminating those considered unfit. (Sounds eerily similar to the deeds of against Christian school graduates because they were taught history and another person of influence in the 20th century.) science from a biblical viewpoint. ICR also continues to face this chal- The great men of science like Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, and others lenge as state officials seek to bar our 27-year-old M.S. program from were unashamed to acknowledge design in nature. These are the men entering Texas. who founded the modern disciplines of scientific study, the work upon Other articles of interest in this special issue are Dr. Steve Austin’s which all scientists stand today. And yet, while these patriarchs of modern account of his recent research project in Argentina for ICR’s National science sought to extol the Creator through their work, few scientists fol- Creation Science Foundation. It was there, along the Santa Cruz River, low in their footsteps, choosing rather to base their research upon unsub- that Charles Darwin made his first wrong turn in science. Also, Dr. Danny stantiated stories of accidental design. Don’t miss Christine Dao’s “Man Faulkner discusses the bankrupt concepts of evolution-based astronomy. of Science, Man of God” article on ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris. These and other insightful articles are geared to set the record straight on In honor of Dr. Morris, we have presented his article “The Van- Charles Darwin’s influence in science and in society. ishing Case for Evolution,” which succinctly lays out overwhelming Throughout 2009, ICR will take this message of the Creator evidence—using the words of evolution’s most ardent purveyors—that around the country through its Demand the Evidence conferences, stay- slams the door on Darwin’s inventive story of origins by accident. ing true to our mission to confront the culture with a genuinely creation- As an aside, it is interesting that February is also Black History ist worldview and to edify the Church with biblical truth. Month in the United States. So, while African-Americans are celebrating And if you dare to become a “creation advocate,” brace yourselves those who bravely fought for their equality in society, scientists around for opposition. Jesus promised it. the world are celebrating the man who sought to demonstrate the inferi- Lawrence E. Ford ority of certain races by declaring them to be less than human. Remem- Ex e c u t i v e Ed i t o r

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 3 & CONTENTS

From the Editor Darwin’s First Wrong 3 Lawrence E. Ford 26 Turn Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. Compromise in the Pulpit 5 John D. Morris, Ph.D. The Big Bang, Multiverse, 28 and Other Tales about 6 Darwin’s Dangerous Outer Space 6 Doctrine Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Henry M. Morris III, D.Min. Chemistry by Chance: Made in His Image: 30 A Formula for Non-Life 10 Human Gestation Charles A. McCombs, Ph.D. Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. Darwinian Medicine: Charles Darwin: The Man 32 A Prescription for Failure 17 12 Behind the Monkey Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. Christine Dao The Iron Grip of Darwin- The Development and 34 ism on Education 14 Deficits of Darwin’s Patricia L. Nason, Ph.D. Theory Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Do “New Species” Dem- 36 onstrate ? The Vanishing Case for Frank Sherwin, M.A., and 26 17 Evolution Brian Thomas, M.S. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. “Stuff Happens” Man of Science, Man of 37 David F. Coppedge 20 God: Henry M. Morris Christine Dao Letters to the Editor 38 Radio Log To Tell the Truth Willful Ignorance 24 James J. S. Johnson, J.D. 34 39 Henry M. Morris IV

Published by Executive Editor: Lawrence E. Ford No articles may be reprinted in Institute for Creation Research Managing Editor: Beth Mull whole or in part without obtaining P. O. Box 59029, Dallas, TX 75229 Assistant Editor: Christine Dao permission from ICR. 214.615.8300 Designer: Dennis Davidson www.icr.org President: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 4 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & FROM THE PRESIDENT

Compromise in the Pulpit

ecently I attended a Sunday morn- = The creation days are subdivided into evening and ing worship service at a church in morning. the area. Fine church, strong Bible- = The genealogies of Genesis 5 start with creation, and teaching pastor. I felt encouraged contain life spans and totals. Rwhen I found out that the sermon was to ad- = Within the Flood account are several references to dress evolution. Churches do too little of this. specific calendar days. The pastor went to great lengths to distance = The genealogies for post-Flood patriarchs are given himself from evolution, demonstrating instead in Genesis 11. the overwhelming design of living things and the impossibility of natu- ralistic evolution. The historical, scientific, and scriptural evidence favors = The latter half of Genesis refers to cultures, events, and dates known to archaeology. creation, not evolution. But then he turned to the time of creation. Scripture, he claimed, addresses only the fact of creation, not the Yes, the Bible does speak clearly on this subject. Christian leaders time of creation. He stated that “Scripture contains no clue as to the tim- must come to recognize that some of their common sources are compro- ing and when” of creation. To him, it is fully legitimate to embrace a sce- mising with the secular worldview. nario of billions of years, as long as we acknowledge the hand of God It was the same in the England of Darwin’s day. Most of the scien- throughout. Is this true? tific scholars of the 1800s were Bible-believing Christians who had little He went on to parrot the words of old-earth proponent Hugh use for Darwinism. Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology in 1830 promoted Ross, from “Genesis contains no time words” to a profound mischar- excessively long ages of uniformitarian processes in geology, opening the acterization of James Ussher, who published a famous chronology of door for his disciple Charles Darwin to promote biological uniformity. earth’s history and was a scholar of the highest degree, with complete Leaders of the dominant Church of England were the first to accept the fluency in biblical languages and access to records that are now unavail- compromise and disregard the clear teaching of the Bible. It took at least able. As to the time words of Genesis, let me remind you of the plethora a generation of indoctrination to cause scientists to abandon the more of such words. God wanted us to know when He created, and He went empirical study of the creation/Flood, but the appeal of the compromise out of His way to make it clear. Consider the following list: was too great.

= The Bible starts with “in the beginning.” The events The first doctrine to fall was the age of the earth, and the compan- that follow are considered part of that beginning, in ion doctrine of the global Flood. Once God is relegated to the long ago both the Old and New Testaments. and far away, it is easy to dismiss Him from the affairs of men altogether. = A light and dark cycle was instituted, with each be- Evolution and long ages free man to live as if there is no Creator to whom ing dubbed “day” and “night” respectively. he is accountable for his actions and choices. But there is a God. There is a factual account of His mighty work, = Each successive day of the creation week was num- bered. and it is believable and backed up by science. I adjure my pastoral breth- ren to stick with Scripture, and stop being intimidated by both secular = The fourth day saw the creation of permanent scientists and compromising Christians. markers for timekeeping.

John D. Morris, Ph.D. Pr e s i d e n t

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 5 & early every candidate for So why will more than 10,000 pas- pastoral ordination has tors publically endorse evolutionary been challenged with the naturalism as “compatible” with Chris- charge given by the Apos- tianity during the month of February tleN Paul in 2 Timothy 4:2-3: 2009?1 One word: Darwin. On February 12, much of the world Preach the word; be instant in sea- son, out of season; reprove, rebuke, will be celebrating the 200th birthday of exhort with all long suffering Charles Darwin, whose popularized and doctrine. For the time will notion of evolution has influenced science, come when they will not en- education, and many other realms of so- dure sound doctrine; but ciety for the past 150 years since the publi- after their own lusts shall cation of his book . they heap to themselves teachers, having itch- The media will no doubt hail him as a ing ears. hero for his contribution to science. DangerousDarwin’s Doctrine Henry M. Morris III, D. Mi n .

6 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & Sadly, many Christians will elevate the material causes to create an apparatus of follow the broad “way, that leadeth to destruc- life and work of Charles Darwin on February investigation and a set of concepts that tion.”8 Much more disturbing, however, is the 12. Aberrant hybrids of the biblical creation ac- produce material explanations, no mat- growing number of evangelical leaders who are ter how counter-intuitive, no matter how count, such as progressive creation, the day-age willing—even passionate—to embrace some mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover theory, and theistic evolution, are growing in that materialism is absolute for we cannot form of compromise with the atheistic theories popularity across church denominations and allow a Divine foot in the door.4 of naturalism, causing them to subjugate the even among evangelicals, who “subscribe” to the inerrant Word of God to “fit” with that which It is no wonder the Apostle Peter insists: inerrancy of the Scriptures. is alien to the text of Scripture. “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that “Oh, we absolutely do not believe in evo- Surely such leaders are aware that the by the word of God the heavens were of old.”5 lution,” these believers will tell ICR speakers evolutionary and creationist worldviews are in at our seminars across the country. “We are diametrical opposition to one another. Surely committed to inspiration, but we don’t like to pastors know that “the backslider in heart shall stir up dissension among our folks. A lot of our be filled with his own ways” (Proverbs 14:14). members hold to long ages, and we don’t think Surely evangelically-trained Christian leaders it’s necessary to choose between the ‘young are aware of the writings and warnings of Dr. earth’ and the ‘old earth’ positions. The Gos- Francis Schaeffer. pel is what’s important today, and we want to These two world views stand as totals in emphasize evangelism and godly living rather complete antithesis in content and also than controversial issues like origins.” in their natural results….It is not just that they happen to bring forth different Oceans of Piffle results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results.9 Thomas G. Barnes, a former ICR col- One wonders if such leaders love “the league and long-time Professor of Physics at praise of men more than the praise of God” the University of Texas at El Paso, concluded: (John 12:43). The inevitable consequence of evolu- tionary training is indoctrination in an “Progressive ” is not a mod- inverted form of logic. Inverted logic be- ern interpretation developed to bring gins at the wrong end and runs counter to the Genesis record into harmony with the fundamental laws of science. Inverted modern science, but a very ancient con- logic is the type that would erroneously cept devised to impose a theistic conno- lead one to think he can lift himself up tation upon the almost universal pagan by his own bootstraps, with his feet still evolutionary philosophies of antiquity. inside the boots.2 The primeval existence of the cosmos, Why will more than 10,000 pastors with matter in some form present from The “science falsely so called”3 is so full eternity, was a dogma common to all publically endorse evolutionary naturalism of inverted logic, empty promises, and un- ancient religions and philosophies, seek- proven “facts” that it defies human reason why as “compatible” with Christianity ing as they were to function without an omnipotent, holy, eternal, personal, Cre- and how so many embrace its “piffle.” during the month of February 2009? ator God. Compromising monotheists, both in ancient Israel and in the early Willingly Ignorant Christian church, repeatedly resorted The “language” and “knowledge” of the cre- to various allegorical interpretations of Indeed, the major purveyors of this pif- ation speaks every day and every night.6 That Scripture, involving some form of pro- fleknow that it is nonsense! Richard Lewontin, speech is so “clearly seen” that self-blinded, tracted creation, seeking to amalgamate a Harvard professor and a widely published, rebellious people who worship and serve the creationist/redemptionist theology with highly influential evolutionary geneticist, had “creature more than the Creator” are “with- pagan humanistic philosophy. Almost inevitably, however, such compromises this to say about the “scientific method” rou- out excuse.”7 ended in complete apostasy on the part tinely used by him and his colleagues: of the compromisers.10 It is not that the methods and institutions Deadly Compromise of science somehow compel us to accept a Charles Darwin began as a biblical cre- material explanation of the phenomenal That a majority of the world’s naturalisti- ationist, but slid into total atheism as he accept- world, but, on the contrary, that we are cally-educated scientists believe in evolution ed the “proof” of Lyellian uniformitarianism, forced by our a priori adherence to is not a surprise. Jesus told us that “many” would the geological ages, and a form of the so-called

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 7 & progressive creationism. It was not long before that are made” (Romans 1:20), and in spite of Contend for the Faith he became a committed theistic evolutionist, the speech and knowledge that presents itself Jude’s admonition to “earnestly contend and ultimately a full-fledged atheist. every day to humanity everywhere (Psalm for the faith which was once delivered to the After the infamous in which 19)—once a person rejects that knowledge in saints” (Jude 1:3) has never been more critical. William Jennings Bryan embraced the com- favor of a doctrine that changes “the glory of Revivals in society have always been preceded promised day-age theory during his “defense,” the uncorruptible God” and changes “the truth by revivals among the saints. The promise for other creationist organizations failed to stand of God into a lie” (Romans 1:23, 25)—such a national healing is dependent on God’s people firm on the biblical account and quickly ca- person becomes “vain in their imaginations” humbling themselves and turning from their pitulated to theistic evolution or other such and their “foolish heart” becomes darkened sinful behavior (2 Chronicles 7:14). Once the hybrids. (Romans 1:21). “Professing themselves to be repentance of that which is ungodly has been made, then prayer and seeking the face of our Exponential Decline Creator will bring healing to the land. ICR’s Those among the Lord’s family who are founder phrased it this way some 20 years ago: inclined to merge some portion of the evo- If it were not for the continued apathetic lutionary dogma with the biblical message and compromising attitude of Christian are doomed to undermine their own faith, as theologians and other intellectuals on this well as those whom they influence. These two vital doctrine of recent creation, evolu- tionary humanism would long since have belief systems are diametrically opposed. It is been exposed and defeated. The world not possible to “serve two masters” (Matthew will never take the Biblical doctrine of the 6:24). One or the other will dominate. divine control and imminent consum- Ideas do have consequences. If one enter- mation of all things very seriously until tains an atheistically-founded doctrine, he or we ourselves take the Biblical doctrine she will ultimately encounter conflict between of the recent creation of all things seri- ously. Neither in space nor in time is our the revelation that originates from the Creator great God of creation and consummation God and the rebellious desires of godless hu- “very far from every one of us.”12 manity, which seeks to exclude God from its Those among the Lord’s family who thinking. It is that understanding and the are inclined to merge some portion many challenges of God’s Word that drive the The very reason for postulating an an- of the evolutionary dogma with the work of ICR today. All of us are committed cient cosmos is to escape from God—to push Him as far away in space and as far biblical message are doomed to to contend and to fight for the truth of God’s Word—at every level and in every opportunity back in time as possible, hoping thereby undermine their own faith. eventually to escape His control altogeth- that God opens up for us. er, letting Nature become “god.” Become an unashamed “creation advo- …Furthermore, if one must make a wise, they become fools…. And even as they cate” today and stand with ICR on the front choice between a full-fledged theistic did not like to retain God in their knowledge, lines of our battle for truth. evolutionism and a compromising “pro- God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” (Ro- References gressive creationism,” with its “day/age” mans 1:22, 28) 1. Ford, L. 2008. Capitulating on Creation: Changing the truth theory of Genesis one would have to While the primary application of those of God into a lie. Acts & Facts. 37 (9): 4. judge the latter worse than the former, 2. Barnes, T. G. 1985. Oceans of Piffle in Evolutionary Indoc- warnings are directed toward godless men and trination. Acts & Facts. 14 (4). theologically speaking….Surely all those 3. 1 Timothy 6:20. who really believe in the God of the Bible women who “hold the truth in unrighteous- 4. Lewontin, R. C. 1997. Billions and Billions of Demons. The New York Review of Books. 44 (1): 31. should see that any compromise with the ness” (Romans 1:18), it is entirely possible for 5. 2 Peter 3:5. geological-age system is theological cha- God’s own people to be plundered “through 6. Psalm 19:2-3. 7. Romans 1:20, 25. os. Whether the compromise involves the philosophy and vain deceit” (Colossians 2:8), 8. Matthew 7:13. day/age theory or the gap theory, the very and those of the King’s children who do not 9. Schaeffer, F. 1981. A Christian concept of the geological ages implies di- Manifesto. Westchester, IL: grow in their faith to lose assurance of their Crossway Books, 18. vine confusion and cruelty, and the God 10. Morris, H. 1984. Recent Cre- of the Bible could not have been involved salvation (2 Peter 1:9) or have their faith made ation Is a Vital Doctrine. Acts & Facts. 13 (6). 11 in such a thing as that at all. “shipwreck” (1 Timothy 1:19). 11. Ibid. The decline of intellectual capability is Compromise with the “error of the 12. Ibid. frighteningly described in Romans 1. Once a wicked” can only end in a “fall from your own Dr. Morris is Chief Executive person sees the evidence for God in the “things steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:17). Officer of the Institute for Cre- ation Research.

8 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 &

EvidenceExploring the Creationfor

cience is the business of discovery, a rational Sinquiry into truth. Not a relative set of morals, but absolute truth based on solid evidence.

If God exists, what does He expect of mankind? Is truth really absolute or can we adapt it according to our circumstances? What does the natural world teach us about creation? Can we believe in a Creator and still be true to science? Is the Bible accurate and authoritative in our lives?

Find the answers to these and many more ques- tions in Exploring the Evidence for Creation, a power- ful new book by Dr. Henry Morris III. Discover the evidence about creation and its Creator, about science and Scripture. Only $9.95 Many scientists today are predisposed to reject ev- (plus shipping and handling) idence that points to a Creator or Designer. Are Chris- tians at liberty to place the theories of science over the To order, call 800.628.7640, Word of God? Exploring the Evidence for Creation cuts or visit www.icr.org/store. through the arguments and lays out evidence that is rational, scientific, and biblically-based. Exploring the Evidence for Creation is a primer on discovering truth, knowing God, and honoring Him Demand the Evidence. as Creator. Get it @ ICR.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 9 & Human Gestation

Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D.

dmittedly the prospect of pregnancy by the baby’s earliest cells travels in the mother’s produced by the baby reaches its highest levels only applies to half of humanity, but blood stream back to her ovary, causing a part of in the mother’s blood. This causes abundant the other half should find the pro- it to produce progesterone, the very important receptors for the hormone oxytocin to form A cess equally astounding. The real hormone that will calm uterine contractions on the uterus’ muscle cells, and slowly opposes star of the show, however, is the progesterone’s quieting influence. developing baby, who was once At term, certain cells of the baby viewed as a passive object being produce oxytocin, a powerful built by the mother’s body. Noth- uterine muscle stimulant. Since ing could be further from the the uterus is now highly sensitive truth. In terms of guiding implan- to oxytocin, labor begins. As the tation into the uterus all the way baby descends, a pressure sensor to breastfeeding, it is the baby/ in the birth canal sends a signal placenta unit that is the dynamic to the mother’s brain and triggers force in the orchestration of its her body to produce even more own destiny. oxytocin—which causes stronger The baby is a completely uterine contractions. The placen- new individual, with unique ge- ta produces the hormone relaxin, netic material that expresses for- causing pelvic ligaments and the eign markers on his cells that are skin of the birth canal to relax, not recognized as “self” by the widen, and become more flex- mother. The mother’s immune ible. This increased motility al- system should destroy the new lows a birth passage for the baby. baby’s first cells within just a few And while in the womb, the baby cell divisions, but substances se- made hormones that helped pre- creted by the placenta and baby pare the mother’s breasts to pro- promote a complex suppression In terms of guiding implantation into the uterus duce milk. After delivery, new- of the maternal immune response all the way to breastfeeding, it is the baby/ born suckling induces episodic only within the implantation site placenta unit that is the dynamic force in the oxytocin secretion by the mother, of the uterus. The placental tis- which acts on breast ducts to orchestration of its own destiny. sue that touches the uterus has cause milk let-down. decreased expression of markers So it is the mother who is essentially pas- that would provoke an immune response, and and maintain the pregnancy. Later, the placenta sive, responding to signals emanating from the the mother’s body therefore accepts it. Without will produce progesterone at even higher con- baby—even at times to her own detriment. this immunological acceptance, no baby would centrations. Other hormones produced by the Scientific research has shown that while the ever survive. And if the suppression of the baby induce adaptations in the mother’s body woman’s reproductive organs and body are mother’s immune system were not localized, that are absolutely necessary for the baby’s sur- indispensable, they are not enough; it takes her health could be compromised. The mater- vival. These changes include a sizable expan- a baby to make a baby. The evidence is pretty nal immune system helps control implantation sion of the mother’s blood volume, an increase compelling against speculations regarding of the embryo at just the right depth into the in cardiac output, agents to modulate blood a step-by-step evolutionary process leading uterus. Without this exact balance of immune pressure, increases in blood flow to the kidneys, to the complex systems that produce a baby. responses, the developing placenta could in- and cranking up the mother’s metabolism. The These systems were placed by the Lord Jesus in vade tissue all the way through the uterus and placenta also extracts nutrients from maternal the first mother, Eve, fully functional right from be fatal to the mother. circulation so efficiently that the baby’s needs the beginning. The mother’s body is now under the are met first, then the mother’s. control of a new person. A hormone produced In the last weeks of pregnancy, estrogen Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative.

10 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & EVENTS

February 2-3 February 21 Mercersburg, PA – Men’s Conference Everett, WA – Genesis Presentation (J. Morris, Sherwin) 717.597.8127 (Vardiman) 425.252.7038 For more information on these events or to schedule an event, February 3 February 22-27 please contact the ICR events Farmers Branch, TX – Genesis Arcadia, FL – Creation Education department at 800.337.0375 or Presentation Vacation [email protected]. (Guliuzza) (Parker) 863.494.9558

February 5-6 March 7-8 For details regarding the Creation Galveston, TX – ACSI Convention Parump, NV – Genesis Presentations Education Vacation, contact Dr. Gary (Sherwin) 702.204.4896 Parker at 863.494.9558, or visit February 12-13 CreationAdventuresMuseum.org. Birmingham, AL – ACSI Convention March 26-28 Seattle, WA – NWCEC Conference February 15 (Sherwin, Thomas, Vardiman) McKinney, TX – Genesis Presentation 425.844.9286 (Sherwin) 972.562.4253 March 29-April 3 February 19-22 Arcadia, FL – Creation Education Orange City, FL – Genesis Vacation Presentations (Parker) 863.494.9558 (Parker, Sherwin) 386.774.0181

ICR EVENTS February–March 2009

Are you on Facebook®? Become a fan of ICR!

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 11 & Who: Charles Robert Darwin When: February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882 The Man Behind Where: Shrewsbury, England What: Father of the Theory of the Monkey Evolution by Natural Selection

CHRISTINE DAO

harles Darwin’s theory of evolu- The HMS Beagle On the Origin of Species

tion by natural selection is hailed Henslow proposed that Darwin take his Expanding on the idea of the transmu- in the mainstream scientific place on the HMS Beagle journey to the Americas tation of species, Darwin added the concept community as the unifying the- as an unpaid naturalist and gentleman compan- of nature selecting certain desirable traits and Cory of the life . He has been elevated ion to Captain Robert FitzRoy. Darwin was almost passing those on to future generations. He the- to demigod status and given a place of esteem a complete novice, his experience based only on orized that if enough desirable traits accumu- in the public arena, where any ideas outside rudimentary geological studies, beetle-collecting, lated, a new species could be formed altogether. his outdated theory are systematically and un- and the dissection of marine invertebrates. Coupled with the long geological age theories fairly expelled. During the five-year journey, Darwin of Lyell, the descent with modification—not But Darwin wasn’t a god. He wasn’t even kept detailed notes of his observations and the popular “change over time” definition that a demigod. He was a man whose speculations conclusions. Along with letters, he sent speci- evolutionists favor today—theory was born. of long ages of death and mutation offered mens to Cambridge. FitzRoy had given him On the Origin of Species by Means of Nat- an anti-Creator explanation for the diversity a copy of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, ural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured of life observed on earth. Two centuries after which promoted uniformitarian concepts and Races in the Struggle for Life went on sale No- his birth, it is time for Darwin to come off his heavily influenced Darwin’s thinking. In Cape vember 22, 1859. Darwin knew his book would throne long enough for us to examine the man Town, he met astronomer John Herschel, who conflict with creation-based origin concepts. behind the monkey. favored Lyell’s uniformitarianism as “a natural In considering the Origin of Species, it is in contradistinction to a miraculous process.”1 Early Life quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflect- Darwin made some of his more famed ing on the mutual affinities of organic Charles Darwin was born in 1809. He at- observations in excursions to the coasts and is- beings, on their embryological relations, tended boarding school at Shrewsbury School, lands of South America, such as the variations their geographical distribution, geologi- and in October 1825 went to Edinburgh Univer- he noted in finches and mockingbirds found cal succession, and other such facts, might sity to study medicine. While there, he worked in the Galapagos. Before that, he observed in come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but under Robert Grant studying marine inverte- Tierra del Fuego how Fuegians, after living in had descended, like varieties, from other brates. He did not handle the sight of blood and England, acted differently than their “savage” species.2 suffering well, so he abandoned medicine and relatives, comparing it to the differences be- aimed at ministry instead. Church of England tween domesticated and wild animals. Though Darwin had not completely re- ordination required a bachelor’s degree from an Henslow faithfully distributed the notes nounced his faith, he expelled creation science English university, so he entered Christ’s Col- he received during the voyage, and when the as a plausible explanation. He acknowledged the power of God, just not God’s power to create. lege at Cambridge in 1828. Beagle returned in 1836 Darwin was already Darwin wasn’t a wonderful student, but a celebrity and accepted among the scientific He who believes that each equine species he was passionate about natural science. He elite. He sought expert opinions for some of was independently created, will, I pre- collected beetles and became close friends with his findings. Darwin toyed with the idea of the sume, assert that each species has been botany professor John Stevens Henslow, who transmutation of species, or one species chang- created with a tendency to vary, both un- der nature and under domestication…. introduced him to other leading naturalists. ing into another, and in July 1837 produced in To admit this view is, as it seems to me, He enjoyed William Paley’s Evidences of Chris- his notebook his famed evolutionary tree, above to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for tianity and Natural Theology, which argued for which he scrawled, “I think.” He edited the ex- an unknown, cause. It makes the works divine design in nature. Soon after earning his pert reports on his specimens and, with Hen- of God a mere mockery and deception; bachelor of arts degree in 1831, he studied field slow’s help, produced the multi-volume Zoology I would almost as soon believe with the geology in north Wales with Adam Sedgwick. of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle (1832-1836). old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil

12 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & shells had never lived, but had been created ciety president William Spottiswoode give him a tions to be asked, but which have unfortunately in stone so as to mock the shells now living state funeral and inter him in Westminster Ab- resulted in many incorrect and even destructive on the sea-shore.3 bey near John Herschel and Isaac Newton. Dar- answers. Even 150 years after his book hit the Origin of Species was popular, thanks to win was one of only five non-royals to be given a shelves, Darwinian evolution remains a theory Darwin’s friends in the elite scientific communi- state funeral during the 19th century. in crisis. ty. The Church of England’s response was mixed, References its leaders either accepting it as theistic evolution Darwin Today 1. Darwin, C. 2006. The Origin of Species: A Variorum Text. Ed. M. Peckham. Philidelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, or rejecting it as heresy. Because of his health, 69. Darwin Day has become an annual cel- 2. Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Darwin didn’t attend debates, but friends such as ebration. This year will mark Darwin’s 200th Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle Joseph Hooker and “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas for Life. London: John Murray, 3. birthday and the 150th anniversary of Origin 3. Ibid, 167. Henry Huxley advocated strongly for him. 4. Van Wyhe, J. 2008. Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theo- of Species’ publication. To commemorate this, ries of Evolution. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd. Darwin went on to publish many books, Darwin exhibitions have opened in museums 5. Wynne-Jones, J. Charles Darwin to receive apology from the including the controversial The Descent of Man, Church of England for rejecting evolution. Telegraph. Posted around the world, including one that will end on telegraph.co.uk September 14, 2008, accessed January 13, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) and The 2009. April 19 at the Natural History Museum in Lon- 6. “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely gradu- Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals don. The will feature a ated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and (1872). Origin of Species was translated into many gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The festival, as will his birthplace in Shrewsbury. explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the languages, and Darwinism became a movement geological record.” Darwin, Origin, 280. A special two-pound coin has been mint- 7. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Gregor Johann that spurred other evolutionary ideas, includ- ed in Darwin’s honor in the UK. And in 2008, the Mendel. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 8. 8. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Louis Pasteur. Acts ing Lyell’s Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Church of England issued a formal apology to & Facts. 37 (11): 8. Man (1863), Huxley’s Evidence as to Man’s Place 9. Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Darwin “for misunderstanding you and, by get- Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138. in Nature (1863), and Henry Walter Bates’ The ting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor. Naturalist on the River Amazons (1863). to misunderstand you still.”5 Darwin’s work is also associated with ideas But today, Darwin’s theory of descent with such as Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest,” modification—which spurred many other det- though Darwin himself did not coin the term. rimental ideas—remains riddled with holes Having witnessed slavery aboard the Beagle, large and plenty enough to foster major Darwin didn’t like it, yet his ideas have been used doubts in his claims. Transitional life forms, to justify practices ranging from laissez-faire which if not found would be the undoing capitalism, racism, colonialism, Francis Galton’s of Darwin’s theory,6 are still missing. eugenics, and . His theories on pangenesis (the blend- ing of hereditary traits) and abiogen- Loss of Faith and Death esis (life begat by non-life) were refuted Though Darwin was baptized in the by Gregor Mendel7 and Louis Pasteur8 Church of England, he came from a family of respectively. And research continues to nonconforming Unitarians, and his father and show complexity in design, rather than grandfather (Zoönomia author Erasmus Dar- random modification. win) were freethinkers. He considered the Bible Despite the mounting sci- an authority on morality, but after his Beagle voy- entific evidence against it, many age he questioned its history. He also questioned scientists today still blindly ad- the benevolence of the Creator in the face of pain here to Darwinism. “Biolo- and suffering, rather than seeing it as the result of gists must constantly keep mankind’s sin and the fallen world. in mind that what they see After his daughter Annie died in 1851, was not designed, but rather Darwin’s faith in Christianity dwindled further evolved,” wrote molecular and he stopped going to church.4 He suffered biologist .9 ill health throughout his adult life and died in So, in 2009 we Downe, Kent, on April 19, 1882. There is spec- celebrate a man ulation that he reverted to Christianity on his whose ideas deathbed, but these claims were refuted by his prompted children. His colleagues requested that Royal So- many ques-

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 13 & The Development and Deficits of Darwin’s Theory

Larry Vardiman, Ph .D.

n 1831 the British Admiralty recruited a volume on his arrival at the Beagle, and Hen- soon reverted to savagery. naturalist to accompany Captain Robert slow had advised him to read it, but on no ac- In Chile Darwin witnessed an earth- FitzRoy of the Royal Navy on a voyage count to believe it. Darwin was also struck by quake and observed both its effects in raising in the HMS Beagle to survey the coasts the massive amount of erosion downstream the level of the land and its connection with ofI Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego, Chile, and Peru, from glaciers that was evident on the Santa volcanic eruption. Repeatedly when he was to visit some Pacific islands, and to establish Cruz River in southern Argentina. He became ashore he went on long, arduous, and danger- a chain of chronometry stations around the persuaded that the amount of work done by ous expeditions on horseback, collecting and world. John Henslow, Charles Darwin’s pro- volcanoes and glaciers could not be explained shooting, which showed that his addiction to fessor of botany at Cambridge, recommended in a short period of time as the Bible demand- sport when he was a teenager had not been Charles, who wanted to accept but whose fa- ed. These observations led to his acceptance wasted. On more than one occasion he saved ther, Robert, objected that it would only be an- of Lyell’s doctrine of uniformitarianism (i.e., the situation for his companions; once by run- other interruption to Charles’ checkered edu- natural laws apply uniformly over long periods ning far and fast enough to save their boat cation, originally directed toward the ministry. of time) and laid the foundations of his future from being destroyed by the wave raised by a Charles’ uncle Josiah Wedgwood II, a wealthy work as a scientist. glacier fall (they would all have been doomed industrialist and manufactuer of Wedgwood In Brazil he saw his first tropical forest; had he failed), and another time by going to china, persuaded Robert Darwin that his ob- in Argentina he found his first fossils—sloth, get help when his captain and companions jections were unsound and they were with- mastodons, and horses. In Tierra del Fuego he were exhausted and incapable of walking a drawn. Darwin sailed from Devonport (now saw a tribe of men so savage, so devoid of any step farther. Plymouth) in the Beagle on December 27, moral beliefs (and even occasionally cannibal- Wherever he saw a mountain he climbed 1831. He was to be away five years. istic) that they hardly seemed human. Some of it, and on one journey from Chile to Argentina

them had been taken to England three years over high passes of the Andes, he was bitten Observations on the Voyage previously by Captain FitzRoy to teach them massively by bugs. In the Galapagos Islands off The Cape Verde Islands provided him Christianity and to train them in the use of the coast of Ecuador, he observed finchs with with his first object lesson of a volcano, on tools, and they were now being repatriated. different beak lengths on the different islands. which he was able to test for himself the va- Darwin was astonished that three years had From the Galapagos Islands the Beagle sailed to lidity of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology. been enough time to change them from sav- Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, Coco’s Keeling Captain FitzRoy gave him a copy of the first ages into seemingly civilized people. But they Atoll, Mauritius, South Africa, St. Helena, As-

14 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & birds and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands. have shown that evolutionary genetic theory has He began to publish articles that explained no theoretical support—it is an indefensible sci- their comparative anatomy, embryology, clas- entific model.1 Rigorous analysis of evolution- sification, geographical distribution, and pale- ary genetic theory consistently indicates that the ontology as not being immutable but evolving entire enterprise is actually bankrupt. Under no from ancestral species. He developed the con- conditions do new species develop or demon- cept of natural selection as a result of selection strate an increase in fitness or complexity. pressure that is thought to be strongly related While numerical simulations do not to the ecological niches occupied by the species. support evolutionary theory, a surprisingly Although evolution had been advocated as far wide range of very reasonable biological input back as some Greek scientists—and by more parameters give rise to solutions compatible recent philosophers and scientists such as Montesquieu, Maupertuis, Evolutionary genetic theory has Diderot, Lamarck, and Darwin’s — grandfather Erasmus Darwin— no theoretical support it is an Charles Darwin was believed to indefensible scientific model. be the first to provide adequate evidence for evolution and to explain how the with observation and the biblical account of a process of natural selection produces adapta- recent creation. Biologically reasonable input tion. Although widely believed for many years parameters to Mendel’s Accountant produce to be the greatest organizing principle in biol- output consistent with: a) a rapid local adap- ogy, it is slowly being recognized today that ad- tation of species; b) an initial spike in genetic aptation may explain variation within a species, variation followed by a continuous decline in but is inadequate to provide an explanation for diversity; c) a continuous decline in fitness; the origin of a species. and d) the extinction of many species. cension Island, Brazil again (to check chronom- eters), and then home. Darwin landed back in The Theory Is Bankrupt Conclusion England at Falmouth on October 2, 1836. Darwin himself recognized in Origin of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is A Theory Is Born generally believed by the scientific commu- Species that his theory had many difficulties. nity and general public to be a solid scientific All of Darwin’s later publications He listed four objections that he recognized, if theory that explains the origin and develop- stemmed directly from the observations and not resolved, would be fatal to his theory. They ment of life on earth over millions of years. collections that he made during the voyage of were, in order: Yet this theory has always been suspect to the Beagle. As shown in the title of his book • The lack of transitional forms those most familiar with genetic theory, and Journal of Researches into the Geology and • The incredible complexity of such organs as has recently been shown to be invalid. Its pre- Natural History of the Various Countries Visit- the eye mature adoption over the past century and a ed by H.M.S. Beagle, 1832-36 (1839), his main • The development of instincts in animals half has led to the wholesale rejection of our interests were at first geological (although • The sterility in crossbreeding of species true history. It’s time now to reconsider how natural history took precedence over geology we’ve gone astray in our understanding of in the second edition of his Journal, 1845), In fact, these same objections have and his observations resulted in three further yet to be satisfactorily addressed today. And origins and place our confidence once more books: Structure and Distribution of Coral many other problems with the theory have in God’s Word and His revelation. Reefs (1842), Geological Observations on Vol- also arisen. In fact, the idea that the informa- Reference tion needed to develop new species comes 1. Sanford, J. et al. 2008. Using Numerical Simulation to Test the canic Islands (1844), and Geological Observa- Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory. Proceedings of the Sixth tions on South America (1846). In the eyes of from random, chance processes is so foreign International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh PA: Cre- ation Science Fellowship posterity, these works were so eclipsed by his to standard logic that only a strong desire to and Dallas, TX: Institute deny the evidence of design in nature and for Creation Research, 165- bombshell on evolution that they have been 175. This paper is available neglected, but they were fundamental to his revelation from Scripture can force the ac- on icr.org. later work, On the Origin of Species (1859). ceptance of such convoluted logic. Dr. Vardiman is Chair of After his return from the voyage of the Recent numerical simulations of muta- the Department of Astro/ Beagle in 1836, Darwin was prompted to ex- tion and selection under classical conditions us- Geophysics. plain his observations, particularly those of ing a new program called Mendel’s Accountant

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 15 & Celebrate Darwin’s birthday with the truth!

n this age of error, it is vital that Christians arm them- selves with the truth. This is the only study Bible that Istresses the defense of the biblical Christian faith from the perspective of literal creationism and absolute biblical authority. The New Defender’s Study Bible offers:

• Introductory notes on each Regular Special Bible book BDEBI1 Hardcover $39.95 $34.95 • Greatly expanded commentary BDEBI2 Black Bonded Leather $59.95 $54.95 notes BDEBI3 Burgundy Bonded Leather $59.95 $54.95 • End-of-verse references (Plus shipping & handling) • Words of Christ in red • Concordance • 21 topical appendices Call 800.628.7640 to order, • Full-color maps or visit www.icr.org/store.

With extensive commentary and Prices good through February 28, 2009. notes from Dr. Henry Morris, father of the modern creation science movement and founder of ICR, this is the finest study Bible available. Available in hardcover and bonded leather editions. Close-Out Sale! BDEBI3-I Burgundy Bonded with thumb index Regularly $69.95, now just $54.95 (plus shipping and handling) This special, deep discount is only available for a limited time, so place your order today!

16 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & IMPACT

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Henry M. Morris, Ph .D.

Dr. Henry M. Morris, father of the modern creation science movement, de- voted his life to upholding the accuracy and authority of God’s Word. Com- bining scientific knowledge with a thorough understanding of Scripture, he clearly and succinctly combated the errors of evolution. In the article below, Dr. Morris highlights evolution’s false claims, using the words of evolution- ists themselves. His words are as true today as when they were first written.

volutionary belief is a remarkable The Altogether Missing Evidence either neutral or harmful, as far as all known and largely unexplained phenom- No Evolution at Present mutations are concerned. A process which has enon. It is a belief held by most in- never been observed to occur, in all human tellectuals all over the world, despite The lack of a case for evolution is most history, should not be called scientific. Ethe fact that there is no real scientific evidence clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. No New Species for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multi- Evolution, at least in the sense that Dar- Charles Darwin is popularly supposed tude of scientific proofs, but they are unable win speaks of it, cannot be detected with- to have solved the problem of “the origin of in the lifetime of a single observer.1 to document even one of these supposed species,” in his famous 1859 book of that title. proofs! This curious situation is illustrated “Horizontal variations” (e.g., the differ- However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, below in quotations from several leading evo- ent varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of , one of the nation’s top evolution- lutionary scientists. course, nor are “mutations,” which are always ists, observed:

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 17 & IMPACT

Darwin never really did discuss the origin No Fossil Evidence If we date the rocks by their fossils, how of species in his On the Origin of Species.2 can we then turn around and talk about

It used to be claimed that the best evi- patterns of evolutionary change through Not only could Darwin not cite a single dence for evolution was the fossil record, but time in the fossil record?10

example of a new species originating, but nei- the fact is that the billions of known fossils have A circular argument arises: Interpret the ther has anyone else, in all the subsequent cen- not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional fossil record in the terms of a particular tury of evolutionary study. form with transitional structures in the process theory of evolution, inspect the interpre- No one has ever produced a species by of evolving. tation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?11 mechanisms of natural selection. No one The known fossil record fails to docu- 3 has gotten near it. ment a single example of phyletic evolu- No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible tion accomplishing a major morphologic No Known Mechanism of Evolution transition.5 The basic reason why there is no scientific It is also a very curious fact that no one This ubiquitous absence of intermediate evidence of evolution in either the present or understands how evolution works. Evolution- forms is true not only for “major morphologic the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or ists commonly protest that they know evolu- transitions,” but even for most species. the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist tion is true, but they can’t seem to determine As is now well known, most fossil species assumes that the whole universe has evolved its mechanism. appear instantaneously in the fossil record, upward from a single primeval particle to hu- Evolution is...troubled from within by the persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly.6 man beings, but the second law (one of the best- troubling complexities of genetic and de- proved laws of science) says that the whole uni- velopmental mechanisms and new ques- As a result, many modern evolutionists tions about the central mystery—specia- verse is running down into complete disorder. agree with the following assessment: tion itself.4 How can the forces of biological develop- In any case, no real evolutionist…uses the One would think that in the 100+ years ment and the forces of physical degen- fossil record as evidence in favor of the eration be operating at cross purposes? It following Darwin, with thousands of trained theory of evolution as opposed to special would take, of course, a far greater mind 7 biologists studying the problem and using mil- creation. than mine even to attempt to penetrate lions of dollars worth of complex lab equip- this riddle. I can only pose the question.12

ment, they would have worked it out by now, No Order in the Fossils Evolutionists commonly attempt to but the mechanism which originates new spe- Not only are there no true transitional sidestep this question by asserting that the sec- cies is still “the central mystery.” forms in the fossils; there is not even any gen- ond law applies only to isolated systems. But

eral evidence of evolutionary progression in the this is wrong!

actual fossil sequences [T]he quantity of entropy generated lo- The fossil record of evolution is amenable cally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.13 to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely Ordinarily the second law is stated for iso- stochastic.8 lated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.14 I regard the failure to find a clear “vector of progress” in life’s history as the most Entropy can be forced to decrease in an puzzling fact of the fossil record....we have open system, if enough organizing energy and sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really dis- information is applied to it from outside the play it.9 system. This externally introduced complex-

ity would have to be adequate to overcome The superficial appearance of an evolu- the normal internal increase in entropy when tionary pattern in the fossil record has actually raw energy is added from outside. However, been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks no such external source of organized and ener- containing the fossils have themselves been gized information is available to the supposed “dated” by their fossils. evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not And this poses something of a problem: organized information!

18 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & No Evidence from Similarities

The existence of similarities between organisms—whether in external morphology But this is essentially the same as the old or internal biochemistry—is easily explained discredited argument from vestigial organs, as the Creator’s design of similar systems for and merely assumes our present ignorance to swered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolu- similar functions, but such similarities are not be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections explicable by common evolutionary descent. tionists prefer to believe in evolution. in nature (as well as harmful mutations, ves- It is now clear that the pride with which tigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are References 1. Kits, David. 1974. Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory. it was assumed that the inheritance of opposite to any imaginary evolutionary prog- Evolution. 28: 466. homologous structures from a common 2. In Mayr’s book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), ress, so can hardly prove evolution. as cited by prominent modern evolutionist Niles Eldredge ancestor explained homology was mis- There is one final argument, however: in his book Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evo- placed.15 lution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Gould’s fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, Simon and Schuster, 1985), 33. The really significant finding that comes 3. Colin Patterson, “Cladistics.” Interview on BBC, March 4, geneticist Richard Lewontin, said: 1982. Dr. Patterson was the senior paleontologist at the Brit- to light from comparing the proteins’ ish Museum of Natural History. In this context, the word amino acid sequences is that it is impos- No one has ever found an organism that “species” can refer to something like the Genesis 1 “kind”: life forms that, though capable of small changes, can inter- sible to arrange them in any sort of an is known not to have parents, or a parent. breed and have core characteristic morphologies. evolutionary series.16 This is the strongest evidence on behalf of 4. Thompson, Keith S. 1982. The Meanings of Evolution. evolution.21 American Scientist. 70: 529. 5. Stanley, Steven M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Pro- cess. San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co., 39. No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs That is, if one denies a Creator, the exis- 6. Kemp, Tom. 1985. A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record. New Scientist. 108: 67. Dr. Kemp is University Lecturer and a cu- The old arguments for evolution based tence of life proves evolution! rator of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. But apart from its necessity as a support 7. Ridley, Mark. 1981. Who Doubts Evolution? New Scientist. on the recapitulation theory (the idea that em- 90: 831. Dr. Ridley is a member of the Department of Zool- for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no ogy at Oxford University. bryonic development in the womb recapitu- 8. Raup, David M. 1977. Probabilistic Models in Evolutionary lates the evolution of the species) and vestigial scientific evidence for evolution. Biology. American Scientist. 166: 57. 9. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1984. The Ediacaran Experiment. organs (“useless” organs believed to have been The absence of evidence for evolution Natural History. 93: 23. Dr. Gould, Professor of Geology at does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; Harvard, was arguably the nation’s most prominent mod- useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long ern evolutionist of his time. been discredited. nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only 10. Eldredge, Time Frames, 52. 11. Kemp, A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record, 66. alternative to evolution. 12. Sydney Harris, “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” This na- [T]he theory of recapitulation...should be tionally syndicated column appeared in the San Francisco defunct today.17 Creation and evolution, between them, Examiner on January 27, 1984. exhaust the possible explanations for the 13. Sommerfeld, Arnold. 1956. Thermodynamics and Statistical An analysis of the difficulties in unam- Mechanics. New York: Academic Press, 155. origin of living things. Organisms either 14. Ross, John. Letter-to-the-Editor. Chemical and Engineering biguously identifying functionless struc- appeared on the earth fully developed or News. July 7, 1980, 40. tures...leads to the conclusion that “ves- 15. de Beer, Gavin. 1971. Homology, an Unsolved Problem. Lon- they did not. If they did not, they must don: Oxford University Press, 15. Sir Gavin was a leading tigial organs” provide no evidence for have developed from pre-existing species European evolutionist. evolutionary theory.18 16. Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: by some process of modification. If they Burnett Books, 289. Denton is a research microbiologist. did appear in a fully developed state, they 17. Gould, Stephen Jay. Dr. Down’s Syndrome. Natural History. The Residual Case for Evolution must have been created by some omnipo- April 1980, 144. The recapitulation theory is not only dis- credited, but also fraudulent. See Pennisi, E. 1997. Haeckel’s tent intelligence.22 Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered. Science. 277 (5331):1435. In spite of these admissions, all the scien- 18. Scadding, S. R. 1981. Do “Vestigial Organs” Provide Evi- dence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory. 5: 173. tists quoted above continued to believe in evo- While we admittedly cannot prove cre- 19. Many books carried by ICR offer in-depth examinations on ation, it is important to note that all the above this subject. Visit icr.org/store for available materials. lution. Limited space precludes giving the full 20. As cited by Jeremy Cherfas in “The Difficulties of Darwin- context of each quotation, but each point noted facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps ism,” New Scientist (May 17, 1984), 102: 29. 21. As reported in an interview by Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evo- is fully warranted in context, and could be fur- between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, lutionists,” Harper’s (February 1985), 61. 19 increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions 22. Futuyma, D. J. 1983. Sci- ther documented from other authorities also. ence on Trial. New York: Pantheon Books, 197. What, then, remains of the case for evo- from the creation “model”! Creationists prefer the reasonable faith Adapted from Dr. Morris’ ar- lution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he ticle “The Vanishing Case for believes are “imperfections” in nature. of creationism, which is supported by all the Evolution” in the June 1986 edition of Acts & Facts. real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith If there were no imperfections, there of evolutionism, which is supported by no real Dr. Morris (1918-2006) was would be no evidence to favor evolution Founder of the Institute for by natural selection over creation.20 scientific evidence. The question remains unan- Creation Research.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 19 & Man of Science, Man of God: He n r y M. Mo r r i s

Who: Henry Madison Morris What: Father of Modern Creation Science Movement When: October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006 Where: Dallas, Texas

CHRISTINE DAO

enry M. Morris is widely rec- The Genesis Flood by moving waters….Sedimentary rocks by

ognized as the founder of the definition are those that have been depos- In 1961, Dr. Morris and Old Testament modern creation science move- ited as sediments, which the Oxford Uni- expert Dr. John C. Whitcomb published The versal Dictionary defines as “earthy or de- ment. He lectured and wrote ex- Genesis Flood, the book that was widely ac- trital matter deposited by aqueous agency.” tensivelyH in defense of a literal interpretation of knowledged even by prominent evolutionary Obviously these great masses of sediments the Bible’s first book, Genesis—particularly the paleontologist Stephen J. Gould as first 11 chapters that describe the creation of the “the founding document of the cre- “[Henry Morris was] the most important world and all living things, the great Flood of ationist movement.”1 creationist of the 20th century, much more so Noah’s age, and the human dispersion at Babel. In it, they unabashedly af- 2 than William Jennings Bryan.” firmed their faith in the inerrancy Background — Eugenie C. Scott, and infallibility of the verbally in- Executive Director of the National Center Dr. Morris was born in Dallas, Texas. He spired Word of God and showed the for Science Education inadequacies of uniformitarianism graduated from Rice University in Houston must first have been eroded from some in 1939 with a bachelor’s degree in civil engi- and evolutionary theory. Drawing on data from previous location, transported, and then neering and married Mary Louise in 1940. He the disciplines of hydrology, geology, and archae- deposited (perhaps, of course, more than worked as a hydraulic engineer until 1942, when ology, Drs. Morris and Whitcomb demonstrated once)—exactly the sort of thing which oc- he returned to Rice to teach civil engineering for how science affirms the biblical record of the curs in any flood and which we have seen must have occurred on a uniquely grand the next four years. After this, he worked at the great Deluge during the days of Noah. scale during the great Flood of Genesis.3 University of Minnesota, where he received his While Charles Darwin’s 1859 On the Ori- master’s degree in hydraulics in 1948 and his gin of Species had attempted to provide an ex- [T]he evidence of the reality of these great events, the Creation and the Deluge, is so Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering in 1950. planation—albeit based on imagination instead powerful and clear that it is only “willing of science—for the origin of some animals by In 1951, he became a professor and chair ignorance” which is blind to it, according natural processes instead of by God, The Genesis of civil engineering at the University of Louisi- to Scripture!4 ana at Lafayette. He then served as a professor of Flood gave a bold, fresh perspective on how the Dr. Whitcomb, who read Dr. Morris’ That applied science at Southern Illinois University scientific study of natural phenomena in our and then as the department chair of civil engi- world is actually consistent with what we read You Might Believe in 1948 while studying pale- neering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and in Scripture. ontology at Princeton University, said that The State University (Virginia Tech). All of these Biblical references from the Genesis Flood would not have been nearly as ef- Shortly after Dr. Morris received his Flood record are clearly supported in at fective had it been written only by a theologian. bachelor’s degree from Rice, he accepted the least a general way by the actual records “It needed a scientist. And that scientist was of the rocks. Almost all of the sedimen- Bible—from Genesis to Revelation—as the in- Henry Morris,” he said in a recent lecture. tary rocks of the earth, which are the ones Dr. Whitcomb described the difficul- fallible and inspired Word of God. In 1946, he containing fossils and from which the sup- published a short book, That You Might Believe, posed geologic history of the earth has ties in initially finding a publisher for the book exposing the scientific weaknesses in evolution. been largely deduced, have been laid down due to its size and subject matter. Nevertheless,

20 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & “Dr. Morris is one of my heroes of the faith. He is the man of the Lord raised up as the father of the modern creationist movement…. This is certainly the end of an era in the history of Christendom.”6 — Ken Ham, President and CEO of Answers in Genesis he praised God that it came to print because of tific and biblical creation perspective and com- Chance and omnipotent Matter to pro- the lives that it has changed. For instance, Kitty municate the truth of God’s Word that is found duce the complex systems and mighty Foth-Regner dedicated her book Heaven With- in God’s creation. energies of the universe. The evolutionist’s faith is not dependent on evidence, but is out Her “to Dr. John Whitcomb and the late Dr. pure faith—absolute credulity.9 Henry Morris, for showing me the truth about Other Writings where we came from, what we’re doing here, The evolutionary belief system is anti- Dr. Morris wrote extensively on creation and where we’re going.”5 thetical to the gospel, and Dr. Morris warned science and evolution, producing definitive Christians not to accept “another gospel” and works such as Scientific Creationism (1974), The The Institute for Creation Research compromise it with creation.10 Genesis Record (1976), The Revelation Record In 1963, Dr. Morris and nine other (1983), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science Any other gospel is another gospel and is not the true gospel. Without the creation, young-earth creationists, including Dr. Duane (1984), Science and the Bible (1986), and Biblical the gospel has no foundation; without T. Gish, founded the Creation Research Society. Creationism (1993). the promised consummation, it offers no He resigned from his post at Virginia Tech in He also addressed Christian apologetics in hope; without the cross and the empty 1969 and in 1970 founded the Institute for Cre- books such as Many Infallible Proofs (1974) and tomb, it has no saving power.11 ation Research as the research division of Chris- The Long War Against God (1989), as well as anno- tian Heritage College (now San Diego Christian tations in The New Defender’s Study Bible (1995). Later Years

College). In his final book, Some Call It Science Dr. Morris officially retired in January ICR’s goal was research, communication, (2006), Dr. Morris revealed the religion behind 1996 and took the position of President Emeri- and education in those fields of science that are the so-called science of the evolutionary estab- tus, leaving the leadership roles of ICR to his particularly relevant to the study of origins. In lishment. He wrote: sons Henry M. Morris III, D. Min., and John D. 1981, after receiving approval from the state of During the past century…the gospel of Morris, Ph.D. He continued to write, producing California to grant masters degrees in science new life in Christ has been replaced by the books, Days of Praise devotionals, and articles education, ICR became an autonomous entity. Darwinian “gospel of death,” the belief that for ICR’s monthly magazine, Acts & Facts. Even While serving as ICR’s president, Dr. Mor- millions of years of struggle and death has though he was retired “on paper,” his daughter ris collaborated with scientists and theologians changed pond scum into people and that evolutionary progress will continue inexo- and ICR librarian Mary Smith said, “He was in around the world. He wrote more than 60 books rably toward heaven on earth.7 the office every day until the day he went to the on topics that include creation science, evolu- hospital.” tion, and Christian apologetics, and he lectured He then asked the question, “Is it science After suffering a series of strokes, on Feb- worldwide at conferences, churches, and uni- that supports evolution and disproves the Bible ruary 25, 2006—at the age of 87 and after a full versities. He participated in over 100 debates— or is it ‘science falsely so called’?”8 He proceeded life devoted to the defense of the gospel—Dr. many alongside biochemist and ICR vice presi- to present the true religion behind Darwinism as Morris left the hospital in Santee, California, dent Dr. Gish—with evolutionary scientists such professed by the direct words of some of its most and entered into the joy of the Lord. as biologist Kenneth R. Miller, zoologist Hubert ardent followers, including Stephen J. Gould, P. J. Frings, and paleontologist David B. Kitts. Darlington, , Isaac Asimov, and References 1. Schudel, M. Henry Morris; Intellectual Father of ‘Creation Nearly 40 years after its inception, ICR even Charles Darwin himself. Science.’ The Washington Post. Posted on washingtonpost. com on March 1, 2006, accessed December 12, 2008. continues to conduct research from the scien- The faith of the evolutionist…is a splen- 2. Scott, E. March 4, 2006. Quoted in Rudoren, J. Henry M. did faith indeed, a faith not dependent on Morris, 87, a Theorist of Creationism, Dies. The New York Times. anything so mundane as evidence or 3. Morris, H. M. and J. C. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood: logic, but rather a faith strong The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 124. in its childlike trust, re- 4. Ibid, 453. lying wholly on 5. Foth-Regner, K. 2008. Heaven Without Her. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. omniscient 6. Ham, K. February 25, 2006. Dr. Henry Morris has died. Post- ed to blogs.answersingenesis.org. 7. Morris, H. 2006. Some Call It Science, revised ed. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 7. 8. Ibid, 7. 9. Ibid, 22. 10. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 11. Morris, Some Call It Science, 50.

Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 21 & Demand the Evidence. Get it @ ICR.

Scientists Celebrate Darwin’s 200th Birthday

Loyal followers comment on the impact of evolution’s patriarch. Life is Godless. Life is Purposeless. Life is Meaningless. “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God “Life has no higher purpose than to “There are no gods, no purposes, and no as the creator of organisms from the sphere perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is of rational discussion.” design, no purpose, no evil and no good, no life after death…. There is no ultimate – Sir Julian Huxley nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning – Richard Dawkins in life, and no free will for humans.” – William Provine

The Founders of Modern Science had a different point of view.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only pro- ceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” – Isaac Newton, Father of Universal Gravitation

“[When] I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in wisdom hast Thou made them all!” – Robert Boyle, Father of Modern Chemistry

“Yet even in earthly matters I believe that ‘the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.’” – Michael Faraday, Father of Electromagnetism

22 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & Demand the Evidence. Get it @ ICR. www.icr.org

Men of Science, Men of God Scientists Celebrate Darwin’s 200th Birthday “One of the most serious fallacies of modern thought is the wide- Loyal followers comment on the impact of evolution’s patriarch. spread notion that biblical Christianity is in conflict with true science and, therefore, that genuine scientists cannot believe the Bible.” — Dr. Henry M. Morris, Founder of the Institute for Creation Research

ver wonder if the great scientists in history believed in God? Are “real” scientists only modeled by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould, and ? Not Eaccording to history! Well-researched and vividly presented, Thinking God’s Thoughts After Him by Christine Dao unveils what the founding fathers of science believed about God as Creator.

Explore the lives and accomplishments of these truly great men of science who also were devoted followers of the Creator. Included in this beautiful full-color presentation are the stories of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, and many more who changed the world with their brilliant scientific achievements.

While today’s science establishment seeks to disavow the existence of God, Creator, or Designer, those great men of science humbly acknowledged both Creator and Lord.

With a study section included for use in the class- room, Thinking God’s Thoughts After Him will give you a fresh reminder of what real science is all about.

Only $9.95 (plus shipping and handling) To order, call 800.628.7640, or visit www.icr.org.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 23 & T o T e l l t h e

The danger of accommodating Darwinism through false testimony

James J. S. Johnson, J.D.

hat is truth?” asked Pon- To Tell the Truth

tius Pilate as Truth incar- In every forensic context, whether a civil nate stood before him.1 lawsuit or a criminal prosecution, truth-telling Whether the Roman is a serious matter.2 Forensic consequences rely “governorW was interested in the answer is doubt- on trial testimony, so testimony needs to be ful, but we must ask ourselves who was really put clear, reliable, and truthful. Judges recognize “on trial” that day. Jesus? Yes, of course. But so that conflicts in trial testimony cannot always be was Pilate. explained away as mistaken perceptions, faulty In fact, each of us is put “on trial” every memories, or other inadvertent errors. Some- day, able to present our own answer to that same times witnesses who know the truth testify oth- question: “What is truth?” Yet before we give a fi- erwise because their personal agendas are not nal account to the Judge of all judges, we will un- morally anchored in truth-telling.3 It has been doubtedly testify with our words and our works that way since Adam. to those we encounter each day. The ninth of the Ten Commandments Think of life as a courtroom. Is our testi- says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against mony true or false, clear or unclear, consistent or thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). What was the inconsistent, reliable or unreliable? Are we true penalty for breaking this commandment? Death, in some circumstances. witnesses or false witnesses?

24 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & If a false witness rise up against any man A Pig Is Still a Pig ish tradition as superior to the Word of God.

to testify against him that which is wrong; Another type of false witness is the Sadly, among Christian seminaries, col- then both the men [literally, “mortal men”], Sadducee-like churchman who detracts from between whom the controversy is, shall leges, and even churches, the teaching of Dar- the authority and text of Scripture by denying stand before the Lo r d , before the priests winian evolution in any form has historically the Bible’s authority and applicability (Mark and the judges…and, behold, if the wit- been welcomed in many ways that dishonor 12:18-27; Luke 20:20-40). Jesus condemned ness be a false witness, and hath testified Christ. How so? Recall how Aaron sacrificed this error as both ignorance and bad theology falsely against his brother; then shall ye do truth and dishonored the Lord when he led unto him, as he had thought to have done (Matthew 22:29). This error can be sophistical- the rebellious Israelites to worship a golden unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil 6 ly accomplished by evasive teachings (e.g., the calf that supposedly “evolved” while Moses away from among you…. And thine eye slippery “emerging church” and the neo-deistic shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye was absent.7 Notice that Aaron labeled the Intelligent Design Movement) that avoid rec- for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, “spontaneously-generated” golden calf “the ognizing the authoritative truth, perspicuity, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:16-21) LORD” and not “Baal” in order to excuse the and applicability of relevant Scriptures. idol’s inclusion into Israel’s religious practices. Thus, a false witness who tried to Yet a golden calf statue, whether called “Baal” “frame” an innocent man on a capital charge Living as Faithful Witnesses or “the LORD,” is still a golden calf statue. A could be sentenced to death. The severity of gold-ring-snouted pig is still a pig. Life will certainly put us “on trial” at this “punishment-to-fit-the-crime” was not Likewise, any theistic evolutionary ex- times, allowing us an opportunity to testify an isolated example of Mosaic justice. planation for origins—regardless of its label as of the Creator’s majesty and authority. How For example, the ancient Babylonian “progressive creation” or “day-age creation”— should we then testify? Attempting to accom- law-code of Hammurabi (whom some equate is just a nicer name for compromise. Aaron’s modate Darwinism by suppressing known ev- with the Bible’s Amraphel4), decreed that “if a sin is called syncretism, a blending of pagan idence (whether special revelation in the Holy man has borne false witness in a trial, or has religion with biblical religion, which is exactly Bible, or general revelation in nature’s design) not established the allegation that he has made, what theistic evolution is. It is false testimony leads one to perpetuate false testimony. A very if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be about God the Creator. dangerous idea indeed! put to death” (Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, Syncretistic teaching compromises God’s To clearly and consistently tell the Section 3). Also, under ancient Roman law, the revealed truth—sometimes contradicting bib- truth—the whole truth—is our obligation, as Twelve Tablets of Rome provided: “Whoever lical data that prove the young age of the earth.8 faithful witnesses of our Creator Redeemer. is convicted of speaking false witness shall be Such syncretism is a “hybrid” religion like the References flung from the Tarpeian Rock.” False testimony Samaritans’ religion, which Jesus Himself con- 1. Compare Pilate’s question in John 18:38 with Jesus’ own teaching in John 14:6. See also Revelation 1:5. is not to be taken lightly! demned (John 4:19-26). The Samaritans mis- 2. E.g., Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 102, 401, 404(3), 405, 603, 604, 607, 608, 609, 611(c), 613, 615, etc. characterized God’s character and His proper 3. E.g., Fort Worth I.S.D. v. Wesley, TEA Dkt. #021-LH-1098 (2- False Testimony Against the Creator worship (as theistic evolution does today). As 28-1999 decision, within the Texas Education Agency website at www.tea.state.tx.us). many historical and contemporary examples 4. See Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chi- Do these principles of false testimony cago: Moody Press, 1988), page 56, entry for “Amraphel.” illustrate, the error of the Samaritans is repeat- 5. This historical development is chronicled in detail by several apply to the creation-evolution controversy? ed by all who adulterate Bible-based truth with authors, e.g., Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God Quite a bit, actually. In short, false testimony (citing Teilhard de Chardin’s Christianity and Evolution, pagan evolutionary concepts.9 etc.); Henry Morris III, After Eden (citing Origen’s allegori- within the church since Darwin’s generation cal hermeneutics, etc.); Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point (citing clerics opposing the 19th century scriptural ge- has accommodated his materialist challenge to ologists; etc.). Ecclesiastical censorship politics, of course, are Placing Tradition Over the Text nothing new. E.g., see Bill Cooper’s After the Flood (Chich- God’s role as Creator. The Apostle Paul wrote ester, UK: New Wine Press, 1995), 47. A related type of false witness is the 6. See Exodus 32:4-5. that God has provided everyone with proof of 7. See Aaron’s reply to Moses, in Exodus 32:19-25, especially Pharisee-like churchman who adds unbibli- verse 24, where Aaron falsely answers, saying “And I said unto creation and His creatorship, proof so strong them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they cal traditions to God’s Word (such as the “gap that suppressing it is adjudged inexcusable gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this theory”) so that the true force of the Bible is calf.” (Obviously the tall tale of spontaneous generation is (Romans 1:19-20, 25, 28). even older than the Dark Ages!) nullified (Mark 7:3-13). Unlike the heterodox 8. E.g., James J. S. Johnson, 2008, “How Young Is the Earth? Historically, false witnesses have enabled Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis,” Acts & Samaritans, the Pharisees appeared to be doc- Facts, 37 (10): 4-5, which Darwinism’s monopolization of educational eliminates the “open”-vs.- trinally “orthodox” in their view of the canon “closed” genealogy excuse institutions throughout the secular academic and authority of Scripture. However, as Christ for believing in an old world. Worse, many false witnesses have also earth. explained, the actual practice of the Pharisees 9. E.g., Henry M. Morris, facilitated the “dumbing down” and Darwin- 1988, “The Compromise nullified the Bible’s text and authority, obscur- Road,” Acts & Facts, 17 (3). ian accommodation of Christian theology in ing biblical truths by illegitimate adherence to 5 Dr. Johnson is Special religious circles. their own invented concepts, thus treating Jew- Counsel at ICR.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 25 & n April 26, 1834, a 25-year- Darwin. His geologic observations and his I used Charles Darwin’s description of old man, without a college distinctly uniformitarian interpretation of the valley to find the campsite on the Santa science degree, walked up the valley later impacted the world greatly. Cruz River in southern Argentina. Darwin’s a rocky slope on the north journal and science paper are very explicit bankO of a big river in southern Argentina. Revisiting Darwin’s Camp regarding the location of the site. Camp Dar- He saw the six-mile-wide valley of the Santa win occurs at 280 feet elevation on the north The 200th anniversary of Darwin’s Cruz River and observed the valley’s basalt bank of the Santa Cruz River, within a two- birth is being celebrated this year. I wanted cliffs. He wrote that day in his journal his mile-wide narrowing of the wider valley, and to see what Darwin saw, and I wanted to interpretation of the river valley: “The river, beneath basalt cliffs. understand why he generated the decidedly though it has so little power in transporting uniformitarian understanding of this river even inconsiderable fragments, yet in the No Modern Cliff Erosion valley. So I visited his original campsite. What lapse of ages might produce by its gradual I saw at Camp Darwin utterly shocked me. Darwin correctly observed that the erosion an effect of which it is difficult to I saw abundant evidence for a colossal flood modern river was moving just sand and judge the amount.”1 that must have rapidly performed significant pebbles. But he did not find a location where That young man’s name was Charles erosion in the valley. the river touches the basalt cliff. Everywhere Darwin’s First Wrong Turn

Steven A. Austin, P h .D.

Basalt cliffs occur 300 feet above Camp Darwin on the north side of the Santa Cruz River. Photo by Steven A. Austin.

26 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & in the valley, cobbles and boulders on the and five miles long extending down the floodplain separate the present river bank valley. Watermelon-size basalt boulders from the solid-rock cliffs. within the ridge were eroded from the It is obvious that the minor power of upstream area and redeposited on top the present river is not moving boulders, so of the gigantic, 200-foot-high, trans- the present river cannot be eroding the cliffs. verse bar. The size and scale of this Only a big flood could sweep away the cob- boulder deposit stagger the imagi- bles and boulders 50 feet deep below the river nation. The flood of water had to bed, and as wide as the valley, to erode the greatly exceed 200 feet in depth and basalt. Darwin erred significantly in linking extend the whole six-mile width the modern river’s process with the ancient of the valley! Therefore, the Santa erosion structure. Cruz River valley must be the spillway from a gigantic flood. The Missing Basalt Stratum Large boulders occur on top of the ba- View northward at the two-mile-wide salt cliff on the north side of the river. Darwin gap. Boulder bar deposit 200 feet above Darwin described the narrow section the south bank of the river (foreground) described one as being 15 feet in diameter.2 of the valley of the Santa Cruz River as pro- is different than the stratified basalt cliffs According to Darwin, flowing water could viding evidence that the basalt strata on both 300 feet above the north bank of the river not move such big rocks. Water, according to sides of the valley were united before some- (background). Darwin, could not sweep a boulder 300 feet Photo by Steven A. Austin. what less than 300 feet of erosion occurred, above the present level of the modern river to producing the two-mile-wide gap. I found the top of a cliff. Therefore, Darwin assumed the basalt stratum in the prominent cliff on the big boulder was dropped from a melting tion of the modern river during the lapse of the north side of the river. Darwin had cor- iceberg when an ocean stood over the basalt. great geologic ages. Later, Darwin revisited rectly identified it. Again, Darwin was significantly in error. The the bogus methodology when he assumed However, no basalt stratum occurs on cobbles and boulders overlying the basalt at that beaks of finches on the Galapagos were the south side of the river. The ridge on the the cliff top are the spillover deposit accu- derived slowly during geologic ages from south side of the valley is a gigantic deposi- mulated rapidly when the flood exceeded a common bird by the cumulative process tional bar composed mostly of large rede- the depth of the valley. Therefore, the colos- called natural selection. posited basalt boulders and cobbles. Darwin sal flood was likely 400 feet deep across the Darwin was in error about the Santa misidentified the southern ridge as a volcanic entire six-mile-wide valley! Cruz River valley. What if young Darwin had stratum cooled in situ from a lava flow. correctly interpreted the colossal flood evi- Bogus Methodology dences within the valley? Would he have later Evidence of a Colossal Flood entertained that biological extrapolation Why was Darwin so wrong concerning The bouldery ridge is 200 feet high, called biological evolution? It is evident that his interpretation of the river valley? First, he three miles wide across the valley’s south side, Darwin became a committed geological evo- had expectations about what he would see at lutionist before he became a biological evo- Camp Darwin before he arrived. His scientif- lutionist. Camp Darwin marks this young ic judgment was tainted by preconceptions. naturalist’s first scientific wrong turn. Second, Darwin was reading the wrong book References before his journey up the Santa Cruz River 1. Darwin, C. 1839. Voyage of the Beagle. London: Smith, El- valley. He had been reading Charles Lyell’s der. Quoting from chapter 9 under the entry dated April 26, 1834. book Principles of Geology (1830) during his 2. Darwin, C. 1842. On the distribution of the erratic boul- ders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits trans-Atlantic voyage on the Beagle. That of South America. Transactions of the Geological Society of book gave him the idea that the biggest boul- London. 6: 415-432. ders were deposited from melting icebergs. Adapted from Dr. Austin’s article “Camp Darwin Re- Third, Darwin was developing a new, visited.” woefully inadequate methodology for deal- Dr. Austin is a geological ing with the world. He saw the structure consultant for the Na- of the present valley and understood it to tional Creation Science Foundation. have been formed by the continued slow ac-

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 27 & Danny Faulkner, Ph .D.

here are two common misconcep- tions about evolution. The first is that many people believe that Charles Darwin invented the idea of evolution.T This is not true, for as far back as the ancient Greeks evolutionary ideas have abound- ed. Indeed, apart from a transcendent God, evo- lution appears to be the most likely explanation for the origin of the world. The Big Bang, What Darwin did was to publish the ele- ments of the modern theory of biological evolu- tion, the descent with modification (variation) Multiverse, and Other Tales and survival of the fittest to select advantageous variations. about Outer Space The second misconception is that evolu- tion applies only to biology. The first inroads of evolutionary thinking occurred in geology but this ignores at least two important points. more dense regions had more gravity and thus decades before the publication of Darwin’s On One is that the Big Bang does not conform to the acted as gravitational seeds to collect more gas. the Origin of Species. This introduced the concept Genesis account of creation, differing in many These massive, large gas clouds eventually con- of uniformitarianism, demanding that vast ages details such as the order of events. The other tracted into the galaxies that we see today. Of were required to produce the geological forma- point is that cosmologists of late have developed course, scientists cannot actually observe this. tions we see today, which was a radical depar- ideas of how the universe could have come about Within galaxies, stars formed from clouds of gas. ture from the flood geology that had prevailed on its own, such as a quantum fluctuation or as However, there is some debate today whether since the time of ancient Israel and before. This a part of a multiverse or the latest event in an galaxies formed first and then subdivided into acceptance of deep time set the stage for the eternal cyclic universe. As with any evolutionary stars, or if stars formed first and then amalgam- widespread acceptance of Darwin’s writings. theory, these are attempts to explain the world ated into galaxies. Darwin’s work in turn opened the flood gates for apart from a Creator. While most matter in the universe still evolutionism to permeate all areas of mostly consists of hydrogen and he- human endeavor, such as history, law, The Big Bang does not conform to the lium, a few percent of the universe’s sociology, psychology, etc. mass is in the heavier elements, such Apart from the geological Genesis account of creation, differing in as the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, cal- and biological sciences, modern as- many details such as the order of events. cium, and iron that we find in abun- tronomy has been greatly influenced dance on the earth and in the human by Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The refusal to According to the Big Bang model, the body. Where did these heavier elements come acknowledge God’s existence and role in the uni- universe began as a very hot gas consisting en- from? Astronomers think that stars generally verse has led to a reinterpretation of the origins tirely of hydrogen and helium with just a small produce energy in their cores by the fusion of hy- of many astronomical features. amount of lithium. As the universe expanded, it drogen into helium, and there is some evidence For four decades, the dominant cosmo- cooled and eventually stars and galaxies began to to support this theory. logical theory has been the Big Bang, the belief form. Astronomers are not sure how this com- Using a very elaborate theory based upon that the universe abruptly appeared 13.7 billion menced, but since we see huge numbers of stars our understanding of nuclear physics (in many years ago in a very dense, hot state, and has been and galaxies today, they reason that this must ways a well-established theory), astronomers expanding ever since. Interestingly, some Chris- have happened. The most popular theory of think that as stars age they often produce energy tians see a need for the Creator to initiate the Big galaxy formation is that the early universe had by fusing heavier elements up to and including Bang, and hence use the Big Bang as an apologetic, slightly more dense and less dense regions. The iron. Astronomers think that massive stars end

28 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & that we see in the solar system today. Astrono- mers generally think that the planetesimals that formed near the sun were heated by the early sun’s radiation to evaporate the lighter elements from them. Planetesimals far from the sun were not heated much and thus retained many of the lighter elements. This is the evolutionary expla- nation for why the planets near the sun (the ter- restrial planets) are so different from the planets far from the sun (the Jovian planets). The Big Bang, Interestingly, in recent years astronomers have found hundreds of extra-solar planets or- Multiverse, and Other Tales biting other stars. All of these planets defy the evolutionary theory of how planets form, for extra-solar planets appear to be Jovian yet are Ge o r g e about Outer Space very close to their parent stars, in contrast to what we see in the solar system. Da r w i n The post-Darwinian world of astronomy eorge Darwin (1845-1912), the their existence in titanic explosions called su- has seen the rise of numerous theories about son of Charles Darwin, was a pernovae. During a supernova, many of the ele- origins. These include a series of “just so” sto- well-known astronomer and ments heavier than iron are likely to be produced. ries about the naturalistic origin of the universe, professor at the University of Supernovae eruptions and other processes are of galaxies, of stars and other structures in the GCambridge. His specialty was the tidal inter- supposed to introduce the products of nuclear cosmos, the chemical evolution of the elements action of the earth, sun, and moon, and in fusion into space, where the newly synthesized from hydrogen and helium, and the origin of 1899 he published the definitive book on the elements mix with the hydrogen and helium al- the earth along with the rest of the solar sys- subject, The Tides and Kindred Phenomena in ready there. New generations of stars form from tem. While Darwin did not address astronomy the Solar System. this gas and repeat the process. In this way, as- in his writings (though, his son, George, was a In his work he noted that the moon is tronomers think that the heavier elements that noted astronomer of the latter 19th century), gradually spiraling away from the earth as the we are so familiar with gradually build up in suc- his legacy of excluding God lives on in the field earth’s rotation slows. This led George Darwin cessively later generations of stars. of astronomy. to propose the fission theory of the moon’s Most astronomers believe that the solar Most of astronomy deals with the struc- origin. That is, the early earth spun so rapidly system formed about 9 billion years after the Big ture of the universe as it now exists, and creation that a portion of the earth hurled outward to Bang. A large gas cloud, now with a few percent scientists are fully engaged in these studies. form the moon, which continued to spiral of matter consisting of elements heavier than However, the various attempts by astronomers away. This scenario is fraught with problems helium, collapsed, though it is not clear exactly to expel the Creator from the cosmos are simply and virtually no one believes it today, but it is what initiated that collapse. Most of the matter untenable. recognized as perhaps the first of the modern supposedly fell to the center to form the sun. The It is only right to give credit for creation theories of lunar origin. remaining small portion of the matter collapsed where it is due, even as the psalmist did in Psalm Interestingly, what we know of the into a disk, from which the planets, satellites, 8:3: “I consider the heavens, the work of thy fin- mechanism driving the tidal interaction of asteroids, and comets eventually formed. The gers, the moon and the the earth-moon system and the current rate matter in the disk supposedly coalesced from stars, which thou hast or- of that interaction suggests that the earth- microscopic bits into small bodies called plan- dained.” moon system can be no older than 1.3 billion etesimals, though, again, how this process began years. Of course, this is far younger than the Dr. Faulkner is Professor of supposed 4.6-billion-year age of the earth- is not clear. Once some planetesimals grew large Astronomy/Physics at the enough, their gravity attracted other smaller University of South Carolina moon system, but it is not a problem for a Lancaster. planetesimals to themselves to form the bodies 6,000-year-old creation.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 29 & Chemistry by Chance A Formula for Non-Life

Charles Mc Combs, Ph .D.

cientists observe life today in order to be chemically activated to form the polymer, determine what processes were at work because without activation every amino acid when life originated on this planet. It would be ionized because of an acid-base reac- would be like looking at a 100-year- tion. The amine group is basic and will react Sold photograph to determine which camera quickly with the acid group also present. This was used. The best result this type of analysis acid-base reaction of amino acids is instanta- can provide is conjecture, and conjecture is neous in water, and the components necessary the best that chemical evolution can produce. for protein formation are not present in a form Evolutionists tell the tale that life was formed in which they can react. This is the problem of from chemicals, in some primordial soup from ionization. which life arose by accident. Can random chemical “accidents” pro- The Problem of Mass Action duce the building blocks of life? The following There is another major problem that will eight obstacles in chemistry ensure that life by be encountered while trying to form the poly- chance is untenable. RNA, then there would have to be a chemical meric backbone of a protein or DNA/RNA. Ev- mechanism that determines the sequence of ery time one component reacts with a second The Problem of Unreactivity the individual components. component forming the polymer, the chemical In chemical reactions, there is only one The components necessary for life can reaction also forms water as a byproduct of the way that all chemicals react: according to their be formed only by certain chemical reactions 3reaction. There is a rule of chemical reactions relative reaction rates. Since all amino acids and occurring in a specific environment. Water is (based on Le Chatelier’s Principle) called the nucleotides have different chemical structures, an unreactive environment for all naturally- Law of Mass Action that says all reactions pro- that difference in structure will cause each com- occurring chemicals. In a watery environment, ceed in a direction from highest to lowest con- ponent to react at different rates. Consequently, amino acids and nucleotides cannot combine centration. This means that any reaction that each of the known amino acids and nucleotides to1 form the polymeric backbone required for produces water cannot be performed in the has a known relative reaction rate, but this fact proteins and DNA/RNA. In the laboratory, the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action pro- causes a serious problem for evolution. The only way to cause a reaction to form a polymer vides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, relative reaction rate tells us how fast they react, is to have the chemical components activated and polysaccharide formation because even if not when they react. and then placed in a reactive environment. The the condensation took place, the water from In a random chance chemical reaction, process must be completely water-free, since the a supposed primordial soup would immedi- the sequence of amino acids can only be de- activated compounds would react with water. ately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed termined by their relative reaction rates. The How could proteins and DNA/RNA be formed according to evolutionary theory, the water polymer chain found in natural proteins and in some primordial, watery soup if the natural would have to be removed from the products, DNA/RNA has a sequence that does not cor- components are unreactive and if the necessary which is impossible in a “watery” soup. relate with the individual component’s reaction activated components cannot exist in water? rates. In reality, all of the amino acids have rela- The Problem of Reactivity tively similar structures, and, therefore, they all The Problem of Ionization Chemical reactivity involves the speed at have similar reaction rates. The same holds true The problem of ionization also involves which components react. If life began in some for the polymerization of nucleotides to form the issue of unreactivity. To produce a protein, primordial soup through natural chemical DNA/RNA. The problem is that since all of the the amine group of one amino acid must re- reactions, then the laws of chemistry must be amino acids or nucleotide components would act with the acid group of another amino acid able to predict the sequence of those polymer react at about the same rate, all proteins and all to form an amide bond. Such reactions must chains. If a pool of amino acids or nucleotides DNA/RNA would have a polymeric sequence take place hundreds of times to build a pro- 4came together in this environment, reacting to different than that observed in our bodies. The tein.2 As mentioned above, the amino acid must form the polymer chain of a protein or DNA/ product of natural or random reactions could 30 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & of amino acids in an exact sequence, imagine The Problem of Chirality the huge number of undesired isomers that Chirality is a property of many mole- would be present from a random chance pro- cules with three-dimensional structures. Many cess. DNA/RNA contain billions of nucleotides molecules may have the same number and type in a precise sequence. Evolutionists might of atoms and bonds, but differ only by being argue that all DNA/RNA and proteins were mirror images of each other. Such molecules formed in this random manner and nature just are said to possess chirality or “handedness.” selected the ones that worked. However, this as- Every8 single amino acid of every natural pro- sumption ignores the fact that there are not bil- tein is made of “left-handed” molecules and lions of “extra” DNA/RNA and proteins in the every nucleotide of every DNA/RNA molecule human body. is made of “right-handed” molecules. Proteins and DNA/RNA work as they do in the human The Problem of Solubility body because they possess chirality; they work As the polymer chain becomes longer because chirality gives them the correct three- and as more components are added to the dimensional structure. Only one configuration chain, the reactivity or rate of formation of the works; the others do not. If proteins and DNA/ polymer becomes slower and slower, and the RNA were formed by evolution, then the prod- chemical solubility of the polymer in water de- ucts formed would have the wrong chirality creases. Solubility is a vital factor because both and, therefore, the wrong three-dimensional the activated component and the polymeric structure. Molecules of the wrong chirality do chain6 to which it is being added must be sol- not support life in our bodies. uble in water for the desired reaction to work. In fact, there is a point where the length of the Problems Solved never provide the precise sequences found in polymer will decrease its solubility, eventually proteins and DNA/RNA. The chemical control needed for the for- making the polymer insoluble in water. When mation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain this happens, the addition of more components The Problem of Selectivity is just not possible through random chance. will stop and the chain will not get any longer. The synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA in the However, the desired proteins and DNA/RNA Chemical selectivity concerns where laboratory requires the chemist to control the found in the body would never be formed be- components react. Since every chain has two reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand cause the components are insoluble. ends, the reacting components can add to ei- the reactivity and selectivity of each component, ther end of the chain. Even if by some magical and to carefully control the order of addition of The Problem of Sugar process a single component would react first the components as the chain is building in size. followed by a second component, the products Nucleotides, necessary for DNA and The successful formation of proteins and DNA/ 5formed would be a mixture of at least four iso- RNA, are formed by the reaction of a sugar mol- RNA in some imaginary primordial soup would mers because there are two ends to the chain. ecule with one of four different heterocycles. require the same level of control as in the labo- If there is an equal chance of one component Evolutionary theory requires that sugar must ratory, but that level of control is not possible reacting in two different locations, then half be present in that primordial soup. However, without a specific chemical controller. will react at one end and half at the other end. the presence of sugar creates another problem. Any one of these eight problems could When the addition of the second component The sugars required for DNA and RNA synthe- prevent the evolutionary process from form- occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of sis7 are called reducing sugars. Reducing sugars ing the chemicals vital for life. Chirality alone both products already present. can cause the formation of undesired reaction would derail it. This is why evolutionary scien- Since the reaction rates for the amino ac- products, plus they also remove the compo- tists hope you don’t know chemistry. Darwin ids are similar, as are those of the nucleotides, nents necessary for the reaction. If amino acids asserted that random, accidental natural pro- you would see all components adding ran- (to form proteins) and sugars (to form nucle- cesses formed life, but the principles of chemis- domly to both ends of the building chain. The otides) were present in that soup, they would in- try contradict this idea. The building blocks of result is a mixture of several isomers of which stantly react with each other, thereby removing life cannot be manu- the desired sequence is only a minor product, both components from the mixture. The prod- factured by accident. and this is the problem with adding only two uct of this undesired reaction cannot react with Dr. McCombs is Associate amino acids. As the third amino acid would be- amino acids to form a protein chain, and that Professor of the ICR Graduate gin to add, it can now react at both ends of four same product cannot react with heterocycles to School, and Assistant Direc- tor of the National Creation products, and so on. form a nucleotide leading to DNA or RNA. Science Foundation. But since proteins may contain hundreds

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 31 & Darwinian Medicine: A Prescription for Failure

Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D.

lthough the field of medicine expe- [vestigial appendages] are removed the better rienced major advances in the 20th for the individual.”5 A 2007 Duke University century, it also embraced mistakes Medical School press release challenged this A and outright atrocities caused by naïve view: “Long denigrated as vestigial or the introduction of evolutionary thinking. Set- useless, the appendix now appears to have a backs to the profession are bad, but thousands reason to be—as a ‘safe house’ for the benefi- of patients “treated” with Darwinian medical cial bacteria living in the human gut.”6 principles suffered needlessly, experiencing In response to Duke’s discovery, a bio- confusion, painful surgery, and even death. chemistry professor stated that this possible bacterial function “makes evolutionary sense.”7 Darwinism Promoted the Medical Practice “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolu- The medical fate of the appendix remains un- of Eugenics tion.” Logo from the Second International certain, but fortunately, published medical ad- Eugenics Congress, 1921. vances now advocate that the removal of ton- In the most egregious example, many sils be contingent on meeting evidence-based physicians advocated the promotion and genics Congresses were held in 1912, 1921, and medical criteria8—a feature totally lacking in practice of eugenics. In a quest to improve the 1932, attended by some of the world’s leading Darwinian medicine. overall genetic composition of the human race, scientists. Supporters were given high academ-

eugenicists selectively bred biologically “supe- ic honors, while dissenters were marginalized. Darwinian Prejudices Have Hindered rior” people and forcibly eliminated genetic These actions gave eugenics an appear- Medical Research defects by sterilizing, aborting, or euthanizing ance of scientific respectability, followed by “inferior” people. medical acceptability. What was the result? In Darwinian medicine’s concept of vesti- This practice can be laid squarely at the the United States, over 70,000 victims were gial organs has also retarded medical research, feet of Darwinian medicine.1 Many lives were sterilized, including 8,000 procedures in Lynch- since there is little incentive to study “useless” destroyed through the first large-scale manifes- burg, Virginia, alone.4 In many other countries, structures. This mistaken belief has permeated tation of Darwin’s belief that “the civilized races most notoriously Germany, untold thousands even the cellular and molecular levels. Stanford of man will almost certainly exterminate, and re- more suffered the horrors of eugenics. University reported in 1998 on certain white place, the savage races throughout the world.”2 blood cells that heretofore had been largely Darwinism Advocated Needless Surgical ignored by immunologists. Why? The “natural How Eugenics Gained Medical Support Procedures to Remove “Vestigial Organs” killer” (NK) cells were “thought by some to be

an archaic remnant of the primitive mammali- The methods eugenicists used to gain Even if patients were fortunate enough an immune system.”9 The appendix’s function, scientific prominence served as a prototype to be deemed “fit,” they still might not avoid NK cells, so-called “junk” DNA, and other ar- for introducing subsequent evolutionary ideas the surgical knife. Because of Darwin’s The eas of profitable medical research continue to into medicine. New scientific journals such as Descent of Man, the appendix became widely be held back by the smothering assumptions the Annals of Eugenics and Eugenics Quarterly regarded as a worthless rudimentary organ of Darwinian medicine. provided forums for peer-reviewed intellectual left over from man’s herbivorous ancestors.

discussion. The major peer-reviewed science This led to a decades-long fundamental flaw Darwinian Medicine Courses Lack Medical journals of the day also promoted eugenics. in Darwinian medicine: the expectation that Significance The scientific and academic consensus, people would be better served without certain including prominent faculty from Harvard organs, even perfectly healthy ones. Ignoring Darwinism’s bad medical track University and Johns Hopkins Medical School, By the mid-20th century, thousands of record, some scientists stridently advocate promoted eugenics as the opinions of science’s “prophylactic” surgeries had been performed the introduction of a new course in medical most progressive thinkers.3 International Eu- based on assumptions such as “the sooner school: Darwinian Medicine. Two vocal pro-

32 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & ponents, George Williams of State University tiny fraction of the scientific rigor of medical field has failed so far to provide clinically use- of Stony Brook and Randolf Nesse of the Uni- articles featured in the Journal of the American ful findings and you see why medical schools versity of Michigan, assert: Medical Association or the New England Journal lack interest,” admitted evolutionary medicine

13 Evolutionary biology… has not been of Medicine. These “insights” are hardly on a par proponent Stephen Lewis. emphasized in medical curricula. This is with the significance of Pasteur’s work. unfortunate, because new applications of Conclusion

evolutionary principles to medical prob- Darwinian Medicine Has No Clinical Value lems show that advances would be even Many of the giants in medicine—Edward more rapid if medical professionals were Darwinian medicine adds nothing to Jenner, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Howard as attuned to Darwin as they have been the doctor’s toolbox. For instance, the only Florey and Ernst Chain, Selman Waksman— to Pasteur.10 Darwinian aspect to Sherman’s interpretation did pioneering work (including in genetics Pasteur’s contributions to medicine, of the observed infection-fever interaction is and antimicrobial resistance) while either re- which were completely independent of evo- his fully inexplicable assumption that fever is jecting Darwinism or ignoring it altogether. lutionary assumptions, are legendary. He di- an evolved response. Most physicians already Darwinian medicine is a sham. It stands on the rected research into areas that have undeniably knew what fevers to treat. backs of real researchers, dresses up their ma- saved millions of lives. Such explanations fail accepted scientific jor medical insights with evolutionary stories, Compared to Pasteur’s seminal research, standards since they cannot be tested. More- and then claims them as its own, while divert- the Darwinian approach to medicine and its over, serious medical researchers would not ing grant money away from bona fide medical derived explanations are insignificant. Cornell invest time in them since their medical con- research. evolutionary biologist Paul Sherman advocates tribution is negligible. Even putative beneficial The legacy of Darwin’s ideas to medicine an approach that examines whether symptoms ranges from irrelevant to disastrous. But beyond are “useful adaptations” or true pathologies. the wasted time, talent, and resources of the medical community, Darwin’s most lasting leg- For example, a mild fever…is often the The legacy of Darwin’s ideas acy to the field may well be the suffering of those body’s natural response to infection. Stud- ies show that a mild fever leads to faster to medicine ranges from whom medicine was originally meant to heal. recovery times....With this knowledge...a References doctor may suggest riding out a mild fe- irrelevant to disastrous. 1. Weikart, R. 2004. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Eth- ics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. New York: Palgrave ver as the most expedient cure for an ill- Macmillan. Edwin Black documented America’s selective ness....[Sherman] noted that a Darwinian breeding and forced sterilization program in War Against medicine approach adds to the doctor’s the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a observations of natural selection such as bacte- Master Race. toolbox to offer a wider range of treat- 2. Darwin, C. 1901. The Descent of Man. London: John Mur- ments, including advising a patient in rial resistance to antibiotics and the heterozy- ray, 241-242. 3. Chesler, E. 1992. Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the some instances to help the body’s evolved gotic advantage of sickle cell disease are not Birth Control Movement in America. New York: Simon & system do the healing.11 based on Darwinian medicine, but were ob- Schuster. 4. Wieland, C. 1997. The Lies of Lynchburg. Creation. 19 (4): served through the relevant basic sciences of 22-23. Cutting-edge Darwinian theories on 5. Rabkin, W. The Pros and Cons of Tonsillectomy. South Afri- microbiology and molecular genetics. illness include: 1) X-linked color blindness can Medical Journal. 8 January, 1955, 30. 6. Appendix Isn’t Useless at All: It’s a Safe House for Bacteria. evolved to help male paleolithic hunters see Duke Medicine press release, October 8, 2007. Darwinian Medicine Has No Predictive Value 7. Appendix May Produce Good Bacteria, Researchers Think. camouflage; 2) the itch associated with insect Associated Press, October 5, 2007. 8. Clinical Indicators Compendium. American Academy of bites evolved so people would avoid being bit- It is also important to note that none of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Available online ten; 3) myopia may result from an interaction at entnet.org. the Darwinian explanations integrate (much 9. Weidenbach, K. Natural-born killers: An immunologic between genes and the close work character- less are based on tests of) the phylogeny or ac- enigma solved. Stanford Report. Stanford University news release, January 14, 1998. istic of literate societies; 4) salivation, tearing, tual physical evolutionary development of the 10. Williams, G. and R. Nesse. 1991. The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 66 (1): 2. coughing, sneezing, vomiting (particularly organism itself. Given the long time to develop 11. Ramanujan, K. Intelligent design? No smart engineer de- “morning sickness”), and diarrhea evolved to new drugs, a real test would be a Darwinist pre- signed our bodies, Sherman tells premeds in class on Dar- winian medicine. Cornell University press release, Decem- expel noxious substances and microbiologic diction—based solely on human evolutionary ber 7, 2005. 12. Rannala, B. 2003. Evolving Health: The Origins of Illness agents; and 5) humans’ natural repugnance to- phylogeny—of a new, presently unobserved and How the Modern World Is Making Us Sick. Journal of ward garbage, feces, vomitus, and purulence is the American Medical As- disease for which pharmaceutical companies sociation. 289 (11): 1442- an evolved defense against contagion.12 should start developing a treatment. So far, no 1443; Nesse, R. M. and G. C. Williams. 1994. Why We But the Darwinian method amounts to such predictions have been forthcoming. Get Sick. New York: Ran- dom House. little more than making observations of signs This failure, coupled with increased 13. Baker, M. Darwin in medi- and symptoms and appending unsubstantiated needs to teach new medical research, is pos- cal school. Stanford Medi- cine Magazine. Summer evolutionary stories as window dressing. Trite sibly why evolutionary medicine is currently 2006. explanations are published in collaborative peer- squeezed out of every American medical Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s Na- reviewed journals in articles that contain only a school’s curricula. “Add to this the fact that the tional Representative.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 33 & A Battle Between Worldviews

How can evolution be taught in schools as a fact, or at best, a firmly-grounded theory? The The reason for this stems from a battle between two opposing worldviews. Just as creation is the foundation for Christianity, evolution is the Iron Grip foundation for the philosophy of humanism. Both are religions and both have basic assump- tions on which their belief systems are founded. Creation and evolution are not science; they are of Darwinism theories about the origin of man. Belief in creation science is generally considered to be a misconception, which edu- cators and scientists feel the responsibility to on Education change through America’s educational system. PATRICIA L. NASON, Ph .D. “Darwin Day is especially important in the United States today because the percentage of he 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth is being celebrated all citizens who accept the evidence for evolution 1 over the world. In 1909, Darwin’s 100th birthday celebration was spon- is among the lowest of industrialized nations.” Other terms that are used to describe belief in sored by the New York Academy of Sciences. The first “Darwin Day” creation science are mythology, religion, and was celebrated just over ten years ago in 1997 and has gained momen- nonscientific beliefs. The evangelists for evolu- tumT and recognition in the past ten years with the help of the Humanist Society. tion are aware of the American public’s support and belief in a special creation, as depicted in Darwin Day and Education the following surveys:

• In a 2007 Gallup survey, 66 percent of Amer- Darwin Day is seen by many “as icans considered the statement “creationism, an occasion for education and out- that is, the idea that God created human be- reach in biological evolution.”1 The ings pretty much in their present form at Institute for Humanist Studies main- one time within the last 10,000 years” as ei- tains a Darwin Day Celebration ther probably (27 percent) or definitely (39 website (darwinday.org) with percent) true.2 the stated purpose of promot- ing “public education about • “Roughly two-thirds of Americans favor science” and encouraging “the adding creationism to the school curricu- celebration of Science and Hu- lum....Approximately 40%-50% of the pub- manity throughout the global lic accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life.”3 community.” Why is the emphasis on Darwin Day so important, espe- • “Thousands of public schools around the cially to science educators? country do not allow the biblical perspec- Until the early part of the 20th tive on the creation process to be taught in century, the accepted explanation for their classrooms. The survey shows that most origins was creation. This was taught as Americans are dismayed by that point-of- fact in American public schools. The turn- view. About six out of every ten adults (59%) ing point of the creation/evolution debate favor teaching creationism while less than in America was the Scopes “Monkey” Trial four out of ten (38%) do not want it added to 4 in 1925. By 1933 both creation and evolution the public school curriculum content.” were taught in the classroom, but now creation A Philosophical Foundation is “out” and only evolution is taught as fact. That is, any scientific explanation contrary to The fundamental questions for mankind evolution is not tolerated. are “Where did we come from?” and “Who are

34 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & we?”5 The biological evolutionist asks similar describes Evolution Weekend as “an opportu- your home so that your children have resourc- questions when making a case for evolution: nity for serious discussion and reflection on the es. Discuss with them the concepts of biologi- “How did things come to be that way?” and relationship between religion and science.” cal evolution and teach them to discern which

“What process has created this extraordinary One important goal is to elevate the concepts are scientific. variety of life?”6 quality of the discussion on this critical Whether your children are in public These questions are not scientific ques- topic—to move beyond sound bites. A or Christian school, examine their textbooks tions but rather are philosophical in nature. second critical goal is to demonstrate that for evolutionary concepts. Become a member As long as men believe that God created the religious people from many faiths and of the textbook adoption committee at your locations understand that evolution is universe, all other aspects of life focus on the Christian school. Be sure that the teachers in sound science and poses no problems for Creator. Although Darwin proposed the theory their faith.8 your school have content knowledge about cre- of evolution, a philosophical foundation had to ation science. Tell teachers about ICR’s online be established to deconstruct individual belief What Can Parents and the Church Do? Masters in Science Education program. in God. is the politically ac- Teach a Sunday School class in your cepted religion of the day and its foundations Secular educational research in science church on the facts of creation science. Pray lie in the theory of evolution. teaching focuses on ways to influence those that God will convict church leaders and mem- The Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III who reject evolution and strategies to get bers of the whole truth of the Bible. Begin to outline the philosophical and religious beliefs students to deconstruct former ideas about build a young earth creation science library in that promote evolution. The very first tenet of origins. In a study done by Anton Lawson and your church. Ask your pastor what he believes Manifesto I states, “Religious humanists regard William Worsnop, one of the influencing fac- about creation. Suggest he take the online Cre- the universe as self-existing and not created.” tors on which the researchers focused was the ationist Worldview certificate program offered God’s plan as stated in Genesis 1:1 is absolutely individual’s “strength of religious commit- by ICR to come to a better understanding of denied. Likewise, the second tenet proclaims, ment....This prediction is based upon the com- the biblical view of creation. “Humanism believes that man is a part of na- monsense notion that acquiring a new belief is Most importantly, teach your children ture and that he has emerged as a result of a easier when you do not have to give up a prior that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word—all of it. 9 continuous process.”7 God’s purpose for man- belief to do so.” Darwin’s treatises were written by a man, but the kind’s existence is denied. If humans are the In a time when churches and schools do Bible is the inspired revelation of God. Although result of a continuous process, He did not plan not make creation a serious issue, Christians the world celebrates the empty philosophy of a for them when he created the world and there need to take to heart the biblical command from mere man, Christians should celebrate creation. is no reason for them to be holy and blameless Deuteronomy 6:6-7: “And these words, which I Jesus Christ is worthy to receive glory and honor before Him (Ephesians 1:4). command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and power because He created all things and all And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy things exist because of him (Revelation 4:11). Evolution Invades the Church children, and shalt talk of them when thou sit- References test in thine house, and when thou walkest by 1. Good, R. M. 2008. Celebrate Darwin Day, An Event for Ed- The evolution/creation debate centers on the way, and when thou liest down, and when ucation and Outreach in Evolutionary Biology. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 1 (3): 306. science and both sides have much at stake. The thou risest up.” Christians should teach their 2. Gallup poll results. 2007. USA Today. Posted on usatoday. issues involved profoundly affect politics, law, children the following biblical principles: com June 7, 2007. 3. Reading the Polls on Evolution and Creationism: Pew Re- and education because they form the philo- search Center Pollwatch. The Pew Research Center for the • The universe and mankind were created by People and the Press. Posted on people-press.org Septem- sophical foundation on which these institu- ber 28, 2005. tions are based. Schools, courts, thought, and God 4. How “Christianized” Do Americans Want Their Country to • A relationship with God gives life purpose Be? The Barna Update. Posted on barna.org July 26, 2004. the fate of mankind hinge on the outcome. 5. Colson, C. and N. Pearcey. 1999. How Now Shall We Live? and meaning Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, xiii. Public education is not the only educa- 6. National Academy of Sciences. 1998. Teaching About Evolu- tional system that is being impacted by Darwin • Man was created in God’s image tion and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National • There is hope through a loving God Academy Press, 1. and humanism. Christian schools around the 7. First published in 1933. Posted on the American Humanist • Freedom is in Christ alone Association website at americanhumanist.org. country (for example, in California) are being 8. 2009 Evolution Weekend. Posted on the Clergy Letter Proj- forced to accept state-adopted textbooks or • Sin and the need for moral values ect website at www.butler.edu/clergyproject. 9. Lawson, A. E. and W. A. Worsnop. 1992. Learning about their students will not be accepted in state col- • Christ is the only means for salvation and Evolution and Rejecting a Belief in Special Creation: Ef- eternal life fects of Reflective Reasoning Skill, Prior leges and universities. Knowledge, Prior Belief Evolution has also penetrated America’s • There is a God and He is the final judge and Religious Commit- ment. Journal of Research churches! February 12, 2006, was the first Sun- Become knowledgeable about the bibli- in Science Teaching. 29 (2): 144. day set aside to observe Evolution Sunday. The cal view of creation and the scientific evidence —which to date has almost for it. Talk with your children about God’s cre- Dr. Nason is Chair of the 12,000 signatures of pastors on its “Open Letter” Department of Science ation as often as possible as you observe the Education. rejecting the biblical doctrine of creation— created world. Start a creation science library in

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 35 & BACK TO GENESIS

Do “New Species” Demonstrate Darwinism?

FRANK SHERWIN, M.A., and Brian Thomas, M.S.

hat species undergo change in this “speciation.” They do so, however, because of a are most often able to interbreed at the family grand system called earth is appar- loss of information—the opposite direction to or subfamily levels of conventional taxonomy.8 ent, but those changes do not occur what Darwinian evolution requires. For exam- For example, domestic cats breed with some T the way Charles Darwin envisioned. ple, “the ‘herring gulls,’ as you move around the wild cats, and there is evidence that perhaps all Living things do shift behaviors and physiolo- globe, become…more like lesser black-backed of today’s cat varieties—most of which are in gies in response to environmental (and other) gulls.”5 They interbreed in a continuum, until the subfamily felinae—descended from origi- pressures, but can these minor changes com- the ends of the ring meet in Europe, where nal representatives of the cat “kind.” pletely rework a creature’s essential form (a these two species no longer interbreed. These Despite the smokescreen that conflict- concept referred to as “macroevolution”)? De- changes are presented as evidence for evolu- ing definitions can create, there remains no cades of research emphatically say no. tion, but really only represent variety within evidence that basic kinds can morph from one Often, small changes within a kind are the gull kind. And “it is by no means certain to another. Once again, real science and Scrip- referred to as “microevolution,” which has been that this type of gradual process can lead to the ture concur: “All flesh is not the same flesh: defined as “evolution resulting from a succes- origin of a fundamentally different species.”6 but there is one kind of flesh of men, another sion of relatively small genetic variations that In his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another often cause the formation of new subspecies.”1 Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39). Creation scientists agree that small variations Time, evolutionist Jonathan Weiner actually References occur, both because they can be observed, validated the creationist position of variation 1. Leonard, B. Critical Analysis of Evolution – Grade 10. Draft Reflecting Changes Made at March 2004 State Board of and because it is reasonable that a wise Cre- within kind by admitting that the supposedly Education Meeting, page 314. Ohio Department of Educa- ator would equip His creatures with survival- different members of “new species” of finches tion. Available online at www.texscience.org. 2. Allaby, M. (ed.) 1992. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zo- enhancing capabilities. But these variations do on the Galapagos Islands could occasionally ology. New York: Oxford University Press. 7 3. Agapow, P. et al. 2004. The Impact of Species Concept on not lead to large-scale changes between kinds. interbreed. Creatures that can no longer in- Biodiversity Studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 79 Indeed, “there is no agreement [among evolu- terbreed with certain others of their kind are (2): 162. 4. Palumbi, S. R. 1994 Genetic Divergence, Reproductive Iso- tionists] as to whether macroevolution results just dead-end varieties without some of the lation, and Marine Speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25: 547-572. from the accumulation of small changes due to potentials of their more genetically enriched 5. Dawkins, R. 2004. The Ancestor’s Tale. New York: Hough- microevolution, or whether macroevolution is forebears. ton Mifflin, 303. 6. Palmer, T. 1999. Controversy: Catastrophism and Evolution. uncoupled from microevolution.”2 And fruit flies remain clearly distinguish- New York: Kluwer Academic, 121. 7. Weiner, J. 1994. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution The confusing array of definitions for able as fruit flies, even after almost a century in Our Time. New York: Knopf. See also Grant, P. R. et al. the word “species” can obscure deficiencies in of mutation-inducing experiments. There is 2003. Inbreeding and Interbreeding in Darwin’s Finches. Evolution. 57 (12): 2911-6. Darwinian evolution. As leading scientists have no evidence that new genetic material—other 8. Wood, T. C. 2006. The Current Status of Baraminology. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 43 (3): 149-158. admitted, “The very term ‘species’ is deeply than newly-damaged material—is produced. ambiguous.”3 Harvard’s Steven Palumbi said Pre-existing genes can be shuffled, marred, or Mr. Sherwin is Senior Science Lecturer and Mr. Thomas is Science Writer. in 1994 that “the formation of species has long lost, but never invented by nature. represented one of the most central, yet also Instead of using the term “species,” one of the most elusive, subjects in evolution- which has genetic, morphological, ecological, ary biology.”4 and evolutionary definitions, employing the If different species are described as es- concept of Genesis 1 “kinds” can clarify mat- sentially those forms which cannot interbreed, ters. These true-to-form kinds do not match then new species do arise, a process called well with conventional species because they

36 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & and natural selection—the pillars of Darwin’s theory—have thus been extrapolated into ulti- mate realms of the unseen and unknowable. Statements by Darwin about astronomy are rare, but he was driven by two ideas that motivated him and his disciples to extrapo- late natural selection without limit. One was his fascination with the accumulation of small changes. The other was his desire to explain everything, even the human mind, by natural laws, of which the “law” of natural selection is his legacy. But who does the accumulating? “Stuff Happens” And who does the selecting? Biographer Janet Browne described how Darwin agonized over A Review of Darwin’s Influence the word “selection” when critics pointed out the word’s inherent personification.6 “Nature” on Modern Astronomy cannot select without being cast in personal, teleological terms. DAVID F. COPPEDGE Darwin promoted a mindless cosmos, subject to the undirected accumulation of nu- merous successive, slight, chance variations. arwinism has invaded astron- some earlier time somewhere in the universe, Less than a year before his death, though, he ex- omy at many levels. This un- a civilization evolved probably by some kind of pressed “horrid doubt” whether his own mind derscores the contention that Darwinian means.”4 Expelled also showed por- could be trusted if it had developed from the 7 Darwinism is not just a theory tions of an early documentary called “Cosmic lower animals. He should have doubted fur- Dabout the origin of species—it is an all-encom- Evolution” that wove a seamless tale from Big ther whether any law that depends on chance passing worldview. Bang to man. This is typical of the genre: evolu- is a “law” at all. Stripped of personification, The most obvious extension of Darwin- tion is presented as the grand unifying theme of natural selection can be adapted to explain ism into astronomy has been in Astrobiology1 astronomy as well as biology. anything—and therefore explains nothing. and SETI.2 The foundation of both ventures is Another level of Darwinism in astron- Darwin Day is a good time to re-evaluate the belief that the same natural processes as- omy is the application of the word selection to the trustworthiness of an animal mind attempt- sumed to have produced life on earth probably planets, stars, and galaxies. This is evident in ing to explain the universe with reference to a produced it on other planets as well. This is the Anthropic Principle. Why do we live on a natural law that reduces to: “Stuff happens.” clear in the Drake Equation of SETI’s founding habitable planet orbiting a life-friendly star in References 1. Coppedge, D. F. 2006. Astrobiology: Follow the…. Acts & father, Frank Drake. It relies on the assumption a galactic habitable zone? The inevitable expla- Facts. 35 (7). 2. Coppedge, D. F. 2006. SETI: Design in Spite of Itself. Acts & that life will emerge on some planets, and in nation, once again, is natural selection: because Facts. 35 (9). certain cases will evolve up to intelligence. Fur- we’re here, nature must have selected a habitat 3. Education and Public Outreach Programs. SETI Institute. Posted on seti.org. ther evidence of SETI’s debt to Darwin can be where life could evolve. Many astrobiologists go 4. Stein, B. 2008. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. DVD. Direct- ed by Nathan Frankowski. Premise Media Corporation, L.P. found in the SETI Institute’s description of its further and assume life will evolve wherever the 5. Coppedge, D. F. 2006. There’s Only One Universe. Acts & high school curriculum: “Evolution is the core conditions are right. Facts. 35 (12). 6. Browne, E. J. 2002. Charles Darwin: The Power of Place. theme of Voyages Through Time.” 3 The ultimate level of cosmic Darwinism Princeton, NJ: Princeton 5 University Press, 311-312. A cursory reading of SETI literature re- is the multiverse hypothesis. Advocates of the 7. Letter to William Graham, veals its adherence to a godless cosmology. In multiverse freely employ “natural selection” or Down, July 3, 1881. the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, “environmental selection” as a law-like mecha- David Coppedge works in the Richard Dawkins admitted that life might nism that filters through a nearly-infinite supply Cassini Program at the Jet Pro- have been intelligently designed—by aliens. of random universes and selects the ones where pulsion Laboratory. The views expressed are his own. But he assured a surprised Ben Stein that “at life can emerge and evolve. Random variation

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 37 & LETTERS TO THE EDITOR This month on I heard on the Christian radio station about the YEAR LONG celebration “Science, Scripture, & Salvation” of the birth and publication of Darwin and the Evolution of Species. Your work is ahead of you….The children are going to be inundated with the W e e k e n d o f Fe b r u a r y 7 lies that have destroyed our society, but as a student finishing my Doctor- ate of Apologetics, I have found your services a God send, and appreciate The Book That Deceived the World your continuing [the] effort that Henry Morris started long ago. Words can be a powerful and persuasive tool for good or evil. In — G.L. 1859, a book that challenged the truthfulness of God’s Word and

denied Him as Creator was published and became widely received. I recently subscribed to your Acts & Facts magazine and I am so im- What was this book that deceived the world? Tune in to find out and pressed! I am continually awed and find myself falling more in love with to learn why it is still so popular. this great God that we serve. Thank you for making this information so readily available. W e e k e n d o f F e b r u a r y 14 — K.B. Lincoln and Darwin

Love the look and layout of the website—simple, yet elegant—just as Lincoln and Darwin are not names that you’d normally hear in the many of God’s designs are. same sentence. But these two historical figures are similar in some — R.S. very ominous ways. What are they? And what is the main difference between them? Go back in time with us as we compare the great slave Thank you for always being there, in times of peace and in times of tur- emancipator with the father of the evolution movement. moil. Your [Days of Praise] daily emails have strengthened me so much; W e e k e n d o f F e b r u a r y 21 I use them during my quiet time with the Lord, and find that God has somehow touched you all to teach on the very subject in which I am in Dr. Morris Speaks on the Case for Creation need of counsel. Thank you for loving me in Christ so greatly. Every week it seems that there is something about evolution or — K.C. creation in the news! Evolution is flaunted as being scientific fact. But is it as solid as many believe? On today’s program, ICR founder Thank you for your [radio] programs. The Lord is using them to help Dr. Henry Morris gives us the “Case for Creation.” Don’t miss this folks understand this world we live in, glorify God for His marvelous thought-provoking program! creation and call on Him for His “so great” salvation! Please keep the W e e k e n d o f F e b r u a r y 28 standard and the standards high! — R.C. Explaining Away the Miracles

We know, through Scripture, that our God is able to do anything. Jer- I have been attending a couple of churches, and pastors agree that the Acts emiah 32:17 says, “Ah Lord GOD! Behold, thou hast made the heaven & Facts is a very good publication (with many Bible references)….I am and the earth by thy great power…there is nothing too hard for thee.” hoping to see other pastors occasionally to hand them their copy and pro- So why are great miracles like the sun standing still and Christ’s mote their contacting you directly for their own new accounts….I intend bodily resurrection from the dead constantly being challenged by to hit some schools if my efforts with local pastors get the fire lit. I’ll be giv- television, print media, and science in general? Listen in as we discuss ing a copy to the mayor, soon as well. Seeds only grow if they are planted. how the world keeps “Explaining Away the Miracles” of God. — D.M.

To find out which radio stations in your city air our programs, visit Editor’s Note: Do you have friends who want to get Acts & Facts? our website at www.icr.org. On the radio page use the station locator Subscribing to our free publications is easy—just tell them to visit­​ to determine where you can hear our broadcasts in your area. You www.icr.org/signup, or have them call 800.337.0375 to sign up for can also listen to current and past Science, Scripture & Salvation themselves! programs online, so check us out!

Have a comment? Email us at [email protected]. Or write to Editor, P. O. Box 59029, Dallas, Texas 75229.

38 ACTS FACTS • FEBRUARY 2009 & STEWARDSHIP

is made of the vast scientific inconsistencies in evolutionary methodology, the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, or the unexplainable complexities within genetic Willful material that supposedly arose by pure happenstance! Only knowledge “acquired solely through human curiosity and ingenuity” is lauded and celebrated. Yet the Bible calls such people “fools” (Psalm 53:1). This situation comes as no surprise to ICR, nor should it to Christians Ignorance everywhere who study and apply Scripture to their lives. The apos- Henry M. Morris IV tle Peter warned us nearly two millennia ago that “there shall come in the last days scoff- ers” who openly question “the promise of his coming” because “all ebruary 2009 will see things continue as multiple celebrations they were from the held around the world beginning” (2 Peter Fin honor of “Darwin 3:3-4). They “willingly Day,” established “in appreciation are ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5) of the evi- of verifiable knowledge that has dence that is so easily seen through God’s wondrous been acquired solely through creation “that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Simple 1 human curiosity and ingenuity.” ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance? That is quite a different No doubt the festivities this year issue altogether! will be doubly significant, marking both the 200th birthday of Charles So what shall we do? ICR has stood in the gap of willful ignorance Darwin on February 12th and the 150th anniversary of his work On the for nearly 40 years, combating the compromise of evolutionary think- Origin of Species, published in 1859. ing with scientific research, education, and literal biblical commentary. According to several websites dedicated to its promotion, various But we cannot continue alone, and we seek your help to stand with us. events will be held—ranging from lectures, debates, and panel discus- Practically speaking, gifts of cash and stock are the lifeblood of our min- sions, to concerts, exhibitions, and dinner parties (and even a “Darwin- istry, for they provide the immediate fuel necessary to purchase supplies ian” barbecue!)—to pay homage to the man many believe opened the and fund our outreach programs. Designating ICR as a beneficiary in door to a completely naturalistic (read “atheistic”) way of thinking con- your will, 401(k) plan, IRA, or life insurance policy would also be most cerning the question of origins. Bible-believing Christians know bet- appreciated. This is quick and easy to do, and oftentimes provide much ter, however: evolutionary forms of thinking were present thousands of larger benefits than you may think possible. Longer range gifts—such years before Darwin made them popular. as income-producing gift annuities or charitable trusts, or donations Yet, as I scan the various celebrations—over 120 events in 18 of property and equipment—can also provide a tremendous advan- countries at last count—it is interesting to note that nearly 70 percent tage, and ICR would be happy to assist you with these. And since all of them will be held here in the United States. England (Darwin’s home gifts to ICR are tax deductible, a welcome tax savings provides a double country) and Canada tie for a distant second place with only 7 events bounty for your help. I am always available to answer your questions, each. If the proliferation of Darwin Day celebrations is any indicator, so please contact me to discuss how you can join what a sad testimony it is to see how far America has moved from its with us—your earthly investment will reap eter- Judeo-Christian foundation in the knowledge and proclamation of our nal benefits. Almighty Creator and Divine Provider. Reference As I read the reviews of dignitaries who will preside over these 1. Bicentennial Darwin Day Events, located on the Darwin Day events, I am struck by the arrogance in which they proclaim the so- Celebration website at www.darwinday.org. called “proof” of evolution revealed by Charles Darwin. No mention Mr. Morris is Director of Donor Relations.

FEBRUARY 2009 • ACTS FACTS 39 & Host an ICR De m a n d t h e Ev i d e n c e seminar or conference in your city.

n 2009, the world is celebrating the life and work of churches, schools, and in citywide conferences. Charles Darwin, the man who popularized the notion of Hear speakers like Dr. Henry Morris III, Dr. John Morris, evolution. Are you prepared to combat this false doctrine Dr. Randy Guliuzza, Frank Sherwin, and others who present and those who would compromise the Word of God? solid evidence from science and Scripture on topics such as I For nearly 40 years, the Institute for Creation Research the Creationist Worldview, What Happened to the Dinosaurs, has led the way in research and education in the field of scien- Examining the Fossil Record, The Great Global Flood, The tific and biblical creation, bringing the evidence for creation to Search for Noah’s Ark, and many more.

Nonprofit Organization Contact the ICR Events Department to U.S. POSTAGE PAID schedule a De m a n d t h e Ev i d e n c e P. O. Box 59029, Dallas, TX 75229 INSTITUTE FOR seminar or conference in your area. www.icr.org CREATION RESEARCH

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED 800.337.0375 [email protected]

Demand the evidence. Get it @ ICR.