Book Reviews Contentious fossils cies as the result of degradation and/or A review of cross-breeding.1 Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True? 2. Just what do the fossils Third edition prove? by Sylvia Baker Published by Biblical Crea- The three evolution-inspired ex- tion Society, UK. 2003 pectations of the fossil record, listed in the previous edition, have now been reduced to just two. The following Philip Bell statement has been dropped: ‘c. We should, of course, expect to This new-look edition of a popular find the rock strata themselves in and helpful booklet is described as the order given by the geological containing new material throughout column, with the oldest at or near the bottom, and the most recent at its pages. With the exception of one 2 illustration of corals, which appeared the top.’ on page 31 of the previous edition Perhaps this is to diffuse espoused by Steven Robinson in a potential criticism that creationist 3 (published by AiG), all the illustrations symposium in this Journal in 1996, but arguments about ‘out-of-place’ fossils from that edition are reproduced here, which (in my view) has been soundly represent a ‘straw man’ perspective of 4 and mostly in the same place in the text, refuted since, again in this journal. To the rocks, not held by paleontologists. giving the superficial appearance that be fair, Baker does not insist that the Alternatively, it could represent an very little has changed. word—machah in the Hebrew—must acknowledgement that the stratigraphic However, there are indeed a mean ‘blot out, without trace’. How- principle of superposition does not number of changes when one actually ever, her wording does quite strongly always apply, at least on small scales. reads the text. This review will largely imply this. Of course, if true, fossils The previous mention of ‘a water or would then not be evidence of the concentrate on certain alterations and water-vapour canopy’ has been toned additions to this new edition. Flood but of more localized, post-Flood down to ‘This may mean that there catastrophes. And here, unsurprisingly, was originally more water in the up- is where we see a major departure from 1. How evolution took over per atmosphere than there is now’ the text of earlier editions. Where once (p. 9)—presumably due to the fact there were five predictions about what This chapter gives an historical that this model for the ‘waters above’ the fossil record would show, there are overview of evolutionary ideas and is not currently popular among today’s now just two. For example, gone is the how they came to be the prevailing creationist community. paradigm for understanding Earth There is a very pertinent insertion following prediction: history and origins. Little new mate- about the nature of the Genesis Flood, ‘It should certainly show the rial appears in this section. However, which shows the unmistakable influence remains of animals killed in the under her discussion of the nature of of advocates of a low Flood/post-Flood Flood. If such vast numbers of a Genesis ‘kind’, the author points boundary in the geologic column: living creatures were wiped out out that although Linnaeus was a key ‘All air-breathing creatures were suddenly they should have left evi- proponent of the fixity of species, “wiped out”. The word means dence in the form of huge numbers he later modified his view. This is a more than simply that they died. It of skeletons bearing the marks of 5 noteworthy observation to make about could mean that they were totally violent death.’ a man who is sometimes maligned for erased from the earth. It was as Instead we read: his belief in species immutability, in though the surface of the earth [i.e. ‘It would not surprise us if the spite of his impressive contribution to “land”] experienced a “meltdown” rocks contained evidence of cata- biological nomenclature and classifi- and the only safe place to be was strophic death. This could possibly cation. This point is also highlighted in the water, where God was pro- result from the year of the Flood in another recent book that critiques tecting Noah, his family and the itself, although the devastation evolution—the author stated that Lin- other creatures that were in the caused may have been too great naeus’ observations of hybrids caused ark’ (p. 9). to leave fossils’ [emphasis added] him to come to see contemporary spe- For instance, this was the position (p. 10).
TJ 17(2) 2003 29 Book Reviews
But surely this wording has the across this evolutionary argument quite creationists who are tempted to move potential to confuse readers into think- frequently, albeit more usually pre- towards a Flood that left no trace of ing that God’s great Flood judgement sented as an adaptive radiation (‘bush’) pre-Flood creatures (i.e. no fossils) for sin left no evidence; i.e. no fossils rather than the more traditional, ‘linear’ should consider the implication: one is (Genesis 6:7, 14, 17). Throughout view. However, these ‘old chestnuts’ left defending a world-wide Flood that Scripture, death is seen to be the con- die hard and one UK high school book left no fossil evidence! There is the sequence of human rebellion against from 2002 still presented the linear, added burden of having to then explain the Creator. Fossils (which speak so Eohippus-to-Equus picture that was how huge depths of sedimentary rocks, powerfully of death) are surely both discredited decades ago. In addition, I with their entombed fossils, came to be the primary prediction and expectation recently lectured to veterinary students, laid down in the approximately 4,500 of a cataclysm on the scale of Noah’s at a major UK institution, who were years since the Flood; i.e. by local, Flood. Contrary to the author’s state- still being taught these ideas. regional (and in some cases, nearly ment above, it should surprise us if Sub-sections on coal and oil, continental) catastrophes about which the rocks did not contain evidence of polystrate fossils, and ‘Frozen animals both Scripture and contemporary geol- catastrophic death. of Siberia’ seem little changed, as does ogy are silent. The result of such rea- Paradoxically, the author has not the whole section subtitled ‘Fossil soning is that advocates of these ideas significantly altered a statement that links?’ However, the discussion of must extend the post-Flood period be- appears later in this chapter and which apemen has an additional paragraph yond that which is plainly indicated in seems to be at odds with her earlier alerting the reader to two creationist Scripture. Attempts to introduce extra statement that the Hebrew word ‘could books: Marvin Lubenow’s book, Bones time into the biblical chronologies are mean that they were totally erased from of Contention,6 and Reinhard Junker’s the inevitable consequence. the earth’ (p. 9): Is Man Descended from Adam?7 But The chapter-end notes, about ‘Is there any evidence in the fossil it is unfortunate to read: continental drift and plate tectonics, record of … a worldwide devastat- ‘Dubois, the man who discovered have been removed from this new ing flood? [Java man] … announced at the edition, perhaps reflecting that this is Yes, there is … In the earth’s rocks end of his life that they were not a hotly debated topic among biblical are to be found millions upon mil- the remains of an ape-man at all, creationists. lions of fossilised animal remains, but rather that the skull belonged often grouped together in what to a giant gibbon’ (p. 14). 3. Genetics and God’s natural appears to be huge “graveyards”. This represents a misreading selection There are also to be found unim- of Dubois, as the late evolutionist, aginably vast deposits of coal and Stephen Jay Gould showed,8 but is an The author has updated the text to oil, both of which are the remains idea which is prevalent among evolu- allow for the recent exposé that pep- of living organisms’ (p. 11). tionists as well as creationists. pered moths do not rest on tree trunks Similarly, she has left the fol- The section on ‘Giantism’ has in the wild and that the photographs lowing concluding statement about been greatly reduced. The deleted text suggesting they to were staged. She fossil graveyards: emphasised gigantism in pre-Flood concludes: ‘Uniformitarianism can neither creatures, linked to the water-vapour ‘Nevertheless, as a story, it does explain why so many thousands canopy idea. illustrate, in principle, the idea of of animals died violently at the Under ‘The problem of extinc- natural selection’ (p. 18). same time, nor why, having died, tion’ the author again shows a leaning Also, in her subsequent dis- they were buried so rapidly in towards the obliteration of animals cussion of mutations, where she once sediment. Catastrophes like the by the Flood. Instead of her original had, biblical Flood can’ (p. 11). wording, ‘[Geneticists] … have not been One cannot have it both ways. ‘It was as a result of the Flood, able to come up with one convinc- Either the fossil record is testimony to which killed every air-breathing ing case of a mutation that was the Flood (with the corollary that the land animal except those in the clearly beneficial to the organ- uniformitarian framework is false) or ark,’9 ism,’ 10 it is not—in which case the Flood has the text now reads: the new edition removes this error nothing to say about the fossils! ‘It could have been as a result of (there are obvious instances in which a The section subtitled ‘Gradual catastrophe linked to the Flood’ loss can be a survival advantage—e.g. development’ has been substantially (p. 15) [emphasis added]. the loss of wings in beetles on windy modified. Particularly noticeable is Yet, this subtle alteration islands): the complete removal of the paragraph seems to conflict with the author’s ‘[Geneticists] … have not been about the horse evolution series. This earlier statement that attributed fos- able to come up with one convinc- is intriguing because one still comes sil graveyards to the Flood! Those ing case of a mutation that “added
30 TJ 17(2) 2003 Book Reviews
means of trying to reduce the amount of guesswork, and refer to the work of the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), a consortium of creationist researchers who are doing much original work in this area.13 The examples of age-indicators that refute the conventional 4.5 bil- lion year age of our planet have been reduced to just two: 1) Atmospheric helium, and 2) Salt in the sea. The maximum age of Earth, based on helium production was quoted as 26 million years in the second edition, but has been modified to 1.76 million years here (p. 25), with a reference to the work of creationist Larry Vardiman. The section on meteoritic moon dust has been omitted as this is no longer a sound argument.14 More puzzling is the complete omission of the paragraph on the decaying magnetic field of the Earth. This less-known fact has been used by creationists, since the 1970s, to argue that the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old. The original argument by Barnes was countered using the evidence of magnetic field reversals, which has been convincingly The theory that the Flood of Noah extinguished all trace of life on Earth runs into problems incorporated into the refinement of when it encounters the millions of fossils found in rock layers around the world. Large post- the Barnes model by physicist Russell Flood catastrophes must be invoked to explain the geological and fossil record. Humphreys. As reported recently, complexity” ’ (p. 19). of the Human Genome Project and the ‘There is strong evidence that the Unfortunately, she has not comment is made that, field is decreasing by about 5% per 15 modified the following, ‘ … we understand much less century.’ ‘I am not alone in believing that than we thought we did about how The section entitled ‘How long even if beneficial mutations could genes function’ (p. 21). has life existed on earth?’ contains sev- occur, they would not be adequate The further reading list par- eral changes. The part that deals with carbon-14 dating has been modified by to explain evolution’ [emphasis ticularly highlights Jonathan Wells’ removing paragraphs that dealt with added] (p. 19), book, Icons of Evolution, published in the implications of a water vapour- which could give the impression that 2000, as a ‘very important book’. This canopy and a stronger magnetic field beneficial mutations don’t occur—un- book has been thoroughly reviewed in in the past. Again, for reasons given doubtedly not the intention of the au- TJ.12 11 above, it seems somewhat premature thor. Obviously, her main point about to shy away from the latter. A stronger their inadequacy to explain evolution 4. How young is the Earth? magnetic field would correlate with still stands. less cosmic ray bombardment of the The remainder of this chapter The statement in the previous upper atmosphere and less carbon-14 deals with homology and its relation edition, concerning ‘“controversy” … production—helping to explain why to genetics, then natural selection; it about the true length of the half-life’ Carbon-14 dates are often larger than seems little changed. However, there of some radioactive elements, has expected from a tight chronological is an additional note (p. 21) which talks been removed. However, several new view of the Genesis narrative. The au- about the rise of the Intelligent Design paragraphs appear on page 25. These thor has included an additional helpful movement, with special mention of deal with the underlying assumptions argument for recent creation: Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe as that underpin all radioactive dating ‘If human history is really so long key figures. There is a brief mention methods, discuss isochrons as one as evolutionists believe … Where
TJ 17(2) 2003 31 Book Reviews
are the graves of all the humans specifics of the biblical who are supposed to have died record. over hundreds of thousands of The former statement years?’ about human life-spans She goes on to point out that dropping ten-fold follow- the notion of such long ages of stone ing the Flood, has been tool use, without much progress, makes added to: little sense. ‘Genesis chapter 6 verse In the ‘Additional notes’ section 3 makes it plain that this of this chapter (p. 28), the author was a deliberate plan of discusses the second law of thermo- the Lord—to reduce the dynamics and its relevance to evolu- life span to a maximum tionary theory; minor modifications of 120 years. He was have strengthened this part. She then not prepared to allow discusses ‘The age of the stars’ and people a longer life has modified this section to allow for span in which to defy creationist proposals that aim to deal him and live godless with the ‘problem’ of distant starlight lives. It is interesting (i.e. billions of light years) in a young that 120 years is now universe. She mentions the contro- regarded as the natural versial idea that the speed of light was maximum life span for greater in the past, adding that a recent humans’ (p. 31). physics paper ‘suggested something Whilst the last sen- similar’ (though significantly differ- tence is acknowledged,16 it is ent). However, rather bizarrely, she a moot point, whether Gen- Photo by Andrew A. Snelling makes no mention whatsoever of the esis 6:3 actually refers to an much-discussed cosmology of Russell intended maximal human Humphreys—the subject of a book age. For many generations and numerous creationist papers and following the Flood, Scrip- correspondence (many in the TJ) over ture records ages which recent years. greatly exceed 120 years. For example, Isaac died at The physical attributes of coal seams around the world (polystrate burials, plants buried without root systems, 5. The true history of man the age of 180 years, just etc.) speak of the rapid burial of large floating mats of five years older than Abra- vegetation, and not the slow and gradual accumulation In keeping with changes elsewhere ham and twenty-five years of peat matter. in this edition, discussion of a water- younger than his grandfather vapour canopy has been removed from Terah. It is more likely that to read, the section on ‘The creation week’. the 120 years limit refers to the period ‘The study of coal provides evi- Reference to a ‘universally warm between God speaking to Noah (of his dence of floodconditions ’ [empha- subtropical climate’ before the Flood, intention to destroy the Earth) and the sis added] (p. 33). has also been removed, together with onset of the Flood itself—time for the This is presumably because discussion of fossils and coal which building of the Ark as well as a period the author wants to allow for the post- furnish evidence that is consistent with of grace during which Noah faithfully Flood formation of coal. In addition, this hypothesis. Since some advocates preached to the rebellious antediluvian the former reference to human artefacts of the ‘European Flood Model’ prefer people (2 Peter 2:5). (such as a gold chain) in coal has been a post-Flood explanation for much of The scientific evidences for the dropped—a wise decision, considering the coal—and the author appears sym- historical occurrence of a global Flood the fact that such reports—fascinating pathetic to that approach—this is not have been modified. Polystrate fossil though they are—are usually impos- surprising. Gone too, is a paragraph animals and trees are still listed as sible to verify. that dealt with changing sea level, sub- evidence of this ‘great catastrophe’, the Bearing in mind what has been said marine canyons and drowned valleys. earlier statements of the book notwith- about the ‘wipe out’ theory concerning The section entitled ‘The Flood standing. However, the introductory the creatures doomed by the Flood, it and its immediate aftermath’ (formerly sentence to the section on coal has been is again rather surprising (and confus- ‘The year of the Flood’) has been sub- changed from, ing) to read: stantially altered. For instance, there ‘The study of coal provides evi- ‘The fossil record is of special is now a greater emphasis on various dence of a flood,’17 importance when considering evi-
32 TJ 17(2) 2003 Book Reviews
dence for the Flood’ (p. 33). to Flood geology are potentially valid 4. McIntosh, A.C., Edmondson, T. and Taylor, S., Furthermore, Baker writes: ways of seeking to understand the Genesis and catastrophe: the Flood as the major Biblical cataclysm, TJ 14(1):101–109, 2000. ‘The wiping out of the dinosaurs Earth’s geology in light of Scripture, and the many fossilised shoals of it is surely debatable whether these 5. Baker, Ref. 2, pp. 9–10. fish that obviously died suddenly equally well explain the geologic 6. Lubenow, M.L., Bones of Contention: A Crea- are all factors pointing to a terri- evidence. Either the Flood left little tionist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker ble catastrophe such as the Flood evidence, in terms of fossils, or it left Books, Michigan, 1992. would have been’ (p. 33). abundant evidence, to be seen on every 7. Junker, R., Is Man Descended from Adam? Whilst I agree wholeheartedly continent. Both cannot be correct—in- Evidence from Science and the Bible, Biblical with the above statements, advocates deed, one of these ideas is fundamen- Creation Society, 2000. of the ‘European Flood Model’—i.e. tally in error! This stubborn fact should 8. Gould, S.J., Men of the Thirty-Third Division, a pre-Mesozoic Flood / post-Flood not, of course, be understood to disal- Natural History, pp. 12–24, April, 1990 . boundary—are unanimous in insist- low friendly working relations between 9. Baker, Ref. 2, p. 15. ing that dinosaur remains are not the geologists and others in the creationist 10. Baker, Ref. 2, p. 19. result of Noah’s Flood, but succumbed community, who together seek to har- in later geologic episodes. Baker monise the geological evidence with 11. See also Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution, Master Books, pp. 125–127, 1999. seems caught between two opinions; God’s unalterable Word. i.e. wanting to show solidarity with In the final section, ‘From the 12. Truman, R., What biology textbooks never many European creationist geologists Flood to the present’, the author notes told you about evolution, a review of Icons of but reluctant to let go of fossils as evi- Evolution: Science or Myth? TJ 15(2):17–24, that, in spite of the scientific evidence 2001. dence of the Flood! For instance, one actually supporting the Bible, most 13. Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, paragraph later she writes, scientists still reject, or even mock, its ‘However, not all of the fossil E.F. (Eds), Radioisotopes and the Age of the history. She has added the following Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Initiative, evidence depicts a catastrophic very important observation: published jointly by Institute of Creation Re- scenario. For example … dino- ‘It is important to realise that no search and Creation Research Society, 2000. saur footprints, showing that the scientist operates from a neutral 14. Snelling, A.A. and Rush, D.E., Moon dust dinosaurs were ambling along in or objective philosophical posi- and the age of the solar system, TJ 7(1):2–42, a normal kind of way in a gentle 1993. tion’ (p. 34). environment … Dinasaur [sic] In summary, Sylvia Baker’s 15. Dr David Kerridge, of the British Geologi- nests have been found neatly ar- booklet retains the arguments that cal Survey, cited in: Sarfati, J., Is the Earth’s ranged, showing that something magnetic field about to flip?
TJ 17(2) 2003 33