Creation Research Society Quarterly

Haec credimus: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested on the seventh. — Exodus 20:11

VOLUME 18 JUNE, 1981 NUMBER 1 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY Copyright 1981 © by Creation Research Society VOLUME 18 JUNE, 1981 NUMBER 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EDITORIAL BOARD Dedication to Wilbert Henry Rusch, Sr...... 3 Wayne Frair Harold L. Armstrong, Editor Design in Nature: the Fiery Skipper Butterfly 4 Couper Street Hylephila Phyleus (Drury) as an Efficient Feeder on Kingston, Ontario, Canada Flowers of Lantana Camara L...... 4 Walter E. Lammerts, Research Editor Joseph M. Rea The Episteme is the Theory ...... 8 Thomas G. Barnes ...... University of Texas at El Paso, Texas Randall Hedtke Duane T. Gish ...... Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, Calif. A Physicist Looks at Evolution ...... 14 H. S. Lipson George F. Howe ...... Los Angeles Baptist College, Newhall, Calif. A Pre-Main-Sequence Stellar Model John W. Klotz...... Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. Applied to Close Binary Star Systems ...... 15 Jon K. West John N. Moore ...... Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Alleged Evolution of the order Primates, Henry M. Morris ...... Institute for Creation Research, Including Monkeys and Apes...... 20 San Diego, Calif. W. Mehlert William J. Tinkle ...... Anderson College (retired) “Punctuated Equilibrium” and the North Manchester, Indiana Macro-Micromutation Controversy ...... 22 John C. Whitcomb ...... Grace Theological Seminary, A. James Melnick Winona Lake, Ind. Let Us Reason Together ...... 25 Emmett Williams ...... Continental Telephone Laboratories, William J. Tinkle Norcross, Georgia The Sun’s Luminosity and Age ...... 27 Notices of change of address, and failure to receive this publication James Hanson should be sent to Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr. 2717 Cranbrook Road, Ann Time and Ancient Records ...... 30 Arbor, Michigan 48104. David C. C. Watson Creation Research Society Quarterly is published by the Creation Satellite Observations Confirm the Research Society, 2717 Cranbrook Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan Decline of the Earth’s Magnetic Field ...... 39 48104. © by Creation Research Society. Thomas G. Barnes Creation Research Society Quarterly is indexed in the Christian Creationism and Continental Drift...... 42 Periodical Index. G. Robert Morton The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary- Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment ...... 46 John Woodmorappe Popgen I: Computer Simulation of Population Genetics ...... 71 Lane P. Lester COVER ILLUSTRATION Panorama of Science ...... 73 The illustration on the front cover shows the but- Book Reviews (1) ...... 75 terflies Hylephila phyleus, a male on the left and a Letters to the Editor (5) ...... 76 female on the right, on flowers of Lantana camara. Study shows that these butterflies exhibit a very con- siderable degree of efficiency in their foraging, avoiding useless stops and unnecessarily long flights. A Creation- ELECTION RESULTS ist can view this as another provision of the Creator, Who made these creatures well suited to their way of In the annual election, held earlier this year, the life. following persons were elected to the Board of Director, Mr. Joseph M. Rea provided this picture, and carried for a term of three years, 198l-1983. out the studies during which it was taken. His work is Clifford L. Burdick John R. Meyer described in an article elsewhere in this issue of the Wayne Frair John N. Moore Quarterly. George F. Howe George Mulfinger, Jr. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 3

DEDICATION TO WILBERT HENRY RUSCH, SR.

The Creation Research Society is pleased to dedicate its 18th Annual Issue to its most recently-elected fellow, Wilbert Henry Rusch, Sr., who is the only person who has been serving continuously as an officer of the socie- ty since its inception in 1963. His tenure began when John Grebe handed him a check for $500. From 1963 through 1967 he served as treasurer-membership sec- retary of the C.R.S.; and since 1968 when respon- sibilities of his office were divided, he remained as membership secretary. His extensive duties in this capacity have included maintaining the membership roll, receiving dues and membership applications and mailing the quarterlies. Also, since his name and ad- dress are listed prominently on applications, he serves as the main interface of the C.R.S. officers not only with C.R.S. members, but also with those outside the society. Consequently he receives most of the mail to the society and over the years has had to deal with numerous dif- ficult questions and problems. Son of a River Forest, Illinois, college professor, Bill Rusch was born in Chicago, 19 February 1913. He was educated at Grace Lutheran School and Concordia High School, River Forest (1929 graduate); Concordia Teachers College, River Forest (diploma, 1931); Illinois Institute of Technology (B.S., 1934); U. of Michigan (M.S. in biology, 1952); Eastern Michigan U., Ypsilanti (Sp.S., 1969). He has studied at a number of universities including Purdue and U. of Nebraska, the latter for graduate work in geology. In 1975 Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis awarded him the Doctor of Laws degree. member of the Nebraska Academy of Science and serv- Dr. Rusch’s teaching career began in 1932 when he ed as a member of the Board of Directors 1960-1963. was instructor of music and mathematics at Concordia From 1964-1980 he was a member of the National Teachers College, Seward, Nebraska. He has a stint in Association of Geology Teachers. the U.S. postal service, graduate studies in chemistry, Dr. Rusch has published in the Creation Research and taught at the Junior Military Academy, Chicago, Society Quarterly three book reviews and six papers in- 1936-1937. For the next 20 years he was on the faculty cluding: “Analysis of So-called Evidences of of the old Concordia College, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Evolution”, “The Revelation of Palynology”, “Recapi- teaching mathematics, physical sciences and biology. tulation”, “Human Footprints in Rocks”, “Poor Bill’s During this time he moonlighted at the Purdue Univer- Almanac”, and “Darwin’s Last Hours”. Also he has sity Extension Services and Lutheran Hospital School of written chapters on creation (Darwinism, Human Nursing, Fort Wayne. After another six years at Con- Fossils, and Analysis of Evidences) for three Concordia cordia in Seward, this time as a biology, physics and books. He published his Tree Key for the Great Lakes geology professor, he transferred to what now is Con- States (2 editions). cordia College in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where since its He has presented talks on creation in many places in- beginning in 1963 he has served as a professor of cluding campuses of the U. of Michigan, U. of Arkan- biology and geology and as head of the Science and sas, South Dakota State, U. of South Dakota, and U. of Mathematics Division. Also he has been alternately Ac- Oklahoma. Also he has participated in large public ting President and Academic Dean there for several United States creation conventions including the first in years in the 1970’s. In 1980 he became Professor Los Angeles in 1963 as well as subsequent ones in Emeritus. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1972; Anaheim, California, in In 1937 Dr. Rusch married Margaret Kogge of 1979; and River Forest, Illinois, in 1980. Chicago; and they have five children and eleven grand- People talk about the days when one man could children. understand the totality of science. This kind of person Bill Rusch’s activities have included membership in becomes rarer with passing years, but Bill Rusch is one the National Association of Biology Teachers of the best examples I know of who exemplifies this type 1952-1979; and he was their Nebraska State Member- of person today. His interests are broad, his knowledge ship Chairman 1959-1963. He was a member of the Na- encyclopedic, and his administrative and scholarly cap- tional Science Teachers Association 1958-1963 and abilities noteworthy. Currently Dr. Rusch is serving as served on the planning committee for a regional con- editor for a revised C.R.S. high school biology textbook. vention in 1961. Also while in Nebraska he was a Contributed by Wayne Frair 4 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

DESIGN IN NATURE: THE FIERY SKIPPER BUTTERFLY HYLEPHILA PHYLEUS (DRURY) AS AN EFFICIENT FEEDER ON FLOWERS OF LANTANA CAMARA L.

JOSEPHM. REA* Received 1 August, 1980 The Fiery Skipper butterfly Hylephila phyleus Drury forages efficiently on flowers of Lantana camara L. Hylephila phyleus feeds preferentially from florets of L. camara likely to contain nectar. While foraging on a small artificial patch of flowers of L. camara. H. phyleus chooses the closest flowers 80% of the time. Analysis of foraging bouts on the artificial patch of 3 flower visits in sequence revealed a frequency of revisitation lower than that expected from a random foraging model. This small butterfly demonstrates a neurological program, endowed at the creation, for effi- cient foraging.

Biolclrical literature is replete with examples of mor- that yellow flowers of Lantana contain nectar, but by phological features of animals that contribute to sur- the time the flowers turn reddish-orange (a different vival. However, structural features alone do not insure variety of Lantana camara than the present study) they survival. Appropriate animal behavior, within each contain no nectar. ecological context is also essential for survival. The Fiery Skipper Hylephila phyleus feeds at high Since the biosphere was created by an infinitely wise densities on Lantana camara plants, hence is suitable God we can expect that he has programmed the nervous for a study of foraging behavior. Lantana camara has system (via genes) of His creatures with the ability to an indeterminate panicle inflorescence with many make decisions that result in incurred benefit. This salverform, slightly zygomorphic florets per flower seems obvious with respect to man, but perhaps not so head. (See the front cover, which is also Figure 1 of this obvious in insects. article.) Maturation is centrifugal with young florets at Optimal foraging theory states that animals will the center and older florets around the outside of each make foraging decisions that maximize net intake of head. First-day, or newly opened florets are yellow in food per unit of foragiing time. Optimal foraging theory color with an orange center, second-day florets are has received much attention in the literature. Ex- lavender in color with an orange center, and third-day perimental tests have been reported by Dixon,’ Wolf,* florets are all lavender in color. Charnov,3 Cowie,4 Pyke, Pulliam, and Charnov,5 Pyke,G Within the context of optimal foraging theory I will and Waddington,’ and models have been proposed by examine the following questions concerning the feeding MacArthur and Pianka,* Emlen,’ Rapport,‘O Royama,” behavior of the Fiery Skipper on flowers of Lantana and Charnov.‘* Each study and model contain the same camara: l)Does H. phyleus avoid feeding at florets that basic tenet: animal fitness t is positively related to forag- are void of nectar? 2)How far does H. phyleus move ing efficiency, hence foragers that maximize energy in- when going from flower head to flower head within a take per unit foraging time should have more surviving patch? 3)Does H. phyleus actively avoid visiting flowers offspring. at which it has recently fed? Nectar in nature is not spatially or temporally uni- formly distributed. Because creationists believe God has Methods and Material endowed His creatures with the requisite behavioral Data for this study were collected at Lantana plants repertoire for survival the possibility exists that but- in suburban Phoenix, Maricopa county, Arizona, from terflies can sense the discontinuity of nectar availability 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on sunny days with little or no in flowering plants and make foraging decisions that in- wind during the months of June, July, and August of crease foraging efficiency. Heinrich13 commenting on 1979. foraging strategies noted that profits or potential rewards to flower visitors decisively affect their Floret Color Choice behavior, and that the Lepidoptera acquire a “search image” during foraging as they learn to respond to The presence or absence of nectar in yellow and stimuli associated with their food items. According to lavender florets was assessed by slicing open the floret BakerI flowers visited primarily by butterflies produce with a scalpel and looking for nectar inside with a copious amounts of nectar and are consistently rich in dissecting microscope. In most cases the nectar, if pre- amino acids. Swihart and Swihartls reported on the sent, was in sufficient quantity to be seen with the ability of the butterfly Heliconius charitonius Linn. to tFitness here is used by the above mentioned authors in a macroevo- learn to modify feeding preference through condition- lutionary context. According to Neo-Darwinism fitness refers to the ing to feed preferentially at certain colors of artificial number of genes an organism contributes to the next generation. flowers that contain honey and the B-vitamins. However, this definition of fitness does not violate any principle of Dronamrajule reported that butterflies preferentially the creation model of origins. Certainly, survival of creatures is im- visit yellow flowers of Lantana and Barrows” reported portant to the Creator, and macroevolution is not intended by the author. Verifiable, empirical, scientific data cannot contradict the creation model of origins. Creation scientists necessarily disagree *Mr. Joseph M. Rea’s address is Saratoga Gardens, 7 100 Rainbow with the evolutionists on interpretation and extrapolation, not on Drive, X28, San Jose, California 95129. observation. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 5 unaided eye. Floret color preferences were documented Flower Revisitation Frequency by observing the number and color of all florets probed Skippers often visited more than one flower on each (proboscis extended into a floret) per flower head by visit to the artificial patch. Maps were made from tape foraging skippers and recording the number of yellow recorded verbal records of the number of each flower and lavender florets on each flower head. position visited on the artificial patch to determine the probability of revisiting the initial flower in a 3-stop se- Flower Distance Choice quence. One hypothesis of optimal foraging theory is To evaluate flower choice by foraging skippers an ar- that the efficient forager should not cross its own path tificial patch was constructed to contain flower heads during a foraging bout.” Thus if insects are foraging ef- fixed in position in 2 dimensions. The artificial patch ficiently, they should forage in a pattern that reduces was constructed on a 24” square of plywood with 25 the likelihood of revisits to flowers. Heinrich13 noted holes 3/4” in diameter in 5 rows and 5 columns with 5” that most bees visit most florets on an inflorescence between any 2 holes of any row or column. Each hole without revisiting empties, which suggests that they can contained a “flower vase” made of pipe (l/2” inside “remember” florets they have already visited. With this diameter) 6” long capped at one end with an r/2” pipe idea in mind, data were collected on 1745 foraging cap on the underside of the plywood. Each “flower bouts of 3 or more flower stops on the artificial patch. vase” position on the artificial patch was given a number (Figure 2). Prior to each foraging bout 1 freshly cut Lantana flower with a 5” stem was placed in each Results vase. Distances travelled on the artificial patch by Description of Behavior of Skippers on Lantana foraging skippers are reported in relative units where 5” equals 1 unit. Note that diagonal distances are Skippers arrive at Lantana plants shortly after sun- greater than 1 and are reported as such. rise. Males arrive first. Activity shortly after arrival at Lantana plants consists mostly of sunning: males rest with the hind wings spread at right angles to incident solar radiation with the forewings nearly closed so as to present minimal surface area to incident solar radia- tion Apparently this behavior is common for males in the genus Hesperia.lg On July 23 and 24, from 7:30 to 0 0 l 0 l 8:30 a.m. 10 heads of Lantana received skipper visits 6 II I6 21 from 30 males, 9 females, and 3 sex unknowns. Sex ratios were approximately equal at 11:30 a.m. New florets of Lantana begin to open within a half-hour after sunrise. During this time skippers are inactive on Lan- 0 0 0 tana leaves. As soon as the new florets open skippers 2 7 22 begin to feed. Skippers land on a head of Lantana and center their heads over a yellow floret. Next, the legs are bent bringing the head closer to the floret in order to l l l 0 push the proboscis into the bottom of the floret tube. a 13 I8 23 There is a short hesitation as nectar is imbibed. The legs are then extended, the proboscis extracted and coiled, and the skipper moves to the next floret. Imbibing dura- l 0 tion per head seems to be related to nectar quality and 14 24 quantity per floret. Yellow florets of Lantana were spik- ed (solution added to floret via pipet) with distilled water and various concentrations of sucrose. The mean feeding time by skippers in seconds per unspiked head l l of Lantana was 6.95 * 4.22 (n= 19). In heads where 20 25 yellow florets were spiked with distilled water (control) mean feeding time in seconds per head increased only slightly to 8.81 * 8.18 (n= 14). However, mean feeding time in seconds per head increased to 194.27 + 18 1.67 (n = 11) seconds when spiked with 2.OM sucrose. In each case only flower heads with 6 yellow florets were used.

Floret Color Choice Eighty percent (n= 50) of yellow florets that were ex- Figure 2. This is a drawing, in plan and front elevation, of the artifi- amined contained nectar, whereas only 19 % (n = 50) of cial flower patch, with the flower vases. The vases were pieces of half- lavender florets contained nectar. Skippers probed inch pipe, six inches long, fastened to the piece of half-inch plywood with half-inch pipe caps. The unit distance, e.g. between vases 1 and nearly 75 % (n = 84) of yellow florets per head but prob- 6, is 5 inches; note that the diagonal distance between vases, e.g. be- ed less than 2% (n = 84) of lavender florets per head tween 1 and 7, is 1.41 times the unit distance. Skippers preferred yellow over lavender florets. 6 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

Distances Travelled Within the Artificial Patch , l l Figure 3 is a histogram of the results of data on flower . distance choice from maps of tape recorded verbal ac- l l counts of foraging paths of skippers on the artificial patch (see figure 4). More than 60% of all visits on the l l l l artificial patch were to adjacent (distance = 1) flowers. Over 80% of all visits on the artificial patch were to l l l l flowers either adjacent (distance = 1) or adjacent- diagonal (distance = 1.414). .&ifl l l l Flower Revisitation Frequency on the Artificial Patch Figure 4 shows a few typical foraging patterns of skippers on the artificial patch. Examination of these patterns suggested that foraging skippers pursue a non- random foraging “strategy” to reduce revisitation fre- quency. Sequences of 3 consecutive flower visits were 1 0 l l l examined to compare expected vs. observed revisitation frequencies. In a 3-stop sequence, what would be the l l l l l probability that the third flower visit was the same as the first in the sequence? The expected frequency is a l l l l l function of where the skipper is at the second stop. If at a corner the skipper has only 3 choices assuming adja- cent or adjacent-diagonal visits only: to the first flower visit in the 3-stop sequence (a revisit) or to one of the l l l

l l l l

0 i l l l

l l l l l l l k 0 .‘i l Figure 4. Some of the foraging patterns of H. Phyhs observed on the artificial patch are shown here.

(n = 109) other 2 flowers (not a revisit). If skippers are foraging randomly it is expected that 113 of all 3-stop sequences in which the second visit is to a corner will involve a revisit. By similar reasoning, it is expected that l/S of all 3-stop sequences in which the second visit is to an edge flower will involve a revisit. Similarly, assuming random foraging, it is expected that 118 of all 3-stop se- quences in which the second visit is to a central (non- edge, non-corner) flower will involve a revisit. Table I compares expected and observed foraging re- visit frequencies for 3-stop sequences on the artificial patch. The data summary is based upon 467 foraging bouts involving all 3 of the previously discussed loca- tions. Revisitation frequency was significantly less than expected for all 3 foraging locations.

Conclusions Floret Color Choice relative distance H. Phyleus appears to feed preferentially at florets Figure 3. This shows the frequency of occurrence of flights of various likely to contain nectar. It is clearly to the advantage of lengths, from one flower to the next visited, in the artificial patch, foraging skippers to major on yellow florets in terms of VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 an energy budget, maximizing return per unit foraging hyduru would not feed on cloudy days, and that butter- time. It is most likely skippers “choose” yellow florets flies became inactive in dull weather. If foraging skip- over lavender florets based upon a visual perceptual pers use the sun as a point of orientation for foraging system. Color vision in butterflies has been demon- directionality within a patch, this would in part explain strated in Heliconius eruto hydara by Crane.lg Floret observations of the curious behavior of skippers when a color change within 20 hours in L. camuru induced by cloud suddenly obscures sunlight: skippers either cease pollination was reported by Mathur and Mohan Ram*O to forage and remain motionless or seek the cover of low and Schemske. *’ According to Heinrich13 insect pollina- vegetation until the sun reappears. In both cases skip- tors avoid flowers void of nectar based upon corolla col- pers are much less easily provoked to a flying departure or change. These observations suggest that corolla by a human hand. However, there are possible alter- “choice” by pollinators is color mediated. native explanations for the lull in foraging activity by skippers when clouds obscure the sun. Clouds frequent- Foraging on the Artificial Patch ly portend inclement weather. Also, there is some Given the artificial foraging situation of non-random evidence that nectar flow in flowers decreases with spatial distribution of flowers fixed in 2 dimensions H. reduced sunlight .23,24 The behavioral trait of skippers to phyleus usually “chooses ” the closest flower heads of L. avoid previously visited heads of L. cumuru is clearly cumuru. Observation of H. phyleus foraging at L. advantageous in that it results in an increase in nectar cumuru bushes suggest the presence of this same obtained per unit foraging time. behavioral trait. The design advantage is obvious: I believe that the behavior of the Fiery Skipper with shorter flight distances require less energy. respect to color choice, distance choice, and foraging With regard to spatial foraging patterns Heinrich13 pattern demonstrate part of the neurological program noted that visiting flowers in a sequence rather than at of this insect, endowed at creation, to insure increased random reduces the possibility of revisiting empty foraging efficiency. It is my hope that this paper will be florets and that foraging along specific paths occurs in an inspiration to creation biologists to further expound butterflies. Analysis of foraging patterns of H. phyleus upon design in nature, and God’s wisdom as expressed on the artificial patch suggested that this insect forages in animal behavior. efficiently by actively avoiding previously visited heads of L. cumuru. Pyke*’ has formulated a model of movements for References foraging bumblebees. The model supposes that bumble- ‘Dixon, A. F. G., 1959. An experimental study of the searching be- bees choose the next flower to fly to by aiming their havior of the predatory coccinellid beetle Adalia decempuctata (1,). departure in some direction relative to the direction of Journal of Animal Ecology 28: 259-28 1. arrival at the present flower. Von Frisch** reported the 2Wolf, L. L., 1975. Energy intake and expenditure in a nectar feeding sunbird. Ecology. 56: 92-104. use of the sun as a compass by foraging honeybees. %harnov, E. L., 1976. Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a man- Cranelg noted that the butterfly Heliconius eruto tid. American Naturalist. 1 IO: 14 l-l 5 1. ‘Cowie, R. J., 1977. Optimal foraging in great tits (Parus major). Nature 268(56 16): 137- 139. SPyke, G. H., H. R. Pulliman, and E. L. Charnov, 1977. Optimal for- TABLE I. Results of analysis of expected vs. observed aging: a selective review of theory and tests. The Quarterly Review foraging revisit frequency, 3-stop sequence, on the ar- of Biology. 52: 137-l 55. tificial patch. OPyke, G. H., 1978. Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumble- bees between inflorescences. Theoretical Population Biology. Third stop to previously visited Third stop to other than pre- 13:72-98. head: a revisit viously visited head: not a re- ‘Waddington, K. D., 1979. Quantification of the movement patterns visit of bees: a novel method. The American Midland Naturalist. 10 l(2): 278-185. comer, 3 alternatives BMacArthur, R. H., and E. R. Pianka. 1966. On optimal use of a pat- observed 3 34 chy environment. American Naturalist. 100: 603-9. expected * 12.3 24.7 8Emlen, J. M., 1968. Letters to the Editor. Optimal choice in n = 37 animals. American Naturalist. 100: 6 1 l-6 17. x2= 10.53** “Rapport, D. J., 197 1. An optimization model of food selection. American Naturalist. 105:575-587. edge, 5 alternatives “Royama, T., 197 1. A comparative study of models for predation and observed 20 211 parisitism. Res. Population Ecology Supplement. 1: l-9 1, expected 46.2 184.8 ‘Xharnov, E. L., 1976. Optimal foraging: The marginal value n = 231 theorem. Theoretical Population Biology. 9: 129-36. X2= 18.57 13Heinrich, B. 1975. Energetics of pollination. Annual Review of Systematics and Ecology. 6: 139-l 70. central, 8 alternatives “Baker, I., 1973. Amino-acids in nectar and their evolutionary observed 5 194 significance. Nature. 24 1: l-23-73. expected 24.9 174 ‘5wihart, C. A., and S. L., 1970. Color selection and learned feeding n = 199 preferences in the butterfly Heliconius charitonius Linn. Animal Behavior. 1970. 18:60-64. X2= 18.2 ‘eDronamraju, K. R., 1958. The visits of insects to different colored flowers of Lantana camaru L. Curr. Sci. 27: 4.52. l For corner location expected frequency based on l/3 n. For edge “Barrows, E. M., 1976. Nectar robbing and pollination of Lantana location l/5 n. For central location, l/8 n. ** 0.05 level of significance at (r-l) (c-l) = 3.841 camaru (Verbenaceae). Biotropica 8(2): 132-l 35. (Continued on page 26) 8 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

THE EPISTEME IS THE THEORY† RANDALLHEDTKE* Received 27 June, 1980. The real purpose of evolution theory is not the scientific one of explaining the origin of life; for it is impossible to do that, utilizing only natural laws and phenomena. Rather, the theory is dedicated to a philosophical goal: to “ungod the universe”. The tool by which that is to be accomplished is what is known us the positive science episteme.

A delusion exists, widespread and deeply rooted; it is yet-to-be-discovered laws, The one inhibited growth the grand delusion regarding the creation-evolution because such mysteries were unlikely ever to be controversy. It is the popular false belief that evolution clarified; the other held open the hope that they theory is the result of pure, unadulterated, objective would be.4 science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Alter- Unfortunately for the positive science proponents, native points of view about origins such as creation, there are simply too many creationist scientists in the theistic evolution and even monstrous births were wide- history of science who have made many discoveries and ly discussed among Charles Darwin’s contemporaries. contributions to scientific knowledge to support the Today the only point of view given serious considera- assertions in the above paragraph. tion in textbooks and most periodicals is atheistic evolu- By the way, this article began as a review for the tion, perpetuating the grand delusion. Atheistic evolu- Quarterly of the book, Charles Darwin and the Problem tion became orthodox, not because it was proved and of Creation by Neal C. Gillespie;’ but because the book the other disproved, but because of two opposing dealt with subject matter that I was in the process of epistemes that exist concerning scientific methodology. researching, it turned out to be an article incorporating An episteme is the “historical a priori that in a given a review. Although Gillespie does not point this out, his period delimits in the totality of experience a field of book confirms what I had previously suspected, that the knowledge . . . ” In other words, a point of view for a positive science episteme is the theory of evolution. The particular period of time. An episteme is similar to, but positive science episteme is simply a polite way of broader than, Thomas S. Kuhn’s paradigm which is “a describing a prejudice against any belief in the super- synthesis of sufficient scientific merit to draw practi- natural. In other words, evolution theory does not exist tioners away from rival theories and which functions as to explain the origin of life, rather it exists to make pre- a source of future methods, questions, and problems.“’ judice respectable and acceptable. The two epistemes in question are the creation science episteme and the positive science episteme. Positivists would like to have us believe that the The creation science episteme emphasizes mind, pur- positive science episteme benefits science. The purpose pose and design in nature, while the positive science of science, within its limitations, is to investigate and episteme holds that scientific knowledge is” . . . the on- make truth statements about our environment. As to the ly valid form of knowledge and is limited to the laws of origin of life, unless someone observes a plant or animal nature and to processes involving ‘secondary’ or natural having evolved into another kind of plant or animal, causes exclusively.“* The positive science episteme evolution must remain a theory. But, by insisting upon “avowedly and purposely ungods the universe.“3 excluding special creation or any other alternatives, the Gillespie describes the rivalry between the two sciences positive science evolutionists have destroyed the objec- as follows: tivity and the very purpose of science itself as it relates Those who argue that there was no real warfare to the question of the origin of life. Positive science is between science and religion in the ninteenth cen- really a biased policy of exclusion that limits the in- tury ignore the presence of these two sciences. The vestigative powers of science and the education cur- old science was theologically grounded; the new riculum to a belief in evolution. was positive. The old had reached the limits of its If, in reality, the episteme is the theory, then that development. The new was asking questions that would explain the unscientific techniques that are the old could neither frame nor answer. The new employed to support evolution theory, such as the ex- had to break with theology, or render it a neutral travagant use of analogies, which really have little factor in its understanding of the cosmos, in order scientific value, the insistence upon having natural to construct a science that could answer questions selection conceived metaphorically rather than literally about nature in methodologically uniform terms. -metaphors, of course, are outside the realm of science Uniformity of law, of operation, of method were its -extrapolating microevolution as macroevolution, the watchwords. The old science invoked divine will as overriding bias in all of the interpretations of the an explanation of the unknown; the new postulated evidence for the origin of life, and the technique of im- munizing evolution theory against disproof by monger- *Mr. Randall Hedtke’s address is Route 1, Clearwater, Minnesota ing-in subsidiary hypotheses to explain away and 55320. neutralize conflicting facts. As, for example, efforts to I tAs is explained in the text, this item began as a review of Charles explain away the absence of intermediate fossils, a fact Darwin and the Problem of Creation, by Gillespie, Reference 1, and that was recognized even before the Origin of Species developed into an article. was written. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 9

The Victorian Era things happen; it could predict their occurrence; its Proevolution authors seem to make a point of omit- success precluded doubt. It seemed to ,many, at the ting consideration of socio-economic conditions at the time, final and unambiguous. One could depend on time of the publication of the Origin of Species. Readers it.e are given the impression that the social matrix of the The sociologists immediately recognized the philoso- times was irrelevant and that the positive science phical implications of the theory and began introducing episteme is the result “of pure reason untouched by the it to the public on that basis. The question of the scien- world.“5 I am convinced of quite the opposite-that the tific validity of the theory became and remains, for scientific and technological revolution that the Vic- most people, lost in its philosophical consequences. torian era was experiencing was of paramount impor- Evolution theory supposedly arose by science and by tance to the development of the positive science science it must stand or fall, and yet it soon happened episteme. I would go far as to say that evolution theory that the theory became instead a popular ethical, social and positivism, which it requires, are a direct product and philosophical concept that soon permeated nearly of what today is generally referred to as the industrial every aspect of Western culture: or scientific revolution. The industrial revolution made Persuasive because “science” was persuasive, evol- public attitude amenable to a prejudiced episteme. The ution became a watchword to the late Victorians. success factor for evolution theory was not the invinci- By the end of the century, hardly a field of thought ble evidence or the soundness of the theory, but the uto- remained unfertilized by the “new” concept. His- pian dream of a new world wrought by science. This torians had begun looking at the past as “a living dream that nearly everyone shared placed the public in organism”; legal theorists studied the law as a an ingenuous frame of mind; was not evolution theory developing social institution; critics examined the delivered to us under the auspices of science? Are not evolution of literary types; anthropologists and scientists the great benefactors of our time? Is not the sociologists invoked “natural selection” in their scientific method infallible? Seldom in the history of studies of social forms; apologists for the wealthy mankind had the power and the prestige of a fraternal showed how the poor are the “unfit” and how Prog- group risen so rapidly and to such dizzying heights as ress, under the leadership of the “fit” was inevit- that of the scientific community. The impressions of able; novelists “observed” their creatures as they Macaulay, the noted English historian, are described as evolved in an “empirical” way: and poets hymned follows: a creative life-force.’ Macaulay was full of admiration for the scientific The social Darwinists had become an unexpected and revolution he was witnessing in the early nineteenth powerful ally to the evolutionists. The social, ethical century, and in this, as in so many things, he typi- and philosophical selling points propagated by evolu- fied his age. For him as for others, then and now, tion theory and enforced by the Victorian’s overriding “science” meant only partly empiricism, a method awe of science became the chief defenses for evolution of looking at data. More immediately, more theory. George Bernard Shaw candidly stated that: tangibly, “science” meant the secondary results of Never in history, as far as we know, had there been the method: the products of technology. During the such a determined, richly subsidized, politically long reign of Queen Victoria, “science” transform- organized attempt to persuade the human race that ed many of the conditions of people’s lives. The first all progress, all prosperity, all salvation, individual railroad was built in England in 1825, when Vic- and social, depend on an unrestrained conflict for toria was a little girl; before that, the maximum food and money, on the suppression and elimina- speed of land travel was for up-to-date Englishmen tion of the weak by the strong, on Free Trade, Free as it had been for Caesars and Pharaohs-the speed Contract, Free Competition, Natural Liberty, Lais- of the horse. But before the Queen and Empress sez-Faire: in short, on “doing the other fellow died, almost all of Britain’s now existing railroads down” with impunity . . . a had been built: “science” had begun that liberation Charles S. Pierce arrived at a similar conclusion that of man from animal muscle, that acceleration Darwin’s hypothesis was nowhere near to being proved, toward inconceivable velocities which is so but its favorable reception “was plainly owing, in large characteristic of our own age and is still as im- measure, to its ideas being those toward which the age pressive to us as it was to the Victorians. was favorably disposed, especially, because of the en- Impressive: “science was doing things, making couragement it gave to the greed-philosophy”.e things work. The practical, empirical, positivistic The theory had become, to a large degree, removed British temperament was fascinated. While Vic- from accountability to the scientific community that toria occupied the throne, transatlantic steamship had spawned it. Evolution theory rode to acceptance on service was begun; power-driven machines revolu- the coattails of the positive science episteme. The new tionized industry; the telegraph became a practical materialism of the age required a materialistic explana- instrument and the telephone was developed; the tion for the origin of life. Consequently no matter how electric lamp and the automobile were produced. many facts contradict evolution, it still had to be ac- Eight years before the Origin, the Victorians cepted because the alternative was creation, and crea- celebrated Progress at the first world’s fair, in the tion was contrary to positivism. In other words, evolu- fabulous Crystal Palace, where Macaulay felt as tionists have the mental capability to be true to reverent as at St. Peter’s “Science” was making positivism, while being unfaithful to science and all the 10 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY while giving the impression that they are the great Ernest Haeckel, the German promoter of the theory, defenders and lovers of science. For example, “Joseph reacted similarly when for him “Christianity had been LeConte believed in evolution despite what he took to superseded by a worship of humanity in general com- be the adverse verdict of geology because regularly oc- bined with enthusiasm for the enlightened minds of curring ‘secondary causes and processes’ were all that classical antiquity and hatred against the ecclesiastical science knew, and that meant evolution.“‘0 In other reaction . . . “lf3 words, he believed in evolution because he believed in Finally, John A. Moore, present-day spokesman for positivism, which of course, begs the question as to how evolution, (not to be confused with John N. Moore, a life originated. I would venture to guess that LeConte’s well-known creationist) seems to echo the founders attitude is typical of many present-day evolution pro- regarding the positive science episteme when, in an arti- ponents. cle in The American Biology Teacher, he laments the statistics that indicate: “Among 16 to 18-year-olds, 7 1% believe in ESP, 64% in angels, 28% in ghosts.“” The Bias of the Founders of Evolution Theory He seems to think that it is the responsibility of secon- There is evidence that the main attraction to evolu- dary education to root out belief in the paranormal or tion theory for some of the founders was not the “scien- supernatural and that the public schools have failed in tific-ness” of it, but the negative effect it has on organiz- this responsibility. Moore’s regrets are contrary to reali- ed religion. Evolution theory was seen as a way to ad- ty. I do not think a majority of parents are concerned vance their philosophy while diminishing the influence about having their children disbelieve in the super- of religion. natural. Nor do a majority of educators think it is their Edwin G. Conklin, late professor of biology at Prince- responsibility to indoctrinate students into believing on- ton, frankly admitted that “The concept of organic ly that which is scientifically explainable. Perhaps evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many evolutionists’ concern about the supernatural is that as of whom it is the object of genuinely religious devotion, long as some people believe in it there will also be some because they regard it as a supreme integrative princi- who will believe in creation. ple. This probably is the reason why severe metho- I do not mean to imply that everyone who accepts dological criticism employed in other departments of evolution theory as an explanation for the origin of life biology has not yet been brought to bear on evolution shares the same animosity toward theology that speculation.“” Haeckel and Huxley shared, but I do believe that most T. H. Huxley may serve as a case in point. Huxley was of them are convinced that the positive science episteme the self-proclaimed teacher of the theory in England. He is justified and consequently their objectivity is jeopar- took it upon himself to introduce the theory to the pub- dized. The point of all of this is that a scientific theory lic with a series of articles and lectures. Personally he should stand or fall on its scientific merits and should regarded Darwin’s theory as merely a “working hypo- not be maintained on its philosophical ramifications or thesis,” which is a rather low status; an hypothesis be- a prejudiced episteme. ing considered something less than a theory. Yet, he re- Sometimes positivism is described under the misnom- portedly tells his wife that “By next Friday evening, er of the Doctrine of the Neutrality of Science. they will all be convinced that they are monkeys.“‘* Chauncey Wright, an occasional professor of mathe- Why the contradiction. 2 Why the desire to convince an matics at Harvard, is credited with this idea. He be- awestruck public that the status of the theory is came interested in evolution shortly after the Origin anything more than a “working hypothesis”? Perhaps was published to the extent that he carried on a personal his thinking was influenced by his well-known religious correspondence with Darwin and published articles in animosity. defense of the theory. Wright’s “neutrality” doctrine John Dewey, one of the founders of the progressive called upon investigators to be free from the domina- education movement, recognized that “the new logic of tion of a priori systems at all times keeping ethical senti- Darwin’s forswears inquiry after absolute origins and ments separate from scientific knowledge. Thus Dar- absolute finalities in order to explore specific values and win’s system was a scientific theory of biology, a hypo- the specific conditions that generate it. This has been thesis which had no necessary causal effect on religious, the most common philosophical import of the philosophical, or social matters. Also, evolution theory Origin.“13 was to be presented “with no regard for any considera- Exclusion of theology and the concept of special crea- tions that might produce unnecessary and unwarranted tion was looked upon by some as the great virtue of ‘conflicts’ with religion.“‘* At first glance, the neutrali- evolution theory. Julian Huxley, grandson of T. H. Hux- ty concept seems like an acceptable bit of logic until one ley and one of the chief spokesmen for the theory, realizes that, if we cannot consider origins theistically, declared “that he was an atheist and that Darwin’s real then we must, from lack of choices, consider it only achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as a meterialistically. The Doctrine of the Neutrality of creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discus- Science is really a license to consider scientific evidence sion.“” In the same vein, Ludwig Plate, a German ad- for the origin of life only from an a priori belief in vocate of the theory, explains that “Darwin’s greatest evolution. service in his opinion is in the fact that he saw to explain organic finality out of natural forces to the exclusion of any metaphysical principle operating with conscious in- Evolution Dogma telligence.“” Perhaps it would be well to demonstrate how positiv- VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 11 ism biases the evidence and the curriculum. Let us arbiter.“*’ Thus we see a unity of thought spanning analyze comparative anatomy, one of the studies which some seven hundred years. is supposed to supply the hypotheses that make up the Finally. Sir Karl Popper advances the issue further by theory, and perhaps one of the most impressive when pointing out the obvious: “A theory which is not considered exclusively from an evolution bias. Com- refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific.” parative anatomy means to compare body parts and, And “. . . the criterion of the scientific status of a theory according to the evolution belief, this means that any- is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.“26 He time similarities are observed among plants or among also urges investigators to “Try again and again to for- animals it is taken to indicate that they had a common mulate the theories which you are holding and to evolutionary ancestor. It is quite convincing to see pic- criticize them. And try to construct alternative theories tures of the skeletal similarities of a turtle and the -alternatives even to those theories which appear to human being, for example, and interpret the similarities you inescapable; for only in that way will you under- to mean they evolved from a common ancestor. What stand the theories you hold. Whenever a theory appears the student often fails to realize is that one may com- to you as the only possible one, take that as a sign that pare body parts down to the molecular level, but it will you have neither understood the theory nor the problem never ever tell us how these organisms originated. In which it was intended to solve.“*’ other words, comparative anatomy is convincing only We have learned, then, that nontestable hypotheses so long as the observer a priori assumes evolution. are not even in the realm of science and that alternative There is no test to prove the evolution interpretation of hypotheses should always be considered. Alternatives comparative anatomy. Other nontestable hypotheses in w-ill introduce skepticism, the forerunner to objectivity. the congeries of hypotheses that make up evolution But if nontestable hypotheses are non-scientific, what is theory are geographic distribution, embryology, and their status? What they must be are statements of belief vestigial parts. Evolutionists, like pioneer natural based upon a certain set of facts influenced by the in- philosophers in the past, fail to make a distinction bet- vestigator’s personal philosophy, religion, or intuition. ween testable and non-testable hypotheses. Darwin him- Others with a different philosophy, religion, or intui- self, in a letter to Asa Gray, admitted: “I am quite con- tion may view the same set of facts entirely differently. scious that my speculations run quite beyond the Alternative creation interpretations for the evidence bounds of true science.“lg The history of science reveals would serve to remove the theory from the realm of a long struggle between those who would neglect and scientific dogma. Why not consider creation? The crea- de-emphasize experimentation to test hypotheses and tion reply to the evolution interpretation for compara- those who would give emphasis to it. tive anatomy could be: What if similarities are observ- Ritterbush, describing eighteenth century naturalists, ed? One would expect similarities among organisms reports that “Although the authority of science was in- under the a priori assumption of creation. One would voked on their behalf, the concepts reflected an im- not necessarily expect each kind of organism, all living proper understanding of organic nature, far exceeding in the same biosphere, to be unequivocally different in the evidence given for them, and too often led natural- every detail from every other kind of organism. There is ists to neglect observation and experiment in favor of no test for either the creation or evolution interpretation abstract conceptions.“*’ He also describes them as pre- for comparative anatomy; consequently, it proves noth- ferring unlimited explanation based upon speculation ing in that it is supportive of botll beliefs. Can the crea- rather than limited explanation relying upon ex- tion interpretation be faulted, when the evolution inter- perimentation. In a similar vein, Nordenskiold notes pretation is obviously just as much a matter of personal that, “During the reign of romantic natural philsophy, be1ief? conditions were different, the representatives of that school, who imagined that they could solve all the rid- Darwin’s Confusion dles of existence by speculation, deeply scorned experi- Probably no one was more confused about the ques- ment, which they considered led to fruitless artifice.“*’ tion of the origin of life than Charles Darwin. He, of On the other hand, Leonardo da Vinci, noted for his course, rejected the idea of creation and even went so scientific as well as his artistic accomplishments, insist- far as to formulate “tests” which, to him, disproved ed upon experimentation: “If experience fails to con- creation. For example, God would only have created firm the hypothesis, it must be abandoned; and apart distinct species; he would not have made hybridization from positive experimental confirmation it has no a possibility.** God would not have created rudimen- value.“** Rene Descartes, seventeenth century science tary organs. *’ God would not have created orchids with reformer, insisted that hypotheses “. . . must receive a such an “endless diversity of structure” simply for completely cogent demonstration before they can pro- achieving fertilization.30 God would have created the perly be admitted as scientifically valid conclusions.“23 blind cave animals of Europe and America, because of Roger Bacon “. . . saw clearly the value of the experi- their identical conditions to life, to resemble each other mental method as the only route to certainty.“*’ Bacon closely; instead they are not closely allied.31 God would lived in the thirteenth century and was a pioneer ad- not have created plants to be so prodigal in the amount vocate of experimentation to test hypotheses. (Some- of pollen they produce-only a small amount of which times critical observation-not speculation-is a suffic- is utilized in fertilization.32 Well, all that these quaint ient experiment or test.) Advancing to the present time, “tests” tell us, of course, is how Darwin would or would Dellow states that “. . . experiment is the final not have created. Apparently the positive science 12 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY episteme does after all allow consideration of creation, mainly in the form of environmental degradation and but only if it is considered in a negative context. health hazards. The new public attitude toward science Darwin also rejected theistic or designed evolution, and technology is plainly noted in a recent issue of the idea held by some of his contemporaries that the Science: evolutionary process was somehow under the direction Important to the future of science and technology is of God. His reason for rejecting theistic evolution was the fact that the public has somewhat lost confi- that it “was but a disguised form of special creation.” dence in the ultimate value of the scientific en- I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unneces- deavor. It is not that they hold pure science or scien- sary, any subsequent addition “of new powers and tists in any less esteem. But they are less certain that attributes and forces”; or of any “principles of im- scientific research will inevitably yield public provement,” except insofar as every character benefit. which is naturally selected or preserved is in some For the first time in centuries, there are way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it thoughtful persons who are not morally certain would not have been selected. If I were convinced that even our greatest achievements do, indeed, that I required such additions to the theory of nat- constitute progress. To some philosophers it is no ural selection, I would reject it as rubbish . . .I longer clear that objective knowledge is an unques- would give nothing for the theory of Natural Selec- tioned good. 36 tion, if it requires miraculous additions at any one In a Time magazine essay entitled “Science: No stage of descent.33 Longer a Sacred Cow, ” the author called the moon ex- Theistic evolution had to be rejected by Darwin plorations the grand finale in the continued rise of the because it ran contrary to the positive science episteme prestige of science. Contrast excerpts from the Time es- in that it failed to “ungod the universe.” Also, it made say with Macaulay’s description of science and technol- his mechanism for evolution, natural selection, super- ogy cited earlier: fluous. If variations and/or selection was preordained, there was no point in even considering the mechanism. Sure enough, down it (prestige) went. And in its Evolution simply became a slowed-down version of place has risen a new public attitude that seems the creation. antithesis of the former awe. That awe has given Rejection of special creation and theistic evolution way to a new skepticism, the adulation to heckling. leads us to the one remaining option-chance or atheis- To the bewilderment of much of the scientific com- tic evolution, which is what is taught in the typical text- munity, its past triumphs have been downgraded, book. One would think that this must be where Darwin and popular excitements over new achievements stood. But, no, we find that he also rejected chance. In a like snapshots from Mars seem to wane with the letter to Asa Gray he wrote: closing words of the evening news. Sci-Tech’s pro- I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as mises for the future, far from being welcomed as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an harbingers of Utopia, now seem too often to be utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the threats. Fears that genetic tinkering might produce world as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I a Doomsday Bug, for example, bother many cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Americans, along with dread that the SST’s sonic Design. 34 booms may add horrid racket to the hazards (auto Late in his life, in a conversation with the Duke of fumes, fluorocarbons, strontium 90) that already Argyll, who commented to Darwin that “it was im- burden the air. possible to look at the numerous purposeful con- The new skepticism can be seen, as well as heard, in trivances in nature and not see that intelligence was the emergence of a fresh willingness to challenge their cause,” Darwin “looked at (him) very hard and the custodians of our technical know-on their own said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelm- ground. It is most conspicuously embodied in the ing force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head environmental crusade and the consumer’s rebel- vaguely, adding ‘it seems to go away.’ “35 lion, but is also at play across a far wider field. It Having rejected creation, theistic or designed evolu- applies to public light and political heat to Detroit’s tion, and atheistic or chance evolution, Darwin seemed automotive engineers, who for generations had dis- to have been in a hopeless muddle on the question of the patched their products to an acquiescent public. It origin of life. Gillespie concluded that he died with encompasses protests against the location of dams some vague notion of theism. It seems reasonable that, massively certified by science, to open disputes if Darwinls theory is taught, his confusion on the subject about the real values of scientifically approved should also be part of the curriculum. medicines, and the increasing willingness of pa- tients to sue physicians to make them account for mistakes in treatment. Sci-Tech, in a sense, has been Present-Day Attitudes demoted from a demigodhood. The public today The Victorian generation has long since passed away rallies, in its untidy way, around the notion that and this generation has become the jaded inheritor of a Hans J. Morgenthau put into words in Science: Ser- scientific revolution, some aspects of which inspire fear vant or Muster?: “The scientists’ monopoly of the and dread rather than the old confidence. Science and answers to the questions of the future is a myth.” technology are now viewed through the baleful eyes of The fading of this mythology is the result of those who have discovered their “hidden worms,” Americans’ gradual realization that science and VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 13

technology’s dreamy wonders sometimes turn out the typical textbooks. The alternative is that our ability to be nightmarish blunders. Detergents that make to reason as human beings is the result of creation dishes clean may kill rivers. Dyes that prettify the rather than chance. Remember, also, that science is bas- food may cause cancer. Pills that make sex safe may ically a reasoning process. If that is true, it would mean, dangerously complicate health. DDT, cyclamates, then, that any scientific theory that denies the existence thalidomide and estrogen are but a few of the mixed of God would have to be unreasonable, unscientific, blessings that, altogether, have taught the layman a and in some way or ways subject to disproof. The crea- singular lesson: The promising truths of science and tion alternative requires that we ask ultimate ques- technology often come with hidden worms.37 tions-evolution or dogma does not.

The Role of Education Conclusion The time has come to dispel the grand delusion and Space does not permit an analysis of the hypotheses. reject the positive science episteme. It is time for educa- The point that I wish to make is that a distinction is tion to establish its own criteria upon the evolution cur- made between testable and nontestable hypotheses riculum. Darwin as scientist does not qualify as Darwin which allows for consideration of creation. My personal as teacher. The criteria that Darwin used to develop his experience of including a creation alternative indicates theory are not up to par as the criteria used to teach the that parents have rejected positivism and its biased theory. In other words, positivism in education means policy of exclusion. Educators must be prepared to do indoctrination. likewise. The old convoluted logic of positivism that Following are some of the curriculum objectives that evolution must be accepted because it is forbidden to I have developed over a period of ten years. They serve consider alternatives has no place in education. For to remove evolution theory from the realm of scientific those who are philosophically committed to evolution dogma so that one may teach rather than indoctrinate. theory, the problem is obvious-they must decide To begin with, the congeries of hypotheses that one whether or not they can place professional standards finds in the typical textbook, and most of which Darwin above personal beliefs. used in the Origin, should be categorized into testable or nontestable hypotheses. The basic hypotheses would then be categorized as shown in Table 1. References An educator need not teach any particular account of ‘Gillespie, N. C., 1979. Charles Darwin and the problem of creation. creation, which would probably require the teaching of The University of Chicago Press, p. 2. In Greek, ~pistenc means all accounts of creation. Creation should be considered “understanding”. Aristotle sometimes used it for science par ex- CQl/QnCQ. only in relation to the scientific evidence presented for 21bid., p. 3. evolution, without any theological elaborations. When 31bid., p. 1.5. this is done, it becomes obvious to students that the text- ‘Ibid., p. 53. books are biased and that the nontestable hypotheses Slbid., p. 6. ‘Appleman, P., ted.), 1970. Darwin-a Norton critical edition. W. W. may be interpreted satisfactorily for creation. A crea- Norton Co., Inc. pp. 632-633. Chesterton wrote somewhere of the tion consideration of the nontestable hypotheses im- notion that God would make all things work for good, if only man mediately removes the theory from the realm of scien- would be evil enough. tific dogma. It is, of course, contrary to the positive ‘Ibid., p. 633. sWiener, P., 1969. Evolution and the founders of pragmatism. Peter episteme, because it no longer ungods the universe, but Smith Publisher, p. 78. education must reject positivism. Rlbid., p. 78. Concerning the testable hypotheses, one must con- ‘OGillespie, N. C., Op. cit., p. 151. sider the unthinkable-does evolution theory pass or “Conklin, E. G., 1943. Man real and ideal. Scribner, p. 147. fail tests? In most cases the test is simply a critical obser- 12Huxley, L., ted.), 1902. The life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. Vol. I. D. Appleton and Co., p. 205. vation of our environment. For example, Darwin never 13Dewey, J., 1951. The influence of Darwin on philosophy. Peter observed natural selection and was forced to use imagi- Smith Co., p. 13. nary examples in the Origin. If natural selection is not “Macbeth, N., 197 1. Darwin retried. Gambit Inc., p. 126. observed, why isn’t it? “Nordenskiold, E., 1928. The history of biology. Tudor Publishing Co., p. 572. To ask whether or not evolution theory passes tests is ‘“Ibid., p. 506. based upon the following alternative: To use the verna- “Moore, J. A., 1979. Dealing with controversy: a challenge to the cular, the bottom line in evolution theory is that chance universities. The American Biology Teacher 4 l(9): 544-547. can create an intelligent design; this is what is taught in lBWeiner, P., Op. cit., p. 56. ‘@Gillespie, N. C., Op. cit. p. 63. 2oRitterbush, P. C., 1964. Overtures of biology-the speculations of eighteenth century naturalists. Yale University Press, pp. 1 and 156. Table 1. Testable and non-testable hypotheses con- *‘Nordenskiold, E., Op. cit., p. 370. trasted. 22Madden E. H., ted.) 1960. Theories of scientific method: the renaiss- ance th;ough the nineteenth century. University of Washington Testable Hypotheses Non-testable Hypotheses Press, p. 15. 231bid., p. 49. natural selection comparative anatomy 24Schwartz G. and P. Bishop, 1958. The origins of science. Basic artificial selection geographic distribution Books, Inc., pp. 36-37. mutations embryology 2sDellow, E. L., 1970. Methods of science. Universe Books, p. 24. fossil record vestigial organs (Continued on page 26) 14 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

A PHYSICIST LOOKS AT EVOLUTlON† H. S. LIPSON*

Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, was of course, that we draw air into our lungs, that the ox- published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential ygen in it is somehow incorporated into our blood, and book that has ever been published, because it was read that the heart pumps the blood round our bodies so that by scientist and nonscientist alike, and it aroused the oxygen can perform its required services. He had no violent controversy. Religious people disliked it because idea how complex the whole operation is. We know that it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it it involves a complicated chemical, haemoglobin, the because it seemed to solve the most important problem molecule of which contains several thousand atoms. in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, Thanks to the work of people such as Perutz and Ken- -evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost drew, we now know how the molecule is constructed all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to and we know the conditions under which the oxygen ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it. molecules are held and released. We still do not under- What has this to do with physics? Is it not biology? stand the nature of the forces; they are necessarily very Perhaps so, but I believe strongly that physicists should delicate, and for this reason a large molecule is needed. be prepared to turn their minds to any problems to Darwin says ‘If it could be demonstrated that any which they can make contributions. The work of Perutz complex organ existed which could not possibly have and Kendrew on the structures of haemoglobin and been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifica- myoglobin, and of Hodgkin and Huxley on nerve and tions my theory would absolutely break down.’ I know muscle, shows that physical scientists can make impor- that haemoglobin is not an organ but the principle is the tant contributions to biological research. same; I do not see how the haemoglobin molecule could I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of have evolved. It is true that haemoglobins in different evolution because of its ability to account for any pro- animals are not identical, but they are all about equally perty of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for complicated. (Personally, I cannot envisage the evolu- example). I have therefore tried to see whether tion of even a simple organ such as the heart, but no biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit doubt other people have better imaginations than I!) in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. Darwin himself had considerable doubts; his book Thermodynamical Considerations contains a chapter called ‘Difficulties on theory’. Of The beautiful and meticulous system which we call a particular interest to the physicist are his remarks about living being is an ordered one; each atom must be in its the eye: ‘To suppose that the eye, with its inimitable right place. Generally systems tend to disorder-max- contrivances for adjusting the focus to different imum entropy. Living beings seem to disobey this rule. distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and There is however a well known phenomenon that for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberra- does defy the rule-crystallisation. It may be thought tion, could have been formed by natural selection, that this is a simple analogue from which the principles seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible of life may be developed. We know, however, that degree.’ Nevertheless, he goes on to suggest how an eye crystallisation occurs because entropy S is not the could have developed from a simple light sensitive deciding factor; internal energy U is also important. organ, but there is no evidence that it did develop in The quantity that must be minimised is the free energy. that way. (U - TS), and U is small for a crystal because the atoms are carefully packed together. As the temperature T in- Relevance of Recent Research creases, S becomes more important, and the crystal first In 1859 the general principles of the body were becomes liquid (usually) and then gaseous. understood. The functions of the various organs were Therefore, if we wish to regard the birth of an animal known but not the details of their operation. In the last as regulated by the principles of thermodynamics, we thirty years we have learned a great deal about life pro- must believe that the developing arrangement of atoms cesses (still a minute part of what there is to know!) and is that of lowest internal energy. My mind boggles! it seems to me to be only fair to see how the theory of evolution accommodates the new evidence. This is what Alemative to Evolution we should demand of a purely physical theory. If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all. I atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come in- shall take only one example-breathing. Darwin knew, to being? There is another theory, now quite out of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that *H. S. Lipson, CBE, F. Inst. P., FRS, is at the University of Man- if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, chester Institute of Science and Technology. He has asked us to and transmit it to its progeny. I think, however, that we make it clear that he wrote this article for scientific purposes. We must go further than this and admit that the only accep- agree that it is legitimate, and useful, to discuss the matter as a point of science. table explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we tThis article was originally published in the Physics Bulletin, volume 3 1, number 4, May, 1980, p. 138, and is used here by permission. must not reject a theory that we do not like if the ex- ,The copyright is held by the Institute of Physics. perimental evidence supports it. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 15

An animal-particularly the human animal-is a bodies attract each other? Newton replied laconically beautiful example of a carefully contrived and subtly ‘Hypotheses non fingo’. When I am asked to describe engineered design. The word ‘design’ comes naturally my ideas of the Creator I also say ‘Hypotheses non even in evolutionist books. The Designer must know in- f ingo’! fintely more science than we shall ever know. He started Darwin was fond of the quotation ‘Natura non facit off with a few simple examples and, learning from saltum’ (Nature does not make jumps). I wonder what them, introduced new and improved species. He he would have thought of the quantum theory! gradually incorporated new properties, imagination and free will being the latest ones. He is probably learn- ing that these are not enough, since they seem to General References cultivate a propensity to selfdestruction. Attenborough, D., 1978. Life on Earth. Collins/BBC. I find these ideas comforting, for if we do destroy Cannon, H. G., 1958. Evolution of living things. Manchester Universi- ourselves, a superior model will be created, whereas ac- ty Press. cording to the theory of evolution we are doomed. Harper G. H., 1979. Alternatives to evolutionism. School Science I should be happy to know what my fellow physicists Review 61 (2 14): 1527. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly 17 (1): 49-5.5. think of these admittedly extraordinary ideas. In put- Huxley, H. E., 1971. Structural basis of muscular contraction. Pro- ting them forward I can claim to be in good company. ceedings of the Royal Society 178 ( 10.51): 13 l-l 49. According to Darwin, when Newton put forward his Perutz, M. F., 1969. The haemoglobin molecule. Proceedings of the theory of gravitation, Leibnitz accused him of introduc- Royal Society 173 (1031): 113-140. Royal Society 1978. Highlights of British Science. ing ‘occult qualities and miracles into philosophy.’ Tonnelat, J., 1979. Q u’est-ce qu’un etre vivant? La Recherche 10, What was this gravitation? How could two inanimate 614.

A PRE-MAIN-SEQUENCE STELLAR MODEL APPLIED TO CLOSE BINARY STAR SYSTEMS JON K. WEST* Received 18 September, 1980 The study of the stars would be very difficult if there were no binary systems. We can be glad that the Lord provid- ed over half of the stars in our part of the universe as binary or multiple star systems. By studying the motion of binary stars, much can be learned about the stars considered individually.

The Study of Binary Star Systems stellar radius has been found from the light-curve If Kepler’s law is applied to the motion of eclipsing analysis, then the light-emitting surface area is known. binaries, it yields an absolute determination of the total This gives an absolute luminosity (or magnitude) from mass, and the stars’ separation. If the spectrum of an in- classical thermodynamics. If we compare the observed dividual star can be discerned, then the velocities of luminosity with the calculated luminosity, then the each component star can be determined from the Dop- distance can be estimated fairly well. pler frequency shift of specific spectral lines. The in- The second method is called dynamical parallax. The dividual stellar velocities being known, the individual calculated binary separation can be compared with the masses can be determined from the total mass. Finally, observed angular separation. The base line of this by studying the variations in the light emitted by the triangle is the distance to the system. binary system, the actual radius of each star can be There is, of course, much more to the study of binary found. stars than could be covered in this brief discussion. As a Now, the problem becomes that of relating the light matter of fact, most of the data available on stellar output of the star to its distance. For only a very few temperatures, masses, radii, luminosities, and distances, stars near the earth can direct measurement of their dis- come from a handful of eclipsing binaries. See tance be made by triangulation (i.e., parallax). Dis- Reference 6 for more information, tances to the rest of the objects in the universe must be found by indirect means. Two of the most reliable of the The Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram indirect methods come from studying binary stars. See Reference 1 for a good discussion of the distribu- The first of these indirect methods applies the inverse- tion, characteristics, and spectral classification of stars. square law of light. The color of an eclipsing binary can Work by E. Hertzsprung and H. N. Russell led to the be determined by studying the stellar spectrum. This general relationship between the spectral type (color or yields an effective surface temperature. If the individual surface temperature) and the absolute luminosity (or *Jon K. West is Manager of Advanced Chemical Processes, General stellar magnitude). The dashed line in Figure 1 shows Electric Co. His address is 3222 NW 44th Place, Gainesville, Florida this general relationship, as determined empirically. 32605 The stellar luminosity is shown on a logarithmic scale, 16 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY in terms of its ratio to that of the Sun. The (effective) Table 1. The ages (E + 6) at various points for the test surface temperature is also shown by plotting its model, compared with Iben’s figures (Reference 5.) logarithm. The stars conforming to the dashed line are known as the main sequence. In general, the hotter a Primary Secondary star, the more luminous it is, as one might expect. How- 3 Solar Masses 1.5 Solar Masses ever, the relationship would have been difficult to work Age out in detail without the data gained from the study of Point Iben Test Iben Test binary stars. 0.034 0.23 0.205 0.208 0<6 2.36 1.391 The Evolution of Stars 0.763 0.747 5.80 3.483 I shall state here the conventional account, without 1.135 1.202 7.58 4.949 8.62 5.949 arguing either for or against it. 1.250 1.351 The main sequence is considered to consist of stars, 1.465 1.432 10.43 - called “normal”, deriving their energy by the fusion of 1.741 - 13.39 - hydrogen. Stars not on the main-sequence are usually 2.514 - 18.21 - thought to have exhausted their fuel, or to be in some stage of so doing. This stage is called “post-main-se- logically old. According to the conventional evolution- quence”; the star is believed to expand, and the result is ary theory, one or both of the binary components will large, cool, highly luminous stars, known as red giants. move above the main sequence as the star becomes ex- These are above the main sequence. hausted of its hydrogen fuel. Then, as the more massive In time, even the capability of remaining red giants star expands, it transfers matter to the less massive com- would be exhausted. Then the stars are supposed rapid- panion. After a period of such transfer, the system will ly to cross the main sequence (too rapidly to be observ- appear to have an older, less massive, secondary. ed?) and to come to a region below the main sequence. Models of pre-main-sequence binaries have been com- Stars of this sort are small, very hot, and of low puted to study the transfer of mass;g but no computa- luminosity. They are called white dwarfs. tions were published until 1980.’ These models under- There is supposed also to be, or to have been, a rapid take to follow the evolutionary tracks of a binary stage of evolution, known as pre-main-sequence. Stars system as it contracts onto the main sequence. No other in this stage are supposed to derive their energy from gravitational contraction. Most evolutionists consider this stage to be too transient to be worth much study. CAPTIONS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIONS The Evolution of Binary Stars On the following pages are shown the plots, accor- ding to the model, of some of the systems studied, accor- If binary stars are considered to have evolved in a ding to the pre-main-sequence binary model. In every way similar to that just discussed, one would expect to case, the filled circles indicate the track of the primary, find some consistent relation between the stages of the the open, the secondary. When the model is compared two stars, This is where the story breaks down. There is with an actual system, the latter is indicated by the a class of binaries known as semi-detached systems, in triangles, with the same convention as to filled or open. which the stars almost touch each other. These systems The various parts concern the following systems: have a large secondary, of lower mass, and a small 1. The model for a test binary, primary 3Mo, secon- primary star, of higher mass. According to the scenario dary 1.5 M,. mentioned above, the larger secondary would appear to 2. TV Cassiopeia, Primary 3.1 MO, secondary 1.39 be at a later stage of evolution than the primary. This Mo. presents a problem, for typical models, as solved e.g. 3. IM Aurigae, primary 2.97 MO, secondary 0.89 with the help of a computer, predict that the more Mo. massive star should evolve more quickly than the less 4. U Cephei, primary 3.19 M,,, secondary 1.53 M,. massive. So, to re-state the problem, why is the star of 5. AI Draconis, primary 2.18 MO, secondary 1.03 lower mass larger than the other? Mo. Commonly, attempts to answer this question propose 6. U Sagittae, primary 4.27 MO, secondary 1.60 M,. complex transfers of mass between the two stars. May 7. Delta Librae, primary 2.96 MO, secondary 1.3 1 there not, however, be another and much simpler ex- Mo. planation? Maybe both stars are very young, and are 8. Beta Persei, primary 3.15 MO, secondary 0.74 powered by gravitational contraction. Then nuclear fu- Mo. sion need not be involved, and the post-main-sequence 9. V505 Sagittarii, primary 2.22 MO, secondary models would not apply. 1.18 M,. 10. X Trianguli, primary 1.72 MO, secondary 1.OO Pre-Main-Sequence Binary Stars MO. Conventional models of close binary systems (usually 11. TX Ursae Majoris, primary 3.13 M,,, secondary computer models, nowadays) commonly start with at 0.90 M,. least one of the component stars on the main sequence. 12. W Ursae Minoris, primary 2.68 M,,, secondary Thus they assume that the system under study is cosmo- 1.19 M,. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 17 work seems to have been done, despite reports that some model, then the system may indeed be pre-main-se- observed binary systems appears to be pre-main- quence. Eleven semi-detached binaries were considered, sequence. * each with a total mass between 2.5 and 6 solar masses. The present investigation has set up pre-main- The periods ranged between 0.9 and 3.4 days. sequence models of eleven individual close binary systems.’ The observed positions on the Hertzsprung- Russell diagram are compared with the evolutionary Model and Results tracks arising from the model. If both components ap- The stellar structure is represented by a polytrope of pear to have the same age and fall near the tracks of the index n= 3 for the radiative solution. A polytrope of in-

I O-l 2.5 8 t \ 0 0

0 0 I .5 0 0 0

1 ‘.O

0.0 -

-0.5 - %\ \ \ 6.3 x 105 YEARS -l.O- -I .o \ \

I I I I I I 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 LOG Teff LOG Teff

I 7

0

0 2.5 - 2.5 c \ O0 2.0 - \ 0 \ 0

0 -%. 0 I .5- s+ \

5. l.O-

3 0.5-

0.0 -

-0.5 -0.5 -

-I .o -

I I I I I ’ 1 I I 1 I I 42 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 LOG nff LOO TM 3 4 18 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY dex n = 1.5 is used for the Hayashi solution.’ The initial 3. The stars are spherically symmetrical. configuration is constrained by the Roche lobe of each 4. The stars are in quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium. star. This limits the radius of each component of the 5. The chemical composition of population I type system. The basic assumptions are as follows: stars is chosen to be the same for each star: x= 0.750, 1. Mass and energy are conserved; both for the in- y=O.224, and z=O.O25. dividual components and for the binary system as a The masses of each star and their periods being free whole. parameters, a computer program calculated the se- 2. The binary system obeys conservation of angular quence of contraction models. Since both sequences momentum, with circular orbits. were calculated together, the ages and structures of

0

0 2.5 0 0 0

2.0 0

I .5 0

00 . 1.0 < 2 : ‘.O 8 0.5’ 805J J \ 0.0 0.0 \ \ -0.5 .3.15x IO5 YEARS .\’ -0.5 \ \ -1.c -1.0 t \

I I I I I I I I I I I 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 LOG Teff LOG Teff 5 6

2.5 0 2.5 \ 0 \ \ 0 b < 0 2.0

\ 0 I’ \ 5 0 0 I .5

\ s” . 1.0 3 0 i ‘.O 3 o-5 3 0.5 I \ 0 0.0 0.0 \

-0.5 YEAR6 -0.5 I.14x)06YEAR6 \ \ \ -I .a \ -I XI \ \

I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 42 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 LOG Toff LOG Taft

8 VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 I 19 each component could be compared. A test model was Iben’s model is labelled “0”. The points 1 through 5 can compared with the evolutionary tracks published by be used for age comparison with the test model. The Iben The primary for the test model was 3 solar same numbering was used for the test model. Table 1 masses, the secondary 1.5, and the period 3 days. In- shows the ages (E + 6) at these points for each star. itially both test stars were on the Hayashi track. The absolute dimensions of the eleven systems were Figure 1 shows the plots of the test model and Iben’s published by Giannone and Giannuzze.3 Figures 4, 10, pre-main-sequence tracks for single stars on the and 12 show the three systems found to fit the pre-main- Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. The initial point for sequence model best. They are: U Cephei at 6.1 E + 5

2.5 \ 0 2.0 O0 \ 0 I .5 I .5- ‘\ \

1’ 0 0 Y?I-O i ‘.O --S. 8 0.5 \ -1 3 0.5- \ \ 0.0 - \ /

I I I I I 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 LOG Teff LOG Teff 9 10 0 I 0 2.5 - 0 2.5 0 \ 0 t \ 0 2.0 - 0 2.0 - \ T 0 0 \ 0 0 \ T 0 0 l.5- l.5- 0 0 \ Grn 0 \ l l.O- 0 . l.O- -7 5 C 3 0 2 0.5- zj 0.5-

0.0 - 0.0 -

-0.5 - -0.5 - alto6 YEARSA----J \ -I .o \ \ t I I I I I I 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 LOO Toff LOO Taft II 12 20 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY years, X Trianguli at 4.5 E+ 6 years, and W Ursae Offer of a Program Minoris at 1.87 E+ 6 years. The program used in these investigations is available Four systems found not to fit the model are: TV to anyone wishing to do more work on the subject, on Cassiopeia, AI Draconis, Beta Persei, and TX Ursae Ma- cassette tape or minidisc for the TRS80. It requires at joris. least 16K level 2. I am willing to make a copy for Finally, four systems could fit the pre-main-sequence anyone who will send me the disc or cassette. model with modifications. These are: IM Aurigae, Delta Librae, U Sagittae and V505 Sagittarii. The modifica- References tions would require differing chemical compositions for each component of these binaries. ‘Abell, George, 1969. Exploration of the universe. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Pp. 445-456. *Field, J. V., 1969. A note on binary systems with undersize subgiant secondaries. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 144 (4): 419-423. Conclusion 3Giannone, P., and M. A. Giannuzzi, 1974. Absolute dimensions of This investigation has shown that it is possible to 140 close binary systems. Astrophysics and Space Science 26 (2): represent some semi-detached close binaries by a pre- 289-304. 4Hayashi, Chushiro, 196 1. Stellar evolution in early stages of gravita- main-sequence model. More detailed study of in- tional contraction. Publications of the Astronomical Society of dividual systems is needed in order to adapt any model Japan 13 (4): 450-452. to the observed data and inferences therefrom. SIben, Icko, Jr., 1965. Stellar evolution I. The approach to the main Secondly, this survey of only eleven binary systems sequence. Astrophysical Journal 14 1 (3): 993- 10 18. eNovotny, Eva, 1975. Introduction to stellar atmospheres and in- has yielded a significantly large number of systems fit- teriors. Oxford University Press. Pp. 22-45. ting a pre-main-sequence model. Such a model sets an ‘West, J, K., 1979. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. upper limit to the ages of those systems. Even though (On microfilm.) this limit is large compared with the Biblical age of sWest, J. K., and K-Y Chen, 1980. International Astronomical Union, Symposium no. 88. Pp. 149-153. Creation, it is three orders of magnitude smaller than ‘Yamasaki, Atsuma, 197 1. Pre-main-sequence evolution of close the accepted evolutionary age attributed to typical binary systems. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan semi-detached close binary systems. 23 (1): 33-55.

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE ORDER PRIMATES, INCLUDING MONKEYS AND APES W. MEHLERT* Received 13 August, 1980

In previous studies, I have demonstrated that the According to Professor E. C. Olson, Chicago Univer- evidence for the alleged evolution of Homo (Man) and sity, fossils of ancient primates (lemurs and tarsiers on- of the ape-like creature Australopithecus (extinct since ly) are fairly abundant; but, as he admits, these crea- one million years B.P.) crumbles into dust when closely tures, although far separated from their modern coun- examined.1 (I do not necessarily subscribe to such great terparts in time, are fairly close to the modern, living ages as that just mentioned; but I shall not argue about forms in physical structure.* In his book he made no at- them here.) The purpose of the present study is to show tempt to show precisely in which way any evolutionary how weak and misleading is the evidence for the new development occurred. The great U.S. vertebrate world monkeys, the old world monkeys, and the great paleontologist, Elwyn Simons, wrote: “In spite of recent anthropoid apes such as orangutans, chimpanzees, and finds, the time and place of origin of order primates re- gorillas. mains shrouded in mystery”.3 He cannot tell us where Not a single acceptable evolutionary ancestor has or how the lemurs or tarsiers arose. ever been found for the group Australopithecus, which Kelso admitted: “The transition to primates is not lived, supposedly, from about 4 to 1 m. (short for documented by fossils”.’ Thus at the very beginning million) years B.P. evolutionists cannot tell us how, or from what, the Apes and monkeys belong, according to evolutionary order primates arose. Rome? and Kelso both concede theory, to the order Primates, which supposedly evolved that the evolutionary background of the New World from obscure or unknown ancestors some 60-70 m. (American) monkeys is unknown. Neither can anyone years ago. It is alleged that some form of primitive early find ancestors for the Old World monkeys! “The record lemur or tarsier gave rise to all the modern members of simply does not exist”. The evolutionists are indeed off the order Primates in the Tertiary Period. Just precisely to a very bad start; Simons wrote in another place: “Not what this claim is based on will be discussed first. a single fossil primate . . . appears to be an acceptable ancestor for the great infraorder of the catarrhines, *Mr. W. Mehlert’s address is 21 Greenway Street, Lawnton, Queens- which include all of the living Old World primates”.6 land, Australia. (Monkeys, apes, and Man.) VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 21

Romer again wrote: “Our knowledge of the fossil Such is the slender nature of the entire evidence for history of the higher apes is tantalisingly poor”.5 (Actu- primate evolution: a few teeth and bits of jawbones. The ally, it is non-existent.) For instance, there is a supposed- admissions quoted earlier in this article now seem to be 1Y very early primate called Plesiadapis. To understatements. If the evolution of apes had gone on Carrington,7 and to O1son,2 he doesn’t even rate a men- for 60-70 m. years, there should be thousands of solid, tion. Wood referred to this fossil scrap as: “A primate well-documented fossils, showing the gradual changes ancestor-small and very primitive”.8 Brace and Mon- from early primates to modern apes. The only conclu- tagu say just the opposite: “It played no part in subse- sion that can be reasonably drawn is that, as admitted quent primate evolution.“g Such confusion! in the citations above, the case for primate evolution is Let us look more closely into the fossil record of the virtually non-existent. allegedly early monkeys and apes. The oldest fossil Wood has complained strongly about the practice of monkey is Parapithecus, dating from the Oligocene Per- splitting. That is, every time a primate paleontologist iod, supposedly around 30-40 m. years B.P. The total finds a tooth or another piece of bone, he is inclined to remains of Parapithecus consist of just two jaws. The exaggerate its importance by assigning it a new species whole reconstruction is built on just two jaws! And name. It is extremely likely that this was the origin of Brace, Carrington, Olson,‘O and Colbert” all agree that most of the names mentioned above. For instance, as he was an Old World monkey; although Carrington Brace and Montagu pointed out, the teeth and jaw cautions us that the evidence is too scanty to give a fragments of Ramapithecus are difficult to distinguish definite picture. Wood doesn’t even bother to mention from those of Dryopithecus. Indeed, the dental patterns him.8 Between the alleged beginning of the order Pri- of Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Australopithecus mates, 60-70 years B.P., and the first monkey fossil, are quite similar. Thus it is likely that all three belong to 30-40 m. years B.P., the fossil record is a total blank for the same type of animal, and that no evolution at all has 30 m. years!! occurred. The same could be said about gibbons. Given the wide variability which occurs in populations of liv- Around the same time, we find the very first fossil gib- ing apes, Pliopithecus and Propliopithecus would seem bon: Propliopithecus. Another huge gap! Most experts to have been just gibbons. accept him as an ape; but, once again, the fossils consist The whole picture, then, is disappointing to the evolu- of nothing but jaws! tionist: for 95 % of the 60-70 m. years of alleged primate On such slender evidence rests the evolutionary be- evolution, the fossil record is blank. Much faith and ginning of monkeys and gibbons. And, even then, Brace speculation is required to make the evidence (which said: “It fits fairly well into the model of a generalised would easily fit into a one-gallon bucket) into an evolu- Dryopithecus.“g Note the opposing viewpoints. tionary sequence of events. It can be seen clearly that 20 m. years ago the ape Dryopithecus appears-a gap the evolution of monkeys and apes consists almost com- of 10 to 15 m. years more. Most experts agree that this pletely of splitting, confusion, lack of evidence, oppos- creature was a great ape; but Carrington says that it is: ing opinions, and guesswork. “Unlikely to be the father of apes and men”.7 Wood This article, then, completes my demonstration that writes that it was an ape, living in trees and going on all the evolution of apes, Australopithecus, and Man, is a fours.8 Proconsul, 15 m. years B.P., is classed by completely unproven theory. As the Harvard expert, Pilbeam, Brace, and Wood as a member of the Dryo- Professor Stephen Jay Gould, admitted: “The fossil pithecus group. record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for The next specimen, Pliopithecus, is agreed by most ex- the idea of gradual change . . . the evolutionary trees perts to have been a gibbon, or gibbon-like; and is dated that adorn our textbooks are inferences, not the evi- to about 12 m. years B.P. Wood says that he resembled dence of fossils”.13 modern gibbons;8 while Olson doesn’t even give him a mention.* Total remains: part of a jaw and some teeth! References Now we move to Oreopithecus, 12 m. years B.P. Most say that he was simply an extinct great ape: but Brace ‘Mehlert, W., 1980. The Australopithecines and (alleged) early man. Creation Research Society Quarterly I7 (1): 23-25, and 2 1, says that he left no evolutionary descendants; while *Olson, Everett C., and Jane Robinson, 1975. Concepts of evolution. Olson places him among the monkeys. Merrill. Finally we move to the last find: Ramapithecus, 10 31n the Annals of the New York Academy of Science, volume 167, m. years B.P. B e1 ieve it or not, his total remains are a 1969. handful of teeth and a few bits of jaw. On this slender 4Kelso, A. J., 1974. Physical anthropology. Lippincott. P. 142. 5Romer, Alfred S., 1966. Vertebrate paleontology. University of evidence some scientists have built an evolutionary Chicago Press. structure giving Ramapithecus the status of a hominid ‘Simons, Elwyn L., 1964. The early relatives of man. Scientific (ape-man). Others are more objective. Brace and Mon- American 2 11 (I): 50-62. tagu wrote: “It is hard to distinguish him from well ‘Carrington, ft., 1963. A million years of man. In Mammals, Time- Life Books. worn specimens of Dryopithecus. To say it was a BWood, Bernard, 1978. The evolution of early man. Two Continents hominid is simply reading too much into the evidence”g Publishing Croup, New York. Wood said: “No evidence-we can only speculate”8 eBraee, C. F., and Ashley Montagu, 1977. Human evolution, second Maynard Smith said the same; while Millar called edition. Macmillan. “‘All three op. tit; Ramapithecus an early monkey with anthropoid af- “Colbert, Edwin H., 196.5. Evolution of the vertebrates. Wiley. finities.‘: Carrington and Olson don’t even give him a ‘*Millar, R., 1972. The Piltdown man. Ronald. mention. More confusion! 13Gould, Stephen J., 1977. Natural history since Darwin. Norton. 22 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

“PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM” AND THE MACRO-MICROMUTATION CONTROVERSY A. JAMESMELNICK* Received 20 November, 1980

Evolutionists seem to be coming more and more to admit that what was, until recently, the standard evolutionary dogma, gradual evolution through micromutations, is supported by neither the fossil record nor common sense. So the notion of saltational evolution, through macromutations and hopeful monsters, is being heard more and more. But that dogma has its own difficulties—nay, impossibilities. It behooves Creationists to be aware of these developments. For from the controversy they can glean arguments against both kinds of evolution, and hence, by elimination, in favor of special Creation.

It is surprising what one may find in even the sup- curred in a series of “jumps” along the phylogenetic posedly evolutionary and uniformitarian literature tree. nowadays. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, professor In recent years, this explanation has become much of Geology at Harvard and associated with the Museum more popular, because an honest evaluation of the fossil of Comparative Zoology there, in a recent article has record on the part of some evolutionists has forced them stated that the modern synthetic theory of evolution is to conclude that present synthetic evolutionary doctrine dead: is outmoded and not substantiated by the evidence. We I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled are now faced with a new round of theories and some me with its unifying power when I was a graduate new phraseology, most notably “punctuated student in the mid-1960’s. Since then I have been equilibrium” and “macromutation”, that seek to ex- watching it slowly unravel as a universal descrip- plain how we got here. The theory was most forcefully tion of evolution. The molecular assault came first, propounded by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould first followed quickly by renewed attention to unor- in 1972.6 The ideas themselves are not new but have thodox theories of speciation and by challenges at been brought out of the closet and dressed up for one the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluc- simple reason-if the synthetic theory of evolution is tant to admit it-but if Mayr’sl characterization of dead, as Gould assets, something must replace it, and, the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory as since special creation is not an admissible option’ (I a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its wonder why!), “punctuated equilibrium” is born. Of persistence as textbook orthodoxy.2 course, there’s always the “steady-state” option of inter- Well, this is indeed news! It appears as if one of the preting the fossil data using the presupposition that major reasons for arriving at this conclusion is based on species do not originate. All they do is remain in ex- the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record: istence or become extinct.’ The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary But such a position is excluded on its face even by vir- stages between major transitions in organic design, tue of the second law of thermodynamics. If species indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to have always existed (i.e., from eternity), and new ones construct functional intermediates in many cases, do not arise (old ones can only become extinct), how can has been a persistent and nagging problem for any still remain ? The biosphere of our planet (which gradualistic accounts of evolution3 supports all known life-systems) is significantly tenuous, Or, again, in Kitts: so postulating existence from eternity is scientifically Despite the bright promise that paleontology pro- meaningless. vides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has So we are actually left with very few options, (see presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, Figure 1) and for the evolutionist who has grown up the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ with gradualism (and all of the corollary aspects of in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate uniformitarianism), “punctuated equilibrium” must forms between species and paleontology does not sound somewhat frightening. But for those who have re- provide them.’ jected the “modern synthesis”, as it is so called, it is Many evolutionary scientists now admit that these their hue and cryeg The implications of what all this “nasty difficulties” cannot be resolved by neo- may mean are only now beginning to filter down to the Darwinism in its present form. Something new must popular press, lo and I suspect that we shall see a great take its place. “Saltation”, “hopeful monsters”, deal more to follow. The whole problem is creating “Schindewolfian theory”‘, “punctuated equilibrium”, quite a stir. The “gradualists”, the micromutational “macromutation”; all these are proposed. These are all people, are upset: code words for essentially the same doctrine in evolu- tionary thought. They all represent the same spectrum . . . there are few (if any) genetically well- of theory which maintains that evolution did not or established cases of morphological macromutations could not have occurred according to the standard which have been fixed in natural populations of gradualist scenario of micromutational changes but oc- animals. Mutations of large effect are almost always deleterious. . . . l1 *Mr. A. James Melnick’s address is 1736 W. Farwell. Chicago, Advocates of punctuated equilibrium and Illinois 60626. macromutation cite as evidence the frequent VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 23

functional, is so uniformly opposed to a saltationist origin of new structures that no choice is left but to search for explanations in terms of a gradual origin. I5 / And how is saltation defined? For that answer we turn to the journal Evolution: By “saltation” Darwin meant precisely what has been traditionally understood by that term: a macromutation. A saltation is a big change in a single generation.le So we have an obvious and very severe contradiction. Steady state Phylctic gradualism As Ldvtrop states: I think we are here facing two alternative theories, mutually exclusive. It is, of course, possible to ac- cept both the micromutation and macromutation theory, i.e., the comprehensive theory, but only the intellectually confused or dishonest can unite this standpoint with the claim of being a neo-

/ 1 Darwinian.” / / In other words, Ldvtrop throws out the classical label of “neo-Darwinian” for those who accept the macromutational thesis. And he also states that macromutation theory is based on a lot more than just the silence of the fossil record on this point:

Punctuat.ed equilibrium Special Crcat.ion The ‘creative power’ required to construct, say, a particular vertebrate, involves the origination of the epigenetic mechanism capable of creating the LEGEND FOR THE ILLUSTRATION animal in question. And that mechanism, and Figure 1. The various taxonomic models are contrasted graphically. hence the creative power, must be exactly the same, A horizontal bar at the top of a line indicates extinction. whether it originates in many small-step in In the steady state model the lines, representing kinds or species, are considered to extend back to infinity, i.e., to have existed from stallments or in a few larger ones. Yet, there is a eternity. In the diagram of punctuated equilibrium, the broken tremendous difference between these alternatives. lines show lines of descent which are supposed to have happened, Thus, the former implies a series of intermediate but which were so abrupt as to leave no fossils. In special Creation, steps, which must have been grotesque in many kinds were created separately and remain separate. However, the branching lines close to the originals are intended to show the cases. And still the theory requires that these forms possibility of limited variation, which many Creationists grant. For have been so successful that they replaced the instance, dogs and wolves may have had a common ancestor. original ones. In my opinion this logical deduction from the micromutation theory needs no empirical refuta- absence of transitional forms from the fossil tion, common sense suffices.18 record.‘* This negative information is not convinc- This is precisely what Creationists have said all ing.13 along. “Macromutation” throws out the entire structure The paradox is that the macromutational thesis, car- upon which modern evolutionary biology is based, that ried to its logical conclusions, is equally absurd. Thus, if is, that there is a successful accumulation of a series of a salamander hatched five eggs, and four of the five micromutations within a species over a long period of were salamanders, but the fifth (due to some postulated time which enables that species, through the means of gross genetic mutation) was some “brown furry thing”, natural selection, to evolve. This is clearly “the whole the “brown furry thing” not only would have to survive ball game” in evolutionary theory and some of the big (in a “strange” environment providing scarce resources) guns of classical neo-Darwinism, such as Ernst Mayr, but also find another “brown furry thing” which had are joining battle: had exactly the same level of genetic mutation-but of The absurdity of believing in the simultaneous ap- the opposite sex! These are our “hopeful monsters”! And pearance of numerous ‘hopeful monsters’ as to “some geneticists all monsters are hopeless”1g is the Goldschmidt ( 1940) h as called them, was far more gradualist reply. How does the saltationist answer this clearly appreciated by Darwin than by some recent question?: evolutionists. . . . l4 . . . the new mutation may involve ‘major changes Mayr, of course, has to turn to his highest authority in genome size or organization’, in which case sex- (i.e., Darwin) for at least moral support and does not ual isolation is likely. [?] give macromutational theory any more than a few con- . . . But I grant my critics that if the new mutation descending sentences in his major work, Evolution and does not involve isolation, then it may be fixed the Diversity of Life. He concludes: through outbreeding.*O The evidence, whether genetic, morphological, or He thus steps around it, but even the gradualist model 24 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY is hard put to answer this question of ‘mating-by- Eldredge in their 1977 article in Puleobiology*’ felt mutation’: compelled to include the following heading: “What Eventually the isolated group might attain suffi- Eldredge and Gould Did Not (And Did) Say” (wouldn’t cient genetic distance from the parental stock as to it be wonderful if Creationists had the same opportunity be reproductively isolated: hence the establishment to answer their critics in the pages of the major scien- of a new species.*’ tific journals?). So it is obvious that it is going to take Again, this is essentially theory, and this theory, when some time for the smoke to clear in this whole area. In raised to the macroevolutionary level, requires, as the meantime we can learn a great deal from watching Ldvtrops states, a series of grotesque intermediate this controversy unfold. Charges and counter-charges forms, each of which must be ideally suited to the sur- are flying back and forth among evolutionists. “Punc- rounding environment. And this “creative power”, as tuated equilibrium” is a highly emotional issue, and Ldvtrop calls it, must be exactly the same in its in- some very unscientific attitudes are emerging: cremental stages and consistent throughout all time. Just imagine that scientific dispute has sunk to this Otherwise, evolution cannot and will not occur. Thus, leve1!25 he believes he has a much higher probability with his That is a macromutationalist speaking. And then we “hopeful monsters”. This would all be nothing but have this comment from the micromutational side of simply amusing except for the fact that our the house: schoolchildren most likely will be taught this, as “punc- What sort of trick should we be prepared for? Bogus tuated equilibrium” becomes more and more the history for one thing . . . Cracraft, supporting the favored step-child of the Darwinian worldview. “punctuated equilibrium’ theory of Eldredge and What we find within both of these schools of evolu- Gould, tries to show that Darwin rejected ‘salta- tionary thought, however, is that each appeals to some tion’ for ‘extrascientific’ reasons. The argument is locus of “ultimate evidence” which it believes partly founded upon an egregious sophism.26 abrogates the other’s viewpoint. The micromutationists So we sit back and observe the fray. We are not really say that macromutation as a principle is genetically out invited to participate, and perhaps it’s better that we of the question. The macromutationists say that if just let the two sides hack away at each other for a gradualism is true, there must be some evidence of it in while, I suspect that “punctuated equilibrium” (or the fossil record, and there is not. And are Creationists “punctured” equilibrium, as I like to refer to it) will the only ones plagued by the suppression and distortion have its heyday, but in the meantime, it is performing of evidence on the part of the opposition? No, the quite a service, and in this respect I must agree with G. macromutationists, being the “new kids on the block” H. Harper most emphatically: are facing similar problems, and they don’t like it one . . . punctuated equilibrists have kindly provided a bit: non-evolutionist approach to the fossil record; Another way to avoid falsification (of neo- steady state theorists [and Creationists--my inser- Darwinism) consists of underrating, ignoring or tion] can feel grateful and encourage them in their suppressing conflicting evidence . . . If the neo- work.*’ Darwinians had been able to mobilise convincing Why? Because they are investigating and publicizing evidence in favor of their theory, the present discus- the very facts which Creationists have been demanding sion would not be waged. But without facts, how is for decades. It is very refreshing to watch it all unfold, it possible to rejoin critics? Only one means is but also very disturbing to see that, regardless of the available: words. Two ways have been followed, facts, most evolutionists still cling to the shreds of their the first of which is to appeal to the consensus of the theory. As Ldvtrup himself asks: majority . . . The other expedient is to answer with What would the falsification of this prediction imp- dogmatic postulates. . . . And one may even go one ly, if not Special Creation?28 step further and leave behind all rules of logical Indeed. But he himself does not accept it, choosing in- reasoning. ** stead to believe in a world of macromutations. But for us as Biblical Creationists there is the certain So we certainly are not alone in this respect. And the knowledge that the only “positive macromutation” is a level at which this particular argument is being carried spiritual one, the one which changes a man from the out is not always understood even among the scientists creature he is into a child of God. Let us hope that more themselves. of those macromutations will puncture the collective What all of this points to is the fact that even within consciousness of the scientific world. the evolutionary world, the possibilities for semantic misunderstandings are enormous. And this is especially true as far as the “macro-micromutational References controversy” is concerned. S&en Ldvtrop, of the ‘“The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution Department of Zoophysiology, University of Umea, is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but an Sweden, wrote his article entitled “Semantics, Logic extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within and Vulgate Neo-Darwinism” in the journal Evolu- populations and species.” Mayr, Ernst, 1963. Animal Species and tionary Theory to clear up what he believes are gross evolution. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, misinterpretations of the theory of macromutation on Mass. P. 586. *Gould, Stephen J., 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution the part of other, more orthodox neo-Darwinians.23 emerging? Puleobiology, 6( 1): 120. Because of the outcry against them, Gould and 31bid., p. 127. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 25

‘Kitts, David B., 1974. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. Euolu- “Mayr, Ernst, 1976. Evolution and the diversity of life. Harvard tion, Vol. 28, September, p. 467. University Press, Cambridge, Mass., P. 93. %chindewolf, O.H., 1950. Grunfragen der Palaontologie. E. ‘“Ibid., p, 95. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. leGhiselin, Michael T., 1980. A review: Phylogenetic mythogenesis eEldredge, N. and S. J. Gould, 1972. Punctuated equilibria; an alter- and paleontology. Euolution, 34(4):823. native to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82-l 1.5. In: Schopf, T. J. M., ed. “Ldvtrop, Sdren, 1979. Semantics, logic and Vulgate neo-darwinism. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper and Co., San Francisco, Evolutionary Theory, No. 4, July, p. 162. Calif. 18Zbid., p. 164. 7Golay, Marcel, 196 1. Reflections of a communications engineer. lOAdler, Jerry and John Carey, 1980. Is man a subtle accident? Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 33, June, pp. 23A-36A: “But the Newsweek, November 3, p. 96. semireligious concept of a creation, with the corollary concept of a *OLdvtrop, op. cit., p. 167. Creator, was scientifically inadmissible, so it was thought , . . ” 2’Lewin, Roger, 1980. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science, Vol. OHarper, G. H., 1980. Alternatives to evolutionism. Creation 2 10, November 2 1, 1980: 885. This article also reviews the October Research Society Quarterly 17(l): 49-50. See especially p. 50. 1980 Chicago conference in which “punctuated equilibrium” for- eMorris, H. M., 1979. Revolutionary evolutionism. ZCR Impact mally challenged the modern synthetic theory. Series, No. 77, November. Ydvtrop, op. cit., pp. 168-169. lOAdler, Jerry and John Carey, 1980. Is man a subtle accident? 231bid., pp. 157-172. Newsweek, November 3, pp. 95-96 24Gould, Stephen J. and Niles Eldredge, 1977. Punctuated equilibria: “Lande, Russell, 1980. A review of: Microevolution in relation to the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Puleobiology, 3(2): macroevolution. Paleobiology, 6(2); 234. 118-120. ‘*Zbid p. 235. It is very interesting to note here that Lande cites 2SLovtrop, op. cit., p. 164. Gish’s Evolution: The Fossils Say No! as one of his sources for mak- *‘Chiselin, op. cit., p. 823. ing this statement. 27Harper, op. cit., p. 53. 131bid. *‘Ldvtrop, op cit., p. 159.

LET US REASON TOGETHER WILLIAM J. TINKLE* Received 22 August, 1980

As members of the Creation Research Society we all like the ape. There are at least two valid reasons for this claim to be Christians; when we joined the organization likeness. (a) To control disease man can make tests and we declared our belief in the Bible. We long for others experiments on apes and other animals which he would to have this belief and recognize that those who oppose have no right to impose upon a human being. They are the Bible are helping, either willfully or thoughtlessly, to enough alike that the findings on one are valid on the aid the forces of atheism. other. (b) If we are keeping animals for some kind of ser- The Greek philosopher, Epicurus, said that the gods, vice we judge their needs from our own, for instance nine of them, lived on Mount Olympus, dined on honey we’ll not let them go hungry. Darwin shows that there and ambrosia, and cared but little for people on the ad- are physical likenesses but does not show that this simil- joining lowlands. There is a similar disregard among arity enables one to change into the other. Persons have the leaders of the evolution model. We call this attitude taken many young apes into their homes as pets, and a sterile religion and also poor science. Even reason although they have voice boxes (larynx) very much like teaches us something far better. ours, none has been able to speak or write a single It is easy for a person to take for granted a certain sentence; which of course is easy for a child. guess about nature if it is what he desires to think; then A popular college textbook claims that changes in he forgets that it simply is a wish and takes it as a basis nature are rare. “Many species have remained much the for future thought. For instance Charles Darwin states same for long geologic ages. The brachiopods among “We have seen that man appears to have diverged from animals and the sea-weeds and others among plants are the Catarrhine or Old World division of the Simiadae, examples of groups of organisms in which almost no after these had diverged from the New World division”’ changes are observed in present-day species as com- Not content to say as some do that man and apes have pared with fossils.“* descended from a common ancestor, Darwin has seen Heritable changes, called mutations may be seen in the division from which man came. But he gives no big collections in laboratories but if they escape into the time, place, or pictures of this occurrence. In this man- wild they do not have the strength to become establish- ner a kind of philosophy is built up which he calls ed. We sometimes read in scientific literature of science. He forgets that science starts from a large body favorable mutations but they are hypothetical examples of facts; observed facts. rather than observed ones. Men with broad ideas rooted in their desires rather than their observation have been Is Change Easy? allowed to become spokesmen for science; but a better In the Descent of Man, first chapter, Charles Darwin day is dawning. It is remarkable to note the organiza- devotes page after page to show that man is physically tions which are springing up and demanding change.

*William J Tinkle, Ph.D., taught Biology and Genetics for many Planned Construction years. He s now retired, and lives at Timbercrest Home, North Man- chester, Irdiana 46962. The members of the Creation Research Society find 26 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY that their observations in science give support for their upon desire or preference more than upon careful obser- belief in Christianity. It is reasonable to conclude that vation. Some persons are not only Christians but also the Creator planned both the morphology of the careful scientists as well; it is from this group that the organisms and the very diverse environments and fitted spokesmen for science should come. them into each other, He made a pleasing assemblage of plants and animals and so fashioned them that very few References species, even though some prey upon others, have ever ‘Darwin, C., 1874. The descent of man. Hurst, New York. P. 173. brought the others to extinction. We admit in shame *Snyder, L. H., and P. R. David, 1957. Heredity. Heath, Boston. P. that Homo sapiens is an exception. This mighty work 349. was evidently done through intelligence, not through the sordid selfishness which natural selection says beat down all opposition. In any large area where nature has been unopposed Design in Nature for many years we find no species overcoming another (ContiLed from page 7) but a steady ratio of all species year after year. We do not find what we might expect, that animals which prey ‘sZimmerman, M. 1979. Optimal foraging: A case for random move- ment. Oecologia. (Berl). 43: 261-67. on others were increasing in number, toward the day lgMacNeil, G. D., 1964. The Skippers Of The Genus Hesperia In when they would have to change their food or go Western North America With Special Reference to California hungry. Man is supposed to be God’s lieutenant but we (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) University of California Publications in admit that he himself needs watching. Entomology. 35: l-230. *OMathur. G., and H. Y. Mohan Ram, 1978. Significance of petal col- or in thrips-pollinated Lantana camara L. Annals of Botany. 42: The Most Complex The Most Fit? 1473-1476. We still are told that natural selection rules the world. 2’Schemske, D. W., 1976. Pollinator specificity in Lantana camara and L. trifolia (Verbenaceae) Biotropica. 8(4): 260-264. The species of plants and animals that succeed are the **Van Frisch, K.,. 197 1. Bees: their vision, chemical senses, and ones which become most complex. Indeed they say that language. rev. ed. Cornell. is the reward for becoming more complex, to become 5heu1, R. W., 1955. Nectar secretion. American BeeJournal. 9.5 (6): more able to succeed in getting food, conquering 229-234. enemies, and leaving descendants; or we might say, suc- cessful selfishness. Now let us, as good scientists, go back to observation. You have been told that natural selection makes a fit The Episteme is the Theory species more complex, thus making it successful in the (Continued from page 13) struggle for existence. Then, they say, the tendency is 2BPopper, K. R., 1962. Conjectures and refutations. Basic Books, Inc., for the simple type to become more complex or to pp. 36-37. become extinct; it is in a very poor position to hold its *‘Popper, K. R., 1972. Objective knowledge-an evolutionary ap- own. Is this what we find? Amoeba proteus is about as proach. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, p. 265. 28Gillespie, N. C., Op. cit., p. 72. simple as any species although not the smallest. Its 2glbid., p. 68. equivalent of a stomach, the gastric vacuole, looks like 301bid., p. 77. a simple bubble in the cytoplasm but it digests flesh “‘ibid., p. 77. much as does the stomach of a dog. I have found them, 321bid., p. 126. 331bid., p. 120. Amoebae, in ponds in Wisconsin on dead leaves in two 3’lbid., p. 87. feet of water at the rate of one an hour; not fast but they 351bid., b. 88. are not becoming extinct. Mosses are simple, having no 3BHandler, P., 1980. Public doubts about science Science. 208(4448) system of tubes to carry sap, but with proper shade and 1093. 37Trippett, F., 1977. Science: no longer a sacred cow. Time. 109( 10): moisture, even on scant soil they flourish. The opossum 72-73. is not a specialized mammal in teeth, legs, stomach or other organ but it increased its range from Virginia to New England. It is not native in California but when in- troduced there by man it succeeded quite as well as other animals. It is hard to demonstrate that complex CORRECTION organisms get along better than others. Persons who In the article, “Thornton Quarry Deposits: a Fossil have this belief should demonstrate that some actually Coral Reef or a Catastrophic Flood Deposit? A Prelimi- have increased in complexity. At this point some one nary Study”, by David B. D’Armond, in the Quarterly will cite the location of fossils but this does not prove for September, 1980, readers may have been misled by the point. The relative age of a fossil is determined by Figure 1, on page 89, into thinking that the core area the relative degree of complexity rather than by its posi- and the top of the dome are separate. In fact, they are tion. one and the same. Incidentally, the mark and words: “Approx. top . , .” Conclusion at the lower right of that Figure are not another feature. In this country people happen to hear more persons They are the key to the indication of the core area, far- speaking or writing for evolution than for creation. The ther up and to the left; and maybe might better have speculations of these orators or writers may be founded been given in an inset, or in a separate place. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 27

THE SUN’S LUMINOSITY AND AGE JAMESHANSON* Received 17 September, 1980

Two recent papers in the June 1980 issue of this journal by Hinderliter and Steidl provided excellent documentation on solar shrinking and the lack of solar neutrinos; and their combined testimony is against evolutionary astronomy and for creationist astronomy. This paper adds some additional information on current research and on the history of investigation into the sun’s luminosity and age. The Helmholtz contraction theory, the meteoric bombardment theory, and the solar incandescence as the source of sun’s luminosity are revisited. It is found that all, except possibly meteors, may individually provide for the observed luminosity. Particularly, it is argued that if the sun was created 6000 years ago as an incandescent body at about 6000 degrees Kelvin there would have been imperceptible dimuni- tion in its temperature to the present. Introduction I favour actual shrinking for several reasons. 1) It is Hinderliter’ and Steidl* have observed that the re- anti-evolutionary and compatible with the creationist cently discovered solar shrinkage is amply sufficient to view of a recently created, not evolved, sun. 2) The supply the solar luminosity and that this coupled with meridian observations are very numerous as compared the apparent lack of solar neutrinos strongly suggests to Mercury transits. 3) The reduction of meridian ob- that the sun, and hence stars, do not burn nuclear fuel. servations are much simpler than the reductions from Hence, they observe, that the enormous astrophysical Mercury transits or solar constant variations in that ages given to stars can not be justified. These papers many more theoretical considerations enter into the ex- assume that the sun, indeed, is shrinking; however this periment for the latter two cases. question is being hotly debated, for nothing less than the An historical postscript to this controversy has been foundations of evolutionary astronomy are at stake. added by Prof. Wittmann of Gottingen, in the Eddy and Boornazian3 find the decrease to be 2.25 September 1980 issue of Sky and Telescope, in which and 0.75 arc seconds per century for the east-west and Wittmann mentions that Gauss, in 1809, discounted north-south diameters, respectively. Their figure is bas- solar shrinking in favor of observer errors even though ed on meridian crossings at the Greenwich Observatory meridian transit observations showed shrinking. He for the years 1836 to 1953. The east-west diameter was also cites Gething’s 1955 study of transits showing a obtained from the time for the solar disk to cross the decided shrinking as opposed to Tobias Mayer’s study local meridian and then corrected for the sun’s distance in the mid 18th century showing no evidence for and increase in right ascension. The north-south change. diameter was obtained by setting micrometer wires on the north and south solar limbs. They conjecture that Physical Quantities the north-south diameter may be comparatively er- Table 1 shows the values of physical quantities to be roneous since it is influenced by atmospheric refraction. used subsequently. The sun radiates into space seeing an They report a similar shrinkage from the U.S. Naval ambient temperature of space. The temperature, T,, Observatory observations for the years 1894 to 1950. will be taken to be that of the famous 3 degree back- They also find the circumstances of the 9 April, 1567 ground radiation. The mean solar specific heat has been eclipse at Rome to confirm their results. estimated from Eddington’ as follows. Eddington’s I’ Eddy’s figures have been challenged by several. approximates the ratio of the molecular specific heat Shapiro4 used 23 transits of Mercury across the solar under constant pressure to that under constant volume. disk between the years 1736 to 1973. He found the i.e., I’ E C,/C,~44/3. Eddington derives C,= N/(l?-1) shrinkage to be 0.05 2 0.10, and hence regarded the where N= R/p and where R is the universal gas constant solar diameter as constant. Morrison’ independently ex- and CCthe mean molecular weight. Taking p= .6 * gives amined Mercury transits from 1723 to 1973 and ob- C = C,- 40 1O8.The rate of change of the solar radius, i‘, tained similar results. Sofia6 puts any possible solar is taken from Eddy and Boornazian (3) as 2.25/Z arc shrinkage at less than 0.5 based on changes in the solar seconds per century. The solar emissivity, E, is the frac- constant (i.e., the energy per unit area per unit time tional amount by which the sun differs from a received above the atmosphere for all wavelengths). blackbody radiating at the solar temperature, i.e. The objections raised against Eddy and Boornazian’s E= 47rr* eaT4 gives E= 100. Figures in Table 1 not figures are that the industrial atmosphere at Greenwich specifically mentioned may be found in references 11 has become increasingly polluted in the years 1836 to and 12. 1953 and that increased extinction would increasingly diminish the apparent solar disk. It is also objected that The Helmholtz Contraction Theory the timing methods used during much of this period are In 1854, Helmholtz reported his contraction theory questionable. Of course, the major objection, whether whereby the contractions of a homogeneous gas sphere spoken or not, is that shrinkage of such magnitude may will produce temperatures on the order of the solar sur- well negate all of evolutionary astronomy. face temperatures? lo Helmholtz assumed that all gas *James Hanson, Ph.D., is Professor of Computer Science. Cleveland particles fall radially inward and their loss of gravita- State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44 1 15. tional potential energy is completely converted to ther- 28 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

Table 1. This table contains physical quantities used in not be denied. It is interesting to note Eddington’s (7 pp. this nauer. 289-291) summarial dismissal of the contraction mech- anism based on the surety of evolutionary time based on Symbol Value Units Definition the usual circular arguments from biological and geo- T 5785 deg k The solar temperature graphical evolutionary time. One very interesting as- T. -3 deg k The ambient temperature of space pect of Helmholtz’s theory is that it benignly assumes, 6.91@1O’O cm Present radius of the sun though it does not require, the star to have nearly con- P 1.41 gmacm- 3 Solar mean density stant temperature throughout, or at least not the enor- - 4.108 erg-gm- l-k- ’ Solar mean specific heat mous temperature variation predicted by astrophysical 1.00 Solar emissivity a -1.73.lC~‘~ rad-set-’ Rate of change of solar theory. I find this to be compatible with the very simple radius(3) incandescent explanation of the solar luminosity during u 5.670 1O-s erg-cm- *-sec-l-k Stefan-Boltzman constant its 6000 years of existence. Some of the more com- M 2.0. 1O33 gm Solar mass prehensive early papers on the contraction theory were G 6;67@ lOa dyne-cm2-gm- * Gravitational constant R 8.31.10’ erg-k- I-mo l- ’ Universal gas constant written by some of the most emminent theoretical astro- .6 Solar mean molecular weight nomers of the 19th century.13 L 3.860 1O33 erg-set-’ Solar luminosity D l.SOe 1Ol3 cm Sun-earth distance Meteoric Bombardment Theory -2.600 10 * cm-sec- ’ aD, = 8.18.10’ cm-yr ’ (3) M. 5.97e102’ gm Earth’s mass Moulton (10, pp. 59-63) notes that meteors travel at great speeds (about 40 km-set-’ near the earth) and that a sizable portion of their kinetic energy might be con- ma1 energy. Under these assumptions Helmholtz deriv- verted into caloric energy upon striking the sun. ed the following expressions for a stellar temperature Moulton estimates that if the sun’s luminosity is due to rise AT, and increased internal energy, AQ, meteoric impact then “the earth should receive l/236 as much heat from the impact of meteors as from the sun. AT= (2.47. 103) (1 + r/Ar)- 1 [(GM)/(cr)] (1) This is certainly millions of times more heat than the AQ= (3/S) (1 + rlAr)-‘(M*/r) (2) earth receives from meteors.” This is raw speculation where the star shrinks from radius r + Ar to r, G is the on Moulton’s part. We must also speculate but from the gravitional constant, A4 the stellar mass, and c the vantage point of much aero-space research into the specific heat. meteoric flux distribution within the solar system. From It now remains to associate a rate of shrinkage with even before the beginning of the space era, in 1957, the relative shrinkage Arlr. Note that r/AT> > 1 and primary interest was given to the meteoric flux. Before that AQ = -EAt, Ar = rAt where it is assumed that all the 1957, non-orbiting rockets were used. internal energy, AQ, contributes to the luminosity. In The following numbers found in reference ( 18) permit this case AT is the temperature rise if AQ is retained. an estimate of the total meteoric kinetic energy Hence, AQ becomes, AQ s (3/S) GM*r*Ar and on available to the sun, dividing by At one gets E=-AQIAt = - (3/5)GM2r-2 C mv2 = (lo-12) (102) ]4a(6.91*10’0)2] (1.3*10-6) (Ar/At); which on solving for i‘ gives i-= -(S/3) Er*/(GM*) Evaluating this expression gives -1.15. 1O-4 cm-set -’ ( 104) (3.30 10’) ( 102) (6.1. 1O7)2 = 9.6. 1O33erg-set-’ =-3.630 lo3 cm-yr-‘. (4) Steidl’s formula3 on page 64 appears to estimate the These factors left to right are defined as follows. 1) The loss in potential energy of a gaseous sphere as it estimated near earth meteoric flux in particles-cm-* uniformly collapses from fr to fr + Ar for effective -set- ’ -2xster’ (18, p. 268); 2) The measured flux radius fr average frequently showed increases by a factor of 170 AQ=EAt= - M[GM(fr)-’ -GM (fr + Ar)- ‘1 for extended periods of time. Hence, this factor is opti- mistically included (p. 269); 3) This factor is the area of E -(l/f) GM*r-*Ar (3) the sun’s surface in cm*; 4) This factor is the average where, again, it is assumed that all the loss of gravita- meteoric particle mass in grams (p. 269); 5) The factor tional potential energy somehow is converted into lo4 results from both observational and theoretically radiative energy. Hence, solving for r=Ar/At gives considerations for determining the earth enhancement i‘= fEr*/(GM*) which for f = 0.5 is a factor of 12/S larger as a gravitational particle sink (p. 222); 6) The ratio of than Helmholtz’s value. Eddington (7, p. 289) quotes a the sun’s mass to the earth’s mass is used to convert the coefficient of 3/Z. earth enhancement to the solar enhancement; 7) A fac- If Eddy and Boornazian et al are correct, then the tor of lo* is further included to account for the observed solar contraction is about 200 to 20 times Poynting-Robertson enhancement (p. 222); 8) The larger than necessary in order to provide the solar velocity of a particle falling from infinity is taken as the luminosity. Some caution must be exercised in using representative velocity. Helmholtz’s figures since some part of the gravitational We note that this figure is about twice the solar energy of contraction must be absorbed by ionization, luminosity thus indicating that, perhaps, meteoric bom- electron excitation, convection, mass rotation, particle bardment cannot be dismissed as the source, or partial translation, etc. However, the observed contraction is in source, of the sun’s luminosity. such excess that the very possible reality of stellar lumi- Hinderliter *, along with Thomson in 1854, objects nosity being a result of gravitational contraction can that meteoric accretion would increase the solar mass VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 29 and thereby measurably change the length of the year. The model used here is essentially identical to the pro- The year, P, may be defined by Kepler’s law as cedure for measuring specific heats in the laboratorylg P = 2nr3’*[ G(M + M,)]-“2. If P and M are considered as whereby the change in temperature, dT, is for each being time varying, then differentiating gives, point of the body, or may be thought of as a mean value. Note that by this analysis we may infer that if the p= - 2m3/2 G-‘/’ (M + MJm312M sun or a star were created isothermal it would stay near- ly that way, which is, also, in direct contradiction to = -.SPM (M+M,)-’ E - .SPM /M = - 2. set-cent-’ evolutionary astrophysics. (5) Thomson17, gave no calculations, but stated that the Hence, one may question whether a loss of 2 seconds in sun through conduction-convection would cool down a century is measurable. I would say it is not. Further- about lK-yr.-’ Thomson was writing in 1854, several more, any increase in meteoric mass may well be offset years before the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law was or overwhelmed by a large ejection of mass. known; and so, it would seem, he had the wrong boun- The theory that meteors or other interplanetary mate- dary conditions. rial are responsible for the stellar luminosity well pre- dated Moulton. For example Newton, in his 17 13 edi- Concluding Remarks tion of the Principia, added; “So fixed stars, that have Contrary to popular belief it is found that gravita- been gradually wasted by the light and vapors emitted tional contraction, meteoric bombardment and incan- from them for a long time, may be recruited by comets descence may all three individually account for the that fall upon them . . . “. sun’s continuing luminosity for the 6000 years since Incandescence creation. This, also, applies to stars in general. It would It is invariably and tacitly assumed that if the sun seem that the problem is that there is too much energy were simply a glowing body that it would perceptibly available, instead of the evolutionary problem of fin- have cooled down in the recent centuries during which ding enough energy for sustaining luminosity for it has been astronomically observed. The contrary is billions of years. The incandescence theory would prob- suggested here; i.e., it is argued that if the sun, or a star, ably have been the explanation in pre-Copernican were created with the temperature they now have that times. This is another example of the frequent superiori- due to their enormous thermal mass they would appear ty of pre-Copernican astronomy over the present Coper- much the same and maintain their luminosity nican-evolutionary views. throughout the 6000 years since the creation. Let it be assumed that the loss of internal energy of References the sun is counterbalanced by an associated radiation. ‘Hinderliter, Hilton, 1980. The Shrinking Sun: A Creationist’s Pre- This energy balance is given by, (4/3)m3 pcdT+ 4ar2 diction, its Verification, and the Resulting Implications for Theories m(T4-Ta4)dt = 0 where a temperature decrease, dT, oc- of Origins. Creation Research Society Quarterly 17( 1):57-59. %teidl, Paul M., 1980. Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun. Creation curs in time interval, dt. Let T(0) = To be the tempera- Research Society Quarterly 17( 1):60-64. ture at time t = 0. Separating the variables gives 3Eddy, John and Boornazian, Aram A., 1979. Secular Decrease in the (T4 - Ta4)-‘dT = - 30e(pc)-‘(it + r,)-‘dt Solar Diameter, 1836-l 953. Bulletin of the American Astronomical (6) Society 11, 437. Also Physics Today, 32 (9): 17-19. where the sun’s radius is assumed to vary as ti+ ro. This ‘Shapiro, I. I., 1980. Is the Sun Shrinking?, Science 208 (4439):s 1-53. equation can be integrated; however the resulting ex- 5Morrison, L. V., and Ward, C. G., 1975. Monthly Notices of the pression introduces mathematical complexity. If T, is Royal Astronomical Society, 173, 183. %ofia S., et al, 1979. Solar Constant: Constraints on the Possible neglected then integrating from time To to T gives Variations Derived from Solar Diameter Measurements. Science 204 T = To [ 1 + z In (1 + (r/ro)t)]-113 (4399): 1306- 1308. (7) ‘Eddington, Arthur S., 1959. The Internal Constitution of the Stars, where p. 190. Dover Publications, N. Y. Originally published in 1926. @Kuiper, Gerald P., Ed., 1953. The Sun as a Planet, p. 45, The z = 9m To3 (per)-’ University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ‘Helmholtz, Herman L. F. Von, 1856. Philosophical Magazine, p. Setting r. = r and To = T and taking t = 6000 yr = 1.892 516. 10” set gives T= .8741 To. For 100 years this becomes ‘OMoulton, Forest Ray, 1956. An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics .9973 To Hence, by this model, it would seem that the pp. 61-68. The Macmillan Co., N. Y. First published in 1902. solar temperature would have changed imperceptibly “Allen, C. W., 1963. Astrophysical Quantities, Athlone Press Univer- sity of London, London. during the last century of solar astronomical observing; ‘2Blanco, V. M., and McCuskey, S. W., 1961. Basic Physics of the and that even over 6000 years the change would be Solar System. Addison-Wesley Publication Company, Reading small. This result is sensitive to the parameter Z; e.g. if Massachusetts. c= 1.8 then for t = 6000 yr, T= .9561 To. One might 13Lane, Homer, 1870. American Journal of Science, July. argue for increasing c, but this might be offset by a “Ritter, 1878-1883. Wiedemunn’s Annulen, 16 papers in volumes 5 through 20. decreased value for r. “Hill, G. W., 1888, Annuls of Mathematics, Volume 4. If this analysis is, in any way, correct then the mecha- leDarwin, G. H., 1888, Philosophical Trunsuctions. nism for the light of the sun and stars is, indeed, simple 17Thomson, William, 1854. On the Mechanical Energies of the Solar and does not require the myriads of unproved assump- System, Royal Society of Edinburg Trunsuctions, Volume 2 1. InHawkins, Gerald S. Ed., 1967. Meteor Orbits and Dust. Smithsonian tions and mathematical developments required by Contributions to Astrophysics, Volume II, Smithsonian Institution modern astrophysics which has as its underlying as- and NASA, Washington, D.C. sumptions enormous periods of time. ‘@Cork, James M., 1933. Heat, p. 159. John Wiley & Sons, N. Y. 30 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

TIME AND ANCIENT RECORDS DAVID C. C. WATSON*

Received 6 August, 1980 It is shown that not only Scripture, but also the works of the pagan writers of antiquity, points to a young world, which originated no more than a few thousand years B.C. Many quotations are adduced to show this point. Also, the ancients believed, not in random evolution by chance, but for the most part in fixity of the kinds, and in practically all cases that the world about us is to be seen as a result of intelligent design.

I remember a conversation I had with Sir Mortimer created fully grown, and given the stars to measure Wheeler,, a distinguished archaeologist, on a Mediterra- time, the difficulty disappears. Adam may well have nean cruise in 1965. I asked him, “What about 4004 had a perfect visual memory; in which case the recor- B.C. as a date for the beginning of civilization?” We ding of years would have been no problem. were leaning on the handrail and looking out to sea. His Now let us see what the ancient world outside the Bi- eye gleamed as he drew himself up to his full six-foot- ble can teach us about the Origin of Man. three, pulled out his pipe, and snorted: “That idea we A. The “Rig-Veda” is one of the holy books of India, have long since chewed up . . . pulverised . . . scattered written in Sanskrit about 1000 B.C. In Book X, 90, we to the winds!” find this: Later I visited the tomb of Archbishop Ussher in From that great general sacrifice . . . were horses Westminster Abbey. (You will, of course, recall that it born, from it all cattle with two rows of teeth; was Ussher who popularised 4004 as the date for Crea- From it were generated kine, from it the sheep and tion.) He has a beautiful epitaph. It reads (in Latin): goats were born. When they divided Purusha (= “Among scholars he was the most saintly, embodied spirit, or Man personified) how many Among saints the most scholarly.” portions did they make? But the question today is: was he right? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do (Charles Darwin, too, was buried in Westminster Ab- they call his thighs and feet? bey. What does that prove?) The Brahmin* was his mouth, of both his arms was We shall consider the question under two headings: I. the Rajanya * * made, His thighs became the Ancient records outside the Bible; and II. Ancient Vaisyat, from his feet the Sundral was produced. records in the Bible. Note: Although the Hindu scriptures do not regard aI men as equal, they do sharply distinguish I. Ancient Records Outside the Bible all humans from animals. Robert Young’s Concordance lists thirty-seven com- B. The Greek historian Herodotus (444 BC) has right- putations of the date of Creation. Of these, thirty are ly been called the “Father of History.” His quarter of a based on the Bible; seven are derived from other sources million words cover a vast canvas stretching from cen- -Arab, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Per- tral Russia to South Africa and from the Caspian to the sian, and Abyssinian. It is interesting to note that not Atlantic. His own travels took him to Greece, Thrace one of these puts the date earlier than 7000 B.C. If man (Bulgaria, Rumania), Scythia, Asia (Turkey), Italy, has been on this planet for two million years, as evolu- Libya, Egypt and Babylon; and he investigated the tionists allege, it seems very strange indeed that ancient origins and culture of about one hundred tribes from civilizations, which included expert astronomers and the Atlas Mountains to India. Now, what has Herodotus engineers, should have left no record whatever of their to tell us about the time of the arrival of these tribes in own history before this arbitrary date. All the myths their present locations? The general impression left up- and legends, however bizarre, speak of instant creation on the reader is that Europe was occupied by the Euro- a few thousand years ago. In a moment we shall look at peans not very many centuries before the time of a number of ancient writers who confirm us in this opi- writing. The Thracians had come from “Asia”, the nion; but first, it is interesting to see how evolutionists Greeks from Egypt, and the Thebans (Cadmus) from try to resolve the anomaly. For example Ridpath in his Tyre. Tyre is the oldest city mentioned: the local priests Great Races of Mankind (New York, 1877), writes: “No claimed for it an age of 2300 years, i.e. running back to child notes its coming into the world by making a 2750 B.C. Herodotus asserts that the Athenians record of the event for posterity . . . we must not there- originally did not speak Greek but “changed their fore expect to find any evidence in history at first hand, language when they were absorbed into the Greek fami- relative to the date of man’s appearance.” (page 132) ly of nations.” Such an inquiry and such a conclusion Note the false analogy: newborn infants do not keep would be possible only in the early days of a nation, diaries, therefore homo sapiens could not have written when the subject of origins was still a matter of public his own history! But newborn infants do not do lots of interest. He is sceptical about the (comparatively) vast things that Adam is said to have done, like eating fruit, antiquity claimed by the Egyptians for their civiliza- naming animals, and undergoing major surgery in order to get a mate . . . If, on the other hand, he was *Priests, the top caste. * *Kings, the second caste. *Mr. David C. C. Watson is with the ICR Midwest Center, 207 North tMerchants, the third caste. Washington, Wheaton, Illinois 60 187. $Labourers, the lowest caste. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 31 tion: he puts the demi-god Dionysus at 2050 B.C., the idea that the gods have human form, he quotes an whereas they allege 13,000 years beyond that. older Latin poet as saying: Herodotus traces the causes of the Greco-Persian War How like ourselves, in form and shape, back to the abduction of 10, princess of Argos (in Is that ill-favoured beast, the ape! Greece), by the Phoenicians who “originally came from But, says Cicero, outward physical similarity does not the coasts of the Indian Ocean.” This led to two indicate a similar way of life (apes’ habits are not ours); reprisals: the abduction of a princess of Tyre, by and conversely spiritual likeness does not betoken physi- Cretans, and of Medea, daughter of the king of Colchis cal similarity. Thus “the gods must have wisdom and (on the Black Sea), by Greeks. This, says Herodotus, en- reason as we do, but that does not prove they look like couraged Paris of Troy fifty years later to steal Helen us,” Cicero has here intuitively hit on an important from Menelaus . . . hence the Trojan War (1100 B.C.). discovery of modern genetics: similarity of physical Thus the abduction of 10, Herodotus’s starting point, structure does not necessarily indicate descent from a can scarcely have taken place earlier than 1500 B.C. common ancestor. It is “irrelevant.” In the whole book Generally speaking it would be safe to say that his there is not a syllable to suggest the idea of gradualism chronology fits comfortably into the Biblical picture of or transformation of one kind of creature into another. a dispersion from Babel in the third millennium B.C. Epicurus (born 342 B.C.) is quoted as saying that “. . . Dating of the Great Pyramid has dropped in the last six- the world was made by a natural process, without any ty years from 4800 to 2600 B.C. This may indicate that need of a creator: and this process in fact comes about Herodotus was right to suspect that the Egyptians exag- so easily that nature has created, is creating, and will gerated. create, worlds without end.” In other words, no long The only support for Darwinism that can be found in aeons of time are required: “nature” can produce a rab- the Histories is a report of “dog-headed men, and head- bit out of a hat at any moment, and keep on doing it! So less men with eyes in their breasts” (Herodotus does not even the atheist lends no support to Charles Lyell’s vouch for this but merely repeats what the Libyans say); geological theories. and another of a mare giving birth to a hare. Strange Although not strictly relevant to the question of time, mutations indeed! He describes outlandish customs and a few more paragraphs from Cicero will show that legends of scores of tribes. There are the Cannibals (two arguments against evolution and for creation have been varieties: those who eat their dead, and those who kill to familiar to clear thinkers for at least two thousand eat), the headhunters and the scalp-hunters, the bug- years. William V. Mayer, writing in the NABT Com- biters and the skull-drinkers, the Amazons (who may pendium on the Evolution-Creation Controversy (page not marry a man until they have killed a man), the 96) tries to drag in the Greek philosopher Thales (640- Nameless tribe (who call each other ‘you’), the Bald 546 B.C.) as a Darwinian before Darwin. But he does tribe, the troglodytes (world record-holders for not tell us, as Cicero does, that Thales said: “from water running), sun-worshippers and sun-cursers, monkey- the mind of God created all things!” Mayer calls eaters and snake-eaters. Herodotus calls some of these Empedocles (495-435 B.C.) “the founder of the idea of ‘uncivilized” but never drops a whisper of a hint that evolution.” Perhaps he was, but let us read Cicero’s they are anything but truly human-even when they comment on his school of philosophy; “like nothing on earth, it might be speak a language “Is it not a wonder that anyone can bring himself bats screeching.” to believe that a number of solid and separate par- “I acknowledge no master but Zeus (= top God) from ticles by their chance collisions and moved only by whom I sprang”, is the message sent to Darius by the the force of their own weight could bring into being king of Scythia. (The Scythians maintain that the coun- so marvellous and beautiful a world? If anybody try was uninhabited until their ancestor, a son of Zeus, thinks that this is possible, I do not see why he arrived around 1500 B.C.). Darwin writes somewhere should not think that if an infinite number of ex- that he is humble enough to acknowledge his simian amples of the twenty-one letters of the alphabet, ancestry. All one can say is that, so far as we know, this made of gold or what you will, were shaken humility was not shared by anyone known to together and poured out on the ground it would be Herodotus. Whenever pedigrees are mentioned, they are possible for them to fall so as to spell out, say, the traced back to gods or demi-gods, never to the lower whole text of the Annals of Ennius. In fact I doubt animals. The great chorus of antiquity, from East to whether chance would permit them to spell out a West, from North and South, unite with the stars in de- single verse! claring-“The Hand that made us is Divine.” So how can these people bring themselves to assert that the universe has been created by the Cicero blind and accidental collisions of inanimate par- Towards the end of his life the Roman orator Cicero ticles devoid of colour or any other quality? And (106-43 B.C.) wrote a treatise on The Nature of the even to assert that an infinite number of such Gods ranging over all Greek and Roman philosophy. worlds are coming into being and passing away all He refers to the Golden Age of vegetarianism when men the time. If these chance collisions of atoms can “never did any harm to oxen,” and insists that a) the make a world, why cannot they build a porch, or a stars and much of earth’s produce have been created for temple, or a house or a city? A much easier and less man’s sake alone, and b) many animals have been laborious task.“’ created for the service of man. When arguing against Aristotle, too has often been (naively) invoked as a 32 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY champion of evolution, but his real sentiments ha ve agine that Archimedes showed greater powers by been preserved for us (from a lost book) by Cicero: imitating the motions of the heavenly bodies in a “Let us imagine a race of men who have always model than nature does in bringing them about. Yet lived beneath the earth in fair and noble dwellings, the real motions are many times more subtle than beautified with paintings and statues and furnished his imitation of them.“3 with everything requisite to wealth and the bless- “So let us put aside all casuistry of argument and ings that wealth can bring. Let us imagine that simply let our eyes confess the splendour of the these men have never come up to the surface of the world, this world which we affirm to be the crea- earth but have heard by rumour and hearsay of the tion of the providence of God.“4 existence of the divine kingdom of the gods. Then To sum up: Cicero was one of the most learned and pro- let us imagine that at some point of time the jaws of lific writers of the ancient world. His letters, speeches the earth were opened and they were able to escape and treatises would fill two Bibles. But an evolutionist and come forth from those hidden abodes of theirs might search day and night for years without finding into the places where we live. When all at once they one crumb of comfort or support for Darwin in all those saw the land and sea and sky, beheld the majesty of hundreds of thousands of words. As a trained lawyer the clouds and felt the power of the wind, and look- Cicero preferred to believe the evidence of his senses, ed at the sun in its splendour, and came to under- the record of history, and the facts of nature rather than stand its power, how it brought daylight to the the speculative hypotheses of head-in-air philosophers. world and shed its light across the sky: then, when Ovid night cast its shadow over the earth, they saw the whole heaven bright and glorious with stars, the One of the closest parallels to Genesis l-l 1 is found in varying brightness of the waxing and the waning the Metamorphoses of Ovid (43 B.C.-17 A.D.), a famous moon, the rising and the setting of these heavenly Roman poet. The parallel is in fact so close that some bodies, and their sure and changeless course scholars believe he may have had the Old Testament at through all eternity. When they saw all these his elbow while he wrote. But even if he did, it is certain things, would they not be immediately convinced of he would not have written for a Roman readership ideas the existence of the gods and that all these wonders that were peculiar to the Jews. It seems more probable were their handiwork?“* that, if Ovid had read Moses, he simply allowed the Hebrew narrative to give more definite shape and form Finally, I cannot resist including a paragraph which to the vague legends which had been current for cen- reminds some of us of our own humble origins 2000 turies among his own people. We give some quotations years ago: (mainly) from the Loeb translation: “If anyone tried to improve anything in the nat- ural world, he would either make it worse or else at- Creation tempt the impossible. All the parts of the world are Scarce had the creator thus parted off all things so made that they could not be better adapted to within their determined bounds, when the stars . . . their use or more beautiful to see. began to gleam throughout the sky . . . The sea be- Let us consider now whether all this is accidental, came home for shining fishes, earth received the or whether the whole world is so constituted that it beasts, and mobile air the birds. could not hold together without the guiding spirit Man of divine providence . . . When you look at a pic- A living creature of finer stuff than these, more cap- ture or a statue, you recognize that it is a work of able of lofty thought, one who could have dominion art, When you follow from afar the course of a ship, over all the rest, was lacking yet. Then man was upon the sea, you do not question that its movement born . . . the Craftsman of the universe, designing a is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a more perfect world, made man of His own divine sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the substance . . . So then the earth, which had but late- time by design and not by chance. How then can ly been a rough and formless thing, was changed, you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid and clothed itself with forms of men before of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces unknown. everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? Our friend Posidonius, as you Golden Age know, has recently made a globe which in its Golden was that first age, which, with no one to revolution shows the movements of the sun and compel, without a law, of its own will kept faith stars and planets, by day and night, just as they ap- and did the right . . . Then spring was everlasting, pear in the sky. Now if someone were to take this and gentle zephyrs with warm breath played with the flowers that sprang unplanted . . . the earth un- globe and show it to the people of Britain or tilled brought forth her stores of grain . . . streams Scythia, would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious in- of milk flowed and yellow honey was distilled from telligence? the verdant oak. Our opponents however profess to be in doubt Giants whether the universe, the source and origin of all They say that the giants essayed the very throne of things, came into being by accident or by necessity heaven, piling huge mountains one upon another, or is the product of a divine intelligence. They im- clear up to the stars . . . VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 33

Wickedness of the Human Race mean this to be a witness to what He really did in space Wherever the plains of earth extend, wild fury and time? Or, is sabbath-keeping a kind of Cosmic Prac- reigns supreme. You would deem it a conspiracy of tical Joke, designed to make the whole world laugh at crime. Let them all pay the penalty which they the expense of the Jew? Can we believe that God is good have deserved. and true if He allowed His people to be mocked week Flood after week, year after year and century after century, Jove . . . preferred a different punishment, to des- for acting out a charade which was in fact a stupendous troy the human race beneath the waves and to send lie? To many it will seem more probable that God gave down rain from every quarter of the sky . . . and the Jews this unique Sabbath commandment, unpara- now the sea and land have no distinction. All is sea, lleled anywhere in the heathen world, to be a per- and sea without a shore. . . . The wolf swims among manent memorial-more impressive than the pyramids the sheep, lions and tigers are borne along by the -of His unique and unparalleled act of Creation, waves. . . Of course this has relevance only to the question time -how long? not to the question time-when? of crea- Saved by Faith tion But if we admit that Exodus 20: 11 must be literal- When Deucalion and his wife, borne in a little skiff, ly true, then there would seem to be good grounds for had come to land (on Mount Parnassus), they first accepting Genesis 5 and 11, too, as literal chronology worshipped . . . there was no better man than he, . . . as the ancient Jews certainly did. none more scrupulous of right, nor was any woman more reverent of the gods than she. Josephus Restoration of the Earth A contemporary of Juvenal was Flavius Josephus, the When therefore the earth, covered with mud from Jewish historian. Concerning Noah’s flood he writes: the recent flood, became heated by the hot rays of All the writers of barbarian histories make men- the sun, it brought forth innumerable forms of life tion of this flood and of this ark; among whom is . . . also the huge Python, a snake unknown before, Berosus the Chaldean; for when he is describing the which was a terror to new-created men . . . This circumstances of the flood he goes on thus: ‘It is said monster did Apollo destroy; and in order that the that there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, fame of his deed might not perish through lapse of at the mountain of the Cordyaeans, and that some time, he instituted sacred games called Pythian people carry off pieces of the bitumen’ . . . Hierony- from the name of the serpent he had overthrown. At mus the Egyptian also, and Mnaseas, and a great these games every youth who had been victorious many more, make mention of the same. Nicolaus of . . . received the honour of an oaken garland. For as Damascus in his ninety-sixth book speaks thus: yet the laurel tree did not exist . . . (Ovid goes on to ‘There is a great mountain in Armenia . . . upon tell the Legend of the Laurel . . . how Daphne was which it is reported that many who fled at the time turned into a tree to escape the attentions of Apollo) of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was Note: So far as we know, the Pythian Games were carried in an ark came ashore on the top of it; and started not earlier than 1000 B.C. Therefore it seems that the remains of the timber were a great while probable that in Ovid’s mind the Flood had occurred preserved. This might be the man about whom not more than two thousand years before his own time. Moses, the legislator of the Jews, wrote.‘5 Otherwise there seems to be no reason why he should With regard to the long ages of the patriarchs in Genesis have connected the Python with the Flood. 5 and 11, Josephus evidently anticipates some increduli- ty in his readers, so he adds: “ . . . the time is written Juvenal down in our sacred books, those who then lived having Juvenal lived in Rome in the first century A.D. and noted down with great accuracy both the births and wrote twelve books of Satires on Roman society. He cas- deaths of illustrious men.“s And later: tigates all manner of folly, ignorance and vice, and has Now I have for witnesses to what I have said all some wise words to say on the subject of parents setting those that have written Antiquities, both among the an example for their children. Among “bad” examples Greeks and barbarians; for even Manetho, who he includes the Jewish father who “gives up every wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who col- seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the lected the Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus, and concerns of life.” Hestiaeus, and beside these Hieronymus the Egyp- Let us pause to think about this. Here we have God’s tian, and those who composed the Phoenician chosen people living at the heart of the world’s most History, agree to what I say here; Hesiod also, and powerful empire . . . and what are they noted for? Hecataeus, Hellanicus and Acusilaus; and besides, Sabbath-keeping! (circumcision too, but several other Ephorus and Nicolaus, relate that the ancients lived races besides the Jews practiced this). For this unique a thousand years7 custom they are ridiculed and vilified. This had been going on for six centuries, since the capture of Jerusa- Comment lem, (i.e. by Nebuchadnezzar), so for 30,000 weeks. 1. Of course it is always possible to argue that a dozen And it has continued for a further 100,000 weeks. To historians widely scattered over the Near East might date, God’s people have celebrated about 130,000 sab- have copied the same gigantic lie from some solitary baths world-wide among the Gentiles. Now, did God document, but many people will think it more probable 34 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY that the longevity of the patriarchs was a fact well (1896) and even eight years ago Sir Gavin de Beer known to the sons of Noah and passed on to their grand- thought it worth while to quote Lucretius to lend weight children as they dispersed to become progenitors of the to his own arguments against design in Nature: different races of mankind. “Chance was exactly what Lucretius invoked to explain 2. The fact that “all the writers of barbarian histories” living organisms.” (‘Adaptation’ 1972, page 2). But un- mention the Flood argues strongly for the view that it fortunately the poet failed to invoke time also, limitless occurred in the third millennium rather than untold time along with chance; and it will be easy to show that thousands of years before. Lucretius’ view of the origin of the world agrees much Tucitus (55-120 A.D.) was the most distinguished better with the Bible account, God excepted, than with historian of the Roman Empire in his day. In his Ger- Darwin’s. Here are some quotations (all from Book V): mania he names sixty-three German tribes, records 1. Why have no poets sung of feats before the their legends and comments on their manners and Theban War and the tragedy of Troy (1100 B.C.)? morals. Three points are of particular interest: The answer, I believe, is that the world is newly made: its origin is a recent event, not one of remote 1. They trace their ancestry back to a god: antiquity. That is why even now some arts are be- “In the traditional songs which form their only ing perfected . . . . record of the past the Germans celebrate an earth- 2. Then it was that the earth brought forth the born god called Tuisto. His son Mannus is supposed first mammals . . . it is not surprising that more and to be the fountain-head of their race . . . ” bigger ones developed in those days when Earth 2. Their history begins with the Trojan War or a few and atmosphere were young. centuries earlier: 3. There was a great superfluity of heat and “The Germans, like many other peoples, are said moisture in the soil . . . the childhood of the world to have been visited by Hercules, and they sing of provoked no hard frosts or excessive heat or him as the foremost of all the heroes when they are boisterous winds. about to engage in battle. Ulysses also is supposed 4. . . . there never were nor ever can be, by some to have visited German lands and to have creatures with a double nature, combining organs founded and named Asciburgium, a town on the of different origin in a single body . . . . Rhine inhabited to this day.” 5. The animals cannot have fallen from the sky, 3. Some tribes were divilixed while at the same time and those that live on land cannot have emerged other tribes were barbarous and beastly: from the briny gulfs . . . . “The Chatti are the noblest people of Germany, 6. The name of ‘mother’ has rightly been bestow- and one that prefers to maintain its greatness by ed upon the Earth, since it brought forth the human righteous dealings. Untouched by greed or lawless race and gave birth to every beast . . . and at the ambition, they dwell in quiet seclusion, never pro- same time to the birds of the air . . . . voking a war, never robbing or plundering their If you had suggested to Lucretius that the human race neighbors . . . ” “Their marriage code is strict, and evolved from monkey-like ancestors, he would have no feature of their morality deserves higher praise.” laughed. The only ‘evolution’ he postulated is from “The Fenni are astonishingly savage and disgust- primitive man to civilized man, and all within a few ingly poor. They have no proper weapons, no thousand years. horses, no homes. They eat wild herbs, dress in 7. The varieties of herbs and cereals and trees skins, and sleep on the ground . . . the only way cannot be produced in this composite fashion: each they have of protecting their infants against wild species develops according to its own kind, and they beasts is to hide them under a makeshift covering of all guard their own specific characters in obedience interlaced branches . . . ” to the laws of Nature. And again these facts fit very well into the Biblical post- 8. Another legend tells how water likewise once Flood chronology and swift divergence of the races massed its forces and began to prevail, till many after Babel. These facts do not seem to agree with the cities of men were drowned beneath its flood. hypothesis of man’s slow emergence from an animal So, two thousand years ago Lucretius, an atheist ancestry via cave-manhood over millions of years. philosopher whose driving purpose was to rid the world of ‘superstition’ by teaching ‘science’, believed in: Lucretius 1. A young Earth Our last but by no means least important witness 2. More and larger animals in (recent) prehistoric shall be Lucretius (loo-45 B. C.), a Roman poet and ar- times. dent disciple of Epicurus, founder of the Epicurean 3. Original ideal climate. school of philosophy. A century ago when Darwinism 4. No half-and-half creatures. was the Greatest Show on Earth, evolutionists began to 5. No conquest of the land by sea creatures. ransack the Classics to find some support for the new- 6. Simultaneous origin of all creatures and man. fangled theory of man’s origin. Precious little could be 7. Fixity of species. found, but Lucretius seemed a promising candidate, 8. A gigantic Flood. with his denial of all interference by Deity, and of life And this is the best support that can be found among after death. Andrew White refers to him a dozen times philosophers of the ancient world, for the modern b History of the Warfare of Science with Religion theory of evolution! VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 35

Babylonian Legend history of Man goes back hundreds of thousands or even As a postscript we shall glance at the Babylonian ver- tens of thousands of years. The evidence points to the sion of the Flood-on clay tablets dated not earlier than emergence of ‘homo sapiens’ only a few thousand years 2000 B.C. If, as some scholars affirm, the Flood took ago, with memories of a golden age, and a disaster af- place at least three thousand years before Abraham fecting the whole human race; the re-population of (2000 B.C.), h ow could the story have survived by oral Europe and North Africa from some center in the Mid- tradition over a hundred generations? Note also the dle East; and the co-existence of ‘cave man’ and ‘civil’ Chinese ideograph for ship is the figure eight + mouths, man for hundreds of years B.C. and A.D. If Juvenal or which strongly suggests Noah and his family in the Ark. Cicero had known that one day a Briton would concoct This would fit in well with the fact that the earliest a theory of man’s ascent from the monkey, they would Chinese writing is dated around 2200 B.C., probably a have regarded it as the ultimate in decadence and folly, century or two after the Flood. It does not fit at all well and proof of the essential inferiority of the British race. with the idea that writing was not invented until thousands of years after the Flood, by which time hun- Biblical Chronology dreds of other ship-stories would have become much Now we shall consider the question: Does the Old more familiar than Noah’s. Testament give a chronology from the Creation? The answer given by many evangelical scholars today The Sirius Enigma is decidedly no! Typical is the statement in one well- One of the most puzzling problems for a “molecules- known Bible dictionary: “The compressed chronology to-man” evolutionist concerns the bright star Sirius. of Archbishop Ussher, who assumes an unbroken suc- This is thoroughly discussed by Kenneth Brecher, cession of father-son relationships in Genesis 5 and 11, Associate Professor of Physics at MIT, in Astronomy of is untenable in the light of attested archaeological the Ancients.’ Sirius is now classified as a ‘white dwarf’, facts” but the ancient records-Babylonian (700 B.C.), Greek The New Scofield Bible (1967) agrees: “Scripture (270 B.C. and 150 A.D.), and Latin (50 B.C. and 10 does not reveal the exact date of Adam’s creation . . . ” B.C.), all describe it as copper-coloured or reddish. “Scripture does not provide data by which the date of Now-the theory of stellar evolution supposed that it the Flood can be discovered. . .” takes a million years for a ‘red giant’ to shrink to a Dare we challenge this consensus of opinion among so ‘white dwarf’. How come, then, that Sirius appears to many learned and devout scholars? I think we may- have made the transformation in only two thousand nay, must-for the following reasons: years? The problem has not been solved, and perhaps I. Every Bible commentator up to 1860 believed never will be. But it illustrates a very important princi- that the Old Testament gives a precise chronology runn- ple: scientific theories worked out on the drawing- ing back to the date of creation. board, and extrapolation into ‘prehistory’, must yield to II. Every Bible chronologer before 1860 put the actual observations by ancient writers. The present date of creation between 3900 and 5500 B.C. theory of stellar evolution cannot be correct, at least as III. No commentators or chronologers before 1860 regards time, if it fails to account for Sirius changing suggested there might be gaps in the genealogies in from red to white. Genesis 5 and 11. In much the same way, I suggest, the evolutionary IV. Modern archaeology is based upon Darwinian theory of man’s origin cannot be correct if it finds no presuppositions.. support whatever from the observations, legends, and V. Darwinian presuppositions have been discredit- recorded histories of the ancient world. One has only to ed. look at Rome, Egypt, the Incas, Aztecs and Mayas, to see that civilization can run downhill as well as up. But Therefore Victorian materialists, “drunk with power” and self- VI. We have no good reason for doubting that the old esteem arising from the remarkable technological pro- chronologers were right! gress of the nineteenth century, decided that man must First, then, let us look at some old commentators: always have been climbing upward, drew a graph, and a. Bishop Joseph Butler (1736) in his Anology of Reli- extrapolated backwards until the line hit zero, i.e. the gion, writes (pp. 270 & 274): amoeba. Only later did they discover that this theory “The Old Testament contains a chronological account contradicts just about everything that the greatest Df the beginning of the world, and from thence an un- minds of antiquity have written about man’s origin. So, broken genealogy of mankind for many ages before which shall we choose, to believe-modern theory, or common history begins . . . a continued thread of ancient history. 3 Kenneth Brecher’s conclusion is history of the length of between three and four thousand challenging: years. I would much prefer to learn stellar evolution ((i.e. Its chronology is no way contradicted but is really con- the actual history of stars)) from the ancient myths firmed by the natural and civil history of the world, col- of man than from the modern myths of the com- lected from common historians, from the state of the pu ter!” earth, and from the late invention of arts and sciences . . . the Scripture contains an unbroken thread of Conclusion history from the Creation to the Captivity.” In all ancient literature there is no suggestion that the b. The famous eighteenth century commentators, 36 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

Table 1. Some dates given by well-known chronologers Table 2. The number of times the words “year” or for the Creation. “years” occur in the Old Testament. Chronologer Date of Date given for Books Number of times writing Creation, B.C. Genesis 112 Clinton 1840 4100 Exodus-Deuteronomy I77 Hales 1809 5400 Joshua-II Samuel 53 Ussher 1640 4004 Kings-Esther 234 Scaliger 1590 4700 Prophets, etc. 124 Melanchthon 1520 3960 Whole Old Testament 700 Theophilus of Antioch 250 5500 Josephus 70 5200 The Seventy * 250 B.C. 5200 Seven hundred is a lot of times, even in a book of one *I.e., the traditional seventy translators of the Old thousand pages. When we look more closely, we find a Testament into Greek. Reasons will be given later for tight chronological system running right through, from thinking that they were chronologers as well as the end back to the beginning. translators. 1, There is the period of sixty-nine weeks in the pro- phecy given to Daniel. This is usually taken to mean 483 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the time Matthew Henry, Thomas Scott, and John Brown, ac- of Christ. Here we have no time to go into the details, cepted Ussher’s dating without question; and many edi- but scholars agree that from Nehemiah’s day to the tions included a separate chronological summary. John Crucifixion was about four hundred eighty years. Brown began his commentary with these words: “In 2. Before that we have the seventy years of captivity this book (Genesis) we have the inspired history of the prophesied by Jeremiah and fulfilled over the lifetime of great events of 2369 years . . .” Daniel. The seventy years was not an arbitrary figure c. Going back to the Reformers we find exactly the but planned by God as a punishment fitting the crime same interpretation. Martin Luther (1520) wrote: “We . . . because for four hundred ninety years the Jews had know from Moses that the world was not in existence failed to obey the command to let the land lie fallow before 6000 Years ago” John Calvin (1554) agreed. We every seventh year (Lev. 26:34). can even quote William Shakespeare, not indeed as a 3. From the Captivity back to Solomon, time was theologian but as reflecting the common belief of reckoned by Kings’ reigns-about four hundred four- educated people in the sixteenth century: “The poor teen years. world is almost six thousand years old . . .” says 4. Then in I Kings 6:l we are given a total of four Rosalind in As You Like It (Act IV, SC. 1). hundred eighty years from the Exodus to Solomon’s II. Secondly, every Bible Chronologer before 1860 Temple. put the date of creation at 3900 to 5500 B.C. Some of 5. Back from the Exodus, time was measured in the best known are given in Table 1. terms of the length of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt- III. Thirdly, no commentator or chronologer before four hundred thirty years (Exodus 12:40). 1860 ever suggested that there might be gaps in the 6. Moses now had a ‘problem’-how to link the per- genealogies. One reason for this is obvious: if gaps ex- sonal chronology of Jacob’s family with the national isted, all their labour would have been in vain. epoch of Israel’s migration to Egypt. The problem is Chronologers would be out of business if there were no neatly solved by Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh, at chronology. But, in fact, many brilliant scholars and which he confesses that he is only one hundred thirty mathematicians (including Sir Isaac Newton) devoted years old (Genesis 47:9). years of their life to Bible chronology, in the firm con- That the method of computing time changes at this viction that God invented dating, and we miss point is made abundantly clear by the fact that we are something important if we neglect this part of His revel- not told the age of Joseph at the age of the birth of his ation sons Manasseh and Ephraim, although Joseph was Why were these scholars so sure they were not evidently Jacob’s spiritual heir and the ‘prophet’ of wasting their time? Israel after his father’s death. We do know Jacob’s age A. Because it is obvious that the Old Testament is at the birth of Joseph because Joseph was thirty-nine basically history with a superstructure of prophecy, and when his father was one hundred thirty (41:46 with for both of these an accurate chronology is essential. 45: 11 and 47:9), and from Jacob buck to Adam the Every child wants to know his/her own age, most precise age of each father at the birth of his spiritual- children enjoy looking at their parents’ wedding photo- heir son is careful1 y noted. graphs, and some are even interested in the date. The Bi- Here it may be objected that I am begging the ques- ble is the Family Album of the human race, and since tion, that I am stating as a fact what I have yet to prove. the dawn of history most people have wanted to know So I shall re-phrase my last sentence: how they began and when. We can say with certainty that from Joseph back to Now let us look at the number of times ‘year’ or Abraham in Genesis 12 there is a precise chronology ‘years’ is mentioned in the Old Testament, as given in based on each father’s age at the birth of his son; so the Table 2. presumption is very strong that the same writer would VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 37 use the same method to continue his chronology right every night. But that was not the way God wanted it. back to the beginning of the human race. He invented dating!-and told Adam all about it. How Professor S. R. Driver wrote, in 1902: “There is a else could Adam have measured his age? He must have systematic chronology running through the book looked up at the stars the first night after his creation almost to the end, so carefully and methodically con- and memorized what they looked like. The Hebrew structed that every important birth, marriage, and word for ‘year’ means ‘repetition’, and when the stars death, has its assigned place in it.” were again in exactly the same position as on that first So, if we accept that Genesis 5 and 11 are chronologi- night, Adam knew that one year had passed and he re- cal, we can view the Old Testament as a self-consistent corded it. Why?. . . we can never fully answer any whole, a yard-stick by which to measure all human ‘why?’ about God, but we can say that this counting of history. But, if we believe the gaps-between-the-godly- years and keeping of birthdays answers to something theory, we are saying that the first eleven chapters are deep down in man’s nature. God created man with a totally different from the rest of God’s Book in that they time-keeping mind, and He appointed the stars, include no meaningful measurements of time but only a especially, to mark that time by their repetition. The mass of meaningless figures. fact that the first man was able to tell the years of his B. Another argument against the gap theory stems life is strong evidence, I suggest, that God intended all from the fact that five of the connections in Genesis 5 mankind to know the age of the earth. This is confirmed and 11 must have been from literal father to literal son: by the enormous interest in astronomy which we find in 1. Adam and Eve named Seth ancient civilizations.’ 2. Seth named Enos Of course from Abraham onwards the chronology 3. Lamech named Noah serves another important purpose . . . to show how 4. Noah was clearly the literal father of Shem, God’s promises were precisely and literally fulfilled Ham, and Japheth (e.g. the four hundred years in Egypt, forty years in the 5. Terah was clearly the literal father of Abraham. wilderness, seventy years captivity, etc.). But in Genesis C. A third argument against the gap theory is this: 5 and 11 there are no prophecies, so the only purpose When Moses wished to denote an ancestor-descendant seems to be to show (a) how the patriarchs overlapped relationship, he used a different phrase altogether. We one another by many centuries and (b) how long was see this in 4:20 and 2 1, and 17:s. Here the word ‘father’ the span of years back to Creation. (Hebrew ab) is used, obviously in a non-literal sense. So E. The fifth argument against gaps brings us back to if Moses had wished to say that the patriarchs were only the seventy translators of the Old Testament into Greek. the ancestors of their ‘sons’, he could have easily done it These Jews living in Egypt around 250 BC were no by the use of this word. The fact that he did not choose doubt well acquainted with the Egyptian chronology, to use ab is, I believe, strong evidence that he wished to which claimed an antiquity of five thousand years for make it crystal clear that the succession of men of God their civilization. Thus the Jews were under pressure to was father-son throughout. conform their Hebrew figures to the Egyptian, because Here I regard it as my painful duty to comment on the every race likes to think it is the ‘original’ or oldest. footnotes in the New International Version on Genesis 5 Now there are two ways to stretch a chronology: 1. to andll... painful because I am sure the NIV is in most insert more names into the pedigree; and 2. to increase respects an excellent translation. But, footnotes state the age of each father before the birth of his son. that the word ‘father’ in these chapters may mean Remember that the Seventy had access to hundreds of ‘ancestor’; whereas no footnote is given to explain the documents now lost, and to the whole oral tradition of metaphorical use in 4:20-21 and 17:5! In fact, the word the Hebrew race. Nevertheless they did not attempt to y&d, translated ‘beget’, ‘bear’ or ‘be born’ in the King interpolate new names (except possibly Cainan in James Version, is always used of a literal father-son or 10:24). They did, probably, increase the age of some mother-son relationship, with four exceptions only out fathers before their sons were born. This seems to be of the four hundred and fifty other places (i.e. not in strong evidence that: 1. the Seventy regarded Genesis 5 these chapters) in the Old Testament. The four excep- and 11 as a chronology standing in competition with tions are: Genesis 46: 18 and 22, Deuteronomy 4:25, the Egyptian chronology; and 2. two thousand years and 23:B. In each of these the meaning is perfectly clear ago Jews had never heard the slightest whisper of a sug- because both the children and the grandchildren are gestion that names had been omitted from the genealo- mentioned. There are no ‘gaps’. So throughout the Old gies. If they had had any such suspicion, those names Testament not one example can be shown of ‘yalad’ would almost certainly have been restored to the list in meaning ‘became the ancestor of’. The NIV footnotes order to increase the aggregate of years. are, I suggest, unfortunate and unwarranted. Let us F. Finally, the learned Jewish historian Flavius hope they will be removed in the next edition. Josephus, writing about the same time as our Gospels D. The fourth reason why older commentators ac- were written, adds up the total number of years from cepted these chapters as chronology is found in Genesis Adam to the Flood. This proves that Josephus regarded 1: 14, where God clearly states that He made the sun, the figures as a chronology. Of course he was not in- moon, and stars as timekeepers. So far as we know, the spired or infallible, but few would question that his earth’s orbit round the sun serves no biological purpose. belief was typical of all Jews of his day and, in fact, of We wou*d live just as long if the earth simply rotated on all Jews since the time of Moses. its axis ii? one spot and the stars looked exactly the same These then are some of the reasons that led sixty 38 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY generations of Christians to believe that Genesis 5 and righteous too?), notice that these words were spoken just 11 are intended to be a literal strict chronology. one week before the Deluge. Therefore Methuselah was Let us now briefly consider three modern objections probably dead already, having died the very year of the to the chronological interpretation: Flood but not necessarily in the last week before the Lord shut Noah in. Objection Number 1 So, the no-gap interpretation still makes very good sense; whereas this objection seems to be clutching at a There are ten names from Adam to Noah, and ten straw or the shadow of a straw. names from Shem to Abraham. It is alleged that this congruity cannot be natural but must be artificial. “One or other of the branches has been lopped to give Summary So Far an appearance of symmetry.” A. Ancient Records outside the Bible indicate that I would be more impressed by this argument had I man’s history goes back certainly no farther than not, as a boy, been an avid reader of Ripley’s Believe It 7000 BC and probably no farther than 4000 - 5000 or Not. Coincidences happen every day, and it is possi- BC. ble to point to many both inside and outside the Bible. B. The chronology of the Bible dates Creation about Jacob had twelve sons, but so did Ishmael (Genesis 6000 years ago. 17:20). In the last five hundred years there have been four Houses of Kings and Queens in England: five Proposition IV. Modem Archaeology is Based Upon Tudor monarchs, six Stuarts, five Hanoverians, and six Darwinian Presuppositions of the House of Windsor. 5 - 6 - 5 - 6 . . . what a coinci- This is admitted by almost all archaeologists. Here dence! are two quotations: Who would have predicted that three out of the first 1. “It needed a revolution in men’s conception of the five Presidents of the United States would die on Inde- nature and antiquity of Man, before the bare notion of pendence Day, two of them on the Fiftieth Anniversary? primary prehistory could take birth. Such a revolution Four thousand years from now a sceptical historian was wrought by the publication in 1859 of Charles Dar- might well attribute these dates to a superstitious win’s “Origin of Species’ . . . In Huxley’s words, accep- chronicler . . . yet it happened, just so. Truth is indeed tance of Darwin’s views made it essential to “extend by stranger than fiction, and we have no reason to doubt long epochs the most liberal estimate that has yet been that the ten names in each list represent one more minor made of the Antiquity of Man.“‘O coincidence in the vast kaleidoscope of history. 2. “Archbishop Ussher’s date of 4004 BC for the Creation was still widely believed in the 1830’s and in Objection Number 2 the absence of any convincing proof to the contrary it “Since there are gaps in the genealogy of Christ in was difficult to get any general acceptance of the con- Matthew 1, therefore we may assume that there are cept of the prehistoric archaeology . . . the final proof similar gaps in Genesis 5 and 11.” In my book The of the antiquity of man was not to come until Great Brain Robbery, Appendix D, I have answered this 1859. . .“‘I objection, so it need not detain us here.e Suffice to say that Luke’s genealogy is obviously the definitive one for Proposition V. Darwinian Presuppositions Have Been the generations before Abraham, and there is no Largely Discredited evidence that he has omitted any names from the list of Ample evidence in support of this statement has seventy-five. already been adduced by Creationists-and others. Here I shall content myself with one quotation . . . from Objection Number 3 Norman Macbeth’s brilliant little book Darwin Retried. “Classical Darwinism has slowly been abandoned “If Noah was the only righteous man on earth before piece by piece but the public has not been informed the Flood began, Methuselah could not have lived to the . . . it has become increasingly evident that there are very year of the Flood, as the no-gap interpretation serious difficulties even with neo-Darwinism, and many would require.” mysteries . . . remain intractable.“‘* But, when we turn to the verses supposed to prove One of the most intractable mysteries is the origin of this, we find: Man. The frantic hunt for the “missing link” has left a a. Genesis 6:9 does not state that Noah was the only trail of fraud and fallacies unprecedented, I think, in righteous man on earth. It says he was “perfect in his the history of Science. One need only mention Java Genesis 7:l repeats (almost) the same generations “. Man, Pekin Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and phrase, ‘in his generation “. Noah’s generation was not Neanderthal Man. The gross errors associated with Methuselah’s generation because Methuselah was these “discoveries” clearly stemmed from faith in Dar- Noah’s grandfather. So there could have been two winism. righteous men on the earth (three, if we include Lamech, who died five years before the Flood) at the Conclusion: Proposition VI. We Have no Good Reason same time, each unique in his own generation. b. Even if Genesis 7: 1 implies that Noah was literally for Doubting that the Old Chronologers were Right! the only righteous person alive on earth at that precise To a candid and impartial observer there can be little moment (but what about his family, weren’t they doubt that the gaps-in-the-genealogies theory was a VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 39 desperate expedient invented by frightened men. Anx- pare with it . . . The claim that the Scriptures do iously eyeing the dark clouds of Darwinism on the not give a complete and accurate chronology for theological horizon, and hearing the roar of an ap- the whole period of the Old Testament that they proaching storm, they decided to jettison the Bible dates cover, is utterly wrong, dangerous, and mischie- in hope of saving the ship of Christianity. Vain hope! vous.“‘3 The storm swept over them and swallowed up the dates, The ones who have been misled, I suggest, are the ar- but that was just the beginning. Next the Pentateuch, chaeologists who followed Darwin down the garden then the whole Old Testament, then the Gospels, came path and (like the biologists) have “engendered fragile under attack. What was left of Christianity after the towers of hypothesis based upon hypotheses, where fact self-styled “experts” had finished battering the Bible, and fiction mingle in an inextricable confusion”‘4 bears no resemblance to the Faith of our Fathers. It was of such people that David wrote: “He who sit- Looking back over one hundred twenty years we can teth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them see, I think, that the strategy of men like B. B. Warfield in derision”. and W. H. Green of Princeton was mistaken, though And among all the saints in glory, none, I think, will well-meaning. Their great reputation carried the day enjoy the merriment more . . . than Archbishop James . . . but in this matter the reputation of One greater Ussher! than Warfield or Green is at stake: that is, the reputa- tion of God Himself. God is the greatest Communicator References of all time. He had at His disposal all languages, all verbs and all shades of meaning, when He caused these ‘Cicero, The Nature of the Gods. Translation by H. C. P. McGregor, 1972. Penguin Books, Ltd. Pp. 161-162. genealogies to be written. Moreover He foreknew, we 21bid. must believe, that these chapters would be translated in- 31bid., pp. 158 & 159. to a thousand tongues and distributed by the million in ‘Ibid., p. 163. every corner of the globe. Are we to suppose that He SThe life and works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Distributed by Zondervan. P. 38. was so idle or so incompetent as to leave one hundred slbid. generations of His people groping in darkness, fondly ‘Ibid., p. 39. imagining that the date of Creation could be computed sBrecher, Kenneth, 1979. The astronomy of the ancients. MIT Press, by simple addition, when in fact the ages of the patri- Cambridge. See especially p. 1 14. 8Watson, David C. C., 1976. The great brain robbery. Moody. See archs have nothing to do with dating, as Warfield and especially Appendix D. Green affirm? Would any human father so carelessly loDaniel, Glyn, 1967. The origin and growth of archaeology. P. 10 1. allow his children to be misled? On the contrary, we ’ ‘Forde-Johnston, J,, 1974. Historv of the Earth. P. 48. agree with Dr. H. C. Leupold’s comment: 12MacBeth, Norman, 197 1. Darwin retried. Gambit. 13Leupold, H. C., 1972. Exposition of Genesis. Baker Books. Pp 237 & “There is no reason for doubting the correctness 238. of the chronology submitted by the Hebrew Masso- ” Thompson, W. R., 1956. Introduction to Everyman Edition of retie text . . . No other nation has anything to com- Origin of the Species.

SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS CONFIRM THE DECLINE OF THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD THOMASG. BARNES* Received 21 July, 1980

Measurements by the NASA’s Magsat satellite, between October 1979 and June 1980, corroborate the conclusion which had already been reached: that the Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing—not oscillating, but decreasing monotonically and exponentially. In this article the evidence for a young Earth which such a decay provides is con- sidered; also the question, what will happen if the present decay continues.

Decay Evidence other spacecraft observations for several years prior to New evidence of the decline in the earth’s magnetic this. However, Langel’s news release is in reference to field has b een provided by NASA’s Magsat satellite the findings from Magsat, which is the first American which orbited the earth from October 1979 to June spacecraft expressly designed to study earth’s magnetic 1980. Dr. Robert Langel, chief project scientist, stated properties. that if the present rate of decline continues the earth’s There is nothing new about the fact that the earth’s magnetic poles will reverse in about 1,200 years.’ A main magnetic field, its dipole field, is decreasing at a decline in the earth’s magnetic field had been noted in rapid rate. Sidney Chapman reported in 195 1 that the earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at a rate that is “un- *Thomas G. Barnes, D. SC., is Professor of Physics at the University paralleled” by any other geophysical phenomenon. He of Texas, El Paso, Texas. described its rate of decay as a few per cent per cen- 40 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY tury*. Dr. Edward R. Benton, a University of Colorado billions of years. According to the Magsat news release geophysicist on the Magsat project, states that its rate of version of that hypothesis the earth’s magnetic field has decline in magnetic intensity is a fraction of J per cent reversed many times and “at intervals of 50,000 to 1 pur dmadc, which is of the same order of magnitude as million years” with the last “well-documented Chapman’s observed rate of decline. reversal” occuring 700,000 years ago. However it is No actual data were given in the news release nor any acknowledged in the news release that “no one really of the other details which would be needed to make an understands the mechanism of a magnetic reversal.” assessment of the error factors involved, but the Magsat With evolutionary geochronology in that precarious project is an important one. This first glimpse of its position it is not surprising that some “poetic license” findings is sufficient to alert the scientific community to might be taken with the data presumed to support the the fact that one can no longer ignore the rapid decay of reversal hypothesis. That appears to have been done the earth’s magnetic field. It is definitely taking place. with the data on magnetic anomalies on the sea floor in The consequences of the rapid decay of the earth’s the following Magsat news release: “Records of past magnetic field are astounding. This decay is inexorably polarities imbedded in the sea floor, which provide con- heading the world toward a lethal environment (if clusive proof that the sea floor is spreading out from cosmic ray bombardment. Cosmic rays are very high mid-ocean rifts, show that the 700,000 years is a long speed positively charged nuclei coming in from outer time between reversals. The average might be closer to space, from all directions and with high enough 300,000 years. ” This so-called conclusive proof is based energies to transmute elements. The earth’s magnetic on the plate tectonics theory of continental drift espous- field extends far out beyond the earth and provides a ed by Vine and supposedly supported by his interpreta- magnetic shield against most of those cosmic particles tion of magnetic anomalies on the sea floor. Vine’s so that they miss the surface of the earth. However the claims are ripped to shreds by two lengthy articles in wcakcr the magnetic field becomes the less it can ac- American Petroleum Geologist Bulletin V. 56 No. 2, complish this protective mission. If one takes the Lange1 1972 by A. A. and Howard Meyerhoff pages 264-336. projection, the earth’s magnetic shield will vanish com- The following quotes are from those articles: plctcly in the year 3 180 A.D. If one takes the pro.jcction “It is not true that the linear magnetic anomalies can in a 1967 ESSA technical report3 the vanishing data for be correlated from the North Atlantic via the Indian the earth’s magnetic field is 3991 A.D. Ocean to the northeastern Pacific. The magnetic A second consequence of the decaying magnetic field signatures of supposedly correlative anomalies are very is the need to introduce a correction factor into carbon similar in limited areas, but are very different among 14 dating, telescoping the dates down to younger ages. different areas. Moreover, magnetic stripes need not be The stronger magnetic field in the past means that there caused solely by alternate bands of ‘normal’ and was less penetration of cosmic rays then and a related ‘reversed’ polarization, differences in magnetic suscep- smaller rate of production of carbon 14. Clearly that tibility values of adjacent rock types can produce the would yield a smaller residual amount of carbon 14 in a same. Page 271 (emphasis added). sample than would t)c expected by Libby’s theory which “We have demonstrated that many of the beliefs held assumes a constant rate of production of carbon 14. by continental drift advocates are misconceptions, most This means that a host of the previous carbon 14 dated of them inherited from assumptions built on assump- samples have incorrectly heen assigned long age dates. tions which are not clearly labeled as such - “. Page The prior strongc*r magnetic field must be taken into ac- 271. count. When it is corrected the ages will contract down “The so-called magnetic anomalies are not what they to an age rang’ that provides adclitional support for the are purported to be-a ‘taped record’ of magnetic ct-cationist position. events during the creation of the new ocean floor bet- ween continents.” page 337. Rejection of the Reversal Hypothesis “Vine’s suggestion is interesting, but is simply another of those speculations, based on multiple There is nothing in the Magsat findings to justify the assumptions, that gradually evolved into ‘hypothysis’, ctaim that the earth’s magnetic field wilt reverse its and later were transformed into ‘established theory’ polarity. The evidence simply shows that the field and finally into ‘fact’.” page 338-339. strength is decaying. Langel’s 1,200 year projected time at which the magnetic field will reverse polarity is ac- Additional Flaws in Reversal Hypothesis tually the time for the magnetic field to vanish. At that time there will be no magnetic energy, and no magnetic One problem with the reversal hypothesis is that its poles. A reversal requires new magnetic energy and only support is from anomalous evidence. The previous- associated poles. If there are to be magnetic poles some ly mentioned magnetic “record” on the sea floor has new magnetic energy must be generated. But no valid not only been exaggerated, it is not basic evidence in the mechanism for accomplishing this “reversal” in the first place. There is no assurance that there is any rela- earth’s magnetic field has yet been developed, not even tion between the anomalous magnetic reversals observ- theoretically. ed on the floor of the ocean and the state (strength and The decaying magnetic field presents a formidable direction) of the earth’s main magnet, past or present. problem to conventional geochronology. That The documentation of that flaw in the presumed “rever- frustrating problem has spawned the reversal sal evidence” can be found in previous papers by the hypothesis for sustaining the earth’s magnetic field for author in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 41

Table 1. Earth’s Magnetic History and Future

Date Field Strength Date Field Strength As noted there is no theoretical justification for rever- 1812 0.94 + 0.05 1900 0.89 sals of the earth’s dipole magnet. Nor is there any valid 1848 1.016 1900 1.oo observational evidence for reversals of the earth’s 1850 0.96 + 0.02 1900 0.94 dipole magnet, only anomalous paleomagnetic observa- 1855+3 0.95 1914 0.94 tions. In the language of a communications engineer 1858 0.87 + 0.08 1930 0.988 these anomalies are “noise” in so far as the dipole 1884 0.97 1955 1.00 magnet is concerned. They are important and should be 1885 0.997 1955 1.00 studied as evidence of nonuniformities in the earth’s 1890+ 10 0.67 crust. These nonuniformities may have significance in 18 12 to 1960 excerpt from “Change in Geomagnetic mineral exploration, however they are only distractive Intensity in the last 8500 years, According to Global Ar- effects that must be reduced out of the data before the basic “signal”, the state of the dipole magnet and its cheomagnetic Data” by S. P. Burlatskaya, Institute of symmetrical field, can be evaluated. Terrestrial Physics, USSR Academy of Science, 1969, All of the worldwide real-time data indicate that the page 547. earth’s dipole magnet is continuously decaying from a prior stronger state. In a previous paper the author has shown, from the available record of evaluations of the in the SIS Review.4y 576y 7 earth’s magnetic dipole moment, that its half-life is There are numerous problems involved. One is the about 1400 years.’ Extrapolating that backwards matter of self-reversals in rock. It is unrelated to the am- 10,000 years or so, yields implausibly large magnetic bient field. Another problem is in a flawed method of fields. If that is correct then by implication the age of collecting and analyzing the data. The only dependable the earth is also limited to that range. evidence on the history of the earth’s magnetic dipole There is excellent theoretical justification for the field is the realtime magnetic dipole moment evaluation decay which has been observed. The theory was first developed from the whole earth. Those evaluations are developed by Horace Lamb in 1883. It is based on a achieved from extensive measurements of absolute field solution to Maxwell’s equations, meaning that it is com- strength over a global distribution, in the same time pletely dependable. It predicts the decay and shows that frame, with the time accurately known, and so reduced no dynamo has been needed since its origin. as to eliminate the anomalous “noise”. That has never This decaying magnetic phenomenon is somewhat been done for any of the presumed reversals. analogous to the earth’s spin. No motor has been needed Fortunately there is dependable real-time data on the to keep the earth spinning since its origin. The spin rate earth’s magnetic moment and its associated field that is declining but at a very slow rate. does meet the aforementioned criteria. It extends from The earth’s magnetic field is indeed a remarkable the time of Karl Gauss’ original evaluation in 1835 up geophysical phenomenon. It had a relatively recent to the present time. It shows the continuous decline in origin. It is decaying and will vanish in the not too dis- the earth’s magnetic field as would be expected from the tant future, leaving the earth unprotected from cosmic Magsat findings. So the decay has been documented ray bombardment. since 1835. It is informative to compare that with the paleomagnetic data available in the literature, the type References of data which has been classified as anomalous in this ‘Wilford, John. Nrul York 7‘imes, June 26, 193x0. Studic*s show polc~s paper, the type employed to support the reversal theory. will flip-flop in 1,200 yrrs if trod continues. 7’hv Whig-Stundurci, Table 1 gives all the listed paleomagnetic data in the Kingston, Ontario p. 22 overlapping time frame 1812 to 1960 which was ‘Chapman, Sitlncy 19s 1. Th (a cbarth’s m,~gnctism. Mcthrlc~n & (10. available in the Russian paper which was supposed to Ltd. London, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 11. I.5 ‘McDonaltl, Keith I,. and Holxxrt H. (Zuust. July 1967. An analysis ot have been a compilation of the available paleomagnetic the earth’s mugnc~tic~ tieId from 1X35 to lY6S. ESSA Tc~chnical Hcpt. data for the last 8,500 years. This test is to see if there is IEH 46IES. I. U.S. <;ovcrnmc~nt Printing Ofticc~. Washington, I).(:. any check during this period of time in which it is p. I. known that the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying 4Rarn(~s,. Thomas <;., 197 I . Decay of the Earth’s magnc~tic* momc~nt and the gc~o~hronologi~~~l implications. Cwution Hrwwrch SocGty rapidly. As can be seen from the table there is not the Quurtwly 8 ( I): 24-29. slightest indication in this paleomagnetic data of the ac- ‘Rarncs, Thomas

CREATIONISM AND CONTINENTAL DRIFT G. ROBERTMORTON* Received 18 February, 1980. Calculations of the energy needed for continental drift as well as the energy dissipated by it show that classical con- tinental drift will not fit into a creationist framework. If it is believed that the continents were at one time joined, then either God separated them in a manner in which the laws of nature were not involved or the earth expanded in such a way that the viscous forces were not involved. Over the past few years, in response to the over- separating the continents by subsurface forces is the whelming geologic evidence, many creationists have convection cell.7 It can be shown that the maximum embraced a modified form of the continental drift velocity in the vertical direction for a steady-state con- model. The main difference between secular and creat- vection cell is (see appendix) V,, = T,, (ggvcx/3&)‘h where ionist drift models is the amount of time believed neces- TO is the temperature difference between the upward sary for continental separation to occur. Stuart Nevins flowing mantle stream and the surrounding mantle, g is believes that, the acceleration of gravity, e is the density, v is the coef- “The cause for the ancient breaking up of con- ficient of expansion, CYis the thermal diffusivity, p is the tinents can be explained easily by the enormous viscosity of the mantle and + is the temperature gra- catastrophic forces of Noah’s Flood which broke dient in the vertical.3 the lithosphere into moving plates which for a short Before evaluating this expression we need to deter- time overcame the viscous drag of the earth’s man- mine TO and p.p, the viscosity has been determined tle.“’ from the isostatic rebound of Fennoscandia to be of the Mark W. Tippetts in a recent article concerning con- order of lo** poise. 1. However, since the calculations tinental separation stated, involve certain uniformitarian assumptions which “Since neither rates of geological processes nor the would not be acceptable to creationists as a whole, it amount of time between events is known, it is most- seems reasonable to re-evaluate the viscosity and see if it ly a matter of speculation as to the amount of time might be smaller. necessary to form the geological record as seen in The equation from which the viscosity is determined the rocks of the earth’s crust. Therefore, this author will not be derived here, but it is 4given by CL=rAte’g)/ is free to use as little time as seems necessary to (2nAr) where < is th e original displacement in the ver- agree with the time indicated from a literal inter- tical, A{ is the uplift which has occurred in At time, e’ pretation of Scripture.“* is the density of the displaced asthenosphere approx- Scientifically, are we free to use any length of time we imately equal to 3.3, and n is a constant which depends feel is necessary to separate the continents ? This article upon the horizontal extent of the load. n* = l* + m* where is intended to demonstrate certain constraints on any l= X/A, M = x/b and Aand B are the orthogonal dimen- continental separation and the place to start is to in- sions of the load. vestigate what the effects would be of moving the con- Uniformitarian methods estimate that the central tinents around in a short time span as Nevins believes. area of Fennoscandia has risen 130 m from 5000 B. C. Philosophically, there are only four ways that the to 1950 A. D. Gravity anomalies indicate that the area continents. could be separated. First, God, himself, should rise 150 m more before equilibrium is establish- could have separated them outside of the natural laws ed. The orthogonal dimensions of the ice cap is of physics. If this is believed, the reader need not go fur- estimated to have been 1200 km. by 1800 km. Using ther, for the matter is outside the realm of science. these values the viscosity is estimated to be p = 2.4~ Secondly, an expansion of the earth would separate the lo** poise. Although this value is probably fairly close continents effectively. Thirdly, forces acting at the sur- to the actual value, it is instructive to calculate the face of the earth could push the continents apart. Final- viscosity based upon the assumption that the time is off ly, motion in the mantle could drag the continents by a factor of 2. This would mean a change of 130 m in apart. These last two possibilities will be examined fur- elevation since 1525 B. C. Thus cc= 1.2 x lo** poise. ther. Therefore, it would appear that an estimate of lo** Unfortunately, most creationists when discussing con- poise for the viscosity of the mantle would be of the cor- tinental separation not only fail to specify which of rect order of magnitude. For comparison, thick honey these latter two forces are responsible for the separation has a viscosity of around 100 poise while for water it is but also fail to describe their nature precisely. 0.0 1 poise. Therefore, this article will examine the effects of The temperature inside of the convection cell is the separating the continents in a 5000 year time frame for tA convection cell, is analogous to a vat of liquid, heated at one end. convectional forces and surface forces. The warmed liquid, being lighter, rises and moves to the other end, where it cools and sinks. Thus convection currents are set up; and Subsurface Forces anything floating on the surface would be carried along with the current. About the only conceivable mechanism for fviscosity is a measure of how difficult it is to get a liquid to flow. Thus the viscosity of molasses is greater than that of water. A unit of *Mr. G. Robert Morton’s address is 33 13 Claymore, Plano, Texas viscosity is the poise; the more poises the thicker, in the sense of not 75075. flowing readily, is the liquid. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 43

only other parameter which needs to be determined the F&l where b is the width and 1 the length of the region temperature in excess of the thermostatic condition can under consideration. The frictional force can be shown be determined by the amount of uplife at an oceanic to be (pbl) @z&k), where u is the velocity of the fluid. ridge.5 If the upwelling plume is To hotter than the sur- Since the motion is steady these two forces must rounding mantle, then the density in the plume is balance. Therefore, AQ = emYT,-,less than the surrounding mantle. em is the mean density of the mantle. If D is the depth of the du =-Fn plume, the net bouyancy force upwards per unit area is dz P F= e,vT,-,Dg. This force is balanced by the extra weight Integrating of the ridge. If h is the height of the ridge, e,,,is the density of water = c - Liz and er is the density of the ridge material, the excess U weight per unit area is F= (e,-g,)gh. Equating the two P forces yields T,,= h(g,e,)/)e,YD). Letting er= 3.3, where C is the constant of integration. ,=l, e,,=4.0, h=l km, and D=ZOO km, and v= Since at z=O, u=O and ai x=h, u= U we have ZX 10~‘/“C, gives T,-,= 143 “C. F= -uU/h and C = 0. Therefore, u = Uz/h. Motion like Substituting the expression for TO into that for Vbgives that described is called plane couette flow. The velocity varies linearly from 0 at z = 0 to U at z = h. When the relation found for TO is used e = e,,( 1-VT,), The rate of temperature rise during such motion due q=3.98 if e ,,,= 4.0. Using all previously defined values to the frictional dissipation of heat is and cr=O.Ol and $= 1 “C/km, we have, V,,=7.3~ lo-’ cm/set = .23 cm/year. gC, E = p ff ’ As a point of comparison, the velocity needed for con- at [IZ tinental drift to have occurred in the past few thousand years is enormous next to the theoretical velocity. If a where e is the density of the mantle, C, is the specific shelfedge is 1500 km from a ridge and the drift oc- heat of the mantle, T is the temperature and t is the curred over a period of 5000 years, the average velocity time. 7 must be 300 meters per year. If this rate were continu- This, with the relation for u, gives: ing today it would be measurable. Since no movement T = pU2t ItI of this magnitude is measurable, the next question which must be asked is could the velocity have varied &,h2 I to exponentially; say V= V,, exp(-wt)? This would mean If U= 300 m/yr, p= lo** poise, e = 4, C,= 0.2 (the value that some parameter determining V,, would have to for basalt), to = 0, and t, = 5000 years = 1.57 x 10” set, vary exponentially. It is difficult to see any of these ex- and giving h the ridiculous value of the radius of the cept TO varying in time. If TO were the cause of the earth, we find that the temperature of the earth after variation, T,, would be equal to 18 million degrees cen- such movement would be T= 4.3 X 10’ “C Thus it must tigrade hotter than the surrounding mantle in order for be concluded that the temperature rise due to the move- V,, to be equal to 300 m/yr. Obviously this is too hot. ment of the continents through the mantle, regardless of The only other possibility is that the mantle’s viscosity the forces involved would vaporize the earth if it occur- has been seriously overestimated. However, this seems red within the time frame allotted to creationists. unlikely. These results show that neither convection cells nor Thus it is concluded, that convection cells cannot ac- any other forces could have separated the continents count for the separation of the continents in a crea- within a few thousand years, if the viscous forces were tionist framework. involved in that movement. This leaves only two possi- bilities to explain the fit of the continents. Either God Surface Forces separated the continents outside of natural agencies or As mentioned above most creationists when discuss- that the earth expanded in such a way that the viscous ing continental separation fail to specify the precise forces were not involved. The expansion of the earth nature of the forces involved. The examination of sur- caused by an expansion of each individual atom due to face forces presented below will not specify what forces a change in the permittivity of free space (the electric could be responsible either. This means that the result of force) is a possibility which could avoid the viscosity pushing or pulling the continents apart by means of problem. forces acting on the surface of the earth will be ap- plicable regardless of the forces involved. * Appendix A If the continents are moving at a constant velocity U Figure 1 shows the model of a convection cell with in the x-direction, hydrodynamics tells us that there will the origin taken as the base of the cell. We will assume a be some depth h such that the velocity of the mantle linear thermostatic temperature gradient ($) which on material wiil be zero.e If F, is the tangential component average is 1 “C/km. The temperature which will be used of this force per unit area, then the total force will be in this derivation will be the temperature in excess of ‘A situation of the sort might be set up in a deep pan of taffy, if one the thermostatic gradient. Similarly, the pressure (P) were to push horizontally on the top of the taffy, the bottom layer, in will be defined as that in excess of the hydrostatic contact with the bottom of the pan, remaining stationary. pressure which is qgz. CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

and substituting these into Equations (1) through (5) we have

- ilP + ~(-1 ‘V, - m2V, + 5 ) = 0 (6)

-imP + p(-12Vy - m2Vy + z) = 0 (7)

dP d2V -- + ~(-1 ‘V, - m2V, + Zdz2) - g&I’ = 0 dz (8)

ilV x + imV Y + dV, = 0 dz (9) Figure 1. This shows a model of a convection cell. In the analogue of a heated vat of liquid, here the heat would have been applied under the middle of the vat. CX(-12T-m2T + (10)

The density of the mantle will be assumed to vary on- Taking the derivative with respect to z of Equations ly with the temperature, according to e = q,( ~-VT) (6), (7), and (9) we have where em is the hydrostatic, thermostatic density, Y is

the volumetric coefficient of expansion and T is the 2d dj) v, = 0 - ildEdz + d-l $ - m dz + dz3 temperature in excess of the thermostatic condition. (11) The first three equations governing the motion of a steady-state convection cell are simply the equations of 2d 2d d3 motion of a viscous fluid. These are: -im$+&IZ-mZ+-#=O (12) - ap + pv*v,=o ax (1) il -dV, + im dvY + d2vz = 0 dz dz dz* (13) - ap+pv2vy=o Multiplying Equation (11) by il and Equation (12) by (2) aY im, adding and substituting from Equation ( 13) we have - E + /.LV’V, - ggVT = 0 (3) dP - 5 (- l’-m2+ -dz - l’+m* where p is the coefficient of viscosity and V,, V,,, V, are the components of velocity. Substituting this into equation 8 we have, The fourth equation is the equation of continuity - -cc(- l2 -m2 + d’, (d’v,) + avx + av, + av, = o 12+m2 dz* dz2 Z ay a2 (4) (-1’ -m’+-)V,d2 - gevT = 0 The final equation is the heat flow equation dz2 (15)

oV2T = -aT = $V, We have now reduced our problem to two unknowns at (5) and two equations: ( 10) and ( 15). At the top and bottom of the cell all motion is horizontal so V,= 0. Equally at where o is the thermal diffusivity and t is the time. the top and bottom of the cell the temperature is not in We will assume that the velocities and excess temper- excess of the thermostatic condition. Therefore T=O. If ature and pressure in the x-y plane can be represented we assume that V, = V,, sin (kx) and T = T, sin (kx) where by harmonics. Letting the depth of the convection cell is D = n/k substituting that into Equations ( 10) and (15) gives V, = Vx(z)ei%imY V, = V,( z)eihimY (1*+m2+k2)*Vo+g~~(1*+m2)T,=0 (16) V, = Vz(z)eihimY and p = p(z)eiWmY T = T( z)e%imY (17) VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 45

The determinant of the coefficients has to be equal to Vo=To gevar(12+m2) ‘/2 zero if these equations are to have a solution. This means &(12+m2+k2) I (22) Substituting Equation (2 1) into Equation (22) gives: (l* + m2 + k*)’ - iZ!L! (12 + m2) = 0 Pa (18)

Rearranging (23)

Obviously V,, is a maximum when C= 0. In this case k* = ke+’ (I* + In’)]% - (I* + m2) Equation (23) reduces to: cca (19)

Letting k2=y, 1 +m*=x, and kerC, = a, puts (24) Equation (19) into the form y = ax'/" -x, References dy = (1/3)ax-2/3 - 1 = C ‘Nevins, Stuart, 1978. Continental drift, plate tectonics, and the Bi- dx (20) ble. (In) Up with creation, edited by D. T. Gish and D. H. Rohrer. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, P. 178. 2Tippetts, Mark W., 1979. Pangaea shattered. Creation Research where C is the value which this equation has, given x. Society Quarterly 16 (1): 7-l 5, and 83. Using equation 20, solving for a and substituting into 30fficer, Charles B., 1974. Introduction to Theoretical Geophysics. the equation for y gives y = [3(C + 1)-l] x. Therefore: Springer-Verlag. Most of the derivations of this equation can be found on pp. 373-377 of this book. ‘Ibid., p. 370. 5Phillips, 0. M., 1968. The heart of the earth. Freeman, Cooper, and (l* + m*) = k2 Co., San Francisco. The derivation of the temperature equation can 3(C- 1) - 1 (21) be found on pp. 221 and 222. %ogers, Ruth H., 1978. Fluid mechanics. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Pp. 94 and 97. Solving for V, in both Equations (16) and (17) and ‘Bird, R. B., W. E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot, 1960. Transport multiplying the results we have: phenomena. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Pp. 3 15 and 3 16.

More Thoughts on the Doppler Effect If (ii) were true, the Doppler effect, due to motion of (Continued from page 79) the source, would be propagated instantaneously. So it seems to be ruled out. If (iii) were true, the Doppler ef- fects, due to the Earth’s motion, for stars at different plainly be when it was at its farthest from the Earth, distances, would take different times to reach the Earth; behind the dim star. The eclipse, which is an interrup- hence would be seen at different times. But stars in the tion of the light, surely travels at the same speed as the same direction all show the same Doppler effect at the light; so the Doppler effect must do likewise. same time; so (iii) is ruled out. So (i) must be true; we are The question being discussed could be stated well in back to the situation much as Maxwell envisaged it. terms of ethers. I know that “ether” is not a popular word in physics nowadays. But if one is to have a wave theory, there has to be something; there can not be References waves in, on, of, etc., nothing at all. And “ether” has a ‘Slusher, Harold S., 1980. Cosmology and Einstein’s postulate of fairly definite meaning; whereas “space”, “vacuum” relativity. Creation Research Society Quarterly 17 (3): 146 147. 2RJtz, Walther, 1908. Recherches critiques su,r l’electrodynumique etc., mean also many other things.5,6 I am not saying, of generule. Annuls de Chimie et de Physique, 8 serie, t. XIII, pp. 145 et course, that one must accept one of the mechanical seq.. models of the ether, which were so popular in the last 3de Sitter, W., 1913. Ein ustronomischer Beweis fur die Konstunz der century. Lichtgeschwindigkeit. Physikulische Zeitschrift XIV (10): 429. ‘Payne-Gaposchkin, Cecilia, and Katherine Haramundanis, 1970. Now there might be any df three situations: (i) a com- Ir;ltroduction to astronomy. Second ed. Prentice-Hall. Pp. 35 1-358. munal ether; (ii) each source has its own private ether, ‘Janossy, L., 197,l. Theory of relativity based on physical reality. attached somehow to it and moving with it; or, (iii) like- Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. See especially pp. 48 and 49, where it wise each receiver. (Let us say “receiver” rather than is pointed out that even Einstein was of two minds about the ether. “Clube, S.V.M., 1980. The material vacuum. Monthly Notices of the “observer”, a terribly overused and mis-used word Royal Astronomical Society 193 (2): 385397. Arguments are given nowadays.) (i) is the situation as Maxwell, e.g., envisag- for what is in effect an ether much like that envisaged by Lorentz ed it. (ii) is a modification of Ritz’s view, suggested for and others. consideration by Dinglem7 (iii) is oddly like a view, men- ‘Dingle, Herbert, 1960. The Doppler effect and the foundations of physics. British journal for the Philosophy of Science XI, (4 1): 1 l-3 1; tioned by Aristotle as common (but which he did not and (42): 113-129. See especially page 18. share) that vision is something going out from the eye 5ee, e.g., his 0 n sense and sensibles, Chapter 2; and Topics, Book 1, and reaching the thing seen.8 Chapter 14. 46 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

THE ESSENTIAL NONEXISTENCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY-UNIFORMlTARlAN GEOLOGIC COLUMN: A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT JOHNWOODMORAPPE* Received 2 July, 1980 This article is a systematic and quantitative demonstration of global distributional tendencies of the evolutionary- uniformitarian geologic column. Maps have been drawn to show the worldwide distributions of all ten geologic periods on all seven continents, and such maps have also been drafted to show complete segments of the geologic column in place. Calculations have been performed to measure successional tendencies of geologic periods over the earth. For exam- ple, it has been found that two-thirds of the earth’s land surface has 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods in place, and only 15-20% of the earth’s land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in “correct” consecutive order. These and similar findings have been briefly related to the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm.

PLAN OF THIS ARTICLE Introduction I. Procedures Utilized in Measuring the Factuality of the Geologic Column. II. Exposition and Discussion of Results. III. Probable Diluvial Significance of Global Stratigraphic Trends.

Introduction I. Procedures Utilized in Measuring the Factuality of the A major foundation of the evolutionary-uniformitar- Geologic Column ian paradigm is the geologic column. This column, Data were gathered in order to present maps showing presented as fact, purports to demonstrate that the earth the distribution on all seven continents of rocks at- and its life have been evolving and that the earth’s tributed to all ten geologic periods; a separate map for sedimentary strata contain the resultant biochronologic each geologic period (Maps l-l 0). “onion skins.” Fidelity to areas on the maps was guaranteed by us- A bit of wisdom for geologists is given by Park and ing Lamberts Azimuthal Equal-Area Projection on the MacDiarmid’, who said: “The final test of all theories base map used throughout this work. Maps of separate and hypotheses in geology is their applicability in the continents were reduced and placed next to each other field.” Accordingly, Creationists-Diluvialists have long to eliminate oceanic areas so that the largest possible pointed out that the evolutionary-uniformitarian dimensions of continents capable of being fitted onto a geologic column does not correspond to reality and that Quarterly page could be utilized. The use of separate fossiliferous strata must be understood as non-evoluti- continents, obtained from several sources,7Jo reduces onary, mutually-contemporaneous, cataclysmically- the perspective distortion that would result had the con- formed Noachian Flood deposits. tinents been bunched together from a single world map. The works of Price,* Nelson,3 Whitcomb and Morris,4 (The bunching together of continents, a space-saving and Burdick5 have called attention to the fact that measure, is not at all intended to be an endorsement of geologic periods rocks tend to be absent, inconsistent in the “new global tectonics.“) The base map has a scale of their stratigraphic successional order from place to one inch to 1530 miles, or one centimeter to 969 place, and all exhibiting some tendency to rest directly kilometers. upon Precambrian “basement.” Clark,’ on the other Much of the basic data for this work is derived from hand, noted that there are places where much of the the works of a Soviet team of geologists headed by Alex- geologic column can be seen in place and in “correct” ander Ronov. They compiled data on all ten geologic order. periods, showing distribution, thicknesses, gross The purpose of this work is to examine the earth’s petrologic compositions, and inferred paleoenviron- land surface (although oceans and continental shelves mental conditions of formation. Volcanic and volcano are also considered) in order to determine the degree of sedimentary formations were included, but evidently correspondence of the geologic column with reality. not postorogenic granites. Recently, Ronov et. al.” This study of “the geologic column as it really is” in- pointed out that some of their much earlier works are in volves the quantitative measure of: 1) the tendency of need of revision. Accordingly, they have been updated the earth’s land surface to have rocks of many alleged partly by more recent works. Recent data for Antarc- geologic periods in place versus the opposite tendency, tica has been added. and 2) the actual modes of stratigraphic succession of The geology of Antarctica is poorly known for east rocks attributed to different geologic periods. Antarctica because of the glacial cover. It is, however, probably mostly exposed Gondwana Shield. Whatever Phanerozoic rocks there are unaccounted for beneath the ice cap would not change the figures in this work by VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 47 more than several per cent. works of Audley-Charles,51 and Brown et. a1.6s Sources The errors in this work should favor the unifor- of Antarctic Triassic data used were from the works of mitarian geologic column. Only a small part of the Barrett et. a1.,37 Plumstead,” and Elliot.e7 Map 8 lower, medial, or upper portions of a geologic period (Jurassic) was drawn utilizing the work on Jurassic by need be present for the area to count as having that Ronov et.al.ee with a minor updating based on Audley- geologic period represented there. One thickness Charles.S1 Antarctic Jurassic data came from Elliot.sg,70 category used by the Ronov et. al. team, O-100 meters, The map for Cretaceous (Map 9) was drawn from the permitted areas to be exaggerated because scattered maps in the work of Ronov et. a1.,71T72except that addi- outliers would give entire areas having them credit for tions for Antarctica were made from the works of having those geologic periods. Elliot,23,eg Grikurov et. a1.,73 and Drewry.74 (Drewry It also appears that the Ronov et. al. team was presented geophysical evidence for the presence of generous in giving credit as to the representation of sedimentary basins under the east Antarctic ice cap, geologic periods to areas having rocks metamorphosed and both Drewry and Grikurov had conjectured the beyond biostratigraphic recognition. For instance, Ben- presence of Cretaceous-Tertiary formations there. These Avraham and Emery l2 wrote that Indonesion geology is areas are shown in Maps 9 and 10 with question marks.) poorly known and that the oldest fossiliferous forma- Ronov et. al. ‘s7’J’ works on the Tertiary were used to tions are middle and late Paleozoic, resting upon construct the map (Map 10). Sources of Antarctic Ter- crystalline schists. Yet from maps l-3 it is evident that tiary besides the previously-mentioned works of the Ronov et. al. team gave blanket credit for Indonesia Grikurov et. a1.,73 and Drewry74 (plus the estimates of having complete Lower Paleozoic despite the unknown Behrendt7g), were the works of Elliotsg and Dort.*O biostratigraphic age of the schists. The intersections of Map 1 (Cambrian), Map 2 (Or- The presumed geologic periods necessarily differ in dovician), and Map 3 (Silurian) were drafted as Map 11 their area1 extent because there is no reason to believe (Complete Lower Paleozoic). The intersections of Map 4 that sedimentation and tectonic rates would be con- (Devonian), Map 5 (Carboniferous), and Map 6 (Per- stant. Geologic periods also differed considerably in mian) were drawn as Map 12 (Complete Upper Paleo- duration, ranging from only 40 million years for zoic). Map 13 (Complete Paleozoic) is the intersection of Silurian and Triassic to 100 million years for the Cam- Maps 11 and 12, while Map 14 (Complete Mesozoic) is brian according to the scale of Braziunas.13 the intersection of Map 7 (Triassic), Map 8 (Jurassic), Data for making the map for world Cambrian (Map and Map 9 (Cretaceous). Map 15 (Complete Geologic 1) were taken from Ronov et. a1.14J5 except that an addi- Column) is the draft of the intersection of Map 10 (Ter- tion was made for the Antarctic Cambrian.16 The work tiary) with Maps 13 and 14. of Ronov et. a1.17J* on the Ordovician was used to draw The earth’s land surface was divided into 967 squares that map (Map 2), while another work by Ronov et. of equal area (each square being 252x 252 miles or al. “,*O was utilized to show the world’s Silurian (Map 406x 406 kilometers) for the purpose of performing 3). No Ordovician or Silurian rocks are known from calculations on the area1 tendencies of geologic periods. Antarctica, but Maps 2 and 3 have been drawn to show These square areas were given Cartesian coordinates areas where Ordovician and Silurian is suspected, ac- (but letters instead of numbers) as is shown over a blank cording to Burrett,*l and Veevers,** and ‘Elliot.23 Recent base map (Map 16). palynostratigraphic work by Kyle24 has cast unfavor- A transparency identical to the one superimposed able light upon another area being Silurian, and so it over a blank base map (Map 16) was thus superimposed has not been shown as Silurian. over Maps 1 through 10, and the preponderant presence The map for Devonian (Map 4) used partly an old or absence of rocks attributed to the ten geologic work by Ronov et. a1.25 which was extensively updated periods in these 967 square areas was entered into Table using the works of House,2e Spasskiy,27 Brinkmann,*’ 1. Kummel,*’ Brown et. a1.,3oHermes,31 Cook and Bally,32 The numbers of geologic periods lithologically repre- Mia11,33 and Churkin.34 Sources for Antarctic Devonian sented in each square were written after every row in are Boucot,35 Elliot,3e and Barrett et. a1.37 Table 1. All the raw data in Table 1 was expressed as a Carboniferous data for making the map (Map 5) were percentage of all 967 squares (the entire earth’s land taken from Ronov et. a1.38 and from the more recent surface). Figure 1 was drawn to show what percentage works of Churkin3’ Brown et. a1.,4o Hi11,41 Ross,~* of the earth’s land surface has how many geologic Rocha-Campos,43 Ross,~~Meyerhoff, Kummel,4e Cook periods represented. Figure 2 shows what percentage of and Bally,47 and Stocklin.” The map for Permian (Map the earth’s land surface has what particular sequence of 6) was drafted utilizing the work of Ronov et a1.4g on consecutive geologic periods represented. Table 2 shows Permian, as well as more recent works by Rocha- what percentage of a given geologic period (in terms of Campos,43 Meyerhoff ,45 Stocklin,‘* Audley-Charles,so~5’ total subaerial terrestrial area1 distribution) rests on Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff,‘* Mia11,53 Brown et. a1.,54 what geologic period that is older than that given Oftedahl,” Kummel,5e Gobbett,57 Cook and Bally,58 geologic period. This includes the percentages (of all ten and Churkins3. The PermoCarboniferous of Antarctica geologic periods) resting directly upon Precambrian was drafted using data from Barrett,37~5g~eoElliot,e1 and “basement.” Kemp.s2 Ronov et. al.sTe4 work on the Triassic was used in II. Exposition and Discussion of Results drawing Map 7, with minor modifications from the From maps 11, 12, and 14, it is obvious that the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY 48 VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 49 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY 50 VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 51 52 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY 53 VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 54 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 55 56 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 57 58 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 59 60 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 61 62 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 63 AA-h- hhh Ce3ClJPfG eeim c "r"r"r"r"r -x-x-x .: v-v ooooc cococZ~~co8 ooocc X%X0X googgg 888% x*000 000Xx *xggg 00Xx0 exE 000 Eiopo~~

hhhhh hhhhh KS-CC? @+XS

oococ oocoo G0000 ggE88 00000 00000 00000 00000 E8Z8 008Z8 8888g boo60 00000 ocooc 8goo88 838Z x0000 OCXXX 00000 isox8:: HOHON BPS3

h-h-A hhhhh 0.0 Ub N Cc3UlU* ““““” u-u-” ccccc VVVYV coxoc coooo gg8coE 888Z8 &8Z8800000 xx000 Z88E 8 00 8oxcxCE ocooc $2ma88 oococ 8SE8 NWPutHX@OXC

00000 c1 coooo8800003 00000 0 OXXXO 888ER :: $zm% EEiEE8 G 00000XXKOO goooooNC&%ts

xxOCQ ocxxx oocoo x*oco 0~000 0K000 gsz5: w%z8 xxoo* EE8% XXCOO WckG gg88ox E$i888 KXOOO OOOOk ocooc KXOOC coca* 00000 $$88Z 0000x oocoo Hz888 OKOOC ooxxo OK000 oocoo 8ggm 88888 @PO00 Pet&P- HOONN -tioo* 0 VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 65

Coor. COSDCPTJCT* Coor. CosDCPrJCT* Coor. COSDCPTJCTJc Coor. COSDCPTJCW Coor. COSDCPTJC'W (B,K) xXxX000XxX7 (D,R) 00000000xx2 (F,a) 000X0000001 (a,h) XOOOXXOOOO3 (C,K) xxxoxoxxxx8 (E,R) xoxxoxxxxx8 (G, a) OOOOOOOOOXl (b,h) XOOXOXXXOX6 (D,K) xoxxxx0000~ (E,S) 00X000x0x03 (H,a) 000000000X1 (c,h) XOOXXXOXQOS (E,K) xxoxxooXX06 F,S) XXOOxx0xxx7 (I+) ooxoxxxoxo5 (d,h) 0000000.0000 (F , K) xxxxxoxxxx9 t H,S) OOOOXXOXXXS (J,a) OOXOOXXOO03 (e,h) 00000000000 (G,K) XXOXXOXXX07 (L,S) xxxxoxxxxx9 (K,a) 00000000X01 Antarctica (f,h) OOOOOOOOXX2 (H,K) 00000000000 (E,T) ooxoo00xx03 (L,8) ooooooooxx2 (g,h) OOOOOOOOXX2 (1,K) 00000000000 (F,T) 0000000xx02 (B,b) XXOXXXXXXX9 (b,a) OOOOXXOOO02 (h,h) 00000000000 (J,K) 00000000000 (G,T) xoooxxoxxx6 (C,b) xxxXxx0OXX8 (c,a) OOOOXXOOO02 (Y,i) xoooxxoxox5 (K,K) 0x000000001 (H,T) XXO0xx0xxx7 (D,b) XXxXXOOOXx7 (a,b) OOOOXXOOO02 (Z,i) XOOOXXOXOX5 (L,K) OXOXXOOOO03 (H,U) 00000000xx2 E,b 00000000000 b,b 00000000000 (a,i) XOOOXXOXOX5 (M,K) XXXXXOOOO05 (1,u) 000000x0x02 1F,b 1 000X00X0002 t j 00000000000 (d,i) XOOXXXOOXX6 (B,L) xxxoxx0xxx8 (1,v) xxxooooxxo5 (G,b) OOOOOOOOOXl (ix) ooooxxoooo2 (e,i) 00000000000 (C,L) xxxxxxxooo7 (H,b) OOOOOOOOOXl (e:b) OOOOXXOOO02 (f,i) ooooooooxx2 (D,L) XXOXXXxx007 (1,b) 00X00000X02 (f,b) 0000xX00002 (g,i) OOOOOOOOXX2 (E,L) xxooxxxxxX8 South America (J,b) 00000000X01 (a,c) 0000000X001 (h,i) OOOOOOOOXX2 (F,L) 0000xxXXXX6 (K,b) 000000X0X02 (b,c) 00000000000 (d,j) X000X00X003 (G,L) X0000000x02 (A,V) xxxOOOXOXX6 (A,c) X00000000X2 (c,c) 00000000000 (e,j) OOOOOOOOXX2 (H,L) 00000000000 (B,V) XXOxxx00xx7 (B,c) X0000X000X3 (d,c) 00000000000 (f,j) 00000000000 (1,L) 00000000000 (c,v) ooooooooxx2 (c, c ) oxxxoxoxxx7 (e , c ) 00000000000 (g, j ) 00000000000 (J,L) oxxooooooo2 (D,V) 00000000xX2 (D,c) OXXXXXOOXX7 (f,c) 00000000000 (d,k) XOOOXOXX004 (K,L) OXXOOOO0002 (E,V) 00000000xX2 (E,c) OXXOOOOOO02 (g,c) ooooxxoooo2 (e,k) XOOXOXXOXX6 (L,L) xxoxoooooo3 (F,V) 000000x0x02 (F,c) OOXXOOOOO02 (w,d) OOOOx00Oxx3 (f,k) 00000000000 (M,L) xxxxxooooo5 (A,W) xoo0XXX0XX6 (G,c) 000X0X00X03 (x,d) 0000X000Xx3 (g,k) 00000000000 (B,M) OXXOOOOxxx5 (B,W) XOOxxxx0xx7 (H,c) 000000X0X02 (a,d) XOOXXXOXO05 (C,M) OXXXXXXOOX7 (c,w) 000000x00x2 (1,c) ooxxooxoxo4 (b,d) 00000000000 Australia (D,M) OOOXxxxxxx7 (D,W) 000000x0001 (J,c) 00000000X01 (c,d) 00000000000 (E,M) ooooxxxxxx6 (E,W) 000000xX002 (K,c) OOOOOOOOXX2 (d,d) 00000000000 (q,f) x0000000x02 (F,M) OXOOXXxxxx7 (F,W) 000000xX002 (C,d) XXOOOOOXXX5 (t,d) 00000000000 (0, g) xxoxxxoooo5 (G,M) oxxoxoooxo4 (G,W) 00000000000 (D,d) xxXxxxXOXO8 (f,d) 00000000000 (p,g) xxx00000003 (H,M) oxoxxooooo3 (H,W) 000000000x1 (E,d) XXXXOXOOOX6 (g,d) OOOXXOOOO02 (q,g) x0x00000x03 (1,M) OXXXOOOOO03 (A,X) XXOXXXX xx8 (F,d) OOXXOOOOO02 (x,e) XOOOXOOXXX5 (r,g) X0000000X02 (J,M) OXXXOOOOO03 (B,X) XXOOOOxoxx5 (G,d) OOOXOXXOX04 (y,e) XOOOXOOXXXS (1,i) OXOOXXOOXX5 (K,M) oxxxoooooo3 (c,x) 000000x0001 (H,d) OOOXOXXXX05 (z,e) JCXXXXOOXOO~ (r,i) 00000000000 (L,M) 0X0X0000002 (D,X) 000000x0001 (1,d) OOOOOXXOX03 (a,e) 0000X00X002 (n,i) 00000000000 (B,N) xoxoooxoxo4 (E,X) 00000000000 (J,d) 00000000X01 (b,e) 00000000000 (0,i) 00000X00X02 (C,N) XOOXXXXOOX6 (F,X) 000X0000001 (C,e) XXOOOOOXXXS (c,e) 00000000000 (p,i) X0000X00002 (D,N) oooxxxxoxo5 (G,X) 0X0X0000002 (D,e) XXOXXXXOXX8 (d,e) 00000000000 (q,i) XX000000002 (E,N) OOOOXOxOxx4 (H,X) 000000000X1 (E,e) OXXXXXXOOX7 (e, e) 00000000000 (r,i) XXOXOOOOX04 (F,N) XXOOXXOOXX6 (A,Y) XXOXXXXXXX9 (F,e) OOXXOXOOO03 (f,e) 00000000000 (s,i) xooxoooxxo4 ( G,N) xooxxxoooo4 (B,Y) xxxxx0xOxX8 (G,e) OOOXXXXOX05 (g,e) 00000000000 (t,i) XOOXOOXXX05 (H,N) xxoxoooooo3 (C,Y) oxxxxoooox5 (H,e) OOOXXXOOO03 (x,f) xoooxooxox4 (u,i) XXXXXXXXOX9 (1,N) XXXXXOOOO05 (D,Y) 00XxX0000x4 (1,e) 00000000000 (y,f) xxxxxxoxoo7 (m,j) 00000X00X02 (J,N) xxxxxooooo5 (E,Y) OOXXx000003 (C,f) xxooxxoxxx7 (z,f) xxxoxxoooo5 (n,j) 00000000000 (K,N) x00x00x0003 (F,Y) OOXXXXOOOX5 (D,f) XXXOXXOOXX7 (a,f) XOOOXXOXO04 (0,j) 00000000x01 (c,o) x00x0x00003 (G,Y) OXXXXXOOOX6 (E,f) OXXXXXOOOX6 (b,f) 00000000000 (p,j) x0000x00x03 (D,O) xxoxxxooxx7 (H,Y) OOOXXXXOOX5 (F, f) OOOXXXOOXX5 (c,f) 00000000000 (q,j) xxooooooxo3 (E,O) OXXOXXXOXx7 (1,Y) ooxxxxxoxx7 (G,f) OOOXXXOOXO4 (d,f) 00000000000 (r,j) XXOOOOOXX04 (F,O) XXOOXXOOX05 (J,Y) OOXXXXXOXX7 (H,f) OOOOXXXOX04 (e,f) 00000000000 (s,j) XXOOOOOOX03 (G,O) XXXOXOOOX05 (A,Z) XXOXXXXXXX9 (c,g) xxxxxxxxxx10 (f,f) 00000000000 (t, j) XXXOOOOXXOS (H,O) XXOOOOOOXX4 (B,Z) xxxxxx00xx8 (D,g) XXXOXXOOXX7 (g,f) 00000000000 (u,j) XXXOOOXXX06 (1,o) xxoxxoooxo5 (c, z) xxxoxxooxx7 (E,g) OOOOOXXOOX3 (h,f) 00000000000 (v,j) XXXXXOOXO06 (J,O) XXOXOOOOO03 (D,Z) OOOXXxOO0x4 (F,g) OOOXXXXOX05 (x, g) xoooxxoxox5 (n.k) 00000000000 (K,O) OOOOOOOOXX2 (E,Z) OOOxXX000x4 (G,g) 00000X00X02 (Y,g) xoooxxoxxo5 (n,k) 00000000000 (C,P) ooxxoooooo2 (F,Z) OOOXXXOOXX5 (C,h) xxxox0xxxx8 (z,g) xoooxxoooo3 (o,k) 000000000X1 (D,P) XXOXXXOOXX7 (G,Z) 00000000000 (D,h) xxxxxx0OXX8 (a,g) XOOXXXOOO04 (p.k) OOOOOOOOXX2 (E,P) XXOXXXXOXX8 (H,Z) 00000000000 (E,h) OOOOOXOOXX3 (b,g) X000xX0X004 (q,k) 00000X00001 (F,P) XXOxxOOOXO5 (1,~) oxxxxXxxX08 (F,h) OOOOOOOOXX2 (c,g) 00000000000 (r,k) X0000000001 (G,P) XXOXXOOXXX7 (J,Z) OOxxxxxoxx7 (C,i) XXXOOoXXXX7 (d,g) 00000000000 (s,k) XXX000OOXO4 (H,P) XXOXOOXXXX7 (K,Z) 00000000x01 (D,i) XXXOOOOOXX5 (e,g) 00000000000 (t,k) xX0x0000X04 (1,P) oxoxoooxxx5 (A,a) XXOOOOXXXOS (E,i) XXXXOOOOXX6 (f,g) 00000000000 (u,k) XXXOOOXOXOS (J,P) OOXOOOOOXX3 (B,a) XXXOXXOOXX7 (C,j) xXX00xxxxx8 (g,g) 00000000000 (v,k) XXXXXOOOO05 (D,Q) 000X00000X2 (C,a) XXXOXXOOXX7 (D,j) XXOXXOOOXX~ (h,g) 000X0000001 (n,l) 000000000X1 (E,Q) XXXXXXOXXX9 (D,o) 00OoxOOOXX3 (C,k) xxxoooxoxX6 (Y,h) XOOOXXOXXX6 (r,l) X0000000001 (~,a) oooooooxxx3 (E,a) 000X0000001 (D.k) xxooxxooxX6 (Z.h) XO0OXX0XXX6 (6.1) x00000000x2 66 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

Coor. COSDCPTJCT* Coor. COSDCPTJCT* Coor. COSDCPTJCT* Cow. COSDCPTJCT# Coor. COSDCPTJCT# (t,l) xxxoxxooox6 (n,G) XXXXXXXXXXlO (q,J) XXXOOXOOOX5 (t,M) xooXx00XXX6 (u,P) xxooxxooox5 (u,l) xxx00000003 (o,G) XXXXXXOXXX9 (r,J) XXOOOXOOO03 (u,M) OXOOXXOOO03 (v,P) XX00XOXXOX6 (sp) ooooxxooox3 (p,G) XXXXXXXXX09 (s,J) XXOOXOOOO03 (v,M) ooxoxxooox4 (d,Q) 0X00000X0x3 (t,m) xxxxoxoooo5 (q,G) XOXXXXOO005 (t,J) X000X000002 (w,M) 00X00X000X3 (e,Q) 0X000X0XxX5 (u,m) xxxxxooooo5 (r,G) X0000000001 (u,J) XOOXXOOOO03 (x,M) OOXOOXXOX04 (f,Q) xxxxoxxxxx9 (t,n) xxxxoxoooo5 (s,G) XOOXOOOXOX4 (v,J) XXOXOXXOO05 (t,M) 000XXXOXXX6 (g,Q) XXXXOXXXXX9 (t,,G) XOOXXXXXX07 (w,J) XOOOOXXXX05 (d,N) XXX000xxxx7 (h,Q) XXXXXXXXXXlO (u,G) xooxxxxx0O6 (x,J) oxxxoxxxxx8 (e,N) XXXXxOxxxx9 (i,Q) XXXXXXXXXXlO (v,G) oxoxxxxXOO6 (d,K) 0000xXXXXX6 (f,N) XXXOXXXXXX9 (j,Q) XOXOOXXXXX7 (w,G) OXOXXOXxxx7 (e,K) xxoxxxoxxx8 (g,N) xxoxxxxxox8 (k,Q) XOXOOXXXXX7 Eurasia (y,G) xx0x00xXOX6 (f,K) xoxxxxoxxx8 (i,N) XOOOOXXXXX6 (l,(1) xxxoxxxxxx9 (c,H) OXXXXXXXXX9 (g,K) OOOXXXOOXX5 (j,N) XXXxXXOxxx9 (m,Q) XXXOXXXXXX9 ( f , B) OoDDoDoD~xl (d,H) xxxxxoxoxx8 (h,K) OOOXXXXXXX7 (k,N) xxxxxxooxX8 (n,Q) XOOXOOOXXX5 (j,~) xxooxxxxxx8 (e,H) OOOXXOXXOXS (i ,K) OOOXXXXXXX7 (l,N) OXOXXOOOOX4 (o,Q) xooxxxoxxO6 (v,c) xxxoxxxxoo7 (f,H) XXXXOOOxxx7 (j,K) oooXXXOXXX6 (m,N) XXXXOOOOO04 (p,Q) XOxxxXO0XO6 (w,c) oxooooxxxx5 (g,H) XOXXOOOx004 (k,K) xxxxx00OOX6 (n,N) XOXXOXOOOx5 (q,y) xxxxxxooxo7 (c,D) XXXX0000004 (h,H) xx0xx00XXO6 (1,K) xxxxoo00XX6 (o,N) oooXxxOXXX6 (r,Q) XXXXXXXOO07 (d,D) xXx0xX0xX07 (i,H) XXOXXXOxx07 (m,K) XXOXXOOXXX7 (~$4) oxMWXx6 (s,y) xxxxxxxooo7 (e,D) XXOXOO00003 (j,H) XOOOXXXXXO~ (n,K) XOXXXOOxxx7 (q,N) XXOXXOOOOXS (t,Q) XXOXXXOOO05 (v,D) xox0xxxXOO6 (k,H) ox0xxXOXXO6 (o,K) xxxxxx0xx08 (r,N) OXOXxOOOxx5 (u,y) xoooxxoooxq (w,D) OXOXOOXXXX6 (1,H) XXXXXOOOXX7 (p,K) XOXXOOOXO04 (s,N) xxOxXOO0XX6 (v,y) ooooxxoooo2 (x,D) OXXXXXXXXX9 (m,H) XXXXXOXXxX9 (q,K) XXOXOXOXOOS (t,N) 0xxxx00OXX6 (w,Q) 0XxXXXOOOX6 (Z,E) XX000000002 (n,H) XXXOXOOXxx7 (r,K) XXXOOXOOO04 (u,N) OOOOXXOOx03 (d,R) 0000000X001 (a,E) XXxxxOxxxx9 (o,H) xxxxxooxxx8 (s,K) 00000000000 (v,N) OOXOOXOXX04 (e,R) XOOOOXOXXX5 (c,E) xxoxx00XXO6 (p,H) XXXXXXXOO07 (t,K) XOOXOQX0003 (w,N) XXOOXOOXXO$ (f,R) xxxo0xxxxx8 (f,E) Xx000000002 (q,H) xxxxxX00006 (u,K) XOOXXXOXO05 (x,N) XXOOXOOXXOS (h,R) XXOXXXXXXX9 (g,E) xxx00000003 (r,H) XXXOOXOOO04 (v,K) xxxoxx0xxx8 (z,N) OXOOXXOXOXS i,R) XOOXXXXXXX8 (h,E) XX000000002 (s,H) XXOOOOOXOX4 (w,K) OOOXXXXXXX7 (d.0) Xx00000x003 t j,R) XOOOXXXXXX7 (i,E) X0000000001 '(t,H) XOOOOOXXOX4 (x,K) xxx000XXX06 e; 0 xxxxoxxxxx (k,R) XOOOXXXXXx7 (p,E) XXX00000003 (u,H) X00XOXXXOX6 (y,K) OXXXXXXOx07 t f,O 1 xxxooxxxxx 8 (l,R) X00000000X2 (u,E) XOOOx0xxox5 (v,H) X0X00X00003 (d,L) xxoxxoxxxx8 xoooooxxox4 (m,R) xXXOOXXOOX6 (v,E) xooxxxxXOO6 (c,I) oxoxxxxxxx8 (e,L) OOOOOXxxxx5 xxoxx0xxxx8 (n,R) XXXOXXXXXX9 (w,E) 0X0x0xXx005 (d,I) xxxxxooxxx8 (f,L) xoooxxxxxx7 xxxxxoxxxx9 (o,R) XooxxxxxxX8 (X,E) OXXXXXXXXX9 (e,I) oooxxxxxxx7 (g,L) xoxxoxoxxx7 xxxoxxxxxx9 (p,R) XO0XOXXXXO6 (Z,F) xxxxxooxxX8 (f,I) ooxoooooxx3 (h,L) xoxxxx0xxx8 xxxxxxoxxx9 (q, R) xxxO0xxxxx8 (a,F) OXXXXOXXXX~ (g,I) 000x000xxx4 (i,L) xooxxxoxxx7 (LO) xxoxxxoxxx8 (r,R) XXXXXXXOXO~ (b,F) OXXOO000xx4 (h,I) XOOXXOOXX05 (j,L) XXOXXXOXXX~ b,o) xxxxxxoxox8 (a,R) XXXXXXXXOX9 (c,F) oxxxxoxxxx8 (i,I) xo0xxX0XXO6 (k,L) XXXXx000xx7 (n,(J) xoxooxoooxq (t,R) xxx0xxxxXO8 (d,F) xx0xXOXXOO6 (j,I) oooxxxoxoo4 (l,L) xxoxxoooox5 b,o) xoxooooxox4 (u,R) XXXOXOXXOX7 (e,F) XOXOOXXXXX7 (k,I) 0X0xXx00004 (a,L) xxoxxoooox5 (P,O) xxxxXX00006 (v,R) OX~xXXXOXO6 (f,F) XXX00000003 (1,1) xx0xXO0OXx6 (n,L) 0X0Xx0000x4 xoxxxxoooo5 (w,R) XoOXXXOOXX6 (g,F) XX000000002 (m, I) OOXOOOXXXX5 (0,~) xxxxx000OX6 ooxxoxoooxq (d,S) OOOOOOXXX4 (h,F) 00000000000 (n,I) OOOOXOOXXX4 (p,L) x00x0000002 00000000x01 (e,s) xooooxoxxx5 (i,F) 00000000000 (o,I) xxxxxooxxx8 (q,L) x0000000001 xoooxoxxox5 (f,S) xooooxoxxx5 (j,F) 000X0000001 (p,I) xxxxxxxooo7 (r,L) X0000000001 xxooxoxxxx7 (g,s) xxoooxxxxx7 (r,F) xxxxxx0xx08 (q,I) xxxxxxxooo7 (s,L) 00000000x01 XXOOXOXXOX6 (h,S) xxooxxxxXX8 (p,F) XXXXOOOXO05 (r,I) XOXOXXXOO05 (t,L) oooXXXXXXO6 xx000000002 (j,S) xoooxxxxxx7 (q,F) XXXXXXXXX09 (&I) xxxooooxoo4 (u,L) xxoxxooxoo5 oooxxxxxxx7 (k,S) OOOOXX0XXX5 (r,F) xoxoxxXxxx8 (t,I) xxx00000003 (v,L) oxxoxooxox5 0x0000000x2 (1,s) 00000000000 (s,F) XOXXXXXXXX9 (u,I) 00000000000 (w,L) xooooxoxxx5 xxxxoxxxxx9 (r,S) 00000000000 (t,F) XXXXXXXXX09 (v,I) xoxxoxoooo4 X,L) xxxx0xxxx08 xxxxoxxxxx9 (n,S) X00000X00X3 (u,F) oxoxxoxXOX6 (c,J) oxxxxxxXx08 t a,L) ooooxxoxxx5 xxoxoxxxxx8 (0,s) xxxxxxxoox8 (v,F) XXOXXXXXXX9 (d,J) OOOXOOO0xx3 (e,~) xxxoxoxxxx8 xxxxxxxxxx10 p,s xxxxxxxoxx9 (w,F) oxxxxxxxx08 (e,J) XOXXXXXxXx9 (f,M) xoxooxxxxx7 xoooxxxxxx7 t q,S ! XXXXXXx0OX8 (x,F) oxxxoxxxxx8 (f,J) OOXOOOOOXX3 (g,M) xooxoooxxxs x00XXXXXXX8 (r,S) XXOXXXXXXO8 (c,G) oxxxx0xXxx8 (g,J) OOOXXXXXXX7 (i,M) xxxxxxoxxx9 xooooxxoxx5 l5,s xxoxxxxxoo7 (d, G) 000000X0001 (h,J) OOOXXOOXXX5 (k,M) XXXXX000xx7 ooxxxxxxxx8 t t,S t XOXxXxxOXX8 (e,G) XXXXXXXXXXlO (i,J) 000XxX0XxX6 (l,M) XXOXXOOOOX5 xoxxxxOXxX8 (u,S) XXOXXXXOO06 (f,G) XXXXXOXXXX9 (j,J) 000XxX0xX05 (r,M) XOXXOOOOO03 oooxoxooxx4 (v,s) xxxxxxX0x08 (g,G) XXXXOOOOO04 (k,J) 000xX000002 (n,M) XOXXOOOOOXd oxoxxxoxxx7 (w.s) oooxxoooxo3 (h,G) 00000000000 (1,J) XXXXXOOOXX7 (0,M) oooxxoooox3 (R,P) 0X0xXx00x05 (x,s) 0000x000x02 (i,G) 00000000000 (m,J) XXXOOOXXXX7 (p,M) xxxxoooooo4 (q,P) oxxxxxoxxo7 (d,T) OOOOOOXXXX4 (j,G) XOOOXXOxO04 (n,J) OOOXOOOXXX4 (q,M) xoxxxooooo4 (r,P) XXXXXOXOO06 (c,T) XOOOOOOXXxl (k,G) oxoxXXOXX06 (o,J) XXOXXOOXXX7 (r,M) XOOXXOOOO03 xxxXXOxxx08 (m,G) xxxxxxo0Xx8 (p, J) XxX00x00004 (s,M) XOOXXOOO003 xxooxxxxxx8 xxoooxoxxx VOLUME 18, JUNE, 1981 67

Coor. COSDCPTJCT* Coor. COSDCPTJCT# Cool-. COSDCPTJCT# Coor. COSDCPTJCT# Coor. COSDCPTJCTW (k,T) 0000000XXX3 (0,u) ooooooooxx2 (m,w) ooooxooxxxq (k,b) xxxxxxxx008 (1,T) 00000000XX2 (q ,u ) oooooooxxx3 (s,w) xoooxxxxoo~ n,b) XXXXXOXXXX9 (m,T) 00000xX0002 (r,u) xx0oxxxXOO6 (t,w) xxoxxoxooo~ f u,b) XXXXXOXOX07 (n,T) 0000xX00002 (s,u) oxxxxoxooo~ (u,w) xxoooooxoo3 (p,c) XXXOXXXXXX9 (m,h) 00000000000 (o,T) 000000000X1 (t,u) xxoxxoxooo~ (y,w) xxxxooxxxx8 (s,d) xxx0000XXX6 (n,h) OOOOOXOOXO2 (p,T) OOOXOOOOXX3 (up) !ixxooooxox~ (1,x) ooooooooxx2 (t,d) xxx0xxxxx08 (o,h) XXOOOXOXXOS (q,T) XOOOOOOXXX4 (x,u) xxxxooxoxx7 (m,Y) OOOCjXOOOOOl (s,e) xooxooooxxq (p,h) XXOXOX00004 (r,T) XXOOXXXXX07 (l,v) 00000000000 (a,~) xxxxxxx0x08 (t,e) xooooooxXX4 (q,h) X0000000001 (s,T) XXXXXXX0007 (a,v) 0000000x001 (la, z) xxxxooxxxx8 (r,h) XXXXOOOOO04 (t,T) xxxxxxxx008 (n,V) OOOOOOOOXX2 (r,Z) XXXXXOXXXO~ (;s,h) XXOXOOOXXO~ (u,T) xxxx00XOOX6 (r,V) xoooxxxooo4 (s,z) xxxxxoxxx08 New Zealand (t,h) OOOXOXOXX04 (v,T) oxoxo0xxXX6 (s,v) oxxoxxxxxo7 (1,a) XXXOOOXXXX7 (u,h) x0xxxXOOOX6 (1 ,u) ooooooooxx2 (tp) oooxooxoxo3 (=,a) XXXXOOXXX07 (y,p) xxxooxxxox7 (m,U) OOOOXXOOO02 (y,v) xxxooxoxxx7 (s,a) XXXXXXXXXXlO (z,o) xxxooxoxoo~ (n,U) 00000000000 (l,w) 00000000000 (t,a) XXXXXXXXXXlO earth’s land surface is hard-pressed to produce even 3 of Kashmir region, a complete column is shown except for the 10 geologic periods in “correct” consecutive order. the Triassic, but there are major gaps in the Ordovician The quantitative data is particularly revealing. From and the Silurian. Figure 1, it is evident that nearly 13% of the earth’s Another example of a major region apparently posses- land surface has 5 geologic periods represented (ir- sing the entire geologic column in place is a part of the respective of their order or identity) while slightly less Bolivian Andes, described by Lohmann.** The area is than 1% has all 10 periods simultaneously in place. called the Northern Antiplano; a region approximately From the cumulative frequency curve in Figure 1, it 68 “-70 “W and 16 O-18 “S. But even here, the Cambrian can be seen that 42% of earth’s land surface has 3 or and Ordovician are uncertain for lack of nearby out- less geologic periods present at all; 66% has 5 or less of crops. The Cordilleran area nearby (66”-68 “W and the 10 present; and only 14% has 8 or more geologic 16 “-20 “S) also has an apparently complete column, but periods represented at all. Jurassic strata are said to be scarce throughout the area. Individual geologic periods’ coverage of the earth’s It has already been demonstrated that the apparent land surface range from a high of just over 5 1% for completeness of the geologic column in Indonesia stems Cretaceous (Fig. 2) to a low of only 33% for Triassic. from ascribing metamorphosed “basement” to the en- Sequences of consecutive geologic periods cover far less tire Lower Paleozoic. Similarly, it has been pointed out area. Sequences of 3 consecutive geologic periods and by Ray and Achayya” that in eastern Burma, western their per cent terrestrial area1 coverage are: complete Thailand, and Malaya the Permian and Mesozoic rest Lower Paleozoic 2 1% , complete Upper Paleozoic 17 %, upon a folded and metamorphosed “basement” of infer- complete Mesozoic 16%. For 6 consecutive geologic red early Paleozoic. The alleged completeness of the periods, one finds only 5.7 % of the earth’s land surface geologic column shown for Cuba (Map 15) based upon covered by complete Paleozoic, and only 4.0% covered data of the Ronov et. al. team can be questioned for the by complete Upper Paleozoic/complete Mesozoic. same reason. The work of HattenQ2 demonstrates how The overall failure of geologic periods to be numeric- poorly known the pre-Mesozoic geology of Cuba is: ally abundant in most places on earth and their even Mesozoic rocks overlying metamorphosed equivalents greater failure to occur in consecutive sequences is of presumed Paleozoic strata. significant enough, but it can be seen from Table 2 that All ten geologic periods are undoubtedly represented where geologic periods’ rocks do exist they often fail to in the Swiety Krzys (Holy Cross) Mountains of south- rest “properly.” A significant percentage of every central Poland (20-22E and SO-52N) as is evident from geologic period’s rocks does not overlie rocks of the next the local map of the mountain region enclosed in the older geologic period. In fact, only a bare majority of work of Ksiazkiewicz, Samsonowich, and Ruhle.e3 In Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Devonian “properly” overlie fact, the presence of all or almost all of the geologic col- the next older geologic period’s rocks (Jurassic, Triassic, umn (in terms of sedimentary lithologies that are unam- and Silurian, respectively). Some percentage of every biguously biostratigraphically dated) can be shown to geologic period rests directly upon Precambrian “base- occur over much of Poland.e4~Q5But only a very small ment ,” especially high percentages of Ordovician percentage of the earth’s land surface has most or all of (23.2%) and Devonian (18.6%) doing so. the geologic column in place (Map 15, Figure 1 and 2). There apparently are regions on earth where all ten Continental shelf data were not included in this arti- geologic periods can be found superposed (Map 15). cle, but Ronov et. al. l1 noted that submerged shelves Frank and FuchsB1 presented stratigraphic correlation cover only 14% of the total continental area. Examples charts for Himalayan Geology in West Nepal. A com- are now cited which show that they tend to have few plete geologic column was shown, but Cambrian and and non-consecutive geologic periods represented. The Ordovician were shown as uncertain. In the lower report on the North Sea by Kent and Walmsley83 Himalayas, the Triassic was shown as unknown, and reported only post-Devonian sedimentary strata, with some slates were questionably placed in a range from usually only 4 or 5 of the 6 geologic periods represented Precambrian to Ordovician. In the lower Himalayas/ per borehole. CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

60 T -I 1 % E \ 50 a \ E a t’ \ h, : S h S I \ Q Ml \ d S u

ii :

0 I 2 3 4 5 I-ILL6 7 8 9 IO No, of geologic periods represented

Figure 1. This semilogarithmic plot forms a histogram showing the ten- dency, by numerical abundance, for geological periods to be represented over the earth’s land surface. The cumulative frequency I u curve above shows the per cent of the earth’s land surface which has s D c T that many geological periods represented, or fewer. For example, ete segmentsof 11 0luTi-m 13 % of the earth’s surface has 5 of the 10 geological periods Figure 2. This semilogarithmic plot shows the tendency of the earth’s represented; while 66% has 5 or fewer represented. No more than land surface to have sequences of consecutive geological periods in about 1% , too little to show up on the graph, has all 10 periods. place. The vertical bars form a histogram showing the per cent of the terrestrial area1 coverage (on land) of individual geological periods. The curves show the decline of area covered with each younger geological period added. For example, 47 % of the earth’s The eastern North American continental shelfa from land surface has Cambrian alone, 3 1% has both Cambrian and Or- Florida to Nova Scotia has Jurassic, Cretaceous, and dovician, and only 2 1 % has Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian Tertiary rock, with a much smaller presence of Triassic. simultaneously represented. Linka pointed out that continental shelves tend to be dominantly Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Continental data of this article would be completely Table 2. This table shows gross stratigraphic succession- overwhelmed by oceanic data if it were included. Blatt al relationships: the per cent of each geological period et. ~1.~’ said: “Almost all of the sediment preserved in overlying directly every older geological period. For modern ocean basins is younger than Triassic.” The in- example, 65.7 % of Carboniferous lies upon Devonian, clusion of oceanic data would therefore greatly increase 10.3 % upon Silurian, 5.82 % upon Ordovician, the percentages of few and recent geologic periods. The 7.16 % upon Cambrian, and 11 .O % directly upon Pre- percentages of many present geologic periods and many cambrian “basement”. consecutive geologic periods, already minor, would become vanishingly small. The more the earth’s surface fails to display the vaunted evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column in terms of actual presence and “correct” stratigraphic layering of geologic periods rocks, the more the geologic column passes into the realm of fantasy. Con- cerning geologic time, Douglas8’ wrote: “Time can only be established through recognition of events, as time Pm 76.3 IO.5 6.08 ItlO a.76 3.30 itself is not measurable without an event to mark its CARSONIPBBmS 6.~7 to.3 S.&I 7.16 II,0 passing. Furthermore, geologic events have a reality on- ly through their manifestation in the rock record.” DEVONIAN 5J.l ps 8.P3 IS.6 Recently, Gingerich” wrote: “The study of organic evolution is both a geological and a biological subject. SILDEIAN 7tf lO#S Ilo1 Evolution means change, change implies time, and the ORDOvICIm 768 33.a great sweep of life history is recorded in sedimentary Ltti BRIAN IO0 rocks and measured in geological time.” The L-l VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 69 significance of the geologic column to evolution is The works of Ronov et. ul.‘l,se and Schwaba consider therefore obvious. Yet not only does this column volumes, compositions, etc., of rocks from the view- basically not exist, but even where geologic periods’ point of geologic periods. No geologic period has a rocks do occur, their biostratigraphic basis itself is ar- monopoly on any type of lithology. However, subma- bitrary. One need only consult the volume edited by rine volcanogenie rocks decrease going from globd Harlandg7 to note that most fossil taxons overlap from a Paleozoic to global Mesozoic. Terrestrial volcanogenic few to several of the ten geologic periods. deposits increase drastically going from Paleozoic to Of course, the absence of geologic periods is claimed Mesozoic and Cenozoic. to be a result of non-deposition during those periods in This may reflect the global tendency for Paleozoic the regions of their absence, or to subsequent erosion. rocks to have been formed during the Flood so that This is self-serving because there is no deterministic Volcanism was primarily submarine, while Mesozoic reason why the earth’s land surface should (or should and Cenozoic have been formed during late Flood and not) become everywhere depositional sometime within post Flood conditions so that volcanism was subaerial any span of several tens of millions of years comprising rather than subaqueous in nature. each geologic period. The claim of non-deposition and Those strata which are at or near the earth’s surface erosion during geologic periods begs the question, at any given localities are the likeliest candidates for because it does not face the question whether or not having formed under late and post Flood conditions. these geologic periods ever existed in the first place. For instance, where Jurassic has a thick mantle of Cre- Since only a small percentage of the earth’s surface taceous-Tertiary rock overlying it, the Jurassic in that obeys even a significant portion of the geologic column, case probably was a mid-Flood deposit. Jurassic with it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special nothing overlying it, on the other hand, probably was pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-unifor- late-Flood to post-Flood in origin. The fact that world mitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were outcrop areas of geologic periods decline exponentially geologic periods. The claim of their having taken place going stratigraphically downwardgo probably reflects to form a continuum of rock/life/time of ten biochrono- the ever-decreasing probability of older geologic logic “onion skins” over the earth is therefore a fantas- periods’ rocks to be primarily late-Flood and post-Flood tic and imaginative contrivance. in origin. III. Probable Diluvial Significance of Global Stratigraphic Trends References This section briefly considers how the findings of this AG-American Association of petroleum Geologists Bulletin EL-Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, London, New York work and related findings affect the Creationist-Diluvi- GE-Geology alist paradigm. Since it has already been demonstrated GN-Proceedings of the International Gondwana Symposium that the geologic column is not supported by what ac- IG-International Geology Review tually is found on earth, the principle of Occam’s Razor PA-Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology SE-Sedimentary Geology favors the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm because of SO-Sovietskaia Geologiia its intrinsic abrogation of all concepts of evolution, TE-Tectonophysics geologic periods, and geologic time. The fact that most of the earth’s land surface has few ‘Park C. F. and R. A. MacDiarmid. 1975. Ore Deposits. Freeman and Co. San Francisco, p. 2 (3rd Edition) of the ten geologic periods represented (Fig. 1) means *Price G. M., 1923. The New Geology., Pacific Press, California. Pp. that Diluviology needs to explain the stratigraphic sepa- 288, 296, 610-619. ration of only a few fossil groupings over most ter- 3Nelson B. C., 193 1, 1968, The Deluge Story in Stone. Bethany restrial areas. Furthermore, the fact that most repre- Fellowship Pub. Co., Minnesota, p. 146, 150-l 5 1. ‘Whitcomb J. C. and H. M. Morris, 196 1. The Genesis Flood. Baker sented geologic periods tend not to be consecutive fur- Book House, Michigan, 17th printing, p. 135-6. ther implies that only a few groupings of fossil types ex- ‘Burdick C., 1971. Streamlining Stratigraphy (in Lammerts W. E., ist over most areas. This says nothing of the long range 1971. Scientific Studies in Special Creation. Presbyterian and of most fossil taxons. Reformed, New Jersey, p. 127-8. Tlark H. W., 1968. Fossils, Flood, and Fire. Outdoor Pictures, The fact that Devonian, Jurassic, and Cretaceous ap- California, Pp. 53-S. pear to have special liberties not to rest on the next older ‘Freeman 0. W., and J. W. Morris, 1958. World Geography geologic periods (Table 2) may have Diluvial signifi- McGraw Hill, New York, Toronto, London, plates following p. 8. 8 cance. The Devonian has the first large-scale diversity 1978. CBS News Almanac. Hammond Almanac Co., New of land fossils (although all geologic periods consist jersey, p. 5 19, 523. 1972. Encyclopedia Britannica. Index and Atlas, p. 7, 43, overwhelmingly of marine fossils), and its-liberty may 97. be due to the ecological independence of its terrestrial 16 1972. The Earth and Man. Rand McNally and Co., New fossils from the almost wholly marine Lower Paleozoic York, Chicago, San Francisco, p. 157. as well as the poverty of the Lower Paleozoic in the “Ronov A. B., Khain V. E., Balukhovskiy A. N., and K. N. Seslavin- skiy. 1980. Quantitative Analysis of Phanerozoic Sedimentation. SE Gondwana continents (Maps 1, 2, and 3). 25:312. The successional liberties of Jurassic and Cretaceous ‘*Ben-Avraham Z. and K. 0. Emery. 1973. Structural Framework of (Table 2) may support the position that they are post Sunda Shelf. AC 57:2327. Flood and that their fossil populations are therefore tru- 13Braziunas T. F. 1975. A geological duration chart. GE 3:342-3. “Ronov A. B., Seslavinskiy K. B., Khain V. Ye. 1974. Kembriiyskie ly successional and not part of the mutually-contempor- Litologicheskiye Formatsii Mira. SO 1974 (12) 29, 23, 17 (in Rus- aneous Flood-buried continuum of the older geologic sian). periods. 15Ronov A. B., Seslavinskiy K. B., and V. Ye. Khain. 1977. Cambrian 70 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

Lithologic Associations of the World. IC f9:379, 385, 39 I (t ran\fa- 4RKummd. 1970. ol). cit. p. 207. tion of f>rccding). 47Cook and Bally. 1975. op. cit., 11. 91, 106. “Clarkson P. D., Hrrghc.4 C. P. and M. R. A. Thomf>\on. 1979). 4nStocklin J. 1968. Structural History and Tectonics ot Iran: A Ccdogic;ll Significancch ot ;I Mitldlc Caml)rian Farina tram Antarc- Rcvirw. AC 52: 1234. tica. Nnturr 279:791. ““Ronov A. B., Khain B. E., 1956. Permskiyc Litologicheskiyc Format- “Ronov A. B., Kha’in B. E., Scslavinskiv K. B. 1976. Ortlo\ikshic* sii Mira. SO fYS6. Sb. 54, p. 3 l-36. (in Russian). Litologichcskic~ Formatsii Mira. SO ISi6 ( I ) I 1 (in RLissian). 5”Audlcy-Charfcs M. C., 1965. Permian Palcogcqraphy of the Nor- ‘“Ronov A. B., Khain B. E., and K. B. Scslavinski!. 1976. Or&)\ ih\bicl thern Australia-Timor Region. PA 1:300-f. Lithologic A\\ociations ot the Worltl. IC IX: I399 (tr,ln\l,ltion of 5’Audfry-Ch~~rlr\ M. C., 1978. The Indonesian and Phillipinc Ar- prcccetling). chipelagos (in Moulladr M. and A. E. M. Nnirn. 1978. Thr Phanfv-o- ‘“Khain B. E., Ronov A. R.. Scslac inski? K. B. 1977. Silrlri>\hic f.itolo- .zoic Gwlogy of Thr World. Vol. II. EL.), f>. 177-192. gichcskie Formatsii Mire. SO 1977 (5) 29 (in Rrl\si;in). 5LMc~vc,rhot~ A. A., antI H. A. Mc\c,rhoff. 1974. Tests of Plate Tcdon- “‘Khain B. E., Ronov A. B.. ant1 K. 13. S(~\I:I\ in\hi>. 19-)7X. Siltlrian its. (in Kc~hlc>C. F., f9i4. Pf~lt~.~l‘c,~tc,nic,s-Assc~ssmc,nts and Kcnswss- Lithologic Associations of the World. /C; 20:256 (tr,iilsl,ition 01 mcnts. AG Memoir 23) 11. X2. prccccding). 53Minll. 1973. olj. cit., 11. 109. L’Burrett C., 1973. Ordovici~in Biogc~ogrdfdi~ antI (:ontinc~nt,il f)rilt. “Brown ot. ul. 1968. op. cit., p. I8 1. PA 13:16f-201. 550ttdahl C.. 1976. Northcarn F:ncl ot Errrof,clan Contincmtal Pttrminn. “‘Vrevers J. J., 1976. E,trl! Phant~ro~oic Ebcnts on ,~ntl Along\itlc the ‘I‘hc Oslo Region (it1 Falkc 11. 1976. ‘I’hc Continental Permian in Australasian-Antarctic Platform. Journal o\ thf, Cf~ologif~~f Socirty Gnt t-al, Wet. .~ntf South ~:urof~c. Rcidd Pul). Co., Holland), f>. 3. of Austrlia 23(2) 184. “‘Kummc~l. 1970. op. cit.. p. 196. 23Elliot D. H., 1975. Ttctonics of Antarctica: a rovicw. Amcv-ican “<:ol)l)ctt D. J.. 1973. Pc*rmian Fusulin,lcct (in ll,~llam. 1973. 01’. cit., Journal of Scirnw 275-A p. 54 (tul)lc). p. 153, IS56. 24K Y le R. A. 7 1977. DcBvonian Palvnomorfdls From the Basal Beacon ‘“Cook and Hall!. f9i.5. op. cit.. 11. 132-3. Supergroup of South Victoria L:;nd. Antarctica. NP~L’ Zealand Jour- ‘“Barrcttt fit. nl. 1972. oil. cit.. 11. 327. nal of Cfwlogy and Geophysics 20 (6) 1082, IOW-8. h”B;tirr(,tt P. J,, 1970. Stratigraf,h! and Palcogc~ogr~~f,h~ of the Beacon 2SRonov A. B., B. E. Khain. 1954. Dcvonskiyc Litologic,ht,skivc~ For- Suf>crgrouf, In the Transantnrctic Mountain\. Antarctica (in matsii Mira. SO 1954 sh. 4 I ~52, 56. 60 (in Rrlssian). 1970. 2nd CN) 11. 256. ‘hHo~~~~ M. R., 197 I. Devonian f’aunul tlistril)utions (in Mitltll~~miss I;. “‘Elliot. 1975. 011. cit., p. 72-3, 86. A., Rawson P. F., antI C:. Ncwall. I97 I. Fauna1 Provinccbs in Spaw “LKcmf> E. M., Balms B. E., Hdl)! R. J., K! Ic R. A.. Pal~fortl C., and and Tim<,. Gcologifwl Journal Spfkrl Issue No. 4). 11. 84. P. L. Price. 1977. (:arl)onifc~roils and Pcrminn PaI! nostratigruphy in *‘Spasskiy H. Ye.. Puhatolov, B. II., Kravtsov A. (G.. 1973. PaIcol)io- Australia and Ant:irctica: a rcavictw. BMH Journal of Australian grufichcskiy Raonirovaniy Rannc i srdno Dc\on\hih Morcb> Zim- Geology and Gfwphysifx 2:202. nol shara. Stratigrafi!ya nizhnvco i srcdno1.o IIfproncl. ‘I’orn II. 232, ‘)3Churkin. 1973. o\>. cit.. 11. 32, 40. 234, 236 (in Russian). “4Ronov A. B., Khain B. E., I96 I. Triaso\i\c Litologichc\hi>c Format- LnBrinkmann R., 1976. Gf>ology of Turkfy EL. p. 23. sii Mira. SO I961 (I) 30, 34, 36. 39, 43. (in Russian). “‘Kummel R. 1970. History of ;hc Eclrth. Freeman antI (10. San Fran- “5Brown r’t. (11. 1968. o/l. cit., p. 224, 228. cisco (2nd Edition). f>. 206. ““Plumstead E.. 1964. Pafac~ol)otany of Antarctica (in Adic R. J., 3”Brown D. A.. C~~mf~ldl K. S. W., and K. A. W. <:rooh. 1968. 7’/1(, 1964. Arltclrctic Geology North-Hollantl Pub. Co. New York) f>. 638. Grwlogicwl Evolution of Austrcllicl clnd Nrw. Zf~filfir~d. I’(~rg;inion “‘Elliot I). H., 1975. B. (;ondwan,l Basins ot Antarctica (in Camfddf Press. Oxford. Sylncy, Toronto. New York. etc., flf>. 120, 132, K. S. W. cd., 1937.5. Condu~clncl C;cology 3rd (;N) f>. 5 13. 140-2. bHRonov A. B.. Khain B. E., 1962. ‘I’ c,c,r\k;\ (a Litologicho\hi! c Format- 3’Hc~rni(~s J. J., 1968. The Pafluan (~cos\ncIinc~ antI thcb (:onccflt of \ii Mira. SO 1962 ( I) 20. 2X. (in Russia.n). Ccosynclinc~s. GcologicJ on Mijnhouw 47, p. X2-3. ““Elliot. 1975. oj). f.it.. 11. 70, 7X-9, X6. 32Cook T. D., and A. W., Bally. 1937.5. Str,ltigrafdiic, Atlit\ OI North “‘ibid., 11. 72-3. and Ccmtral Amcsrica. Shdl Oil (~o~n]~;~~~~/f’ri~~~c~ton Uni\crsit! “Khain 13. E.. Ronov A. B., Balukhocskiy A. H., 1975. M!caloviyc> Prcass. New Jcrscy.. 11. 68, 69, 70. I,itologichc~ski~(~ Formatsii Mira. SO 1975 ( I I ) 18. 30 (in Russian). 33Miall A. D., 1973. Regional (&olog> OI Not-thorn 1’uhon. 13rrllr,fir1 of “Kh;lin B. I;,.. Rono\ A. B., Baluhhocski! A. H.. 1976. Crctnccous Canadian Prtrolcum Gfwlogy 2 I ( I ) 103. I OS. Lithologic Assoc,iations of the World. IG 18: 1276, 1288 (translation %hurkin M. 1973. Paleozoic and Prc~caml)rian Rock\ 01 Alaska and ot f~rccding). Their Role in its Strucbral Evolution. Unitfvl Statf)s Ccologif~c~l Sur- ‘3(:rikurov <;. E., Ravish M. C., and D. S. Solovicv. 1972. Tectonics wy Proff~ssifmal Papor 740, p. 22. 26. of Antarctica. (in Atlic. 1972. ol). cit..) f>. 4.58. 35Boucot A. J., Doumani <;. A., and <;. F. Wd)crs. I 96i. Devonian cd “Dr(~wrv D. J. 1976. Scdimc>ntary Basins ot the East Antarctic Craton Antarctica (in Oswald D. H., 1967. Intf~rncltioncrl Sympf~.sirrm on thv from (.;c,c,f>hysical c\ itlcncc~. TE 36:302-3 12. Drvonian Systrm Vol. I. Alhcda Socict! OI Pctrolc~um <:c>ologists. 7~Rono~ A. B., Khain B. E., Balukhovskiy A. H., 1978. Palcogcnoviyc Calgary, Afbta. p. 640. Litologi~ht,\ki~(~ Formatsii Kontincntov. SO 1978 (3) 18, 26, 36 (In 3HElliot. 1975. op. cit., f>. 67. Rus\i:in). 37Barrett P. J., <:rindlcy <:. W., and P. N. Wd,l,. 1972. The fhcon “‘Ronov A. R., Khain B. E., and A. H. Balukhovskiy. 1979. Paleogcme Super-group of East Antarctica. (in Atlic R. J., 1972. Antclrctic Lithologic Associ,rtions 01 the Continents. IG 2 1 :422, 430, 440 Geology and Gfwphysics Univc,rsitc~tsforl~l~(~t, Oslo). 11. 320. (translation ot f>rccding). JRRonov A. B., Khain B. E., 19.55. Kanlyc~nougolni~c~ Litologichcskiy “Khain B. E.. Ronov A. B., Balukhovskiy A. H. 1979. Ncogrnoviyc Formatsii Mira. SO 1955. sh. 48, 11. 92-93 (rnaf~ inserts) (in Russian). Litologichcskiyc Formutsii Kontincntov. SO 1979 ( 10) 8, 29 (in Rus- ““Churkin. 1973. 011. cit., p. 28, 40. sian). 4”Brown et. al. 1968. op. cit., p. 156. 165. ‘*Khain B. E.. Ronov A. B., and A. H. Balukhovskiy. 1980. Nrogenr “Hill D.. 1973. Lower Carbonitclrous Corals (in Hallam A. 1973. Lithologic Associations ot thr Continents. IG 22: (in press) (transla- Atlas of Palar~ohiogc~ogral,hy) p. 135. tion ot f>rcc.eding). 42Ross C. A. 1973. Carbonifcrous For~rminitc~ritf,~ (in H;tllam. 1973. 7”Bchrcndt J. C., 1979. Sf,cculations on Prtrolcum Potential of Ant- op. cit.,) p. 127, 128, 131. arctic.1. ‘ AC 63.4. 18 . 43RoC.hn-C;lml,os A. C., 1973. Uf)f>cr Paleozoic and Lower Mcso7oic *“Dorf W. 1972. Late Cenozoic Volcanism in Antarctica. (in Adie. Palcogc~ograf~hc, and Palro~limatologi~~~l and Tectonic Evcbnt\ in 1972. oil. cit.,) p. fi.50. South Amcricn (in Logan A. und L. V. Hills. 1973. Thf) Pfvminn clnd “‘Frank W., and (:. R. Fuchs. 1970. Geological Invrs~igntions in West Triassic. Systems and Thc>ir Mutucll Boundary. Canadian Socict> of Ncf~~l and Their Significuncc For the Geology ot the Himalayas. Pctrolcum Ccdogists, Calgary, AlI) 11. 400. Crologisf~hc Hundschau SY(2) 566. 44Ro~~ C. A., f96i. Dc~vdof~m~~nt ot Furiilinitl (Foraminif(~ri(l~i) nlLoc’hni;lnn H., 1970. Outline of Tectonic History of Bolivian Andes. F aunal Realms. Journal of Palrontology 4 I (6) 1342-3. AC 54(S) 735-Y. 45Meyerhoff A. A., 1970. Contincxntnl Dritt: Inifdications ot “3Kenf P. E., and P. J. Walmslr!. 1970. North Sra Progress. AG 54 (1) Palcomugnetic Studicas, Mctc>orolog>,, Ph\ sical Occb;rnogr,lph> , and 169-171. Climatology. Journal of Cvology 78( I ) 26-7. R4Po;~gC. W.. 1978. Strntigraphy of the Atlantic Continental Shelf VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 I 71

and Slope of the United States. Annual Review of Earth and Alpine Himalayan Geosyncline and Its Petroleum Possibilities. AG Planetary Sciences 6:25 l-280. 60( 5)SOO. 85Link W. K., 1970. Petroleum and Continental Drift. AC 54(l) 182. 92Hatten C. W., 1967. Principal Features of Cuban Geology. AG BsBlatt H., Middleton G., and R. Murray. 1980. Origin of Sedimen- 5 1:780-803. tary Rocks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey., 2nd Edi- q3Ksiazkiewicz M., Samsonowich, and E. Ruble. 1968. An Outline of tion, p. 18. Geology of Poland. The Scientific Publications Foreign Cooperation 87Douglas R. J. W., 1980. On the Age of rocks and Precambrian time Center of the Central Institute for Scientific, Technical, and scales. GE 8:168. Economic Information, Warsaw, (enclosed map). BBRonov A. B., Khain V. Ye., Balukhovskiy A. N., and K. B. Seslavin- 94 1970. Geology of Poland. Wydawnictwo Geologiczne, skiy. 1977. Changes in distribution, volumes, and rates of deposition Warsaw, Vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 160, 235, 316, 325-7, 380, 410-4, 458-60, of sedimentary and volcanogenic deposits during the Phanerozoic 528, 534, enclosed map. (within the present continents). IG 19( 1 1) 1297- 1300. 95 1976. Geology of Poland. Wydawnictwo Geologiczne, *%chwab E. L., 1978. Secular trends in the deposition of sedimentary Warsaw, Vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 36, 202, 242, 334, 517, 570. rock assemblages-Archean throughout Phanerozoic time. GE 6:532. ‘OGingerich P. D., 1980. Evolutionary Patterns In Early Cenozoic g”Blatt H., and R. L. Jones. 1975. Proportions of Exposed Igneous, Mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 8:407. Metamorphic, and Sedimentary Rocks. Geological Society of 97Harland W. B., (ed.). 1967. The F ossil Record: a symposium with America Bulletin 86: 1085-8. documentation. Geological Society of London/Palaeontological g’Ray K. K., and S. K. Achayva. 1976. Concealed Mesozoic-Cenozoic Association, 82 7 p.

POPGEN I: COMPUTER SIMULATION OF POPULATION GENETICS LANE P. LESTER* Received 15 July, 1980 The availability of relatively inexpensive computers has given many people access to the devices in schools, businesses, and even homes. Creationists will be able increasingly to test aspects of both the evolution and Creation models through the use of these “smart machines”. This paper describes the use of a program to simulate a population of organisms in which the processes of reproduction, mutation, and natural selection are operating.

Population Genetics l-s. POPGEN I uses fitness values for the three possible A simplified discussion of the genetic principles in- genotypes A,Al, A,A2, and A2A2, to simulate the effects volved may aid in the use of POPGEN I. Population of natural selection. genetics is concerned with the behavior of genes in The third factor affecting allele frequencies is drift, populations rather than individuals. Interest centers on which refers to random changes in frequencies not caus- the gene pool, all of the genes possessed by all of the ed by mutation or natural selection. Drift is particularly creatures in a population. Usually attention is focused important in small populations where, for example, the on a single gene, which we can symbolize as A, and death of a few individuals may change significantly the studies are made of the change through time in the rela- allele frequencies. tive frequencies of A, and AZ, the alleles of A. These fre- quencies are symbolized as p and 9, respectively. Description of the Program Three factors are most important in changing allele Figure 1 is the program POPGEN I, which is written frequencies from generation to generation. Mutation in BASIC for the IBM 5 100 portable computer’. With can change A, to AZ, and the relative frequency with modification to be described later, it can be run on the which that occurs is expressed as a fraction, u. Typical Radio Shack TRS-80, Level II. Other computers with mutation rates are in the range 0.00001 to 0.000001. BASIC and a random number generator can also use The mutation rate for achondroplastic dwarfism in the program. humans has been estimated at 0.000042, which means Statements 20-80 allow the user to specify all para- that 42 out of one million times that the A, (normal) meters of the program: population size, number of gen- allele is copied, it changes to A, (the allele that produces erations, initial frequencies of the alleles, mutation rate, dwarfism). Mutation can also change A, to A,, but this and fitness of the three genotypes. Statements 110-l 80 is much less frequent and is ignored in POPGEN I. print the parameters supplied by the user and the A second factor that affects allele frequencies is headings for the results of the simulation. natural selection. Unlike mutation, which acts on single The rest of the program consists of two loops. State- genes, natural selection acts on the phenotype, the ex- ments 190-520 loop for the number of generations pression of the genotype. The amount of selection (s), is specified, while statements 220-470 loop for the a number between 0 and 1. A phenotype with s = 1 is number of individuals in the population. Statement 200 lethal, while s = 0 indicates that there is no selection calculates the probability (M) that an allele selected at against that phenotype. One may also speak of the random from the gene pool will be an Al, that is, the fitness (w) of a particular phenotype, which is equal to relative frequency of A, (p) minus the probability that A, mutates to A, (u). Statements 240-260 generate a *Lane P. Lester, Ph.D., is Professor of Biology at Liberty Baptist Col- random number between 0 and 1 and compare it to M. lege, Lynchburg, Virginia. If M is greater, an A, allele is selected; if less, an A,. 72 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

I'liltJ C** 0101 PRTNl 'ENTER MINUlFS AFTER TIiE HOUR.' t'APMlF TE RS OlO? INPlJT I u II 3 II P H 1 N I IlE.5J RF II t'CJPIJI.A'l IOr4 !> I/t , ' 0103 FOR 1=-L TO T 004n PRINI NO * OF ritN~R~1 ClJN5 TO BL ~'llMI'!Jrt:I~, 0104 X-RND 0105 NCXT I

0000 1Nt'lJ-l Nl >,)I, P,Il,W:',WI .WO Figure 2. Program statements to be added for RND initialization. 0 0 Y 0 4 - I P 0100 I_ -l./Nl nllfl PPTNT tl,t', ' -ItiF I'CJI'lJl,RlJor4 !ilzC- -= ',dl Ol?O PRINT Fl.F'> nit- INI rrnl. F-REQIJFN~.Y OF AI - I, t' 0130 t'RlN7 FI.P, TtiF TN1 ITfil. F‘KFcalJFNr'Y (-IF A:! - ,!> 0x40 PRINT FL.P, 'TliE MOTAI lfhv HRTF iw AI rn A:' =: ',(I Figure 2 can be added to POPGEN I and will cause 0150 PRINT F-I.F', ' ltit F IlNE :iC; OF AJAl -1 ',W? 0160 PRINT l=I.P,' IliF I T'INFSS OF AlA? -1 ',Wl RND to start with different numbers later in the pro- 0110 f'R1NT tI.P,' 7tif t I 1 NF.9S r)F +?:'A:' := ' , WC! 0180 PRLNT tI,P, 'bCN AlhI AlA? A:?A? Al gram. 0190 FOR J=l To Jf 0100 M..=P-IJ OL'IO Gl ,G2,r,.7,Z=-O Description of the Printout O??O F-ok' 1-11 Tr) Nl 0 ? 3 IJ N = 0 Figure 3 illustrates the printout from one run of 0?40 X-:RNIl o:!";o 1F x M 0010 o:'i!J POPGEN I. A description of its features may aid in the O?hO N=l 0270 X=RND use of the program. The first few lines report the 0280 IF X M GOT0 0.500 parameters supplied by the user. The initial frequency 030 N>N+l 0300 GO10 03lU, O,lJO, 0.3:,0 ON N+l of allele A, = 0.6, which means that sixty percent of the 0310 w-=wo 0320 GO10 0360 A genes in the gene pool are A, and forty percent are A,. 0330 W=Wl The mutation rate equals lE-7, which is the com- OS40 GOT0 0360 0350 W:W? puter’s way of writing 1 x 1O-7 or 0.000000 1. This 0360 X:HNIl 0.3'70 TF x w (irlro 0400 means that A, mutates to A, about once for every ten 0380 l=J-1 million times that it is copied. 03~0 Gore 04711 0400 Z-7+N The fitness values illustrate a situation in which A, is 0410 GOrO 04?0,044O>O't60 @N N+J 0420 G3=G3+F dominant, that is, both A,A, and A,A, have the same 0430 GO-IO 0470 phenotype. In this example A,A, has a fitness of 0.8 0440 Gl'=G:!+F O't50 GO10 0410 compared to the other two genotypes. This could mean 0460 Gl=Gl+F 0470 NEXT I that only 80% of the A,A, individuals survive to Oh80 P=Z/(?*NI) 04YO Q=l-P 0500 PRINT IJ!;ING FL.P,0510,J,Gl,G?,GJ,P,GI 0510 .#M# tt.#tt# tt.#tttt tt.#tttt tt.#tt# tt.tltttt 0520 NEXT .J

Figure 1. POPGEN I computer program.

111 N 41 fi I fr I n 2 f,:>A:’ Statements 270-290 repeat the process for the second 1 , ‘j(Jka !*6’J I .ZII 'I , Z?‘, ‘-,:“:A I’,n allele of the individual. 3 Zl’(I ‘>l I’ J AC, 4 ‘;:!I1 , bhll I:!0 Statements 300-390 simulate the effects of natural '3 , .Zh’, , :r:‘:l , 1 J 0 selection, A random number is generated and compared h , 4 4 II .4H:-0 0 7’5 7 46”) ,465 , II 9 0 to the fitness of the particular genotype. If the random 8 ii!2 : ‘-I:, 0 0 I., '9 ‘+40 4:n:n :JD? number is greater than the fitness, the genotype is IO ‘1 4 0 4 !5 0 110 eliminated. If it is not, then statements 400-460 add the Jl , 4 b 5 ,470 , Oh:0 l? * ‘4 7 5 I+Lk ‘5s * 0 8 0 genotype to the growing population. I .J * 51 ; * 39:) .OY(I 1 'I ,510 ,440 , u:jo After each generation is complete, statements 1 5 , 5 I., c a 3 6 S ,070 480-S 10 calculate the relative allele frequencies and 16 ,580 ,385 * 035 I 7 .61fi ,335 ,050 18 !IJ7 0 ,395 ,035 print them along with the genotype frequencies. ,600 , 34.r L 19 It should be noted that POPGEN I simulates a popu- 20 ,610 ,335 :;;; '1 ,605 , .3:,5 ,040 lation in which generations do not overlap, and in y ;, a655 : 315 ; "0;; which the population size remains constant. 23 :645645 ,300305 14 * 055 25 ,.J'85 * 375 040 16 ,635 '3 2 5 : 040 Random Number Generator 21 ,655 :310 035 28 a695 :300300 :015 A feature of the computer which makes possible 29 .675 ,025 30 ,020 POPGEN I and other simulations of biological systems 31 :710715 ,265,280 ,010 is the random number generator (RND). In this pro- 32 010 33 :710710 ,270 : 020 gram it provides the element of chance in the selection 34 ,020 55 :&Jo630 ,350I 305 0 15 of alleles for the next generation (statements 240 and 36 :015 270) and for the operation of natural selection (state- 37 : 735730 ,150,250 ,020 38 :770775 *,210 205 020 ment 360). 39 : 020 40 015 One property of RND is that it always generates the 41 : 745775 ,240,210 : 015 same list of random numbers in the same order. This Ir? 005 43 :m780 ,215* 170 :005 may or may not be desirable, depending on the objec- tives of the user. To avoid this feature, the statements in Figure 3. Printout from execution of POPGEN I. VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 73 reproduce, or that they produce only 80% as many off- 0.0 1 (probably dies from anemia). Give A, an initial fre- spring as do A,A, and A,A, individuals. quency of 0.99. Following the fitness values are the results of the sim- 3. After determining equilibrium frequencies for A, ulation. For each generation the relative frequencies of and A, in the preceding investigation, simulate the situ- the three genotypes are given and then the allele fre- ation for slaves brought from Africa to America. Give quencies. The parameter having the largest effect is the A, the equilibrium frequency for an initial frequency selection against A,A,. This causes the frequency of A, and, because malaria is absent in the U.S., make to decrease rather steadily, although the effect of drift w(&AJ = 1. See what happens when the advantage of can be seen in generation 3 where the frequency of A, this mutation is no longer present. increases from 0.413 to 0.423. Drift also causes tempo- rary increases in other generations. Use with Radio Shack TRS-80 Suggested Investigations POPGEN I can be easily converted to use with the The effects of different population sizes, mutation Radio Shack TRS-80, Level I12. Although not necessary, rates, and patterns of natural selection can be evaluated prompting messages, such as statement 20, can be in- cluded in the INPUT statements. LPRINT is equivalent with POPGEN I. A few possibilities follow. 1. A study of different population sizes as they relate to to PRINT FLP, and if the user lacks a printer, PRINT random genetic drift. Mutation rates should be set at 0 will produce the results on the video screen. LPRINT and fitness values should all equal 1. Increasing popula- USING is equivalent to PRINT USING FLP, except that the format specification of statement 5 10 is included in tion size greatly increases computer time, so after deter- mining the minimum population size that does not drift LPRINT USING. Instead of statement 210, each significantly, that parameter should be used to in- variable requires a separate statement. The 1 should be written > = , and GOT0 vestigate other variables. -,- ON- should be rendered ON 2. Simulate the case of sickle cell anemia in malaria-in- GO=’ -,- ,-* fested countries. This human mutation is recessive and usually lethal for those who carry two alleles for it References (A,A,). Heterozygous individuals (A,A,) do not suffer ‘IBM 1977. IBM 5100 BASIC Reference Manual. International anemia and are resistant to malaria. To simulate this, Business Machines Corporation, Rochester, MN try w(&&) = 0.8 (might die from malaria), w(A,A,) = 2Radio Shack 1978. Level II BASIC Reference Manual. Tandy Cor- 1 (no anemia and resistant to malaria), and w(A,A,) = poration, Ft. Worth, TX

PANORAMA OF SCIENCE

The Rose of Jericho seeds will drop. Others further on down on the branches wait for a more opportune time in case the first seeds In the September-October 1980 issue of the Biblical are not successful in establishing plants. Seeds at the Archeology Review the remarkable adaptation of the center will wait for decades or possibly even centuries Rose of Jericho to desert conditions is described.’ This until the most propitious moment after a particularly plant is actually not a rose at all but a member of the heavy series of rains. mustard family. Its scientific name Anastatica means Laboratory tests have shown that a skeleton will open “not static” or maybe, from Greek, “resurrection more rapidly if the soil is wet. The drier the soil the plant”. It is so named because the dried up skeleton 01 more rain it takes to open the skeleton. No seeds will be the plant, a ball of dried out twigs, when immersed in dropped unless a second shower falls before the skeleton water gradually opens up and extends its branches like is redried and closed. So when it rains on the opened a miniature tree! skeleton drops of water hit the fruit valves and separate The Rose of Jericho begins to bloom in March and them. The seeds thus drop on soil sufficiently wet to in- April, and has small spikes of white flowers set in a sure germination. Also they drop near the parent plant cluster of green oval leaves which grow close to the thus assuring a suitable location. ground. By May or June the seeds are ripe but dormant When the soil is dry four millimeters of rain are need- and enclosed in tightly sealed fruits. The leaves have ed to open the skeleton, thus exposing the fruit valves. fallen off, and the dry, hard, twiggy skeleton has The gradual opening of the skeleton, is a two hour pro- become a ball resembling a closed fist. cess. The seeds germinate in about eight hours. This in- Now this plant has developed a special system for sures that the released seed will be able to root in the measuring rainfall and intermittently releasing its seeds soil before its upper crust dries out. so as to make its survival more certain. Fruits at the Though usually found in large dense concentrations, periphery of the skeleton have two loosely connected individual plants are found along a wadi belt or runnel. covers or valves. The first part of a rain causes the ball By following flow channels it was found that the size to open and if further rain falls some of the peripheral and density of the plants increased downstream. But a 74 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY limit is soon reached and when perennial plants become conditions by having stout fleshy water-retaining stems fairly abundant the Rose of Jericho disappears. This as in Streptanthus inflatus, none has anything like the strange behavior is explained by the existence of the series of highly integrated adaptations shown by the gerbil-like rodent known as the fat jird. These animals Rose of Jericho. Likewise the perennials, though often live in little burrows and occur in great profusion in the having rather woody basal stems or strongly developed ground supporting perennial green-leafed plants, thus root-crowns, do not show any very complex adaptations indicating that there is enough water for them even in to the desert conditions in which some of them live. The the summer time, since the leaves of the perennials re- Rose of Jericho is then truly a unique member of the main green. Further upstream where less water ac- mustard family. cumulates in the winter the perennials thin out and at Contributed by Walter E. Lammerts. the densest concentration of the Rose of Jericho there is only one burrow per 500 meters. Now these rodents relish the seeds of the Rose of Jericho as was found out Birth Pain Repressor in Rats by placing dried plants in a cage with them. They broke A recent Science report4 indicates the pain threshold open the skeletons and the fruits and ate the seeds with of rats increases during pregnancy. There is a gradual obvious pleasure. So then this was the reason for the increase from 16 to 4 days prior to parturition and an disappearance of the plant downstream. As the rodent abrupt rise 1 to 2 days before birth. The increased pain burrows decreased upstream the plants increased in a threshold is abolished by the narcotic antagonist nal- remarkably exact inverse proportion! trexone, suggesting endogenous endorphin mediates the Birds distribute the seeds to other desert areas. Thus response. Endogenous opiates are thought to minimize the desert partridge eats scores of seeds from opened certain kinds of pain in humans and may even contri- skeletons after a rain. The sticky mucilage around the bute to a jogger’s “second wind”. The role of endor- seeds insures that some seeds will stick to the birds phins in reducing pain associated with birth should be feathers and finally fall off where the partridge settles of particular interest to creationists. We know one of down in the sandy ground. If the soil is still moist it ger- the consequences of the original sin was increased pain minates and forms its own skeleton. There in a little im- in childbirth (Gen. 3: 16) and yet birth (without compli- pression in the sand it patiently waits until the next rain, cations) among animals seems free of pain. A compara- perhaps as long as ten years later, is sufficient to open it tive study of endorphin mediated alteration of pain and shed some seeds thus establishing a new colony of threshold of other animals and man would be a worth- plants. while research project for creationists. Could this be the As mentioned above the scientific name of this plant mechanism by which mountain goats “get rid of their is Anastatica hierochuntica. As indicated by the labor pains”? (Job 39:1-3) authors, the regenerative characteristic of the Rose of Jericho figures in the folk traditions of Jews, Moslems Contributed by E. Norbert Smith and Christians. It is often used as a charm in a pregnant Arab woman’s room. When labor begins, a dried skele- Asa Gray Vindicated ton of the plant is dipped in water. The plant’s reaction is supposed to induce the same reaction in the woman’s According to an article in Newsweek (Nov. 3, 1980), womb, thus facilitating birth. Legend relates that in at a conference in mid-October at Chicago’s Field Syria, women in labor drink the water in which the Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the plant skeleton has been immersed. world’s top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary In Israel the plant is found only in the driest part of geneticists and developmental biologists agreed to the Negev, a triangular desert region, about 4,700 abandon Darwinian evolution in favor of punctuated square miles in area, the Judean wilderness, and the equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster Sinai. It also grows in certain areas of the Sahara desert. theory. The average annual rainfall is between three quarters of Apparently, Darwin’s theory had become indefensi- an inch and two inches. Roses of Jericho are completely ble to them, citing particularly the absence of intermed- absent where the annual rainfall exceeds four inches. iate fossils as the conflicting fact. The hopeful monster Quite evidently it is completely adapted to desert condi- theory is a retreat to what appears to be reliable geolo- tions. gical evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of fos- As discussed in my article “On the Recent Origin of sils from “simple” to “complex” in the rock strata. It the Pacific Southwest Deserts”* there is considerable was the absence of intermediate fossils as well as Biblical and archeological evidence that such deserts as evidence for intelligent design that caused Asa Gray to the Negev, and the Sinai deserts, as well as those in break with Darwin. Gray’s theistic evolution and the North America are relatively recent. It would seem then hopeful monster theory are essentially the same except that the many changes involved in transforming the that the hopeful monster theory rests on chance rather Rose of Jericho from a typical member of the mustard than theism. family to a plant with its unusual desert adaptations Perhaps proponents of the hopeful monster theory could hardly have occurred by natural selection in such should have considered the following advice: a short time geologically speaking. Thus most species of There are, however, some who still think that the mustard family or Cruciferae at least in California species have suddenly given birth, through quite are annuals i.e. about 107 annuals to 36 perennials.3 unexplained means, to new and totally different Though some of the desert annuals are adapted to desert forms: but, as I have attempted to show, weighty VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 75

evidence can be opposed to the admission of great pre-man’s great idea of walking on hind legs, but they and abrupt modifications. Under a scientific point had very functional forelimbs. In addition they had of view, and as leading to further investigation, but many more millions of years to manipulate, to carry, to little advantage is gained by believing that new make and use tools, and to hunt than man ever did. Ap- forms are suddenly developed in an inexplicable parently they did not have as many new opportunities manner from old and widely different forms, over as pre-man did, and hence to our great relief we do not the old belief in the creation of species from the dust need to be concerned about those potential rivals.6 of the earth.5 There are living species today which may be well ad- The genetics of the hopeful monster theory is more in vanced toward duplicating and perhaps surpassing the realm of wishful thinking than science. Once the man’s amazing evolution. The kangaroo has seen the public learns that special creation best explains the wisdom of freeing up the front limbs. If now this beast geological evidence, they will also realize that the hope- begins such activities as manipulating and all the rest, ful monster theory has only atheism to offer. man may soon (in geological terms) be hopelessly Contributed by Randall Hedtke outclassed with the ultimate threat of extinction. There is an urgent need for evolutionists to organize kangaroo watches to see if these recent converts to bipedalism are Once Upon a Time -Man! a Bit of Whimsy moving into the next stage. Once they begin to chip rocks and if some new opportunities cross their path, we It is interesting to observe a recent version of how can be sure that their brains will begin to develop, man shook off his animal nature and became what he is perhaps even explosively so, and then man is in deep, today. deep trouble. Anthropologists like to say that getting up from all fours to stand on two legs was undoubtedly the earliest Contributed by Erich A. von Fange and most important event in hominid development. Since the front legs no longer needed to be concerned about walking, they became free to do more important References things like tool making, grasping, handling, and carry- ‘Friedman, Jacob, Zippora Stein, and Amotz Dafni, 1980. Biblical ing things, especially activities concerned with hunting. Archaeology Rmiew VI (5): 38-43. With all these stimulating new activities going on, pre- 2Lammerts, Walter E., 197 1. On the recent origin of the Pacific man’s brain began to develop. Southwest deserts. Creation Research Socidy Quart&y 8 (1): 50-54. 3Jepson, Willis Linn. 1925 edition. Manual of the flowering plants of Somehow, dim-brained pre-man got up off all fours, California. and amazing things began to happen as noted above. To %intzler, A. R., 1980. Endorphin-mediated increases in pain thresh- their credit, birds got the same brilliant idea, but alas old during pregnancy. Sciuncv 2 IO (4466): 193- 195. their forelimbs turned unwillingly into wings, and they 5Darwin, C. P.F. Coll\er and Sons Corp. edition, 1965. The origin of species. P. 500. remain as bird-brained today as ever. “It may be readily noticed also that squirrels, too, use their fore-paws There is an urgent need, however, to explain the as hands quite skillfully, for instance in eating; but they have not many species of dinosaur which not only duplicated thereby evolved into anything else. (Editor’s note.)

BOOK REVIEWS

The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, by Derek (Books are still being published by the lunatic fringe V. Ager, 1973. t Wiley, New York. 114 pages. $11.95. about Noah’s Flood as the explanation for major Reviewed by Erich A. von Fange* geological changes in the earth.) In case this book Ager’s slender volume of 100 pages is a juicy morsel should be read by some fundamentalist searching for the creationist-so juicy, in fact, that the author in- for straws to prop up his prejudices, let me state vokes in effect a curse upon any creationist who uses the categorically that all my experience (such as it is) information. One miglG ask how a confirmed evolu- has led me to an unqualified acceptance of evolu- tionist can shred up some of the most sacred assump- tion by natural selection as a sufficient explanation tions and beliefs in conventional geology and still re- for what I have seen in the fossil record. I find main in the good graces of the profession. The answer is divine creation, or several such creations, a com- very simple. Ager lulls the profession with a stirring pletely unnecessary hypothesis. Nevertheless this is credo of his loyalty to evolution and tops this off with a not to deny that there are some very curious scathing denunciation of the creationist view: features about the fossil record. Among the points and theses Ager develops in his book are the following: *Erich A. von Fange’s address is 460 Pine Brae Drive, Ann Arbor, The break between Palaeozoic life and Mesozoic life Michigan 48 1OS. is in the mind of the specialists rather than in the mat- IThis book is not new; but it seems to the reviewer not to be as well ter. Specialists do not agree on how many major fauna1 known as it should be. breaks occurred in the past. Extraterrestrial causes and 76 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY magnetic reversals of the earth are becoming respec- take place. Ager clings to a naive faith in the merits of table explanations for great extinctions in the past. The radiometric dating: “Radiometric dating has nearly most serious error of palaeontologists is to measure the reached the stage when we can make reasonable past by the present. (That sentence ought to be repeated estimates at the stage, if not the zone level.” ten times for its full impact!) Continuous sedimentation All in all, Ager’s is a curious book, illustrating the is a ridiculous illusion, full of contradictions. Remains dilemma of a man faithful to his profession who is at- as recent as Roman times are found at ‘startling’ depths. tempting to face up to some devastating contradictions Sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid in- in the stratigraphical record. deed and very spasmodic. Changes do not take place gradually. “We are now all catastrophists!” Most sedimentation in the continental areas is lateral rather Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, by N.C. than vertical. Dating rock by its fossils and dating the Gillespie, 1979. The University of Chicago Press. fossils by the rock is an impossible circular argument, The item: “The Episteme is the Theory”, by Mr. Ran- yet we are always on dangerous ground if we accept dall Hedtke, elsewhere in this issue of the Quarterly, other lines of evidence. Plate tectonics is not really all began, as is explained there, as a review of this book, that important. The history of the earth consists of long and turned into an article. However, the article can still periods of boredom and short periods of terror. serve, to a considerable extent, as a review; and it may Ager goes quite far in taking an honest look at be seen for that purpose. geology, but he is unable to pursue some of his points to their logical conclusion. For example, Ager in effect would say that a period like the Permian could have happened in a week or a month, but then the earth goes into some kind of suspended animation for 50 million FORTHCOMING BOOKS years (minus one week) until the conventional time Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, and allotted to that period is up. This is reassuring to the the third edition of Biology: a Search for Order in Com- geologist who accepts the geological column as an arti- plexity, both by the Creation Research Society, are ex- cle of faith, but it makes no logical sense at all. Above pected to be out in the fall of 198 1. Watch subsequent all, the geologist needs time for evolutionary changes to Quarterlies for further information.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Too Thick a Canopy Might be Bad for Plants crop plant species used as food for man and animals re- I read with interest the items concerning a pre-flood quire nearly full-sun light levels. canopy of ice.’ It therefore seems to me that, unless plant life under- I must take issue with Mr. Westberg’s statement that, went some extreme biochemical changes after the Flood, the light intensities striking the earth’s surface “there could have been a 10,000 to 1 absorption [of sunlight, by the canopy] before the Flood, and the il- before the Flood must have been comparable to modern incident intensities. lumination would still have been adequate.“2 While a light intensity of 5 ft-c. may be adequate for the survival of animal life, it is certainly not adequate for the sur- References vival of green plants, if we assume that the plant species ‘Westbcrg, V. Luther, 1979. Floodtime changes in the Earth’s currently existing on the earth were created in their pre- Heating and Lighting. Creation Resc~~rch Socidy Quartdy 16 sent forms, during Creation Week, then light intensities (3): 182- 184. 2Wrstberg, V. Luther, 1980. Reply to Morton. Crf~~tion Research before the Flood must have been adequate to support Sockty Quarterly 17 (2): 138 these species. Loomis3 states “. . . . a few species of 3Loomis, W. E., 1949. (In) Photosynthesis of plants, J. Franck and W. flowering plants survive on the forest floor where the E. Loomis, eds., Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Pp. 10 & 1 1. light intensity is less than 2 per cent of full sunlight, Sincerely, about 200 fc. maximum . . . Technically, some photo- Malcolm M. Manners synthesis will be carried on at any light intensity above (Plant physiologist and zero, but practically, light of 500 to 1000 fc. is required horticulturalist) for fair rates of photosynthesis in typical leaves.” P.O. Box 760, It should be noted, however, that even 1000 ft-c. is in- Homestead, Florida 33030 adequate for proper growth in many plant species, par- Received 26 November, 1980 ticularly those species which utilize the C-4 pathway of carbon metabolism (e.g., corn, sorghum, sugar cane, Reply to Manners Amaranthus spp.), which require full-sun light inten- sities for good production, and which cannot survive About the botanical limits which should have been under even moderate shading. A great majority of the added to the visual limits on pre-Flood lighting of the VOLUME 18, JUNE, 198 1 77

Earth, under an ice canopy, I must confess that my do it the way He said, and as would be expected, the botanical training is limited to raising plants in a facts don’t contradict His word. plastic hothouse. However, I had little success there un- As Christians, we need to communicate to the world til I installed an automatic heater fan under the seedling the most accurate picture of the nature of God both in trays during the winter. His creation and sustenance of the universe and in His My original paper was concerned only with effects of redemptive work in our lives, thus ringing the apriori the canopy on heating and lighting. However, it is bell in those who don’t have it smothered. The God of generally agreed that pre-Flood vegetation must have the Bible is a God of immediacy in both His love and been very heavy, in order to satisfy the huge animal ap- His wrath. Evolutionary theory, however, tends to petites which must have existed, and to form the huge diminish God’s pungency, or more commonly, to beds of coal. In such a jungle, the lighting at ground reduce Him to nothing. level, one would think, must have been rather little; but As unfinished and controversial as the theory of the ground itself was warm, at all places and all times. evolution appears, I entreat you to be truthful to your The canopy kept the heat from being radiated away. God-given understanding and His written word and I remember reading recently, maybe in the National thus better witness to the world of the impending Geographic, about the luxuriant vegetation in the universal destruction and judgement. stygian darkness of the deep sea-floor where volcanic Sincerely in Christ, seams keep the surrounding water warm. It appears GORDON L. WILLIAMS that warm temperatures can be a major factor in the ex- 3751 S. W. 20th Ave., # 129, istence and growth of plants-and, indeed, of animals. Gainesville, Florida 3260 1. So it might be that, other things having been favorable, Received 22 December, 1980. rather less lighting than today would not rule out much growth of plants. Sincerely, How Will the Sun and Moon be Darkened? Luther Westberg 3400 Westach Way May I pose a question to other readers of the Quarter- Sonoma, California 95476 ly? What is one to expect as to the physical nature of the Received 19 December 1980 darkening of the Sun and Moon, referred to in several places in prophetic Scripture? Examples include: Isaiah 13:10, Amos 8:9, Zechariah 14:6, Isaiah 58:lO and 60:2, Joel 2:2, and Amos 5: 18 and 20. It is possible to Creation an Important Christian Doctrine consider these things from a theological viewpoint, but May I share a thought with other readers of the I should like to hear of some scientific hypotheses. Quarter1 y? Sincerely, in Jesus Christ It is not uncommon to meet Christians who are sound Rev. Lawrence H. Glaser in their belief on almost all points, and who are (Licensed Baptist minister) moreover active in their Christianity; but who are will- 404 W. Nellie, Monett, Missouri. ing to espouse, or at least to refrain from criticizing, the theory of evolution. In that respect, I believe, they diminish the effect of their witness; and to those people I should say something like this: Triplets’ Paradox no Paradox God’s word says in Romans chapter one, verse eigh- Jeffrey Lee asked a question of Relativity.’ Although I teen and following, that every individual knows within am not an ardent supporter of Relativity, I believe it has himself the eternal truths of God and His creation, yet a degree of internal consistency. The following most try to deny it. I believe this also to be true in con- numbered comments assume Relativity to be valid. nection with the evolution and special creation con- (1) To be consistent with some of the things the other troversy. Being confronted with these opposing theories, observers do, Ernie should first predict that both clocks I believe a person is in like vein suppressing the truth for will read 1.0 second, and then relativistically revise his whatever reason, when denying special creation. prediction to 0.8 second. Relativity says that all three I realize this is strong language but I passionately observers will see this reading on both clocks at the time believe that compromise of any sort by Christians and place of meeting. becomes increasingly detrimental to the furtherance of (2) The two clock triggerings will be simultaneous God’s kingdom as the Parousia draws near. (See II events to Ernie only. If he sees them both, he can make a Timothy 4:3, 4) set of simple time-speed-distance calculations showing Insisting on the belief in the theory of evolution with how Alvin and Bill observe each other’s progress along its numerous shortcomings and inconsistencies rather the rod. In other words, when Alvin is at a certain posi- than aligning oneself with his or her innate understan- tion, he is receiving the light showing Bill at some easily ding that it is God’s hand which has accomplished it all calculable position, and so on. Also, if Alvin and Bill just as He said, is suppressing and compromising the can see each other’s clocks, each will see the other’s truth. If one prefers to believe in a theory marked with clock advancing exactly 4 times as fast as his own. For gross assumptions contradicting the written word of example, when Alvin has moved 75% of the distance God rather than believe what God has revealed, that along his half of the rod, and his clock shows 75% of the one reduces God in size. God is definitely big enough to reading it will have at meeting time, he is seeing Bill’s 78 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

clock being triggered. At meeting time, both clocks will you a certain omniscience, or certain calculation privi- show 100 % of their final reading. These statements leges denied to other observers. would be equally true if the final reading is to be 1.0 I am wondering whether some creationists put rela- second, or if it is to be 0.8 second as predicted by tivity in the same category as evolution, regarding it as Relativity. a faith-threatening heresy to be refuted scientifically. I (3) Alvin makes a mistake if he trusts his memory foi may be overlooking something, but I do not have any the length of the rod or takes Ernie’s word for it. He theological or Biblical reasons for rejecting it. He who must measure his half of the rod as it approaches him, made space and time and said “Let there be light,” may and he will find it contracted by a factor of 0.8, to a have related space, light, and time in the manner length of 144,000 km, or 0.48 light-second. At Ernie’s visualized by the relativists. On the other hand, scien- speed of 0.6c, Ernie will reach Alvin in 0.48/0.6, or 0.8 tists have jumped onto the relativistic bandwagon as second of Alvin’s time. they did with evolution in the past century. Perhaps its (4) Alvin goes through a series of steps in coming up postulates have been accepted too readily as the final with his incorrect prediction of 0.4706 second for Bill’s word on the mysteries of the universe, and its paradoxes clock reading. First, he sees Bill’s clock advancing 4 (such as clock slowing and non-simultaneity) dismissed times as fast as his own. Correctly applying this observ- too casually. Therefore I am pleased to see the work of ed Doppler shift, he determines Bill’s velocity to be: Dr. Thomas Barnes and others who seek to counteract (4*-l) c/(42 + 1) = 0.88235~ this effect by providing non-relativistic models of the Second, he incorrectly assumes that the two clocks were creation. triggered simultaneously. (To him they were not!) Third, he incorrectly assumes that 1.0 second of his Reference time will elapse while both he and Bill make the transi- ‘Lee, Jeffrey, 1980. The triplets’ paradox. Cwation Research Society tion from triggering to meeting. He then relativistically Quartfdy 17 ( 1):47-49. transforms the correctly measured velocity and the two HARRY AKEHS, JH. incorrect assumptions into an incorrect prediction of 826 “K” St., Apt. 4 0.4706 second for Bill’s clock reading. Anchorage, Alaska 9950 1. (5) If Alvin wants relativistically correct answers, he Received 23 December, 1980. must reason’as this paragraph suggests. His clock is well advanced (to 75% of its final reading) when he first sees Bill’s clock at zero. He then sees Bill’s clock advancing 4 More Thoughts on the Doppler Effectt times as fast as his own. Extrapolating linearly, he will I agree with Slusher that the Doppler effect, observed conclude that the final reading of both clocks will be in starlight, raises some questions to which the theory of the same, 0.8 second. At meeting time he reasons this relativity does not seem to give clear answers.’ More- way: “My clock was at 0.60, or 75% of its final value, over, I suggest that there are other points which may be when I saw Bill’s clock at zero. Then I saw both clocks added. side-by-side and reading 0.80. Because Bill was ap- Consider Slusher’s Figure 2. When the Earth is in proaching me, he should have come closer to me by positions (2) and (4) the Doppler effect is greatest; at 0.88235 x 0.8, or 0.70588 light-second while his clock positions (1) and (3) it vanishes. Now there is another ef- was making that 0.8-second advance. My clock should fect, aberration, which does just the opposite. When the have advanced by 0.8 (his reading)-0.70588 (his ap- Earth is at position (1) the star appears shifted slightly proach in light-seconds), or 0.094 12 second. It actually to the right in the drawing; at (3) slightly to the left. At advanced by 0.8 (its reading)-0.6 (its reading when I (2) and (4) it d oes not appear shifted at all. The text- saw Bill’s clock start), or 0.2 second. Therefore Bill’s books commonly offer for this some analogy, such as clock is running slower than mine by a factor of one walking in a rainstorm. Although the drops are fall- 0.094 12/0.2, or 0.4706!” ing vertically, because of his own motion he has to tilt (6) Alvin can look back to his own past and say, “Bill’s the umbrella a little. However, in my opinion such slow-running clock started 0.8/0.4706, or 1.7 second ballistic analogies must be suspect in dealing with light ago. He was 0.88235 x 1.7, or 1.5 light-second (450,000 considered as a wave phenomenon. km) away at that time.” If asked about the rod, Alvin As well as the aberration, there is another effect: can reply, “Bill’s end of the rod was 1.5 light-second parallax. As seen from position (l), the star would ap- away, and Ernie’s spot on it was 1.5 - 0.48, or 1.02 pear at an angle slightly to left, from (3), slightly to the light-second away, 1.7 seconds ago. Ernie’s, and the right. However, this parallax is apparent only for a few rod’s, velocity towards me was therefore 1.02/1.7, or quite near stars, whereas aberration seems to be the 0.6c.” When told that Ernie sees Alvin and Bill as mir- same for all. The parallax is not in question here. ror images of each other, Alvin replies, “Bill’s conclu- Now the Earth has its orbital motion; some stars, too, sions about me are the same as mine about him, and are may move in orbits; viz., binary stars. Suppose that equally valid to him.” there should be a binary star, moving in an orbit in the These comments may correctly describe how space, same plane as the Earth’s, of the same size, going time, and light interact. Or they may be nothing more around in the same time, and moving in step with the than a mental exercise in applying certain prescribed Earth. There is nothing impossible about such a thing. rules of thought. They may only illustrate the fact that if you are in the center of a rigid rod, relativity grants t Memorandum from the editor to himself. CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY

History The Creation Krsearch Socict> W;I~ tir\t organid in 1963, I. The Bil)lr i\ the writtfan Word of Cod, .1nd t)ecau\c it is inspired with Dr. Walter E. Lammerts as tir\t prcsidcnt and ditor ot ‘1 quar- throughout, all it\ ,1sscrtions ‘1rf’ hi\toric,lll> and scifxntiticall? true in terly publication. InitialI> stdrtcd ii\ an intormdl comniittcc ot IO alI thfb origin,11 ,1utogr,tphs. To thfl stutlcnt ot n,1turrh thi4 rncans that scientists, it has grown rapidI!, ccitlcntlv tilling a real nfbfd tor ‘111 thf> ctc.c,ount ot origins in <;fbnfasis i\ a tactual prcs;rnt,ltion ot simple association tltvotcd to research and put~l~cution in the t ifdd ot \cif,n- historical truths. titic creationism, with ;I current rncmhcrship 01 oct’r 600 koting 2. All t),1sic t>Ijc\ ot living thing\, including man, wcrf’ made tq members (with graduate degrees in scirxncc) antI ocf‘r I X00 non-botir1g clircct cro,tti\c .cct\ ot God during the Crration Wrlck clf~\cril)cd in member\. The Creation Hrsrurch Socirty (Iuartrrly has I)f~f~1 grad C;f~ncsis. Whatf~\cr t)iological changf.4 h,1Lf’ occurrfd sincrt Crc,1tion ually enlarged and improved and now is rc~cognird ‘1\ prol)cll)l! thfb Wcbfkk hrl\f ,1ccompli~hrd onl! changes within thft original crcattd outst,lnding publication in thr t ic~ld. kinds. 3. ‘I‘hfl grfbdt Flood dr~4cribfd in Gcncsi\, cornriionl~ rctcrrctl to as thft Noac,hi,1n Floofl, W;I~ ‘in historic- fl\cnt worltlwiflr~ in its cxtcnt and Activities The Society i\ solc~l) ‘I resc,lrch .rnd pul)lic’,ttion 5ocif%t!. It ettec~t. doe\ not hold meetings or rang,rgca in other promotion,11 ,tctiv itif%\, .111d 4. WC, ‘1r(’ an org,1nr/,1tion ot Christian rnfan ot scicncc who .1ccrpt has no attiliation with an> othflr scirxntitic or rd1gious org,tni/,1tion\. J~\rrs (Zht-l\t c~\ our Lorfl and Sa~iour. The, ,1ccount ot tht, speci,ll Its mr~mbcrs conduct rcsrarch on prohlf~rns rclatccl to it\ purposf~\, ,~ntl crcb,ct Ion ot Adam and I+l’:~fl through dc~c~f~ptirrg Jcx411\ (:hrist ‘I\ our S,~L iour.

Membership Voting mcrnbr~r\hip i\ Iimitracl to sciftntist\ h,1\ 111g ,1t Board of Directors Hiochfmi.stry~ Dri,lncb T. (iish, Ph.D.. In\titutc for least dn cirnccl grddudtc tlcgrt~f~ in d ndturdl or dpplifd \c~(‘nc(‘. I>rrfb\ (:rcx,1tion Kc\c~,trc~h, 27 16 hl,1tlison A~fmw, S,1n I)iftgo. (:A 92 1 16. Rio- arc $12.00 ($13.00 U.S. tor ovcr5f~d\) per bcdr dntl rtid! bc sent to logiccll Sf.ifwf.f,.s: W,I\ IIC Fr,llr, Ph.D., Secretary. ‘I‘hcl King’\ (:ollcgc~, Wilbcrt H. Kusch, Sr., Mernbrship Sf~crf~tar\, 27 Ii <~1-~1nl~rook Koafl, Briarclitt Manor, N’t’ 105 IO; rsh1p, dnfl bfbt who \ul)\c~rit)f~ Lo\ Ang~~l~~~ Hapti\t (Zollqq~, Nf*whall, (:A 9 132 I: Wilbcbrt II. Kusch, to the statfmcxnt ot hr~lid. is .1\,1il,1t)lc at $ 12.00 (P; 13.00 Y.S. Ior Sr., M.S., I.I,.l)., Membership Secretary, Protf~~\or cd Scifxncc,, (:oncor- ovcrsed5) per \fdr anti includcs sutbcriptiorr to thca Annudl I\\uf~ dtrtt (Ii,1 (:oIIf~gc~. Ann Art)or. MI 4X105; b:. Norl)f~rt Smith, Ph.D., North- Quartcrlics. All 0th cr\ : int~~r~stfd in rflcf’l\ 111g cop1c4 ot ,111 ttrct\fl c~,1\tf~rn Oklahorn,1 State, lJn1\f~r\lt\, T,rhlqrr,1h, OK 74464: I’,rrrl A. publicdt1on5 rn,t! cl0 so ,tt thfx ratf, ot the \11l)scription pr1c’fx Ior ,111 %iri1rn(~rn1.1n. t’t1.l). (:oncorfli,1 Junior (:ollf~gc. KiLcr Forft\t. IL; issues tor one !car: $ IS.00 ($Ih.OO U.S. tor o\or4f~d4.) k:ngitrfwing; 1). K. Bob Ian, Ph.D., t’rotf,\4or ot Enginf~c~ring, Iowa Statcb LJni\c~r\it~ , Atncbs, Iowa 500 I I : Gfwf~tifx: John U’. Klot/. Ph.D.. I)ircbc+or ot (;r,iflri,itf~ Strlflif>\. (~onc~orfli,1 SfminarL, St. I,orli\. MO Statement of Belief Mcml)car\ ot thrt Creation K~~\f~~1rch Soclc,t>, 6-3 105: C;r,ology: (Zlittorfl I,. B11rclic,k, M.S., D.Sc,.. 924 N. 6th A\f~~rrc~, which include rcscarch scicnt 1st4 rq~rf~scnt1ng L arlou\ t idds ot jut- Tu(w)n. A% X570.5. Cfwphy.sif~s: I larolfl Slrr\hf~r. M.S., D.Sc., Uniccr- cesstul \cicntitic .1~~orllI’li4hln~,rit, arc c-onimittf~cl to tull t)fxlifd in the, \it\ ot ‘Ic-,,I\ at F:I Paso, TX 79902. I’hyvical Scifvlf~f~a: II,1rolfl Arm- Biblical rccortl of creation .rncl fbarl! hi\tor\ , ndmic sprcidl crf>dtion (‘15 oppod to f~~olut1on). t)oth ot thfl un1- tdrio. (:dnacld; Thorn,14 (;. Bdrricx\, I).Sc,., Llni\flr\it\ of Tfxi\ ‘it El vcrsf’ and thr earth u ith it\ complf’x1t\ ot Ii\ ing Iorms. l’a\o. TX 79902: K1ch,1rfl (;. Korth,1l\. h1.S.. Treasurer, 1’. 0. Hex 13.5, WC, propose to rfb-f‘\ dlirdtc~ \ciftncft from thi4 L if’w point, dncl \IIIC(~ Arc,,1cli,1, Ml 49613: Ilcar\ M. Morri4, t’h.l).. In\titutf~ tor (:rc~ation 1964 hacr, publishrd ,1rch ,1rtic,lc\ it1 t trij t Ic~ltl. It1 Kc~5c~drc~h. 27 If) hldtli\on ,\\c7111ct . San I)ic>go. (:,A 92 I If?. anfl t’rcasi- 1970 the Socict! put)li\hcd ,I tckxtt)ook, Biology: A Sfwrch for Or-df,r itr flctrt of (:hri\tidn I IcLritdgcb (~oll~~gf~. Sdn IIifyq): (;vorgo M1iltingf~r. Compkcity, through %ondcr\,1n f’ut)li\hltrg IIou\c~, (;rantl Kal)~d\, M.S., KoI) Jonc\ C1t1i\flr4if\, (;rcxf7~\ ills. SC: 29614: Emnif~tt I,. Michigan 49506. Subsrquf~ntl\ ~ 136 Kro(l\ I ldll, hlic~higdn St,itc Llni\c~r\it\, b:dst I.cln\ing, MI Socict> \iit)scrit)r> to the, 1ollow ir1g 4tdtfY~~c7lt 01 td1fd: 48424.

The Earth and such a star would have no relative mo- result would be that the Doppler effect observed would tion with respect to each other at aII. bcx a c~ornplotc jumble, which is not true. Would the Doppler effect be obscrvcd in the> light of A somewhat‘ similar argumfbnt could be used on a the star? One would expect so, since it is obsc~rvd for aII ct propagates instantaneously, or whether it pro- Would aberration be obscrvcd? It would seem so, sinc*cl pagatcs along with the light, so to speak, at the same it is for all others. But there is no rclativc motion; spd as the light. An answcar is suggested bt a special whence, according to the convtantional t hcory , carnc’ class of t)inary stars: the eclipsing binaries. these effects? In this special class, a bright star (for instance) There is more: arguments from double stars havch rcvoIv(bs in its orbit around a large, but relatively dark been used before. Early in this century Kitz proposc(l a on<‘. Whcm the t)right star is behind the other, it is, of ballistic theory of light.2 In it, light from ;I moving (‘out-se, oclipsd: the light is cut off. Now thtl eclipsing source has the velocity of the source atldd to that of the alwacs com(~ just when thtxrc is no Doppler shift: when light, as would happen to a bullet fir4 from ;I moving that-c’was formerlv a rd shift, i.c. the star moving away vehicle. De Sitter suggested, howevc>r, that wet-f‘ that so, from the Earth, and will in a Iittlcl whilta bc a blue shift, light emitted when the star was moving away from the i.c. the star moving toward the Earth.4 But this would Earth, for instance, would take long(br to reach the Earth than that emitted when it was approaching.J ‘I’hc (Continwd on page 4S) OTHER BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE C.R.S.

Textbooks The books listed above are all available from Zonder- van Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Biology: a Search for Order in Complexity. (Revised Edition, 1974.) A textbook for high school presenting creation AND evolution. 595 pp., 436 illustrations, $9.95. Reprint Teacher’s guide to accompany Biology: a Search for Order in Complexity. Paperback, $1.95. A Decade of Creationist Research, by Duane T. Gish. Investigations into Biology: Student’s Laboratory Reprinted from the Quarterly for June, 1975. 16 pp., 75 Manual. Paperback, $1.95. cents postpaid, 50 cents each for orders of 100. Order Investigations into Biology: Teacher’s Laboratory from the College Bookstore of Concordia College, 4090 Manual. Paperback, $1.95. Geddes Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48 105.