CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY

Q UARTERLY VolumeQ 46 Fall 2009 Number 2

THE EVOLUTION OF DINOSAURS: MUCH CONJECTURE, LITTLE EVIDENCE

THE REGION OF EDEN

STELLAR RADIATION ENTROPY

PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CLASTIC SEDIMENTS

ARE THE ASHFALL SEDIMENTS Q AND FOSSILS POST-FLOOD? Creation Research Society Quarterly Volume 46 Fall 2009 Number 2 Articles Departments Are the Ashfall Site Sediments Editorial: Shakespeare or Bonzo ...... 77 and Fossils Post-Flood? ...... 81 Book Reviews Michael J. Oard The Global Phenomenon of Human Fossil The Region of Eden: Analysis and Debate ...... 93 Footprints in Rock by Aaron Judkins ...... 92 Joel D. Klenck A Boy Out of Time: A Time Twins Adventure by D. B. Macks ...... 108 Provenance Studies of Clastic Sediments The New Creationism by Paul Garner ...... 118 and Their Role in a Hydrodynamic The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Interpretation of the Genesis Flood ...... 109 Competing Schools by Thomas S. Fowler John K. Reed and Carl R. Froede Jr. and Daniel Kuebler ...... 125 The Evolution of Dinosaurs: God of Wonders DVD ...... 132 Much Conjecture, Little Evidence ...... 119 Extinction of Evolution by Darek Isaacs ...... 147 Jerry Bergman Notes from the Panorama of Science Stellar Radiation Entropy as Evidence Lessons from Twentieth-Century Geology ...... 133 of Supernatural Order and Creation ...... 127 Letters to the Editor ...... 138 James R. Powell Author and Title Index for Volume 45 ...... 143 Instructions to Authors ...... 149 Cover design by Michael Erkel: Michael Erkel and Associates, 1171 Carter Street, Membership/Subscription Application Crozet, Virginia 22932 and Renewal Form ...... 151 Design services by Cindy Blandon, [email protected]. Order Blank for Past Issues ...... 152 The Creation Research Society Quarterly is published by the Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway 89, Editorial Staff Chino Valley, AZ 86323, and it is indexed in the Christian Kevin L. Anderson, Editor Periodical Index and the Zoological Record. Jerry Bergman, Biology Editor Send papers on all subjects to the Editor: George F. Howe, Assistant Biology Editor [email protected] or to Kevin L. Anderson, John K. Reed, Geology Editor Van Andel Creation Research Center, 6801 N. Highway 89, Eugene F. Chaffin, Physics Editor Chino Valley, AZ 86323. Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Editor Send book reviews to the Book Review Editor: Don B. Don B. DeYoung, Book Review Editor DeYoung, 200 Seminary Dr., Winona Lake, IN 46590. Jarl Waggoner, Managing Editor Robert Mullin, Assistant Managing Editor Authors’ opinions expressed in the Quarterly are not neces- sarily those of anyone else associated with the Creation Board of Directors Research Society. Don B. DeYoung, President Copyright © 2009 by Creation Research Society. All rights Eugene F. Chaffin,Vice-President to the articles published in the Creation Research Society Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary Quarterly are reserved to the Creation Research Society. Danny Faulkner, Treasurer Permission to reprint material in any form, including the Mark Armitage, Financial Secretary Internet, must be obtained from the Editor. Gary H. Locklair, Recording Secretary Theodore Aufdemberge D. Russell Humphreys ISSN 0092-9166 David A. Kaufmann Jean K. Lightner Printed in the United States of America Michael J. Oard John K. Reed David Rodabaugh Ronald G. Samec

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 46, Fall 2009 77

Shakespeare or Bonzo

There’s an infinite number of Samuel Wilberforce (son of famed Brit- of typewriters would inevitably type a monkeys outside who want to ish abolitionist, William Wilberforce). great literary work such as Shakespeare’s talk to us about this script for To digress for a moment, during this Hamlet (e.g., see Dembski, 1996). Ac- debate Wilberforce chided Huxley with cordingly, some have later claimed that Hamlet they’ve worked out. the question of whether Huxley’s ape an- in offering this analogy, Huxley scored —The Hitchhikers’ cestry was on his mother’s side or father’s a smashing victory in the debate and side. Huxley is said to have responded cast Darwin’s claims as acceptable to Guide to the Galaxy that he would rather be descended from the British scientific community—very an ape than from a man who misused impressive for such a silly analogy. Again, his intelligence to hinder humble seek- this alleged response may be more a re- “It was, I think, Huxley, who said that six ers of the truth (e.g., see Quimby, 1965, flection of people’s superficial logic than monkeys, set to strum unintelligently on for a retelling of Huxley’s response). on the rationale of the actual argument. typewriters for millions of millions of His response has been credited with However, it is unlikely that Huxley years, would be bound in time to write energizing the scientific community in presented the monkey analogy at this all the books in the British Museum” support of Darwinism. However, I would debate. Although the concept of the (Jeans, 1930, p. 4). Thus goes a version challenge anyone to demonstrate to me typewriter dates to the eighteenth cen- of one of the most popular analogies of that Huxley could ever be considered a tury, by 1860 typewriters still were not evolution. Other versions involve much “humble seeker of the truth.” I also find sufficiently functional for the purposes larger groups of monkeys typing differ- it interesting that such a superficial and of the analogy. There is also no docu- ent literary compositions, such as the rather flippant response would suppos- mentation that Huxley made such an encyclopedia Britannica or the works edly have had such a profound effect argument during the debate. In fact, he of Shakespeare. (or even be credited with having such is reported to have once said that “the As with the above quote, the monkey an effect). This claim actually may be scientific imagination always restrains analogy is often credited to T.H. Huxley. a reflection of the superficial thinking itself within the limits of probability.” A contemporary of Charles Darwin, that people often use when evaluating While I do not personally give Huxley his staunch defense of Darwin’s ideas evolutionary teaching. credit for seeing how this statement earned him the nickname “Darwin’s Also, by some accounts, during this contradicts the monkey analogy; in point Bulldog.” An outspoken nineteenth-cen- debate Huxley challenged that, given of fact, there is little evidence that he tury atheist (or agnostic, as he preferred enough time and enough opportunity, ever proposed this analogy during his to be identified), Huxley found Darwin’s random events could achieve the type entire career. ideas of evolution to be a great comfort of biological transformation required by The origin of a “random system” for his agnosticism. Surprise, surprise. Darwinism. To support this argument, analogy can be dated possibly to the More specifically, the origin of the he is alleged to have used the analogy (or Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his De monkey analogy is often linked with the one form of it) that an infinite number Generatione et Corruptione, Aristotle 1860 debate between Huxley and Bishop of monkeys typing on an infinite number attempts to describe how the world may 78 Creation Research Society Quarterly have arisen out of random combinations ries a distinct influence of extreme nine- well as rationality). And evolutionists of atoms. Some form of a “random sys- teenth-century materialism, including call this science? tem” analogy had become popularized the imagery of “the proverbial monkey Putting flesh and bone to the mon- enough by the first century BC that at the typewriter, hitting by pure chance key analogy, a 2002 study by researchers Roman philosopher Cicero attacked on the proper keys to produce a Shake- from the University of Plymouth (UK) the claim. speare sonnet.” In the early twentieth used six Macaques at a local zoo. For He who believes this may as well century, Jeans (1930) promoted the one month a computer keyboard was believe that if a great quantity of the analogy by claiming that placed in these primates’ pen, and their one-and-twenty letters, composed if we examine the last page which a resulting keystrokes were recorded. Over either of gold or any other matter, particular monkey had typed, and the course of this study, the Macaques were thrown upon the ground, they found that it had chanced, in its produced five pages of letters, mostly would fall into such order as legibly blind strumming, to type a Shake- repeats of single letters (esp. the letter to form the Annals of Ennius. I speare sonnet, we should rightly re- S), but they failed to type a single three- doubt whether fortune could make gard the occurrence as a remarkable letter word. (The entire transcript of the a single verse of them (Cicero, 1877 accident, but if we looked through primates’ “composition” can be found translation). all the millions of pages the monkeys at http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/ It is not known exactly when “typing had turned off in untold millions of notes/publication/NOTES_EN.pdf .) monkeys” were incorporated into these years, we might be sure of finding While the study provided little scientific early “random system” analogies. While a Shakespeare sonnet somewhere insight, it did illustrate the complexity of Huxley does not appear to have been amongst them, the product of blind trying to generate meaningful “informa- the originator, since Darwin’s time the play or chance. (p. 4) tion” with random mechanisms. (Actu- monkey analogy has remained a popular Thus, according to Jeans (1930), it is ally, the monkeys’ tendency to select and argument for evolutionists. As already inevitable that given sufficient monkeys repeat specific keys illustrated that living mentioned, much credit is given to the and sufficient time, their random typing monkeys are not an adequate random- analogy for favorably influencing early will produce some form of literary work. izing tool for the analogy.) popular opinion toward Darwinism. In Perhaps this is the analogy’s greatest Despite its popularity, the monkey fact, as Koestler (1972, p. 30) observes, power: to provide the illusion of an analogy suffers from several fatal flaws, contemporary neo-Darwinism still car- answer to the enormous problem of not the least of which is that it proposes/ randomly generating order. requires impossible situations. It is not The power of such an illusion at- possible for an infinite number of mon- tracted Wald (1955) into making the keys or typewriters to exist. Such infinites rather foolish argument that cannot occur. There is a finite amount of given enough time [the origin of matter in the universe. There is a finite life] will almost certainly happen amount of energy in the universe. The Perhaps this is at least once … Time is in fact the fact that the monkey analogy requires hero of the plot … What we regard impossible parameters illustrates that it the analogy’s as impossible on the basis of human is attempting to explain an impossible experience is meaningless here. event (i.e., the naturalist origin of life greatest power: Given so much time, the “impos- and its subesquent evolutionary com- sible” becomes possible, the possible mon descent). to provide the illusion probable, and the probable virtually Statistically, one monkey has a 1/26 certain. One has only to wait: time chance of correctly typing the first letter itself performs miracles (p. 12). of Hamlet. The chance of the next letter of an answer So, time becomes Wald’s god. With- it types being correct is 26 x 26; or 1 in out a shred of evidence to support such a 676. With every subesquent letter (even to the enormous problem contention, Wald imparts time with the ignoring spacing, punctuation, etc), the power of creation. This line of reason- probablity of a single monkey typing of randomly ing also means that given enough time the remaining correct letters shrinks at anything becomes inevitable, including an exponential rate. For just 25 correct generating order. mutually exclusive events—a complete sequential letters, the probability is a violation of the laws of probability (as mere 1 in 2625. Volume 46, Fall 2009 79

Adding more monkeys and time does of way. Natural selection allows the simulation to steadily approach the de- little to solve the problem. Even with the successes, but “rubs out” the failures sired phrase with each progressive cycle. known universe filled with monkeys typ- (Ruse, 1982, p. 308). Not surprisingly, Dawkins reported that ing for billions of years, their probablility Interestingly, in an attempt to make his simulation could consistently pro- of sucessfully producing Hamlet drops the analogy more realistic, Ruse (1982) duce the Shakespearean phrase in less to an almost incalculably low number incorporates a number of unrealistic than 100 cycles. (Wikipedia suggests a probability of 1 features. His presentation of chemistry One realistic parameter Dawkins in 10183,000; see http://en.wikipedia.org/ and biology are extremely naïve. In ignored, among many, is that his simu- wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). Thus, neither “origin of life” chemistry nor lation had no means for failure. It was “the probability of Hamlet is therefore evolutionary biology do we find all the destined to succeed. Whether it required zero in any operational sense” (Kittel “mistakes” eliminated and all the “right” 100 or 1000 cycles, the probability of and Kroemer, 1980, p. 53). That some- changes preserved. In a pre-biological the simulation finally achieving the how the analogy attempts to claim the world, there is not sufficient selection desired phrase was 100%. There was no monkeys must inevitably succeed is an to eliminate chemical mistakes, such mechanism by which certain letters or erronious attempt to gloss over the very as optical impurity. (This is one reason combination of letters would terminate real statistical impossiblity faced by the many evolutionists often argue that the the entire process. Thus, regardless of analogy. origin of life should not be considered as the letter combinations achieved with What is more, such “infinite” pa- part of Darwinian evolution; it does not each cycle, the simulation would pro- rameters—like that promoted by Wald fit the criteria for Darwinian selection to ceed ever onward toward its inevitable (1955)—are statistical nonsense. These occur.) In the biological world, many of conclusion. involve what Mora (1965, p. 45) labels the “right” changes are not maintained, In the chemical and biological world, as “infinite escape clauses.” He further while many of the mistakes (i.e., deleteri- though, failure is not only an option but argues that “when for practical purposes ous mutations) are not removed. In fact, is always extremely likely. Had Dawkins the concept of infinite time and mat- these remaining mistakes contribute to appropriately programmed “failure” ter has to be invoked, that concept of the genome’s overall decay (Sanford, events into his simulation, the outcome probability is annulled. By such logic 2008). clearly would have been much different. we can prove anything” (Mora, 1965, Knowing that the monkey analogy, Maybe he knew this; maybe he was just p. 45). If such logic can prove anything, in its purest form, would never work, blissfully ignorant. then it actually proves nothing. These Richard Dawkins also altered the param- “infinite escape clauses” are an attempt to eters (Dawkins, 1986). Starting with a escape (i.e., ignore) the physical bounds string of 28 letters and spaces, Dawkins that keep them from being possible. developed a computer simulation that They attempt to establish parameters randomly changed these characters in (no matter how unrealistic) that make repeated cycles until it obtained the “impossible” events possible. It seems Shakespearean phrase, methinks it is I read something about that in Alice in like a weasel. However, in this simula- Wonderland. tion, instead of seeking whether monkeys This line of reasoning More recently, science philosopher could type the entire phrase in totality, Michael Ruse attempts to salvage the Dawkins incorporated a mechanism that also means that monkey analogy by adjusting the pa- he identified as cumulative selection. rameters. The first cycle generated a number of given enough time Suppose, however, that everytime different strings of letters (i.e., progeny), the monkey strikes the “right” let- each with random changes to the initial ter, it records; but, suppose also arrangement of letters. Unlike monkeys anything becomes that “wrong” letters get rubbed out typing, his cumulative selection ap- (literally or metaphysically!). And proach searched through these various inevitable, suppose that the elimination of the progeny strings and identified the string wrong letter is the full consequence of letters closest to the desired phrase. including mutually of a “mistake”: one does not lose It then repeated the process using only what has already been typed … this closer match. All remaining progeny exclusive events. evolution of life occurs in this sort were discarded. This process enabled the 80 Creation Research Society Quarterly

So, what did Dawkins’s simulation “theory.” Even the attempts to make the References prove? Absolutely nothing. Yet, his analogy more “realistic” are still forced Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De natura deorum, weasel simulation is still frequently to introduce unrealistic parameters in 2.37. 1877 Translation from Cicero’s Tus- cited. In fact, attempts to emulate or order for the analogy to even have the culan Disputations; Also, Treatises On promote his simulation can be found illusion of success. That people were The Nature Of The Gods, And On The at various websites (e.g., http://home. once influenced by the claim of this Commonwealth, C. D. Yonge (principal pacbell.net/s-max/scott/weasel.html). analogy is unfortunate. That people may translator). Harper & Brothers Publisher, As with Dawkins’s original program, continue to be influenced by its claim New York, NY. (downloadable @ http:// these simulations also appear to have no is inexcusable. www.gutenberg.org/etext/14988) mechanism for failure. This absence of Originally, the previous paragraph Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. realism allows the programs to achieve was my concluding remark. However, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, virtually any sequence of letters, regard- it has become evident to me that the NY. less of how “impossible” obtaining that monkey analogy is as popular as ever in Dembski, W.A. 1996. http://www.arn.org/ sequence may initially appear. Again, the writings of physicists and cosmolo- docs/dembski/wd_convmtr.htm (as of the popularity of such simulations likely gists. When they speak of “multiverses” September 1, 2009). reflects people’s attraction to the illusion or “Landscapes,” they are actually just Ellis, G.F.R., U. Kirchner, and W.R. Stoeger. of an answer rather than a truthful an- employing infinite monkeys and type- 2004. Multiverses and physical cosmol- swer that they do not want to hear. writers. Because it is so improbable that ogy. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- One additional point: Even if some- naturalistic mechanisms could account nomical Society, 347:921–936. how monkeys randomly strumming on for such an orderly design within our Jeans, J. 1930. The Mysterious Universe. typewriters could plausibly generate universe (not to mention the improb- MacMillan Co., New York, NY. Hamlet, we know this is not how Ham- ability of life), then the solution is more Kittel, C., and H. Kroemer. 1980. Thermal let was written. Bonzo does not replace universes. Ultimately, the thinking is Physics, 2nd Edition. W.H. Freeman Co., Shakespeare. Rather, this illustrates that there exists an infinite number New York, NY. (again!) how materialistic bias can of universes (insert infinite number Koestler, A. 1972. The Case of the Midwife misinterpret events. Dawkins’s (1986, of monkeys), each with its own set of Toad. Random House, New York, NY. p. 1) dismissal of biological systems as physical laws and parameters (Ellis et al., Mora, P.T. 1965. The folly of probability. In “complicated things that give the ap- 2004). Thus, just as with the purpose of Fox, S. (editor), The Origin of Prebiologi- pearance of having been designed for the monkey analogy, those pesky “im- cal Systems, pp. 39–52. Academic Press, a purpose” does not make such systems probabilities” become meaningless. An New York, NY. any less a product of purpose and design. infinite number of universes provide the Quimby, F.H. 1965. Introductory remarks. The alleged plausibility that Bonzo and ability of impossible things becoming In Fox, S. (editor), The Origin of Prebio- his brothers could write Hamlet does possible. All we need is enough monkeys logical Systems, pp. 1–3. Academic Press, not erase the fact that it was written by … ur … enough universes typing away, New York, NY. Shakespeare. The plausibility (at least and eventually one of them will hit the Ruse, M. 1982. Darwinism, Defended: A in Dawkins’s mind) that naturalistic right combination of events and win the Guide to the Evolution Controversies. mechanisms could create purposeful “it looks designed” jackpot. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, design does not erase the fact that such We can no more measure and White Plains, NY. design is from the Creator. Plausibility observe infinite universes than we can Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the does not replace historical reality. Impos- infinite monkeys. Such thinking exists Mystery of the Genome, 3rd Edition. sibility does not somehow slip into the only in the calculations of physicists who FMS Publication, Waterloo, NY. realm of possibility, regardless of the have concluded that just one universe is Wald, G. 1955. The origin of life. In Fla- amount of wishful thinking or repeated not sufficient for naturalism to give us nagan, D. (editor), The Physics and proclamation. (What was it Hitler said? life and order. It needs more to work with Chemistry of Life, pp. 3–26. Simon and Repeat a lie often enough and people than just our single universe. After all, for Schuster, New York, NY. will eventually believe it.) naturalism to replace God, it needs all The monkey analogy should never the help it can get. have been taken as a serious scientific concept. Those evolutionists offering it Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. as such only reveal their scientific igno- Editor rance and the unscientific nature of their Creation Research Society Quarterly Volume 46, Fall 2009 81 Are the Ashfall Site Sediments and Fossils Post-Flood?

Michael J. Oard*

Abstract he fossils and sediments from Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical TPark are analyzed to determine whether the depositional environ- ment was Flood or post-Flood. Several indications of a post-Flood en- vironment are presented, but other criteria suggest the fossil beds were laid down by the Flood, and evidence for a post-Flood environment can be explained within a Flood model. Like dinosaur tracks, eggs, nests, and bonebeds, this site can be explained as a landscape briefly exposed during the Flood by local or regional fall in “sea level.” The existence of mammal tracks places the time as early Flood.

Introduction Correctly distinguishing rocks and fossils deposited by the Flood from those laid down before or after the Flood is a cru- cial task for diluvialists. Every location needs to be evaluated on its own merits, since the specific chronostratigraphy of the geologic column cannot be trusted, even if its general sequence is accurate (Oard, 2006). This is especially true for the “Cenozoic” and the Miocene. Ash- fall Fossil Beds State Historical Park in northeast Nebraska presents an interest- ing example. “Miocene” is a date applied by uni- formitarian scientists based on certain index fossils and radiometric dates. It is entirely possible that some “Miocene” rocks were deposited in the Flood (Oard,

Figure 1. A rhinoceros fossil graveyard within the Rhino Barn at Ashfall Fossil * Michael J. Oard, 34 W Clara Ct, Beds State Historical Park in northeast Nebraska. Bozeman, MT 59718, [email protected] Accepted for publication June 3, 2009 82 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Table I. Environmental deductions from the eleven diagnostic criteria of Oard 2001). Even some Pleistocene deposits (2007). could be from the Flood (Holt, 1996). This is because the final or the retreating stage of the Flood (Walker, 1994) was Diagnostic Criterion Environment primarily an erosional event in higher Thin, widespread sediments Flood elevations like the western United States. Huge volume Flood If significant thicknesses of strata were Lithified sediments Post-Flood eroded during this final stage, the re- maining strata would likely be from the Permineralized fossils Post-Flood first half of the Flood—the inundatory Thick, pure coal seams N/A stage (Walker, 1994). Widespread and/or thick evaporites N/A If we cannot identify Flood strata based on their relative position in the Tall erosional remnants N/A geologic column, then how are we to Planation surfaces or pediments Flood determine which rocks were products Long-transported cobbles and boulders Flood of the Flood? To answer this question, I Water and wind gaps N/A developed eleven criteria (Oard, 2007). As I continue to expand and refine that Part of continental margin N/A list, I have found that many of them are applicable to the Ashfall fossil site (Table I).

The Ashfall Site The Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park in northeast Nebraska represents a unique assemblage of fossils, mostly pre- served in ash. Hundreds of fossil types are concentrated here; during excavations in 1978–1979, more than 200 fossil mam- mals were discovered. Some were left in place, and a barn, called the Rhino Barn (Figure 1), was built to preserve them for public viewing. Fossil species include rhinoceroses, five species of horse, camels, deer, three species of birds, a giant tortoise, and two small carnivores. In ongoing excavations, fossils are found almost every day, and the number of spe- cies continues to rise. For instance, in the first half of the summer of 2008, fossil hunters discovered elephant and rhinoc- eros tracks, a giant tortoise, bones from a four-tusked elephant, hatchling turtle bones, coprolites, scavenged bones, and an oreodont’s jaw (Figure 2). The site is appreciated by paleontologists because all fossils are well preserved and many are fully articulated. Akridge and Froede (2005) inter- Figure 2. The fossil finds at Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park during the preted the site as a post-Flood environ- first half of the 2008 summer season. Volume 46, Fall 2009 83

ment preserved by Ice Age volcanism in a catastrophic manner. Many aspects of the animals’ deaths are inconsistent with the uniformitarian story presented at the visi- tor’s center (Akridge and Akridge, 2008). But the evidence for the timing of the ashfall event is not clear. Despite some evidence that the fossils were formed after the Flood, there is other evidence that seems to indicate a Flood origin. Based on previously established criteria to dif- ferentiate between Flood and post-Flood strata, I will attempt to show that the site formed during the Flood. The stratigraphy of the Ashfall area is shown in Figure 3. The fossils are mainly found within the ash layer of the Ash Hollow Formation, a well-indurated sandstone (Akridge and Froede, 2005). This ash averages about 1.0 ft (30.5 cm) in thickness but reaches 10 ft (3 m) in thickness locally. Many of the ar- ticulated fossils are found in the thickest zone of the ash, which geologists have interpreted as a watering hole. There is a systematic vertical change upwards in Figure 3. The stratigraphy of the Ashfall Fossil Beds Park. the ash layer, from small aquatic animals to the larger mammals found in the up- per zones of the thicker ash. The Ash Hollow Formation is bounded below by the Valentine For- mation, which is about 70 ft (21.3 m) thick and contains fossils of four-tusked elephants, alligators, and fish, as well as petrified wood (Figure 4). Above the Ash Hollow is the Long Pine Formation, which contains gravel and cobbles up to 5 in (13 cm) in diameter from litholo- gies derived from the Rocky Mountains. According to the geologic timescale, there is a hiatus of 7.5 million years between the Ash Hollow and Long Pine Formations.

Evidence for a Post-Flood Environment Evidence for a post-Flood entombment of the fossils takes several forms. Tracks of hoofed animals indicate the presence of live animals at the site. Since animal Figure 4. Alligator teeth found in the Valentine Formation below the ash bed. tracks would not be expected during 84 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 5 (above). One of many baby rhinoceros skeletons found at the Ashfall site.

Figure 6 (left). Grass fossils found be- tween the tongue bones of a rhino. Volume 46, Fall 2009 85 the latter stages of the Flood, after all Evidence for a Flood Environment the animals outside the ark had been But other evidence argues for a Flood destroyed, these tracks would suggest ei- origin for these fossils. The site meets ther early Flood sediments or post-Flood many Flood criteria (Oard, 2007). deposits. The presence of thousands of First, the presence of “thin, widespread feet of fossiliferous sediments under the sediments” or sedimentary rocks sug- Ash Hollow Formation would rule out a gests Flood deposition. The Ash Hollow pre-Flood origin. and Valentine formations belong to Fossils of baby animals and even fos- the Ogallala Group. These formations sil fetuses within adult fossils (Figure 5) continue west into the subsurface; ash suggest an environment where animals bed markers can be correlated in wells lived and bred, seemingly anomalous to the west of the fossil site. This suggests to the early chaos of the Flood. Con- that the ash layer in the Ash Hollow trary to dinosaur bonebeds, where Formation is widespread. The entire the youngest dinosaurs are inevitably Ogallala Group covers an area of around absent (Oard, 2009), the ashfall site 300,000 mi2 (777,000 km2) east of the contains everything from fetuses to Rocky Mountains (black area in Figure Figure 7. Distribution of the Ogallala mature creatures. 7) (Oard, 2008a), and the Ogallala once Group on the central and southern This site also suggests a terrestrial en- covered 590,000 mi2 (1.53 million km2) High Plains of the United States, modi- vironment, not marine encroachment. before erosion removed the shaded areas fied from Thornbury (1965) and Heller Coprolites found in the area would in Figure 7. The Ogallala Group ranges et al. (2003). Map shows observed not be expected to survive an aqueous from 3 ft (0.9 m) to 800 ft (244 m) thick (black) and inferred (shaded) original environment. Land animal bones show and is composed mostly of sandstone distribution. White arrows show gener- signs of scavenging and trampling, also with interbedded coarse gravel and alized paleocurrent directions. terrestrial activities. Freshwater diatoms conglomerate derived from the Rocky imply freshwater streams or lakes in the Mountains (Figure 8). The Ash Hollow vicinity. Also, grass has been found in and Valentine Formations, and indeed the stomachs and mouths (Figure 6) of some of the animals, indicating they were feeding in a grassy environment before being engulfed by ash. The fossils have minimal permineral- ization, which means that silicon dioxide or other chemicals have been little ab- sorbed within the bones of the animals. This observation is an indicator of a post-Flood environment (Oard, 2007). Lithified sediments and permineralized fossils would result from the movement of mineral-rich water under high pres- sure through Flood sediments. Rapid deposition would cause rapid cementa- tion and permineralization. Post-Flood and present-day environments would be low in cementing chemicals such as silica. Therefore, lithification and permineralization would be rare after the Flood. The ash at Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park is poorly consoli- dated and the fossils are not significantly permineralized. Figure 8. Ogallala Group gravel along Smokey Hill River, Highway 23, Kansas. 86 Creation Research Society Quarterly

that can distinguish between Flood and non-Flood strata. Several of these new criteria can be applied to the Ash Hol- low Formation. Some of these have been mentioned before (e.g., Oard, 1996). One is the amount of erosion at any given site. For example, the timing of the Green River Formation is a point of debate among creationists. I previously calculated that up to 17,000 ft (5.2 km) eroded from the north limb of the San Rafael Swell (Figure 10) of which the top formation is the Green River Forma- tion (Oard and Klevberg, 2008). This strongly suggests that the formation was deposited during the Flood. Post-Flood processes would be incapable of this much erosion and transport of the debris Figure 9. Sherman planation surface, the Gangplank, with monadnocks in the off the continent. Similar amounts on distance (viewed southwest from near milepost 346, Interstate 80, Wyoming). This the Colorado Plateau (Schmidt, 1989) surface extends from near the pass east of Laramie, Wyoming, east into western suggest that exposed strata are also Flood Nebraska. deposits. Post-Flood processes would be hard pressed to explain the erosion of the Ogallala Group, which is estimated to extend over 290,000 mi2 (751,100 km2). the entire Ogallala Group, would appear (Thornbury, 1965). If the Ash Hollow Holt (1996) also thinks that Ice Age to qualify as Flood-deposited sediments and Valentine formations are correlative erosion was insignificant. The correct based on the diagnostic criteria of “thin, across the entire Ogallala Group, then sequence of events late in the Flood over widespread sediments” (Oard, 2007). the “Gangplank” would suggest that they this region appears to be: 1) widespread Second, the immense volume of were deposited during the Flood. sheet deposition on the High Plains, 2) sediment in the Ogallala Group suggests Resistant boulders and pebbles from widespread sheet erosion, and 3) chan- the Flood. Since the Ash Hollow Group the Rocky Mountains are common in nelized erosion forming today’s river is a part of the Ogallala, it too would have the Ogallala Group. At the ashfall site, valleys. That sequence fits well with to be a Flood deposit. the Long Pine Formation includes these Walker’s (1994) late inundatory stage for A number of the criteria are not Rocky Mountain clasts. I suspect that the sheet deposition, the early retreating applicable to the ashfall site (Table I). they are a facies of the Ogallala Group, stage for the sheet erosion, and the late That of planation surfaces or pediments though dated 7.5 million years younger. retreating stage for the channelized ero- on or above the sedimentary rock may The age discrepancy might be due to sion (Walker, 1994; Oard, 2008b). be applicable indirectly. Although there questionable biostratigraphic dating. Another item of interest is the pres- is no such planation surface or pedi- Table I provides a summary of the ence of warm-climate animals in the Ash ment around the site, all of northeast evidence for and against Flood deposi- Hollow Formation. Alligator teeth have Nebraska could be considered a rough tion of the Ash Hollow Formation. Two been found in the Valentine Formation planation surface or an erosional surface. criteria favor a post-Flood environment and giant land tortoises in the Ash Hol- A well-known planation surface extends and four a Flood environment. But low and Long Pine Formations (Figure from the Continental Divide just east other indicators also suggest a Flood 11). These animals indicate winter of Laramie, Wyoming, into central Ne- environment. temperatures above freezing (Hutchison, braska along Interstate 80. Called “The 1982; Markwick, 1998). A climate this Gangplank” (Figure 9), it truncates a Other Flood Criteria warm in the interior of North America wide variety of igneous and sedimentary As a follow-up to the Oard (2007) criteria, during the Ice Age is unlikely, even if rock, including the Ogallala Formation I am developing additional indicators the Ice Age was delayed, because winter Volume 46, Fall 2009 87

Figure 10. Cross section of the sedimentary rocks of the north limb of the San Rafael Swell. Dashed lines with question marks show the strata projected up over the San Rafael Swell, assuming no change in thickness. Du means diluvial undif- ferentiated. Note that the total erosion is 14,000-17,000 ft (4.3 to 5.2 km). Drawn by Peter Klevberg.

Figure 11. Giant land tortoise fossil from the Ash Hollow Formation. Some weighed up to 500 lb (227 kg). Figure 12. The Nebraska Sand Hills. temperatures depend mainly upon the The types of animals at the ashfall site (Figure 12) and overlie the Ogallala angle of the sun (Oard and Klevberg, should be typical of the Ice Age if they Group. These deposits are likely from 2008). The angle of the sun would be are post-Flood. These would include the Flood. They include a large volume the same in winter right after the Flood woolly and Columbian mammoths, cave of sand deposited from the northwest as it is now. Additional cooling would be bears, woolly rhinos, dire wolves, ground (Figure 13), being the largest area of expected due to the abundant ash in the sloths, one-toed horses, etc. (Oard, 1996). stabilized sand dunes in the western atmosphere, which would be expected Instead, the ashfall site shows the four- hemisphere (Trimble, 1990). The sand due to the numerous ash beds in the tusked elephants, oreodonts, three-toed hills are far from the Rocky Mountains, Ogallala Group and other Cenozoic horses, and extinct rhinos. and there is no post-Flood source of sedimentary rocks on the High Plains The Nebraska Sand Hills are wide- sand to the northwest. Complicating (Carlson, 1993). spread over north-central Nebraska this scenario even further is the fact that 88 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 13. Map of the Nebraska Sand Hills showing large extent and inferred direction of “paleowinds” from the northwest (from Trimble, 1990, p. 31). The elevation decreases northwest of the Sand Hills and there is no known source of sand.

the terrain dips about 1,000 feet (305 m) Although the volcanic ash is uncon- ies at Bozeman, Montana. If dinosaur northwest of the Nebraska Sand Hills solidated, the Ash Hollow Formation bones can exhibit soft tissue (Asara et into the White River badlands. Also, the is well lithified (Akridge and Froede, al., 2007; Schweitzer et al., 2005; 2007), Ice Age was too short to have deposited 2005). This is often the case with ash then the lack of fossilization at the ashfall this much sand. Instead, it seems most beds in Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata site should not be surprising. However, likely that the Nebraska Sand Hills were of western North America. It is likely this is a problem for uniformitarians. deposited at the very end of the Flood that the degree of lithification of the Science quotes Schweitzer as saying, “It and then reworked by Ice Age winds. ash is more dependent on diagenetic was totally shocking. I didn’t believe it These four lines of evidence, added factors than on the depositional envi- until we’d done it 17 times” (Stokstad, to those in Table I, suggest that the Ash ronment. 2005, p. 1852). Hollow Formation and its unique fossils Diagenetic factors also may explain were deposited by the Flood. The ap- the lack of permineralization in the fos- What Is the Flood Timing? plication of multiple lines of evidence sils too. If insufficient silica were moving If the ashfall strata were deposited during reinforces this conclusion. through groundwater, then the bones the Flood, can we deduce when during would not be mineralized. This has been the Flood that occurred? I believe so but observed in dinosaur bones in Montana, recognize that the conclusion will be How Are the Post-Flood which practically all creationists believe difficult for some creationists to accept. Indictors Explained? died in the Flood. Schweitzer et al. The key line of evidence is the presence If the Ash Hollow Formation were (1997a; 1997b) reported unfossilized of mammal prints at the site. This is deposited during the Flood, how are bone and organic molecules, possibly diagnostic of deposition during the first we to explain the post-Flood indicators, even from red blood cells, in a Tyran- 150 days of the Flood (Walker, 1994). such as prints, coprolites, grass, babies, nosaurus rex from sandstone in eastern Thus, the animals probably died late in unlithified sediments, and unperminer- Montana. This unfossilized skeleton is the early part of the Flood. alized bones? now located in the Museum of the Rock- This is supported by the lithifica- Volume 46, Fall 2009 89 tion of the Ash Hollow Formation. This probably cause the emergence of land, would cause sea level to oscillate locally suggests a fair amount of overburden explaining the development of short- or regionally. compressing the formation. If so, that lived refuges, leading to the formation of I believe the ashfall site is similar to sediment was later eroded. However, that dinosaur tracks, eggs, nests, and unique the unique features observed at Agate would be expected during the retreating features of dinosaur graveyards (Oard, Fossil Beds National Monument in stage of the Flood and should not be sur- 1995; 2009). Small regional changes western Nebraska (Oard, 1998). Unique prising. I suspect that the real issue is the could result in dramatic local falls in spiral burrows—some containing fossil unconscious reliance on the geologic relative sea level, exposing sediments beavers—have been found there (Figure column, which suggests that Miocene already deposited by the Flood (Figure 15). Mammal tracks are also present. strata should be late in the Flood or 14). Terrestrial creatures surviving for Other similar sites include Toadstool even after it. But our understanding of a short time in the water or on nearby Geologic Park in northwest Nebraska the Flood is at a rudimentary stage. We high ground, could occupy the newly and some valleys in the Rocky Moun- should remember Sherlock Holmes’s raised area for a short time, leaving tains (Lockley and Hunt, 1995). Based suggestion: “Eliminate all other factors, tracks and laying eggs. Dead or dying on these observations, we must conclude and the one which remains must be the animals washed up onto a newly exposed that large regions of the western United truth” (Doyle, 1890, p. 92). section could create bonebeds when States were briefly and periodically returning waters covered them again. exposed before the peak of the Flood at Briefly Exposed Flood Sediments Given enough time, there would be Day 150. This would explain the various Therefore, any realistic model of the scavenging of bodies or eggs, as deduced tracks, eggs, nests, and bonebeds found Flood needs to account for local varia- from teeth marks and similar indicators. in the area. It also would suggest the tions in tectonics and eustasy that would There are at least four mechanisms that subsequent erosion of vast thicknesses of sediment that once overlaid these beds. Therefore, most of the Tertiary strata of the Rocky Mountain valleys and High Plains are from the inundatory stage of the Flood. This deduction may be a shock to those creationists who believe the tertiary is late Flood or post-Flood. But it is primarily a shock because many creationists assume that the geological column is a reliable time sequence. According to that yardstick, the tertiary should be late Flood or post-Flood. But on further thought, maybe it is not such a difficult idea. One would ex- pect the majority of sedimentation early in the Flood, since it was most violent during those early stages. The retreating stage, especially over the higher regions of western North America, was a time of vast, rapid erosion, called the “Erodo- zoic” by Holt (1996). Therefore, by elimination, the strata remaining—even if dated “tertiary” by uniformitarian ge- ologists—are from the inundatory stage of the Flood. If great thicknesses of strata were Figure 14. Location of postulated strip of land or series of shoals in western eroded late in the Flood, where did they United States generally parallel to the crest of the Rocky Mountains. There are go? The answer is to the east. Erosion four megatracksites in black; the newly discovered one in Wyoming contains two in the elevated areas of North America megatracksites on different beds (from Oard, 2002, p. 6). led to the eastward and southward 90 Creation Research Society Quarterly

eruptions prior to the major eruption that produced the ashfall that killed and buried the animals” (p. 129). In a Flood scenario, the animals on high refugia were likely subjected to multiple ashfalls and particles from meteoric impacts be- fore they were forced to flee. Thus, the development of Marie’s disease might have occurred over the early weeks or even months of the Flood before their final demise.

Summary Some evidence from the ashfall site suggests a post-Flood environment, but the predominance of evidence indicates that these fossils formed during the early stages of the Flood. The lack of permin- eralized bones and unlithified ash is Figure 15. Devil’s corkscrew from Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, western not conclusive, since similar features Nebraska. are found in other sediments that were clearly deposited during the Flood. Regional considerations, such as the thin, widespread sediments; the transport of vast amounts of sediment, The presence of freshwater diatoms large volume of sediments; a planation which were deposited as the coastal needs further analysis. Are they true surface above correlative strata to the plain and continental shelf sediments environmental indicators, or were they west; pebbles carried from the Rocky of the eastern seaboard and the Gulf transported by Flood currents? Are we Mountains; evidence for large-scale ero- of Mexico. Some probably were even sure they are freshwater, or is that simply sion; subtropical fauna inconsistent with carried far out onto the abyssal plains inferred from a freshwater environment an Ice Age climate; and the likely Flood (Oard, 2001). based on the terrestrial fossils at the origin of the overlying Nebraska Sand Other aspects of the ashfall site can ashfall site (i.e., circular reasoning)? Hills all argue for a Flood origin. be explained by this model. Grass found Since we don’t know the chemistry of The presence of tracks and other at the site and even in the mouths and the floodwaters (which was probably evidence for living animals strongly stomachs of the dead animals could quite variable in space and time), these suggests that the ashfall site was actually have sprouted from seeds carried in the diatoms may well have been at home in buried prior to Day 150 of the Flood, atmosphere or in floating vegetation. the local conditions. that a significant volume of sediment Grass would sprout quickly under the Contrary to the uniformitarian expla- was deposited atop the area, and that right conditions. nation, Akridge and Akridge (2008) state massive erosion during the retreating The presence of fetuses and babies that Marie’s disease or “hypertrophic stage of the Flood eroded the area back with adults might indicate that these osteopathy,” caused by inhaling volca- down to the level of the ashfall site. This animals rode out the initial violence of nic ash, probably was not the cause of same model can explain other sites the Flood on some high refuge. When death. They cited the time needed for throughout western North America lower lands were exposed, they then oc- the bone growths to manifest themselves that show dinosaur tracks, eggs, nests, cupied them together. Coprolites might from a single eruption. Uniformitarians and dinosaur and mammal bonebeds. have been preserved by ash or other correlate the ash at the ashfall site with Marie’s disease present in the fossils rapid burial. There would of course a volcano 1,000 mi (1,609 km) away in at the ashfall site may well have been be scavenging and trampling of dead southwest Idaho by chemical tracking. caused by early Flood volcanism and/or animals before the area was completely Akridge and Akridge (2008) suggest that meteoric impacts, either of which could re-inundated before Day 150. “one possibility is the presence of minor have generated the lung disease. Volume 46, Fall 2009 91

References Cenozoic climates: implication for not form in a postdiluvial lake. Answers CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- using palaeontological data in recon- Research Journal 1:99–108. terly structing palaeoclimate. Palaeogeogra- Schmidt, K.-H. 1989. The significance of JOC: Journal of Creation, Creation Ex Nihilo phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology scarp retreat for Cenozoic landform evo- Technical Journal, or Technical Journal 137:205–271. lution on the Colorado Plateau, U.S.A. Akridge, A.J., and M.E. Akridge. 2008. Oard, M.J. 1995. Polar dinosaurs and the Earth Surface Processes and Landforms Death on the plains of Nebraska. CRSQ Genesis Flood. CRSQ 32:47–56. 14:93–105. 45:126–133. Oard, M.J. 1996. Where is the Flood/post- Schweitzer, M.H., C. Johnson, T.G. Zocco, Akridge, A.J., and C.R. Froede Jr. 2005. Flood boundary in the rock record? JOC J.R. Horner, and J.R. Starkey. 1997a. Ashfall Fossil Beds State Park, Nebraska: 10(2):258–278. Preservation of biomolecules in cancel- a post-Flood/Ice Age paleoenvironment. Oard, M.J. 1998. Dinosaurs in the Flood: a lous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of CRSQ 42:183–192. response. JOC 12(1):69–86. Vertebrate Paleontology 17(2):349–359. Asara, J.M., M.H. Schweitzer, L.M. Frei- Oard, M.J. 2001. Vertical tectonics and the Schweitzer, M.H., M. Marshall, K. Car- mark, M. Phillips, and L.C. Cantley. drainage of Floodwater: a model for the ron, D.S. Bohle, S.C. Busse, E.V. Ar- 2007. Protein sequences from mastodon Middle and Late Diluvian period—Part nold, D. Barnard, J.R. Horner, and J.R. and Tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass II. CRSQ 38(2):79–95. Starkey. 1997b. Heme compounds in spectrometry. Science 316:280–285. Oard, M.J. 2002. Newly discovered dinosaur dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings Carlson, M.P. 1993. Geology, Geologic Time megatracksites support Flood model. of the National Academy of Science and Nebraska. Educational Circular No. JOC 16(3):5–7. 94:6291–6296. 10, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Oard, M.J. 2006. The geological column Schweitzer, M.H., Z. Suo, R. Avci, J.M. Resources, University of Nebraska, Lin- is a general Flood order with many Asara, M.A. Allen, R.T. Arce, and J.R. coln, NE. exceptions. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Horner. 2007. Analyses of soft tissue from Doyle, A.C. 1890. The Sign of the Four Oard (editors), The Geological Column: Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence (1890). The Penguin Complete Sher- Perspectives within Diluvial Geology, of protein. Science 316:277–280. lock Holmes, reprinted, New York, NY, pp. 99–121. Creation Research Society Schweitzer, M.H., J.L. Wittmeyer, J.R. 1981. Books, Chino Valley, AZ. Horner, and J.K. Toporski. 2005. Soft- Heller, P.L., K. Dueker, and M.E. McMil- Oard, M.J. 2007. Defining the Flood/post- tissue vessels and cellular preserva- lan. 2003. Post-Paleozoic alluvial gravel Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks. tion in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science transport as evidence of continental tilt- JOC 21(1):98–110. 307:1952–1955. ing in the U.S. Cordillera. GSA Bulletin Oard, M.J., 2008a. Long-distance Flood Stokstad, E. 2005. Tyrannosaurus rex soft 115:1122–1132. transport of the Nenana Gravel of tissue raises tantalizing prospects. Sci- Holt, R.D. 1996. Evidence for a Late Caino- Alaska—similar to other gravels in the ence 307:1852. zoic Flood/post-Flood boundary. JOC United States. CRSQ 44:264–278. Thornbury, W.D. 1965. Regional Geomor- 10(1):128–167. Oard, M. J. 2008b. Flood by Design: The phology of the United States. John Wiley Hutchison, J.H. 1982. Turtle, crocodilian, Earth’s Surface Shaped by Receding Wa- & Sons, New York, NY. and champsosaur diversity changes ter. Master Books, Green Forest, AR. Trimble, D.E. 1990. The Geologic Story of in the Cenozoic of the North-Central Oard, M. J. 2009. Dinosaur tracks, eggs, and the Great Plains. Theodore Roosevelt region of Western United States. Pal- bonebeds. In Oard, M.J., and J.K. Reed Nature and History Association, Me- aeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Pal- (editors), Rock Solid Answers: Responses dora, ND. aeoecology 37:149–164. to Popular Objections to Biblical Geol- Walker, T.B. 1994. A biblical geological Lockley, M., and A.P. Hunt. 1995. Dinosaur ogy. Master Books, Green Forest, AR, model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceed- Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of and Creation Research Society Books, ings of the Third International Conference the Western United States. Columbia Chino Valley, AZ. on Creationism (technical symposium University Press, New York, NY. Oard, M.J., and P. Klevberg. 2008. The sessions), pp. 581–592. Creation Science Markwick, P.J. 1998. Fossil crocodilians Green River Formation very likely did Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. as indicators of Late Cretaceous and 92 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Book Review The Global Phenomenon of by Aaron Judkins

Human Fossil Maverick Publishing, Granbury, Footprints TX, 2008, 424 pp., $30.00. in Rock

In the early summer of 1999, a friend square. Judkins then launches into an using all their limbs for climbing and and I attended a paleontology excava- extended geological and paleontologi- grasping, or knuckle-walking. The hu- tion on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, cal critique of evolutionary theory. The man foot is not designed for swinging in Texas. Among the volunteer diggers was author analyzes the philosophical basis trees or vines but instead for true bipedal a young man. This gentleman was very for Darwinism and then proceeds to ground travel. The footprints of apes sincere and conscientious, and his name a discussion of the fossil record. He and monkeys are different from those was Aaron Judkins. Over the intervening includes the Cambrian explosion, lack made by man and are easily discernible, years, I had the occasion to meet Judkins of transitional forms, fossil gaps, unifor- except for those who claim human prints again and have noted his active role mitarianism, and the profound defi cien- can’t show up in rocks they judge to be in the creation movement, especially cies of radioisotope dating. He devotes too old. concerning fossil and archaeological considerable space to a discussion of the The writer gives a critical survey of excavations. fragmentary history of “fossil man” from Texas Paluxy River tracks, which he has This is Judkins’s second book. He the australopithecine apes, homo erec- excavated and documented for a number renders a valuable service in compiling tus, and archaic homo sapiens, including of years. Also discussed are the Laetoli an examination of the numerous in- the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons. tracks of East Africa and sites in New stances of Ichno-fossils. Paleoichnology If one is a new student to the creation- Mexico, Utah, Australia, Mexico, Nica- deals with trace fossils of which one type evolution controversy, Judkins performs ragua, Turkmenistan, and France. is human footprints fossilized in stone. a valuable service in bringing the reader This book is written in laymen- The book begins with a foreword up to speed. friendly prose with a bibliography but by Judkins’s good friend, the late Henry It is in chapter 25 that Judkins no index. It is a valuable critique of Johnson. He extols the virtues of free contributes something comparatively evolutionary paleoanthropology and inquiry and academic freedom, quot- fresh to the debate. He starts off with an provides a reasonable creation response ing such notables as Thomas Jefferson anatomy lesson about the human foot to the problem of human footprints in and Albert Einstein. Johnson deftly and how it is different from those of the stone. uses this polemic to turn the tables on apes and is uniquely fi tted for ground evolutionists, who insist that only their locomotion. The handlike feet of apes Don Ensign origin story be presented in the public and monkeys make them quadrupeds [email protected] Volume 46, Fall 2009 93 The Region of Eden: Analysis and Debate

Joel D. Klenck*

Abstract astern Anatolia, southern Iraq, and Jerusalem have been proposed Eas the regions that once contained the Garden of Eden. Several creationists have argued that it is impossible to locate the region of Eden due to the dramatic changes to the surface of the earth during the Noachian Deluge. However, a close analysis of relevant Biblical passages and the archaeology, geography, geology, paleontology, and paleobotany of Anatolia, the Near East, and North Africa suggest that the region of Eden was located in Southeastern Anatolia. This region provides source waters for four rivers, following Precambrian rift valleys or faults, which are connected to the Biblical locales of Asshur, Havilah, and Cush. The rivers traversed a landmass that originated in the Precambrian not covered by the alleged expanse of the Tethys Ocean. Furthermore, southeastern Anatolia is associated with the ancient kingdom of the House of Eden. Although the Bible states that the Flood was a global catastrophic event, the confluence of biblical texts with geographical, geological, and other data provides a compelling indication that its ef- fects did not eradicate all evidence of Eden’s original location.

Introduction for Eden is nonsensical. For them, Biblical Description The search for the region that com- the region of Eden can no longer be In Genesis 2:8–14, the description of prised the Garden of Eden is one of the located because the Noachian Deluge the location of the Garden of Eden is few areas where there is partial agree- erased any geographical continuity rich in detail: ment between evolutionists and some between the pre-Flood and post-Flood 2:8: And Jehovah God planted a young-earth creationists. Although their earth. garden in Eden [5731], to the east; viewpoints are radically different, both If the region of Eden could be and He put the man whom He had concur that the search for Eden is an ascertained, this would have broad formed there. exercise in futility. For the evolutionists, implications for future research such as 2:9: And out of the ground Jehovah God, creation, and Eden never existed, comparisons of site formation processes, God made to spring up every tree that so attempts to find the Garden are with- geological strata, and the distribution is pleasant to the sight, and good for out merit. Similarly, some creationists of fauna and flora, inside and outside food. The Tree of Life was also in the have adopted the belief that the search this region. middle of the garden; also the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. 2:10: And a river went out from Eden to water the garden, and from there it * Joel D. Klenck, PhD, Anthropology Paleontological Research Corporation, was divided and became four heads. 1011 Arlington Blvd., Suite 909, Arlington, VA 22209, [email protected] 2:11: The name of the first is the Accepted for publication July 18, 2009 Pishon [6376]. It is the one surround- 94 Creation Research Society Quarterly

ing all of the land of Havilah [2341] the Akkadians, the river was the Idiqlat. that the sons of Ishmael lived in an area where there is the gold. Nearly all conservative Biblical scholars that extended from Havilah to Shur. Shur 2:12: And the gold of that land is good equate the Hiddekel with the Tigris is described in Genesis 25:18 as “facing and there is bdellium, resin gum, and River. The Tigris River is located to the Egypt as you come toward Asshur [As- the stone of onyx. east of the archaeological site of Asshur, syria]” ( 2:13: And the name of the second or Assur, the ancient capital of the Assyr- ). The origin of the road leading river is the Gihon [1521]. It is the ian Empire (Healy, 1991; Parpola, 2004; from Egypt to Assyria was located in the one surrounding all the land of Cush Schomp, 2005). northwest region of the Sinai Peninsula. [3578]. The origin of the modern Tigris and Hence, the region of Shur represented 2:14: And the name of the third river Euphrates Rivers is in Eastern Anatolia, the northwestern area of the Sinai is the Hiddekel [2313]. It is the one near the city of Elazig, in modern Tur- Peninsula. going east of Asshur [804]. And the key. Biblical scholars equate the Perat The second reference to Havilah fourth river is the Perat [6578]. (The and Hiddekel with the Euphrates and is found in 1 Samuel 15:7. Here, King Interlinear Bible with Strong’s Con- Tigris Rivers. Most creationists believe Saul moved south from Israel and Judah cordance Numbers) that after the Genesis Flood, the Perat and struck down the people of Amalek The Hebrew text is clear that the and Hiddekel represent the Euphrates from Havilah to Shur. Shur is described Garden of Eden was the source of four and Tigris Rivers. However, the equa- as “before” or “on the face” of Egypt rivers: Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and the tion of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers ( ). For Saul to move Perat. A river “went out from Eden” and with the Perat and Hiddekel before the south, through Havilah, and then to “from there it was divided and became Genesis Flood is debated and discussed Shur, would indicate that Havilah was four heads.” The Hebrew use of the word below. in the northeastern region of the Sinai .and the fact that the river from Peninsula [מ] ”from“ Eden became the “head” of the four riv- Also instructive is that King Saul sent ers leaves little doubt that Eden was the Pishon a warning to the Kenites to “Go! Depart! origin and not the destination of these The Pishon [ ] is not mentioned Go out from the midst of Amalek, lest four rivers. outside the original reference in the I destroy you with them” (1 Sam. 15:6). second chapter of Genesis. The Pishon That the Kenites lived in the northeast is described as “surrounding” all the land region of the Sinai Peninsula is sup- Perat and Hiddekel of Havilah and is associated with gold, ported by other Biblical texts. Numbers Of the four rivers associated with the bdellium, resin gum, and onyx (Gen. 23:28 states that Balak, the king of Moab, Garden of Eden, the Perat [ ] is most 2:11–12). Although, the Pishon is not took Balaam to the top of Mount Peor frequently mentioned river in the Bible mentioned again, the land of Havilah is in Moab and oriented him “toward the and refers to the Euphrates River in mentioned in several texts after Genesis wasteland.” From here, Balaam could modern Iraq and Turkey. After Genesis 2. The location of Havilah is, I believe, see the land of the Kenites (Num. 24:21). 2:14, the Perat is noted in 18 other verses instrumental in locating this ancient All locales—Moab, Mount Peor, the from Genesis through Jeremiah (Gen. river, which originated from Eden. “wasteland” of the Dead Sea, and the 15:18; Deut. 1:7, 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 2 Sam. In Biblical texts, Havilah is both Kenites—are in or near the northeastern 8:3; 2 Kings 23:29; 24:7; 1 Chron. 5:9; a name and geographical location. region of the Sinai Peninsula (Figure 1). 18:3; 2 Chron. 35:20; Jer. 13:4, 5, 6, 7; In Genesis 10:7 and 29, which are Therefore, the location of Havilah can 46:2, 6,10; and 51:63). In Akkadian, the replicated in 1 Chronicles 1:9 and 23, be deduced. river was the Pu-rat-tu, and in Sumerian, Havilah was the name of two men. Both a. Shur is directly east of Egypt the Buranun. were descendants of Noah. The first was in the northwestern region of The Hiddekel [ ] is mentioned a son of Cush, who was a son of Ham the Sinai (Gen. 25:18; 1 Sam. in one other verse outside of Genesis (Gen. 10:6–7). The second was the son 15:7). 2:14, namely in Daniel 10:4, where the of Joktan. Joktan was a descendent of b. Havilah is near Shur (Gen. Prophet receives a vision as he “was by Noah, through Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, 25:18). the side of the great river, which is the and Eber, who was the father of Joktan c. The Kenites lived near Moab Hiddekel.” The author of Genesis 2:14 (Gen. 10:21–29). (Num. 24:21). describes the Hiddekel as “the one go- Two passages, Genesis 25:18 and 1 d. Moab, Mount Peor, the waste- ing east of Asshur.” Sumerians referred Samuel 15:7, point to the geographical land, and the Kenites were in to the river as the Idigna or Idigina. For location of Havilah. Genesis 25:18 notes or near the northeastern region Volume 46, Fall 2009 95

of the Sinai Peninsula (Num. 24:21). e. King Saul warned the Kenites, who were living near the Ama- lekites, near the land of Havilah (1 Sam. 15:6). f. King Saul attacked south from Israel and Judah and then east toward Shur, going through the region of Havilah (1 Sam. 15:7). Hence, the only locale that Havilah could represent, according to all Biblical sources, is the northeastern region of the Sinai Peninsula. And the determination of Havilah’s location is crucial to identi- fying the Pishon. Today, the Wadi HaArava, a seasonal river, runs through the northeastern area of the Sinai Peninsula. From the Wadi HaArava seasonal rivers emerge, including the Nahal Paran, Nahal Hiy- yon, Wadi Musa, Wadi Girafi, and the Wadi Rum. These seasonal rivers extend throughout the northeastern Sinai and are similar to the description in Genesis 2:11, where the Pishon surrounded the land of Havilah (Figure 1). Egyptian sources state that the northeastern Sinai was a mining area for gold and other precious stones. Large state-controlled expeditions mined gold, copper ores, and decorative stones in this region, using prisoners, slaves, and occasionally Egyptian peasants (Greaves and Little, 1929). In addition, King Gudea (2144–2124 B.C.) recorded that he imported gold, precious stones, and copper from the Sinai for the temples at Lagash (Lucas, 1962). With regard to geology, the Wadi HaArava follows an ancient rift valley that extends through Paleozoic strata. This rift valley originates in eastern Anatolia: from the Orontes River, to Figure 1. Northeastern Sinai Peninsula showing the location of the Wadi HaArava the Lintani River, the Kinneret (Sea of and its associated seasonal rivers. Galilee), Jordan River, Dead Sea, Wadi Ha Arava, Gulf of Aqaba, and to the Red Sea. The Orontes, Lintani, and Jordan rivers were interrupted by tectonic and volcanic activity in the Late Cenozoic. 96 Creation Research Society Quarterly

The origin of the Orontes River is ad- jacent to the source areas for the Tigris and Euphrates, near the modern city of Elazig in Turkey (Figure 2). In light of Biblical texts, archaeologi- cal sources, and geological evidence, I suggest the Pishon was an ancient waterway correlating with a rift valley that originated in eastern Anatolia and generally followed the modern Orontes / Litani / and Jordan waterways. The Pishon originated in the same area as the Tigris and Euphrates, flowed south away from Eden, and moved through the land of Havilah.

Gihon The Gihon [ ] is mentioned only Figure 2. Satellite photograph of the Middle East showing the Tigris and Euphra- in Genesis 2:13 and is described as sur- tes Rivers and the rift valley and waterways that once comprised the Pishon: the rounding the land of Cush. Most conser- Orontes, Litani, Jordan, and Wadi HaArava. vative Biblical scholars identify Cush as modern Ethiopia. The only extant river associated with Cush is the Nile River and its tributaries. Hence, creationists are confronted with a difficult problem: how to connect the origin of the Tigris, Euphrates, and Pishon, with the land of Cush. The concept of a river connecting eastern Anatolia to Africa is alien to many evolutionary geologists. For the latter, the area of North Africa, the Middle East, and much of Anatolia was under water, beneath the Tethys Ocean, during most of the geological history of the Earth. Benton provides many excel- lent illustrations of the alleged waters of the Tethys, replete with warm and cold ocean currents, covering the landmasses during the Cretaceous period (Benton, 1996). However, he enigmatically il- lustrates terrestrial sauropod remains in these alleged marine areas (Figure 3). Paleontologists and paleobotanists have limited the expanse of the Tethys Ocean by identifying terrestrial faunal and floral remains in areas in the midst of this supposed sea. Woodmorappe Figure 3. A familiar evolutionary geology view of the areas of North Africa, Middle (1983), citing a deluge of articles by East, and Anatolia, under the alleged waters of the Tethys Ocean during the evolutionists, has plotted these re- Cretaceous (Benton, 1996). Volume 46, Fall 2009 97

Figure 4. The location of terrestrial faunal and floral remains found in deposits, from the Devonian to the Tertiary, in the midst of the alleged Tethys Ocean (from Woodmorappe, 1983).

mains in Devonian, Carboniferous, 1982; Hallam, 1973; Klitzsch, 1981; cian deposits in Saudi Arabia and Oman, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Lejal, 1975; Savage, 1967; Savage and the latter being similar to liverwort and Tertiary deposits in Anatolia, the Russell, 1983; Wesley, 1973). (Strother et al., 1996; Wellman et al., Middle East, and North Africa (An- Since Woodmorappe’s article, pa- 2003). Paleontologists have discovered derson and Cruickshank, 1978; Bellini leontologists have unearthed more fungi from terrestrial ecosystems in and Massa 1980; Beltan et al., 1979; evidence for terrestrial plants and ani- Permian and Triassic deposits in the Charig, 1971; 1973; Cooke, 1972; 1978; mals in Anatolia and the Middle East. Negev, Israel; south Anatolia, Turkey; Cox, 1973; Davies, 1975; El-Khayal et Fragments and cryptospores of terrestrial Saudi Arabia; the southern Alps in Italy; al., 1980; Glut, 1972; Goldsmith et al., plants were identified from mid-Ordovi- and in Dinarides, Bosnia (Visscher et al., 98 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 5. Recent views from evolutionary geologists showing a more restricted Tethys Ocean with Eastern Anatolia, the Middle East, and Africa above the waters. Shown here are two maps exhibiting the extent of the Tethys Ocean and terrestrial land from the Maastrichtian to the Ladinian, allegedly from 69 to 230 MYA (from Stampfli and Borel, 2002).

1996). Palaeobotanists identified fossil- al., 2005; Caldwell, 2006; Nevo and et al., 1985). In addition they indicate ized wood in Jurassic and Early Creta- Estes, 1969). from these geological studies that the ceous strata in Lebanon and Turkey and Recently, evolutionary geologists area of eastern Turkey, the Tigris and several tropical species of Dicroidium, have begun to restrict the alleged Euphrates region, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, extinct plants with mostly fernlike foli- expanse of the Tethys Ocean. In a the Sinai Peninsula, and Africa was not age but with real seeds, in the Permian comprehensive treatise, Stampfli and covered by the Tethys but represented Um Irna Formation near the Dead Sea Borel (2002) cite numerous studies from a vast expanse of terrestrial land, freed in Jordan (Kerp et al., 2004; Philippe Greece, Iran, Romania, Turkey, Italy, from the water, during the Mesozoic et al., 2006). In Cretaceous (Turonian) Georgia, Switzerland, and other locales and Cenozoic. Their treatise coincides deposits in the Negev Desert, research- and restrict the expanse of the Tethys with paleontological and paleobotani- ers identified the remains of insect leaf Ocean (Alavi et al., 1997; Baumgartner, cal research, especially in regard to the parasites, deciduous broadleafs, and 1985; Bonneau, 1984; Cioflica et al., aforementioned riot of terrestrial flora angiosperms (Dobruskina and Krassilov, 1980; Fleury, 1980; Gutnic et al., 1979; that has been discovered in deposits 1995; Krassilov, 2008). Paleobotanists Jurdy et al., 1995; Khain, 1994; Kozur, from Turkey to Arabia, in strata from Pa- have also identified a new species of 1991; 1997; Krahl et al., 1983; Monod leozoic (Ordovician) through Mesozoic Weichselia, a Mesozoic fern, in Early and Akay, 1984; Morris, 1996; Niocaill (Cretaceous). Cretaceous strata at Makhtesh Ramon, and Smethurst, 1994; Okay and Mostler Other conclusions from recent in southern Israel (Silantieva and Kras- 1994; Pickett and Robertson, 1996; geological studies include that the en- silov, 2006). Discoveries of terrestrial Poisson, 1984; Powell and Li, 1994; tirety of the Tigris, Euphrates, and the fauna include a new species of snake and Robertson, 1993; Seghedi et al., 1990; Orontes / Litani / Jordan rivers rest on a brachiosaur in Cretaceous deposits in Sengor et al.,1980; Stampfli et al., 1991; geological foundations that descend to Lebanon, a salamander in similar strata Stampfli and Marchant, 1997; Stampfli Precambrian strata (Ronov et al., 1977; in Israel, and mammal remains that and Pillevuit, 1993; Tuysuz, 1990; Wal- Woodmorappe, 1981). Moreover, the are too numerous to cite (Buffetaut et dron, 1984; Ziegler, 1990; Zonenshain Tigris and Euphrates rivers most likely Volume 46, Fall 2009 99

follow Precambrian faults similar to the Najd faults in northwestern Saudi Arabia (Moore, 1979; Woodmorappe, 2002). In addition, this area comprises strata from nearly every geological Paleozoic period, including the Ordovician, Silurian, and Carboniferous. Moreover, the founda- tions of the Red Sea and the Jordan Rift Valley, which comprises the Orontes, Litani, and Jordan rivers formed in the Precambrian. Dubertret (1970, p. 18) states that “the Red Sea structure as well as the appurtenant Dead Sea structure originated at the end of the Precambrian, as shown by many established observa- tions.” Beginning in the Precambrian, the Figure 6. The southern end of the expanse that is now the Red Sea. The locale Red Sea was a narrowly confined valley, was originally a riverine environment whose southerly progression moved west, which became a riverine environment, forming the East African Rift Valley (white arrows). Later in the Cenozoic, both whose southerly progression moved shores of the valley divided forming the Red Sea. The imprint of this divide is west, forming the structure of the East readily apparent in satellite images (black angles). African Rift Valley. This valley moved through the center of Ethiopia, forming tributaries on either side of this waterway (Figure 6). Only during the Cenozoic, in the Oligocene and Miocene, did a wider marine trough develop. Later, in the Miocene and Pliocene, the two shores began to divide, forming the new floor of what is today the Red Sea and coincid- ing with the accumulation of limestone, marls, clays, and evaporates (Coleman, 1994; McKenzie et al., 1970). Of note is that the East African Rift Valley rests on a Precambrian founda- tion. As the shores of the Red Sea divided during the Miocene and Pliocene, Ter- tiary sediment and volcanic activity sur- mounted the Precambrian foundation of the rift valley and blocked its route to the Sea (Alene and Barker, 1993; Atnafu and Bonavia, 1991; Kazmin, 1971; 1972a; 1972b; 1972c; 1973; 1975). Also, the proposed origin of the Gihon is very near the modern location of the Ceyhan River in Turkey (Figure Figure 7. The geology of Ethiopia, exhibiting the Precambrian foundation of 8). It is noteworthy how similar both the East African Rift Valley (Black Arrow). Shown is the route of the river as it names appear. More remarkable is that moved southwest from what is now the Red Sea (Black Line). The route to the the river was pronounced the Jihun or sea was blocked by volcanic activity and the accumulation of sediment during Jechun and was part of the ancient Hittite the Tertiary (from Kazmin, 1973). province of Adana. Greek civilizations 100 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Cenozoic Era. The Assyrian Suture, which separated the Tauride Block from the Arabian Platform, closed during the late Cenozoic. Moreover, this tectonic activity largely avoided the region of Eden. The modern city of Diyarbakir is approximately 100 kilometers south of Elazig, the center of the proposed region of Eden. Hence, the geological upheaval, between the Pontides and Tauride and Anatolide blocks, was more recent compared to geology of the region of Eden, with its Paleozoic foundation on the Arabian Platform (Figure 9).

Suggested Location of the Region of Eden In light of the paleontological, paleobo- tanical, geological, and archaeological research and citations from a wide array evolutionists and creationists, I submit the ancient location of the region of Eden was in eastern Anatolia (Figure 10). Early in Earth’s history, eastern Figure 8. A map of modern Southeastern Turkey showing the origins of the Ceyhan, Anatolia was east of the Sinai Peninsula, Orontes, Euphrates, and Tigris Rivers emerging from the same region. the locale where the author of Genesis wrote the first five books of the Bible. As the continents spread apart, eastern Anatolia moved northwest, away from called the river the Pyramus or Pyramos Today, the Arabian plate continues to Israel and the Sinai. (Πύραμος). move north and west (Figure 9). For Providing additional support for geological creationists and evolutionary Eden’s location in eastern Anatolia are geologists, Anatolia has moved north textual references about the kingdom Eastward and west throughout the geological his- of Beth Eden or the House of Eden. Eden also is described as located to the tory of the earth (Baumgardner, 1990; According to Assyrian sources, Bit Adini “east” or “eastward” in Genesis 2:8. The Okay and Tuysuz, 1999). Thus, there was an Aramaean state, in the tenth Biblical text seems to indicate that the is consensus between extremely diverse century B.C., which was conquered by direction of Eden is to the east of the positions that early in the history of the Assyria (Roux, 1992). That the location author writing the text. earth eastern Anatolia was southeast of Beth Eden was close to Carchem- That the Garden of Eden was de- of its current position. If Anatolia has ish, near eastern Anatolia, provides scribed as “to the east” or “eastward” by moved northwest over time, Anatolia additional support for the association the author of Genesis may correlate with was once east of the Sinai Peninsula, between Eden and eastern Anatolia plate tectonics. As the Red Sea widened the location where many conservative (Figure 10). in the Tertiary, the Arabian plate moved Jewish and Christian theologians state In addition, other Biblical passages north as the African plate moved south. Moses authored Genesis. Hence, Eden refer to Eden. In 2 Kings and Isaiah, This tectonic activity moved eastern was located toward the east. Sennacherib’s messengers to King Heze- Anatolia, the source of the Tigris, Eu- It is noteworthy that much of the kiah, mention a series of locales, which phrates, and the proposed Gihon and severe tectonic activity in Anatolia oc- were conquered by Assyria before their Pishon rivers, north and west over time. curred during the Late Cretaceous and march on Jerusalem. Volume 46, Fall 2009 101

Figure 9. A tectonic map of Anatolia from Okay and Tuysuz (1999). The diagram shows the continuing pressure of the Arabian Platform against Eastern Anatolia, with the latter being pressed north and west.

Have the gods of the nations deliv- As Telassar was inhabited by the Haran, and Canneh, and Eden; the ered them, which my fathers have “children of Eden,” and is men- merchants of Sheba, Asshur, Chil- destroyed, Gozan, and Haran, and Rez- tioned with Gozan, Haran, and mad were your merchants (Ezek. eph, and the sons of Eden who were in Rezeph, in Western Mesopotamia, 27:23). Telassar? (2 Kings 19:12). it has been suggested that it lay in In this passage Eden is associated Have the gods of the nations saved Bit Adini, “the House of Adinu,” or with Haran. Haran is located near or those whom my fathers have de- Betheden, in the same direction, in eastern Anatolia (Figure 10). To stroyed, Gozan, and Haran, and between the Euphrates and the summarize, Biblical passages outside Rezeph, and the sons of Eden in Belikh. A place named Til-As- of Genesis, as well as extrabiblical texts, Telassar? (Isa. 37:12). suri, however, is twice mentioned suggest the region of Eden was either in With regard to the claims of Sennach- by Tiglath-pileser IV (Ann., 176; or near eastern Anatolia. This supports erib to Hezekiah, the association between Slab-Inscr., II, 23), and from these both Sanders’s (2001) and my proposed the “sons of Eden” and Gozan, Haran, passages it would seem to have lain locations for Eden. and Rezeph is noteworthy. All cities are near enough to the Assyrian border From the region of Eden emerged located either in eastern Anatolia or in to be annexed. the four rivers of the Pishon, Gihon, northwestern Mesopotamia, adjacent to The Prophet Ezekiel, in his lament Tigris, and Euphrates. The Tigris Anatolia. With regard to the location of for Tyre, notes that Eden traded with the and Euphrates are evident today. The Telassar, Pinches (1915, p. 2925) notes: doomed city. Pishon no longer exists but followed 102 Creation Research Society Quarterly

the rift valley, which today comprises the Orontes, Litani, and Jordan Rivers. From the Jordan, the Pishon continued south through the once living Dead Sea to the Wadi HaArava and its tributaries, which spread throughout the land of Havilah. I suggest the ancient Gihon originated in eastern Anatolia, followed a route through what is now the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and through the western end of the Sinai Peninsula. From here the Gihon followed an an- cient river, representing the modern Red Sea, which traveled west into Cush or modern Ethiopia (Figure 11).

Other Views and Discussion In 2001, Michael Sanders proposed a location for the Garden of Eden in eastern Anatolia (Sanders, 2001). Sand- Figure 10. The suggested location of the Region of Eden, exhibiting the lands of ers stated the source waters of the Tigris Shur and Havilah, the ancient city of Asshur, and the routes of the Pishon, Gihon, and Euphrates determined the ancient Perat, and Hiddekel Rivers. The Perat (Euphrates) and Hiddekel (Tigris) continue region of Eden. I disagree with his loca- today. The Pishon and Gihon halted with the expansion of the Mediterranean tion of the Gihon and Pishon (Figure 12). and Red seas, sediment accumulation, and volcanic activity, which evolutionary For Sanders, the Gihon and Pishon were geologists allege occurred in the Tertiary. local rivers confined to eastern Anatolia. It is difficult to conceive how Sanders’s thoughts regarding the Gihon and the Pishon associate with Biblical references to the lands of Havilah and Cush. Al-

Figure 11. A satellite view of the region of Eden showing the lands of Havilah and Cush, the city of Asshur, and the routes of the Pishon, Gihon, Perat, and Hiddekel Rivers. The Perat (Euphrates) and Hiddekel (Tigris) continue today. The Pishon and Gihon do not exist today; their routes are evident by ancient rift valleys. Volume 46, Fall 2009 103

the northeast of the Arabian Peninsula, and came nowhere near the Sinai. Several creationists object to any po- tential discovery or search for the region of Eden (Hughes, 1997; Walker, 2001). Their position is that the Flood was so catastrophic that it completely changed the surface of the pre-Flood earth. For these scholars, attempting to locate Eden is an exercise in folly, because they argue that Noah and his descendants renamed all geographical locales and rivers after the floodwaters subsided. For them, all rivers and geographical locales Figure 12. Satellite image of the proposed region of Eden in Eastern Anatolia after the Flood have no connection to (from Sanders, 2001). features before the Flood. Walker (2001, p. 2) states, “The present Tigris and Eu- phrates Rivers have nothing to do with the rivers described in Genesis 2, except though I find Sanders’s locations of the Scriptures clearly state that Jerusalem for their names.” Pishon and Gihon problematic, I agree and the land of the Messiah will be The Bible leaves little doubt that with his proposed general location for comparable to ancient Eden; however, the Flood affected the surface of the Eden, in eastern Anatolia. there appears to be no geographical tie earth and its geography as evidenced by Recently, Jud Davis (2008) suggested between ancient Eden and the current 2 Peter 3:5–6, which says that God used that the ancient location of Eden should location of Jerusalem or Israel. a mighty flood to destroy the ancient be associated with the current location In 1987 Juris Zarins and Dora world; Genesis 7:11, which says God of Jerusalem. He sites various scholars Hamblin suggested that Eden was lo- opened the waters of the great deep; including Wenham (1986) and Tuell cated underwater, near the delta of the Genesis 7:19–20, which declares that (2000) and ample Biblical citations Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Hamblin, the Floodwaters covered the highest (Ezek. 28:13–14; 36:22–36; 47:1–12; Pss. 1987). Using LANSAT images; Zarins mountains; and other texts that show the 46:4–5; 36:8; Isa. 33:20–21; Joel 3:18; equated the Pishon with the Wadi al- Flood covered the earth and extirpated and Zech. 14:8). However, on closer Batin, which flowed northeast from all creatures with the breath of life (e.g., inspection, the link appears untenable. Saudi Arabia. For Zarins, the Karun Genesis 7:22–23). These verses defini- In Ezekiel 28:13–14, there seems to be River, which flowed south from moun- tively counter the “gentle-flood” hypoth- a clear dichotomy between verse 13, tains of Iran, represented the Gihon esis proffered by some who disregard the which notes that the Devil once traveled River (Figure 13). There are several veracity and inerrancy of Scripture and in Eden, and verse 14, where the Evil problems with Zarins’s theory. First, propose that the Flood was only local to One was also at the “holy mountain of his location of Eden puts this region the Tigris-Euphrates region (e.g., Hill, God”—the latter possibly representing at the destination and not the origin 2002). The existence of two rivers from the mount of Jerusalem. In Ezekiel of the four rivers. Zarins’s theory con- Eden, the Pishon and Gihon, are not 36:35, the text is clear that the land of tradicts the Bible, which clearly states mentioned after the second chapter of the future Messiah will be “like the that all rivers proceeded “from” and Genesis. The Flood presumably affected garden of Eden” [emphasis added] but not “to” Eden. Second, it is difficult to these rivers, although the connection be- makes no connotation that Jerusalem ascertain how Zarins’s location of the tween the disappearance of these rivers represents the locale of ancient Eden. Gihon equates with Cush or how the and the Flood is inferred and not stated The remaining cited verses note two Wadi al-Batin connects to the land of by the author of Genesis. new rivers flowing from the messianic Havilah. The Bible states that Havilah Many forefathers of the church, temple and no mention of an association is in the northeastern Sinai Peninsula, including St. Augustine and Calvin, with the ancient region of Eden. Of note, near Moab and the Kenites. Zarins’s treated the Garden of Eden as both four rivers flowed from ancient Eden. satellite images show that the Wadi al- a historical and physical reality. Ales- To summarize, the aforementioned Batin extended south, was confined to sandro Scafi notes that in the Torah “a 104 Creation Research Society Quarterly

and after the Flood, in Genesis 2:14 and 15:18—which had no geographi- cal association (McDowell 1999; Philo 1935). On theological grounds it seems suspect that this author of the inerrant Word of God, breathed by the Holy Spirit, would apply the name “Perat” or “Hiddekel” to rivers existing before and after the Flood, which had “nothing to do” with each other. The author of Genesis specifies that the Hiddekel was “the one going east of Asshur,” the ancient capital of As- syria (Gen. 2:14). It seems doubtful that Moses would describe one of the rivers from Eden (the Hiddekel) being “east of Asshur,” if the geographical location of this river at the time of creation had “nothing to do” with this location after the Flood. Further, the author of Genesis describes three of the four rivers in association with post-Flood regions or a city. The Hiddekel is tied to the city of Asshur (Gen. 2:14). The Pishon is associated with the land of Havilah Figure 13. Hamblin and Zarins’s proposed location of Eden at the end of the (Gen. 2:11). The Gihon is correlated Tigris and Euphrates rivers (from Hamblin, 1987). with the land of Cush (Gen. 2:13). That the Hiddekel, Pishon, and Gihon before the Flood would have “nothing to do” with these areas after the Flood, despite garden in Eden” is qualified by miqedem, leys founded in Precambrian strata. In Moses clearly identifying these post- a word with both spatial and temporal light of the Flood, these valleys would Flood geographical associations, seems senses. In the Latin Vulgate, the Gar- have provided a drainage avenue dur- incongruous with Scripture. den is described as in principio (in the ing the abative phase of the Deluge–a It is a biblical fact that the Flood was beginning). In the Glossa Ordinaria, phase espoused by most Flood geologists, universal, covered the earth, altered the the Garden is in oriente (in the east). including Walker (1994). Furthermore, geography of the earth, and dispatched However, Augustine Steuchus, Calvin, Woodmorappe (2002, p. 106) suggests all human and terrestrial animal life out- Luther, and others also believed that that after the Flood, the Tigris and side the ark. However, the argument that there was some continuity in the geog- Euphrates rivers “reappeared at or the Flood changed the entire surface of raphy of Eden, especially in the Biblical close to” antediluvian locations as they the pre-Flood earth, to the extent that references to the Tigris and Euphrates, originated on Precambrian faults whose there was no geographical continuity before and after the Flood. Hence, the rift structures would remain despite the before and after the Flood, seems unten- veracity of Scripture depended on Eden deposition of flood sediment. Therefore, able. This position conflicts with the sec- being a historical and spatial reality, with it seems suspect that no trace of the rivers ond chapter of Genesis, other Biblical an element of geographical continuity of Eden would remain after the Flood. passages, the Hebrew patriarchs, and the after the Flood (Scafi, 2006). Also, many creationists espouse that documented views of many forefathers The argument that no geographical the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. of the Christian church. continuity existed before and after the Hence, it seems odd that Moses, the The search for the region of Eden is Flood is questionable. The Pishon and author of Genesis, would attach the a controversial but worthwhile endeavor, Gihon represent the remains of rift val- name “Perat” to two waterways—before which has broad implications for future Volume 46, Fall 2009 105

research. In future research, scholars 35–45. Creation Science Fellowship, of Palaeobiogeography, pp. 339–352. should compare the geology, fauna, Pittsburgh, PA. Elsevier, London, UK. flora, site formation processes, and Baumgartner, P.O. 1985. Jurassic Sedimen- Cioflica, G., M. Lupu, I. Nicolae, and S. radiometric dating, inside and outside tary Evolution and Nappe Emplacement Vlad. 1980. Alpine ophiolites of Roma- this region. in the Argolis Peninsula (Peloponesus, nia: tectonic setting, magmatism, and Greece). Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland. metallogenesis. Annale Institul Geologie Bellini, F., and D. Massa. 1980. A strati- Geofizica 56, 79–96. Acknowledgements graphic contribution to the Palaeozoic of Coleman, R.G. 1994. Geologic Evolution My appreciation extends to the staff and the southern basins of Libya. In Salem, of the Red Sea. Oxford Monographs on employees of the Paleontological Re- M.J., and M.T. Busrewil (editors), The Geology & Geophysics No. 24. Oxford search Corporation, the reviewers of this Geology of Libya, pp. 3–56. Academic University Press, New York, NY. manuscript, Richard and Ginger Over- Press, London, UK. Cooke, H.B.S. 1972. The fossil mammal man, Larry and Darlene Klosterman, Beltan, L., P. Janvier, O Monod, and F. fauna of Africa. In Keast, A., F.C. Erk, Don and Karen Holmes, John Love, and Westphal. 1979. A new marine fish and and B. Glass (editors), Evolution, Mam- the First Coast Creation Society. placodont reptile fauna of Ladinian mals, and Southern Continents, pp. age from Southwestern Turkey. Neues 89–139. State University of New York Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Press, Albany, NY. References 5:258. Cooke, H.B.S. 1978. Africa: the physical set- CRSQ: Creation Research Science Quar- Benton, M. 1996. The Penguin Historical ting. In Haglio, V.J., and H.B.S. Cooke terly Atlas of Dinosaurs. Penguin Books, (editors), Evolution of African Mammals, PPP: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, London, UK. pp. 17–45. Harvard University Press, Palaeoecology Bonneau, M. 1984. Correlation of the hel- Cambridge, MA. Alavi, M., H. Vaziri, K. Seyed-Emami, and lenide nappe in the SE Aegean and Cox, C.B. 1973. Triassic tetrapods. In Hallam, Y. Lasemi. 1997. The Triassic and their tectonic reconstruction. In Dixon, A. (editor), Atlas of Palaeobiogeography, associated rocks of the Nakhlak and J.E., and A.H.F. Robertson (editors), pp. 213–223. Elsevier, London, UK. Aghdarband areas in central and north- The Geological Evolution of the Eastern Davies, M. 1975. Tertiary Faunas. Allen and eastern Iran as remnants of the southern Mediterranean, pp. 517–527. Special Unwin, London, UK. Turanian active continental margin. Publication 17, Geological Society of Davis, J. 2008. Where is the Garden of Eden? Geological Society of America Bulletin London, London, UK. Frontiers in Creation Research: Proceed- 109:1563–1575. Buffetaut, E., D. Azar, A. Nel, K. Ziade, and ings of the Seventh Biology Study Group Alene, M., and A.J. Barker. 1993. Tectono- A. Acra. 2005. First nonavian dinosaur Conference 11:6–7. metamorphic evolution of the Moyale from Lebanon: a brachiosaurid sauro- Dobruskina, I.A., and V.A. Krassilov. 1995. region, southern Ethiopia. Precambrian pod from the Lower Cretaceous of the Angiosperm fruit from the Lower Creta- Research 62:271–283. Jezzine District. Naturwissenschaften ceous of Israel and origins in rift valleys. Anderson, J.M., and A.R.T. Cruickshank. 93(9):440–443. Paleontological Journal 20(2):110–115. 1978. The biostratigraphy of the Permian Caldwell, M.W. 2006. A new species of Dubertret, L. 1970. Review of structural and the Triassic. Part 5. A review of the Pontosaurus (Squamata, pythonomor- geology of the Red Sea and surround- classification and distribution of Permo- pha) from the Upper Cretaceous of ing areas. Philosophical Transactions Triassic tetrapods. Palaeontologica Lebanon and a phylogenetic analysis of for the Royal Society of London. Series Africana 21:23. pythonomorpha. Memorie della Societa A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Atnafu, B., and F.F. Bonavia. 1991. Pre- Italiana 34(3):1–43. 267(1181):9–20. cambrian structure and late Pleistocene Charig, A.J. 1971. Faunal provinces on land: El-Khayal, A.A., W.G. Chaloner, and C.R. strike-slip tectonics around Mega (south- evidence based on the distribution of fos- Hill. 1980. Palaeozoic plants from Saudi ern Ethiopia). Journal of African Earth sil tetrapods with a special reference to Arabia. Nature 285:33. Science 13:527–530. the reptiles of the Permian and Mesozoic. Fleury, J.J. 1980. Les zones de Gav- Baumgardner, J.R. 1990. 3-D finite element In Middlemiss, F.A., P.E. Rawson, and rovo–Tripolitz et du Pinde–Olonos simulation of the global tectonic changes G. Newall (editors), Faunal Provinces (Grèce continental et Péloponnèse du accompanying Noah’s Flood. In Walsh, in Space and Time. Geological Journal, Nord). Evolution d’une plate-forme et R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Second Manchester, UK. d’un bassin dans leur cadre alpin. So- International Conference on Creation- Charig, A.J. 1973. Jurassic and Cretaceous ciété géologique du Nord (Lille, France), ism, technical symposium sessions, pp. dinosaurs. In Hallam, A. (editor), Atlas 4:1–473. 106 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Glut, D.F. 1972. The Dinosaur Dictionary. ogy of the Mozambique Belt. Bulletin als and Industries, 4th Edition. Edward Citadel Press, Secaucus, NJ. of Geophysical Observatory Addis Ababa Arnold, London, UK. Goldsmith, N.F., E. Tchernov, L. Gins- 15:22–43. McDowell, J. 1999. The New Evidence that burg, P. Tassy, and J.A. Van Couvering. Kerp, H., A.A. Hamad, K. Bandel, and B. Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson, 1982. Ctenodactylid rodents in the Niemann. 2004. A new Upper Permian Nashville, TN. Miocene Negev fauna of Israel. Nature flora from the Middle East with typical McKenzie, D.P., D. Davies, and P. Molnar. 296:645–647. Triassic Gondwana elements. Paper pre- 1970. Plate tectonics of the Red Sea and Greaves, R.H., and O.H. Little. 1929. Gold sented at the Fifteenth Plant Taphonomy East Africa. Nature 226:243–248. resources of Egypt. Report of the XV In- Meeting, Leiden (Isabel van Waveren Monod, O., and E. Akay. 1984. Evidence for ternational Geological Congress, South and Han van Konijnenburg-van Cittert), a Late Triassic-Early Jurassic orogenic Africa, pp. 123–127. Naturalis, National Museum of Natural event in the Taurides. In Dixon, J.E., Gutnic, M., O. Monod, A. Poisson, and J.F. History, The Netherlands, November and A.H.F. Robertson (editors), The Dumont. 1979. Géologie des Taurides 12–13. Geological Evolution of the Eastern Occidentales (Turquie). Mémoires Khain, V.E. 1994. Geology of Northern Mediterranean, pp. 113–122. Special de la Sociéte Géologique de France. Eurasia. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin, Publication 17, Geological Society of 137:1–112. Stuttgart, Germany. London, London, UK. Hallam, A. (editor). 1973. Atlas of Palaeobio- Klitzsch, E. 1981. Lower Palaeozoic rocks Moore, J.M. 1979. Tectonics of the Najd geography. Elsevier, London, NY. of Libya, Egypt, and Sudan. In Holland, transcurrent fault system, Saudi Arabia. Hamblin, D.J. 1987. Has the Garden of Eden C.H. (editor), Lower Palaeozoic of the Journal of the Geological Society of Lon- been located at last? (Archaeologist Juris Middle East, Eastern and Southern Afri- don 136:441–454. Zarins’ search for Eden). Smithsonian ca, and Antarctica: With Essays on Lower Morris, A. 1996. A review of paleomagnetic 18(2):127–138. Palaeozoic Trace Fossils of Africa and research in the Troodos ophiolite, Cy- Healy, M. 1991. The Ancient Assyrians. Lower Palaeozoic Palaeoclimatology, pp. prus. In Morris, A., and D.H. Tarling Osprey Books, London, NY. 131–163. John Wiley, New York, NY. (editors), Paleomagnetism and Tectonics Hill, C.A. 2002. The Noachian Flood: uni- Kozur, H. 1991. The evolution of the of the Mediterranean Region, pp. 311– versal or local? Perspectives on Science Hallstatt ocean and its significance for 324. Special Publication 17, Geological and Christian Faith 54(3):170–183. the early evolution of the Eastern Alps Society of London, London, UK. Hughes, J.R. 1997. An Examination of the and western Carpathians. In Channell, Nevo, E., and R. Estes. 1969. Ramonellus assumptions of Eden’s geography erodes J.E.T., E.L. Winterer, and L.F. Jansa longispinus, an Early Cretaceous sala- Flood geology. CRSQ 34(3):154–161. (editors), Paleogeography and Paleocean- mander from Israel. Copeia 3:540–547. Jurdy, D.M., M. Stefanick, and C.R. Scotese. ography of Tethys. PPP 87:109–135. Niocaill, C.M., and M. Smethurst. 1994. 1995. Paleozoic plate dynamics. Journal Kozur, H.W. 1997. Pelagic Permian and Palaeozoic paleogeography of Laurentia of Geophysical Research 100:17,965– Triassic of the western Tethys and its and its margins: a reassessment of pa- 17,975. paleogeographic and stratigraphic sig- leomagnetic data. Geophysical Journal Kazmin, V. 1971. Precambrian of Ethiopia. nificance. Berg und Hüttenmännischer International 116:715–725. Nature Physical Sciences 230:176–177. Tag 21–25 [abstract] Freiburg. Okay, A.I., and H. Mostler. 1994. Carbon- Kazmin, V. 1972a. Some aspects of Pre- Krahl, J., G. Kaufmann, H. Kosur, D. Rich- iferous and Permian radiolarite blocks cambrian development in East Africa. ter, O. Forster, and F. Heinritzi. 1983. from the Karakaya complex in northwest Nature 237:160. Neue Daten zur Biostratigraphie und Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences Kazmin, V. 1972b. Granulites in Ethio- zur tektonischen Lagerung der Phyllit- 3:23–28. pian Basement. Nature Physical Science Gruppe und der Trypali-Gruppe auf der Okay, A.I., and O. Tuysuz. 1999. Tethyan 240:90–92. Insel Kreta (Griechenland). Geologische sutures of northern Turkey. Geological Kazmin, V. 1972c. Geology of Ethiopia. Ex- Rundschau 72:1147–1166. Society of London, Special Publications planatory note to geological map of Ethio- Krassilov, V.A. 2008. Evidence of temporary 156:475–515. pia (1:2,000,000). Geological Survey of mining in the Cretaceous fossil mine as- Parpola, S. 2004. National and ethnic iden- Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. semblage of Negev, Israel. Insect Science tity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Kazmin, V. 1973. Geological Map of Ethio- 15(3):285–290. Assyrian identity in post-empire times. pia (1:2,000,000). Geological Survey of Lejal, N. 1975. Sur Une Nouvelle Flora A Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Lycophytes De Devonien Inferieur de la 18(2):5–22. Kazmin, V. 1975. The Precambrian of Libye. Palaeontographica 151b:53. Philippe, M., M. Barbacka, E. Gradi- Ethiopia and some aspects of the geol- Lucas, A. 1962. Ancient Egyptian Materi- naru, E. Iamandei, S. Iamandei, M. Volume 46, Fall 2009 107

Kázmér, M. Popa, G. Szakmány, P. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, and Paleoceanography of Tethys. PPP Tchoumatchenco, and M. Zatoń. 2006. New York, NY. 87:373–410. Fossil wood and Mid-Eastern Europe Savage, R.J.G. 1967. Early Miocene mam- Stampfli, G.M., and A. Pillevuit. 1993. An terrestrial palaeobiogeography during mal faunas of the Tethyan region. In alternative Permo-Triassic reconstruc- the Jurassic–Early Cretaceous interval. Adams, C.G., and D. Ager (editors), tion of the kinematics of the Tethyan Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology Aspects of Tethyan Biogeography, pp. realm. In Dercourt, J., L.E. Ricou, 142(1&2):15–32. 247–282. Systematicists Association, and B. Vrielinck (editors), Atlas Tethys Philo, J. 1935. The Works of Philo, volume London, UK. Palaeoenvironmental Maps, pp. 55–62. iv. Translation by F.H. Colson. Harvard Scafi, A. 2006. Mapping Paradise: A History Gauthier-Villars, Paris, FR. University Press, Cambridge, MA. of Heaven on Earth. Chicago University Strother, P.K., S.A. Al-Hajri, and A. Traverse. Pickett, E.A., and A.H.F. Robertson. 1996. Press, Chicago, IL. 1996. New evidence for land plants from Formation of the late Paleozoic-Early Schomp, V. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: the lower Middle Ordovician of Saudi Mesozoic Karakaya complex and related The Sumerians, Babylonians, and As- Arabia. Geology 24:55–58. ophiolites in NW Turkey by paleo- syrians. Scholastic Library Publishers, Tuell, S.S. 2000. The rivers of paradise: tethyan subduction-accretion. Journal New York, NY. Ezekiel 47:1–12 and Genesis 2:10–14. of the Geological Society, London Seghedi, I., A. Szakacs, and A. Baltres. 1990. In Brown, W.P., and S.D. McBride Jr. 153:995–1009. Relationships between sedimentary de- (editors), God Who Creates. Essays in Pinches, T.G. 1915. Telassar. In Orr, J., J.L. posits and eruptive rocks in the Consul Honor of W. Sibley Towner, pp. 171–189. Nuelsen, and E.Y. Mullins (editors), unit (North Dobrogea)—implications on Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. The International Standard Bible Ency- tectonic interpretations. D�ri de Seam� Tuysuz, O. 1990. Tectonic evolution of a clopedia, pp. 2925. Howard-Severance ale Institutului de Geologie �i Geofizic� part of the Tethys orogenic collage the Company, Chicago, IL. 74:125–136. Kargi massif, northern Turkey. Tectonics Poisson, A. 1984. The extension of the Ionian Sengor, A.M.C., Y. Yimaz, and I. Ketin. 1980. 9:141–160. trough into southwestern Turkey. In Dix- Remnants of a pre-Late Jurassic ocean in Visscher, H., H. Brinkhuis, D.L. Dilcher, on, J.E., and A.H.F. Robertson (editors). northern Turkey: fragments of Permian- W.C. Elsik, Y. Eschet, C.V. Looy, M.R. The Geological Evolution of the Eastern Triassic Paleo-Tethys? Geological Society Rampino, and A. Traverse. 1996. The Mediterranean, pp. 241–249. Special of America Bulletin 91:599–609. terminal Paleozoic fungal event: evi- Publication 17, Geological Society of Silantieva, N., and V. Krassilov. 2006. dence of terrestrial ecosystem destabili- London, London, UK. Weichselia Stiehler from Lower Creta- zation and collapse. Proceedings of the Powell, C.M., and Z.X. Li. 1994. Recon- ceous of Makhtesh Ramon, Israel: new National Academy of Science, U.S.A. struction of the Panthalassan margin of morphological interpretation and taxo- 93:2155–2158. Gondwanaland. Geological Society of nomical affinities. Acta Palaeobotanica Waldron, J.W.F. 1984. Structural history of America Memoir 184:5–9. 46(2):119–135. the Antalya complex in the Isparta angle, Robertson, A.H.F. 1993. Mesozoic-Tertiary Stampfli, G.M., and G.D. Borel. 2002. A southwest Turkey. In Dixon, J.E., and sedimentary and tectonic evolution of plate tectonic model for the Paleozoic A.H.F. Robertson (editors), The Geologi- Neotethyan carbonate platforms, mar- and Mesozoic constrained by dynamic cal Evolution of the Eastern Mediterra- gins and small ocean basins in the An- plate boundaries and restored synthetic nean, pp. 273–286. Blackwell Scientific talya Complex, southwest Turkey. Inter- oceanic isochrons. Earth and Planetary Publishers, Palo Alto, CA. national Association of Sedimentologists, Science Letters 196:17–33. Walker, T. 1994. A biblical geological model. Special Publications 20:415–465. Stampfli, G.M., and R.H. Marchant. 1997. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of Ronov, A.B., K.B. Seslavinkskiy, and V.Y. Geodynamic evolution of the Tethyan the Third International Conference on Khain. 1977. Cambrian lithologic as- margins of the Western Alps. In Pfiffner, Creationism, technical symposium ses- sociations of the world. International O.A., P. Lehner, P.Z. Heitzman, S. sions, pp. 581–592. Creation Science Geology Review 19:379–391. Mueller, and A. Steck (editors), Deep Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Roux, G. 1992. Ancient Iraq, 3rd Edition. Structure of the Swiss Alps—Results from Walker, T.B. 2001. Has the Garden of Penguin Books, London, UK. NRP 20, pp. 223–239. Birkhaüser AG, Eden been found?

Wenham, G.J. 1986. Sanctuary symbolism tarian geologic column: a quantitative Ziegler, P.A. 1990. Geological Atlas of West- in the Garden of Eden story. Proceedings assessment. CRSQ 18:46–71. ern and Central Europe, 2nd Edition. of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Woodmorappe, J. 1983. A diluviological Shell Int. Petroleum Mij., Den Haag, 9:19–25. treatise on the stratigraphic separation The Netherlands. Wesley, A. 1973. Jurassic Plants. In Hallam, A. of fossils. CRSQ 20:133–185. Zonenshain, L.P., M.I. Kuzmin, and M.V. (editor). Atlas of Palaeobiogeography, pp. Woodmorappe, J. 2002. The feasible same- Kononov. 1985. Absolute reconstruc- 329–338. Elsevier, London, UK. site reappearance of the Tigris-Euphra- tions of the Paleozoic oceans. Earth and Woodmorappe, J. 1981. The essential non- tes river system after the global Flood. Planetary Science Letters 74:103–116. existence of the evolutionary-uniformi- CRSQ 39:106–116.

Book Review

A Boy Out of Time: by D. B. Macks Booklocker.com, Inc., A Time Twins 248 pages, $15.00. Adventure

Ben Javan is the 14-year-old son of ar- What follows is a time travel sci- interesting protagonists take place in a cheologists, small for his age, bullied at fi adventure that takes the boys and world that has fl avors of Narnia, Middle school and guilt-ridden over the death the adults back to the pre-fl ood world Earth, and the realm of Darth Vader. of his sister by drowning while he was where people are both technologically The story just might be a reasonable supposed to be watching her. When his advanced and endowed with unusual guess at that real antediluvian history parents leave for a dig in Turkey, he gets physical and mental powers. That world that is only summarized in Genesis. to spend the summer with his mysterious is succumbing to spiritual darkness most Intended as the kick-off of a series, this physicist uncle who lives in an isolated evident in the Nephilim. book stands a chance of dragging kids area of Alaska where Ben will also get Promotion of moral courage, com- away from their video games. to meet a boy his own age named Seth, mitment to biblical accuracy, awareness with whom he has been an instant mes- of spiritual warfare, and development of Ross S. Olson, M.D. saging pen pal. Volume 46, Fall 2009 109 Provenance Studies of Clastic Sediments and Their Role in a Hydrodynamic Interpretation of the Genesis Flood

John K. Reed and Carl R. Froede Jr.*

Abstract tudies tracing sedimentary particles to their source, referred to by Sgeologists as provenance studies, can play an important role in the hydrodynamic approach to interpreting the rock record. This method- ology is superior to the entrenched uniformitarian time-stratigraphic method, which filters interpretation through its geologic column be- cause it 1) resolves presuppositional contradictions between the column and biblical history and 2) provides a sounder empirical foundation for interpretation. Ultimately, the hydrodynamic method could yield 3-D models of the flow regime of the Flood, calibrated to abundant forensic sedimentologic data. Though such models are not presently realistic, the empirical work necessary to support them can be done by the col- lection of local flow regime information from crustal sediments. Any future model will require calibration to flow information, which must be derived from sedimentological data—such as provenance studies. Examples of such studies suggest interesting lines of inquiry into non- uniformitarian alternatives and demonstrate additional shortcomings of the time-stratigraphic approach.

Introduction tools for more sophisticated analysis did on defining prehistory by geologic time The birth of modern stratigraphy began not exist. Unfortunately, the time-strati- periods. The mania to pigeonhole rocks in the 1600s with the work of Nicolas graphic paradigm diverged from, and into prehistoric time periods blinded Steno, who based interpretation on outlasted, Steno’s empirical emphasis many geologists to all but bedding chronological relationships between (Berthault, 2004; Julien et al., 1993; boundaries and the newly minted divi- vertically adjacent sedimentary layers. 1994; Reed et al., 2006). sions of the geologic timescale. Belat- This was a rational approach for the This unfortunate situation can be edly, we are now realizing that Lyell time—layers are easily observed in the laid at the feet of early nineteenth-cen- and his peers erred in two fundamental field and the scientific and technological tury uniformitarianism and its emphasis ways. First, their strict uniformitarian- ism has not been able to explain the rock record, hence the recent advent of neocatastrophism. Second, they subordi- * John K. Reed, PhD, 915 Hunting Horn Way, Evans, GA 30809 nated empirical science in their quest to Carl R. Froede Jr., PG, 2895 Emerson Lake Drive, Snellville, GA 30078-6644 displace biblical history with secular pre- Accepted for publication May 13, 2009 history. When push came to shove, they 110 Creation Research Society Quarterly maintained the preeminence of their tal level by some diluvialists—by presup- I), applying experimentally derived philosophical uniformitarianism over positional critiques (Reed, 2001; 2008a; thresholds for erosion and deposition empiricism. As a result, geologic history 2008b) and experimental data (Berthault, to field-measurable parameters such has become increasingly divorced from 2002; Julien et al., 1993; 1994). The way as grain size, bedding, and sedimen- the empirical method. This has resulted is being paved for an alternative—and tary structures. Tools developed by in an internal tension within geology more empirical—method of investigat- uniformitarian sedimentology, such as between empirical observation and the ing the rock record. This new method paleocurrent analysis and provenance time-stratigraphic framework of natural is that of paleohydraulic reconstruction studies, fit well within this method, but history (Ager, 1993a; 1993b). from sedimentologic data. the uniformitarians stop short of using The time-stratigraphic approach is Some diluvial studies have been the full potential of these empirical being challenged on a more fundamen- conducted along these lines (Table studies because they limit themselves by the walls of their time-stratigraphic shibboleth—the geological timescale. However, diluvialists understand that Table I. Paleohydraulic Approach if the rock record is largely the result of the Genesis Flood, it is a reasonable strategy of forensic natural history to attempt to derive the three-dimensional hydraulic flow regime of the Flood over its 371-day duration. This is a daunting task, if for no other reason than its scale. Yet it is a worthy goal, because ironically it could provide the most scientific inter- pretation of the rock record. Approximation of the Flood’s pa- leohydrology can be derived by two complementary methods: (1) forensic examination of preserved flow indicators (such as grain size or cross-bedding) in the rock record, and (2) numerical mod- eling of three-dimensional hydraulic flow nets using varied sets of proposed parameters. In the best of all possible worlds, modelers and sedimentolo- gists would work together to integrate modeling with forensic sedimentology. At present, there have only been two published numerical modeling solu- tions (Barnette and Baumgardner, 1994; Prabhu et al., 2008), and neither appears to have made any attempt to incorporate sedimentological data. However, vast amounts of paleocur- rent data exist in the geological litera- ture, and the theoretical foundations for interpreting sedimentary observations are available, though sadly underutilized (cf. Julien, 1995; Pye, 1994). To be of use to diluvialists, these field data must be excised of all aspects of their uniformi- tarian interpretation. That bias exists to Volume 46, Fall 2009 111 multiple levels, since presuppositions of- assumptions and parameterization. Nei- approach is not intended to supplement ten drive conclusions that then become ther model was calibrated to quantitative the time-stratigraphic approach—it is the foundation for additional theorizing. field data. Despite these shortcomings, meant to displace it. Some—like conclusions based on the both represent a start in a promising area Given these limitations, it is clear timescale—are easily detected, but oth- of research. Both provide initial qualita- that numerical computer models will ers are not. However, the goal of deriving tive and conceptual flow patterns that be most effective when they incorporate floodwater flow regimes deserves the best might be helpful on a very gross scale. the hard realities of the rock record efforts by diluvialists. Apparent local discrepancies—both through forensic sedimentology. This One area of forensic sedimentology empirical and conceptual—are part and is fortunate in one sense: although the that may prove helpful for providing parcel of the limits of these models. models are difficult to construct and coarse flow directions, as well as trans- Thus, diluvialists should be cautious run and require rare skills and resources, port distance and current dimension, is in applying their results to specific field the work needed to supply data for their that of provenance studies. These pro- studies. At best, both assume initial con- calibration is not. Advanced forensic vide an origin point for transport, which ditions more conducive to the middle sedimentology can be performed by a in turn suggests flow paths, current of the Flood because of their use of the broader group of diluvialists. In many dimension, and flow velocity, provid- Pangean “supercontinent.” Both are cases, it merely involves literature re- ing a good approximation of transport forced to ignore numerous hydraulic search, extracting the raw data collected that can be refined by more detailed factors undoubtedly determinative of for years by uniformitarian researchers. studies and models. If it is possible to the actual flow regime, such as vertical Thus it appears that the present empha- track a sedimentary clast from its origin, flow gradients; the effects of turbulent sis should be on finding and publishing through its transport, and to its deposi- flow; pressure, temperature, and density the flow properties from the rock record. tional and postdepositional fate, then gradients; and chemical properties of This approach has been successfully ap- a viable hydrodynamic reconstruction water that might affect flow properties. plied by diluvialists (Table I). Lalomov should also be possible. Likewise, geologic factors that would et al (2006), who used their own field But before we address these studies, influence flow, such as uplift and measurements, demonstrated that even we must first examine the present state downwarping, were not incorporated. the duration of sedimentation (using of modeling the hydrodynamic flow Neither could present an explanation of minimum experimental thresholds) regime of the Flood. Flood flow conditions at its onset, which can be estimated from this type of pa- would naturally have exerted a profound leohydraulic analysis—an important influence on subsequent flow condi- component of any model. Limits of Modeling tions. Furthermore, the Bible, in Psalm Another reason to merge forensic Numerical modeling is a relatively re- 104:5–9, suggests that the late Flood sedimentology with the models is to cali- cent tool that is beginning to come into drainage off the continents resulted from brate modeled flow regimes that may be its own, thanks to exponential leaps in large vertical changes in the relative el- contrary to field data. For example, Bar- computing power. Predictive models evations of both continents and oceans. nette and Baumgardner (1994) showed based on sound hydraulic engineering These changes would profoundly affect the rapid establishment of large-scale principles have been developed for other a global flow regime; likely decreasing hydrodynamic gyres on flooded conti- areas, especially in the atmospheric and the velocity of the currents where they nents. In North America, these gyres groundwater sciences. At present, there flowed off the continents into the deep- were shown to create a counterclock- is still a significant tradeoff between scale ening ocean basins. This would affect wise flow, increasing in velocity in the and detail. Clearly the best models are flow inland, as would changing base northern latitudes. Creationists might those that are able to incorporate the levels and any local tectonic uplift or be tempted to use that study to support most parameters and be well calibrated downwarping. flow directions during the Flood (e.g., to field observations. We must be careful when calibrating Oard, 2008b). That would be premature, Diluvial flow models are rare; at pres- numerical models to the rock record given the limited parameters included ent only two numerical models of Flood because the relative timing of distinct in that study, and the near certainty flow patterns exist—those of Barnette Flood stages cannot easily be located in of local variations over both time and and Baumgardner (1994) and of Prabhu the rock record, especially when using space in the hydraulic regime, such as et al. (2008). Although both models the questionable chronostratigraphy of topography, tectonics, and vertical flow address global conditions, both are very the geologic column. It is imperative components of upwelling waters and coarse 2-D models, quite limited in their to understand that the hydrodynamic downwelling density currents. 112 Creation Research Society Quarterly

So at present we are left with several needs: 1) collecting and cataloging field data indicating past flow regimes, 2) building more sophisticated models, and 3) integrating the results. It may be necessary to restrict the scale of initial models to more successfully integrate field data, scaling up as these models prove their ability to explain and predict sedimentological information. Models also should consider the various stages of the Flood and their effects on flow re- gimes. One way to do so would be to ap- ply paleocurrent indicators, which have the advantage of being plentiful in the literature. Another method, and perhaps one that will be more congenial to conti- nent-scale models, is the determination of sedimentary provenance—the origin of particles in sedimentary formations. For example, these studies suggest that physical forces other than the Coriolis effect were important factors in erosion and deposition during the Flood. Sedi- ment distribution patterns also might demonstrate whether or not the coun- terclockwise, regional-scale gyres of Bar- nette and Baumgardner’s (1994) model Figure 1. The study of sedimentary provenance attempts to track the changes that really existed. Future models can then occur in sedimentary grains from their initial source to their final depositional attempt to include the field-derived flow location, as well as those that occur after deposition. The multitude of physical regimes at various locations, providing processes in the Flood that would have affected this cycle shows the challenges they can match the Flood stage during to provenance studies. Modified from Weltje and von Eynatten (2004). which these flows occurred. Obviously, this would be most accurately done for the times near the end of the Flood. that can occur during transport, deposi- detritus, i.e., to unravel the line of tion, and diagenesis (Figure 1). descent or lineage of the sediment Information from However, these problems can be under investigation (Weltje and von Provenance Studies circumvented by examining ratios of Eynatten, 2004, p. 2). Sources of the particles that make up these minerals, suites of heavy minerals, These types of studies can be traced sedimentary deposits have been of inter- and unique individual clasts (e.g., Howe back to the nineteenth century, when est to sedimentologists for decades (cf. and Froede, 1999; Lalomov, 2007; Oard the first efforts focused on tracing heavy Pettijohn, 1975, chapter 13; Pettijohn et al., 2007). Furthermore, sedimen- minerals back to their parent rocks, et al., 1987, chapter 7). These studies tologists in recent years have developed based on the assumption of unique are not always easy—the bulk of clastic sophisticated quantitative methods for percentages of such minerals in igneous sediments are quartz, feldspar, and mica; measuring provenance. and metamorphic suites. The develop- which are seldom sufficiently unique The intent of sedimentary prov- ment of sedimentary petrography and enough to specify a single source loca- enance studies is to reconstruct and methods such as counting grains in thin tion. Other complications include mul- to interpret the history of sediment sections broadened the ways in which tiple source areas for the same formation from the initial erosion of parent provenance could be investigated. These and changes in sediment composition rocks to the final burial of their led to the inclusion of bulk sedimentary Volume 46, Fall 2009 113

uniformitarian studies to provide coarse paloehydrodynamic information in a diluvial setting. Several examples are presented to illustrate how provenance studies can constrain diluvial interpreta- tion (Figure 3).

A. Navajo Sandstone and Coconino Sandstone—Utah/Arizona. Recent provenance studies of the Navajo and Coconino sandstones suggest that they were derived from the uplifted Appalachian Mountains (Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009). Since these sandstones are located on the west- ern side of the Rocky Mountains, they constrain the relative timing of uplift for the Appalachian and Figure 2. Dark heavy-mineral sands occur in areas along the Gulf-facing beach Rocky Mountains. This also sug- at Dauphin Island, Alabama. The heavy mineral suite originated in the southern gests two further points of interest Appalachian Mountains and consists of ilmenite, kyanite, staurolite, leucoxene, for diluvialists: that during this time, tourmaline, zircon, rutile, sillimanite, and hornblende (Simonson, 1983). floodwater flowed in an east-to-west direction, and that currents were large enough to transport sediments several thousand km (Froede, 2004; composition in provenance determina- ful for those interested in hydrodynamic Snelling, 2008). Similar studies of tion and the famous mid-twentieth-cen- modeling of the Flood, providing con- other sedimentary units can help us tury sandstone classification schemes. straints on current direction, distance, understand tectonism and hydraulic The late twentieth century saw an and duration. For example, sediments Flood regimes in other places and for increasing focus on quantitative ap- eroded from multiple source areas can other times during the Flood. proaches to provenance studies through vary in their ratios of kyanite, staurolite, B. Norphlet Sandstone—Southwest- complex equations and the use of com- and sillimanite, and these different ratios ern Alabama. A provenance study of puter models of basin evolution. Many have been used to identify probable the mineral suite within this deeply of these studies focus on the tectonic sediment source areas across the United buried sandstone indicates that it was influence of developing “petrofacies” States Gulf Coastal Plain (e.g., van derived from the southern Appala- in particular areas. More detailed in- Andel, 1960; Mange and Otvos, 2005). chian Mountains located to the east formation can be found in Sedimentary Across this same area, heavy minerals (Ryan et al., 1987). Thus flow during Geology (Volume 171; 2004), which was (garnet, zircon, ilmenite, pyroxene, the transport of the Norphlet sands dedicated to provenance analysis. amphibole, epidote, tourmaline, magne- was to the south, southwest, and was Unfortunately, uniformitarian as- tite, and rutile) also have proven useful of regional extent. sumptions permeate this field: a philo- in provenance studies (Carver, 1986; C. Upper Pliocene siliciclastics—Flor- sophical commitment to prehistory Dickinson, 1985; Dickinson and Suc- ida. Quartz sands and quartzite and deep time, purported similarities zek, 1979; Oivanki, 1994; Sabeen et al., pebbles found down the length of the between modern and ancient environ- 2002; Simonson, 1983) (Figure 2). As Florida peninsula were derived from ments, the rejection of catastrophism, long as creationists beware of improper the southern Appalachian Moun- and the ongoing motion of tectonic assumptions, such as provenance studies tains (Hine et al., 2009; Warzeski et plates. using fossil suites based on evolutionary al., 1996). This indicates that during In spite of the development of progression or those relying on radio- the late stages of the Flood, north-to- sophisticated quantitative provenance metric age-dating techniques (Oard, in south currents existed in the south- studies, practical uses of qualitative press), many published studies can be eastern USA region, transporting studies abound. Many of these are use- useful. We can extract the raw data from siliciclastic sediments over hundreds 114 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 4. These quartz pebbles were eroded from metamorphic vein quartz in the southern Appalachian Moun- tains and transported south to near Lake Okeechobee, Florida—approxi- mately 550 miles. The anticipated flow velocity and transport distance neces- sary to erode and move these clasts is consistent with currents expected in the Flood (Froede, 2006).

Figure 3. Several provenance studies—most across the continental United States—suggest a complex source-deposit relationship during the Flood. The large letters correspond to the locations discussed in the text: (A) Navajo/Coconino was conducted on the Hartselle Sandstone, (B) Norphlet Sandstone, (C) Florida Upper Pliocene siliciclastics, (D) Sandstone (Mississippian) in the Haymond Boulder Beds, (E) Hartselle Sandstone, (F) Alabama Miocene deposits, Appalachian fold and thrust belt in (G) Nenana Gravels, (H) Cyprus Hills Gravel, and (I) Demerdji Formation. Note northeastern Alabama. The study re- that some transport pathways are general and tentative. vealed that the sandstone originated from low-rank metamorphic source rocks derived from the unroofing of the southern Appalachians (Mack et of miles—all the way to the Florida shows the potential complexity of al., 1981). Again, the study indicates Keys (Froede, 2006) (Figure 4). the hydrodynamic regime of the southwest flow over hundreds of D. Haymond Formation Boulder Flood. It also constrains the timing miles. Beds—Marathon, Texas. A study of orogenies; if the fossil-bearing F. Miocene Clastics—Alabama Gulf of the provenance of the boulders boulders were derived from Utah, Coastal Plain. A provenance study found within this formation indi- then they were likely transported to on the sands indicates that they were cates multiple source areas ranging the Marathon Basin before the Rocky derived from the southern Appala- from 125 miles to the southeast, Mountains were uplifted. None of chian Mountains (Isphording, 1977) or possibly Utah (northwest), or the boulder transport currents are and transported southward during even farther to source rocks in the consistent with the simple gyres pre- the late stages of the Flood. southern Appalachians (Howe and dicted by Barnette and Baumgardner G. Nenana Gravels—Alaska. These Froede, 1999) (Figure 5). This indi- (1994), illustrating the complexity sedimentary units north of the cates multiple flow paths operating over both time and space of flow Alaska Range were derived from north-to-south, south-to-north, and within the Flood. rocks south of range mountains east-to-west, depending on the ul- E. Hartselle Sandstone—Northeast- prior to uplift and then from the timate source of the boulders. This ern Alabama. A provenance study rising peaks as the Alaska Range was Volume 46, Fall 2009 115

Figure 7. Cyprus Hills Gravels, in- cluding this cobble, were eroded from outcrops in Idaho and Montana and then transported hundreds of miles by fast-moving Flood currents. The extreme current velocity is also dem- Figure 5. Large boulders in this exposed road cut in the Marathon Basin, Texas, onstrated by the percussion marks on were derived from multiple source areas—none of which are readily explained the resistant quartzite clasts, caused by uniformitarian models. The long-distance transport of such large clasts is by impacts from other rocks. Photo consistent with the Flood (Howe and Froede, 1999). courtesy of M.J. Oard.

uplifted (Oard, 2008a) (Figure 6). H. Cyprus Hills Gravel—Northern Rocky Mountains. Well-rounded cobbles and boulders were trans- ported hundreds of miles from their sources in Montana and Idaho by powerful and widespread currents (Figure 7). The location of the source area for these gravels indi- cates that transport preceded uplift of the present continental divide (Oard and Klevberg, 1998). I. Demerdji Formation—Crimean Peninsula. Gravels of the Demerdji Formation contain exotics trans- ported up to 250 miles south from the Ukrainian Crystalline Massif (Lalomov, 2003).

Conclusions The pioneers of modern geology chose to build their discipline around the fundamental paradigm of the time- Figure 6. Nenana Gravels derived from Alaska Range. Large, high-velocity cur- stratigraphic analysis of the rock record. rents would have been needed to move these gravels, again consistent with the This entailed a philosophically rigorous Flood. From Oard (2008a). view of uniformitarianism that is no 116 Creation Research Society Quarterly

longer viable. Given its obvious failures, to the rock record. Yet the goal of Carver, R.E. 1986. Rates of intrastratal another way of looking at the rock record understanding the flow regime of the solution of heavy minerals in Southeast is clearly needed, and the hydrodynamic Flood, perhaps even on a global scale, Atlantic Coastal Plain and their potential approach offers many advantages—not is certainly sufficient motivation to pur- for dating sedimentary events. AAPG the least of which is its comparatively sue these studies, at present, primarily Bull [abstract] 70(5):572. robust empirical method. Diluvialists through forensic field evidence. Dickenson, W.R. 1985. Interpreting prov- face a clear incompatibility between enance relations from detrital modes the time-stratigraphic method (and its of sandstones, in Zuffa, G.G. (editor), derivative geologic column) and diluvial References Provenance of Arenites: NATO Advanced geology (Berthault, 2002; Froede, 2007; AAPG Bull: American Association of Petro- Study Institute Series. Springer, Cetraro, Reed, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). leum Geologists Bulletin Cosenza, Italy. We suggest that the rock record, CENTJ: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Dickinson, W.R., and G.E. Gehrels. 2009. which appears so puzzling in terms of Journal U-Pb ages of detrital zircons in Jurassic biblical history when forced into the CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- eolian and associated sandstones of the framework of the geologic timescale, terly Colorado Plateau: evidence for trans- would be better understood if interpret- TJ: Technical Journal continental dispersal and intraregional ed by means of a hydraulic evaluation of Ager, D.V. 1993a. The Nature of the Strati- recycling of sediment. Geological Society sedimentary composition and bedding. graphical Record, 3rd edition. Wiley, of America Bulletin 121:408–433. The ultimate goal of this revolutionary New York, NY. Dickenson, W.R., and C.A. Suczek. 1979. method would be the reconstruction of Ager, D.V. 1993b. The New Catastroph- Plate tectonics and sandstone composi- the Flood’s hydrodynamic flow regime ism. Cambridge University Press, New tions. AAPG Bull 63:2164–2182. throughout its 371-day duration over York, NY. Froede, C.R., Jr. 2004. Eroded Appalachian the entire globe. This will demand nu- Allen, D. 1996. Sediment transport and the Mountain siliciclastics as a source for the merical models currently beyond today’s Genesis Flood—case studies including Navajo Sandstone. CENTJ 18(2):3–5. technology. A start in this direction has the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Sydney. Froede, C.R., Jr. 2006. Neogene sand-to- been made with the models presented CENTJ 10(3):358–372. pebble size siliciclastic sediments on the by Barnette and Baumgardner (1994) Austin, S.A. 2003. Nautiloid mass kill Florida peninsula: sedimentary evidence and by Prabhu et al. (2008). However, and burial event, Redwall Limestone in support of the Genesis Flood. CRSQ we caution that any successful model (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon 42:229–240. must include the vital step of calibration Region, Arizona and Nevada. In Ivey, Froede, C.R., Jr. 2007. Geology by Design. to forensic sedimentologic data, and we R.L. (editor), Proceedings of the Fifth Master Books, Green Forest, AR. further suggest that the task of collect- International Conference on Creationism, Hine, A.C., B.C. Suthard, S.D. Locker, K.J. ing and cataloging such data become a pp. 55–99. Creation Science Fellowship, Cunningham, D.S. Duncan, M. Evans, primary focus of diluvial geologists. Even Pittsburgh, PA. and R.A. Morton. 2009. Karst sub-basins before these models are constructed, the Barnette, D.W., and J.R. Baumgardner. and their relationship to the transport qualitative and quantitative informa- 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over of tertiary siliciclastic sediments on the tion provided by sedimentological data, the continents during Noah’s Flood. In Florida Platform. In Swart, P.K., G.P. especially those derived from rigorous Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Eberli, and J.A. McKenzie (editors), Per- provenance studies, should prove useful Third International Conference on Cre- spectives in Carbonate Geology: A Tribute in determining paleocurrent vectors that ationism, technical symposium sessions, to the Career of Robert Nathan Ginsburg, can physically constrain the conceptual pp. 77–86. Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 179–197. International Association of depositional flow regime of the Genesis Pittsburgh, PA. Sedimentologists, Blackwell Publishing, Flood on a local to regional scale. Berthault, G. 2002. Analysis of the main Hoboken, NJ. As such studies proceed, we should principles of stratigraphy on the basis of Howe, G.F., and C.R. Froede Jr. 1999. The expect local to regional scale complexity experimental data. Lithology and Min- Haymond Formation boulder beds, Mara- in defining various flow regimes, given eral Resources 37(5):442–446. thon Basin, West Texas: theories on origins the multiple overlapping parameters; Berthault, G. 2004. Sedimentological and catastrophism. CRSQ 36:17–25. and we should beware confusion in interpretation of the Tonto Group Isphording, W.C. 1977. Petrology and stra- the dimension of time, given the likely Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado tigraphy of the Alabama Miocene. Gulf inapplicability of the geologic timescale River). Lithology and Mineral Resources Coast Association of Geological Societies (even in its relative chronostratigraphy) 39(5):480–484. Transactions 27:304–313. Volume 46, Fall 2009 117

Julien, P. 1995. Erosion and Sedimentation. Oard, M.J., J. Hergenrather, and P. Klev- Reed, J.K., P. Klevberg, and C.R. Froede, Jr. Cambridge University Press, New York, berg. 2005. Flood transported quartz- 2006. Towards a diluvial stratigraphy. In NY. ites—east of the Rocky Mountains. TJ Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard (editors), The Julien, P.Y., Y. Lan, and G. Berthault. 1993. 19(3):76–90. Geologic Column: Perspectives within Experiments on stratification of hetero- Oard, M.J., J. Hergenrather, and P. Klevberg. Diluvial Geology. CRS Books, Chino geneous sand mixtures. Geological Soci- 2007. Flood transported quartzites: part Valley, AZ. ety of France Bulletin 164(5):649–660. 4—diluvial interpretations. Journal of Ryan, W.P., W.C. Ward, and R.L. Kugler. Julien, P., Y. Lan, and G. Berthault. 1994. Creation 21(1):86–91. 1987. Provenance of the Norphlet Experiments on stratification of hetero- Oard, M.J., and P. Klevberg. 1998. A dilu- Sandstone, northern Gulf Coast. Gulf geneous sand mixtures. TJ 8(1):37–50. vial interpretation of the Cypress Hills Coast Association of Geological Societies Lalomov, A.V. 2001. Flood geology of the Formation, Flaxville gravels, and related Transactions 37:457–468. Crimean Peninsula, part I: Tavrick For- deposits. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceed- Sabeen, H.M., N. Ramanujam, and A.C. mation. CRSQ 38(3):118–124. ings of the Fourth International Confer- Morton. 2002, The provenance of garnet: Lalomov, A.V. 2003. Flood geology of the ence on Creationism, technical sympo- constraints provided by studies of coastal Crimean Peninsula, part II: conglomer- sium sessions, pp. 421–436. Creation sediments from southern India. Sedimen- ates and gravel sandstones of the De- Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. tary Petrology 152:279–287. merdji Formation. CRSQ 40(1):17–23. Oard, M.J., and P. Klevberg. 2005. Deposits Sigler, R., and V. Wingerden. 1998. Subma- Lalomov, A.V. 2007. Reconstruction of pa- remaining from the Genesis Flood: rim rine flow and slide deposits in the Kings- leohydrodynamic conditions during the gravels in Arizona. CRSQ 42(1):1–17. ton Peak Formation, Kingston Range, formation of Upper Jurassic conglomer- Oivanki, S.M. 1994. Barrier Island Field Mojave Desert, California: evidence for ates of the Crimean Peninsula. Lithology Trip Guidebook. USGS Eastern Region catastrophic initiation of Noah’s Flood. and Mineral Resources 42(3):268–280. Cluster Meeting. Biloxi, MS. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of Lalomov, A.V., M.A. Tugarova, and M. Pla- Pettijohn, F.J. 1975. Sedimentary Rocks, 3rd the Fourth International Conference on tonov. 2006. Research of paleohydraulic ed. Harper & Row, New York, NY. Creationism, technical symposium ses- conditions and determination of actual Pettijohn, F.J., P.E. Potter, and R. Siever. sions, pp. 487–501. Creation Science time of sedimentation of Cambrian— 1987. Sand and Sandstone, 2nd ed. Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Ordovician sandstones of St. Petersburg Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Simonson, D.N. 1983. Heavy mineral and region, part II. Final Report for 2005 Prabhu, R., M.F. Horstemeyer, and W. grain size analysis of sublittoral sands joint research of Geological Laboratory Brewer. 2008. Ocean circulation veloci- adjacent to Mississippi barrier islands. ARCTUR (Moscow) and Lithological ties over the continents during Noah’s Masters Thesis, University of Southern department of Geological Faculty of St. Flood. In Snelling, A.A. (editor), Proceed- Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. Petersburg State University. ings of the Sixth International Conference Snelling, A.A. 2008. Sand transported cross Mack, G.H., W.C. James, and W.A. Thomas. on Creationism technical symposium country. Answers 3(4):96–99. 1981. Orogenic provenance of Mississip- sessions, pp. 247–254. Creation Science Van Andel, Tj.H. 1960. Sources and disper- pian sandstones associated with southern Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, and Institute sion of Holocene sediments, northern Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen. AAPG for Creation Research, Dallas, TX. Gulf of Mexico. In Shepard, F.P., F.B. Bull 65:1444–1456. Pye, K. 1994. Sediment Transport and Depo- Phleger, and Tj.H. van Andel (editors), Mange, M.A., and E.G. Otvos. 2005. Gulf sitional Processes. Blackwell Scientific, Recent Sediments Northwest Gulf of coastal plain evolution in west Louisiana: Boston, MA. Mexico, pp. 34–55. AAPG symposium, heavy mineral provenance and Pleisto- Reed, J.K. 2001. Natural History in the Tulsa, OK. cene alluvial chronology. Sedimentary Christian Worldview. CRS Books, Chino Warzeski, E.R., K.J. Cunningham, R.N. Geology 182:29–57. Valley, AZ. Ginsberg, J.B. Anderson, and Z-D. Ding. Oard, M.J. (in press). Colorado Plateau Reed, J.K. 2008a. Toppling the timescale, 1996. A Neogene mixed siliciclastic and Sandstones derived from Appalachians? part I: evaluating the terrain. CRSQ carbonate foundation for the Quaternary Journal of Creation. 44(3):174–178. carbonate shelf, Florida Keys. Journal of Oard, M.J. 2008a. Long-distance Flood Reed, J.K. 2008b. Toppling the timescale, Sedimentary Research 66:788–800. transport of the Nenana Gravel of part II: unearthing the cornerstone. Weltje, G.J., and H. von Eynatten. 2004. Alaska—similar to other gravels in the CRSQ 44(4):256–263. Quantitative provenance analysis of sedi- United States. CRSQ 44(4):264–278. Reed, J.K. 2008c. Toppling the timescale, ments: review and outlook. Sedimentary

Oard, M.J. 2008b. Flood by Design. Master part IV: assaying the golden (FeS2) spikes. Geology 171:1–11. Books, Green Forest, AR. CRSQ 45(2):81–89. 118 Creation Research Society Quarterly Book Review

The New by Paul Garner Evangelical Press, Webster, NY, Creationism 2009, 304 pp, $16.00.

VAILABLE THROUGH TNC is specifi cally geared to the baraminology, and many other innova- ACRS BOOKS! Christian market and includes many tive creation concepts. Garner believes Biblical references as it sets forth the these are the most promising of recent In 1982, the book What Is Creation Sci- view of origins emphasizing the Cre- creation proposals. He wisely cautions, ence? (WCS) by Henry M. Morris and ation, the Fall, the Flood, and post-Flood “Although I have tried to summarize Gary E. Parker appeared. It endeavored eras. TNC is written in a lay-friendly what I regard as the best research at the to explain a much-generalized scientifi c manner; and while confrontation with time of writing, not all the ideas in this creation worldview to a lay audience. evolutionary theory is inevitable, it is book will stand the test of time. Some Parker, a biologist, wrote the fi rst part de-emphasized in favor of establishing of these theories will have to be revised dealing with the life sciences, and Mor- a Biblical creation overview. Garner or abandoned while Scripture remains ris, a hydraulics engineer, scribed the writes, “In this book, I will, where nec- true for all time” (p. 16). section on the physical sciences. This essary, offer criticisms of conventional TNC starts with cosmological ques- book presented the case for creation theories; however, my main aim is to tions about the big bang theory and without reference to Biblical arguments summarize the work of modern-day proceeds to the formation of galaxies, and citations. scholars who are seeking to restore the stars, the solar system, and Earth. It At that time, the Institute for Cre- Biblical foundations of the scientifi c discusses the issue of the Biblical time ation Research (ICR) was promoting enterprise and build positive creationist frame versus the deep-time paradigm of its two-model approach, which com- theories in the fi eld of origins” (p. 15). the secular science establishment with pared and contrasted the evidence for What are some of the differences critiques of radiometric dating, origin- the creation and evolution models of between these two books? In the Morris of-life studies, uniformitarianism, and origins. WCS and the earlier, more and Parker book, much space is given evolution evidences. The book includes technical Scientifi c Creationism (1974) to the importance of the second law of Flood catastrophism, the fossil record, were published years before the rise of thermodynamics as a major hindrance post-Flood events such as the Ice Age, the intelligent design (ID) movement. to macroevolutionary theory (WCS, pp. the distribution of mankind, the origin ICR’s two-model approach and ID both 156-188), while in The New Creationism of races, and other issues. strove to decouple Biblical bias from the “law of entropy” is mentioned just Garner holds advanced degrees in their creation/design arguments. WCS once (p. 37). TNC does strongly present both biology and geology and writes in is fi lled with quotes of evolutionists who the importance of the Curse (Genesis 3) a very clear style that nonprofessional themselves point out the weaknesses on creation (pp. 155–164). Unlike WCS, readers will appreciate. This volume is of their theory. These quotations and Garner’s book cites not just recent cre- a good introduction to current creation resulting discussions were made to show ation research unavailable in 1982 but thinking. It has numerous helpful dia- the merits of the creation model from also details very specifi c creation theo- grams and illustrations, a bibliography, a strictly scientifi c perspective and to ries that can be confi rmed or falsifi ed. Web site listings, an index, extensive allow for a wider readership by secular It discusses the time dilation theory of endnotes, and numerous commenda- audiences. While much in the earlier Russell Humphreys, catastrophic plate tions. volume is similar to Paul Gardner’s The tectonics, RATE research, Kurt Wise’s New Creationism (TNC), there is a sig- fl oating forest ideas, Michael Oard’s Ice Don Ensign nifi cant difference in emphasis. Age studies, the growing discipline of [email protected] Volume 46, Fall 2009 119 The Evolution of Dinosaurs: Much Conjecture, Little Evidence

Jerry Bergman*

Abstract he evidence for dinosaur evolution was reviewed, along with the Tvarious theories of dinosaur evolution and the evidence for their support. Dinosaurs are commonly believed to have evolved from a small, crocodile-like animal; however, a review of the known fossils provides no evidence for dinosaur evolution from non-dinosaurs, despite the excellent and abundant dinosaur fossil record. This finding is very significant because the bones of many of the average- to larger-sized dinosaurs discovered to date are usually fairly well preserved due to their large size and thickness. Dinosaurs appear abruptly in the fossil record and disappear just as suddenly. The fossil findings for several major dinosaur species also were reviewed.

Introduction Dinosaurs are “astonishing animals” So far, based on the many thou- The popular meaning of the term that are a major topic of both popular sands of nearly complete skeletons, plus “dinosaur” is “terrible lizard” because interest and scientific study (Weisham- multi-thousands of partially complete of their size and assumed ferociousness. pel et. al, 2007, p. 7). The discovery skeletons, around 400 to 700 different They were all terrestrial reptiles—mem- of dinosaurs in the early 1800s radi- dinosaur species have been identified bers of the archosauria clade that had cally challenged our view of the world, (Novacek, 1996). Furthermore, a large scaly skin and hatched their young from especially our view of the past (Croft, collection of teeth and even some soft tis- eggs. A few were enormous in size, but 1982, p. 12). Their study is an ideal sues have been preserved (Hwang, 2005; most were around the size of bulls, and a area to evaluate evolution because an Lingham-Soliar, 2008). Since abundant few were as small as chickens. Dinosaurs enormous amount of excellent fossil fossil evidence exists, if dinosaurs evolved were not only huge, but they also “were evidence exists. One reason for the ex- from some primitive precursor, good the first land animals … designed for cellent fossil record of dinosaurs is that fossil evidence for their evolution from speed and agility” (Haines, 1999, p. 14). their fossils are preserved better than their earlier ancestors should have been Most were excellent runners on land, those of most other animals (such as the uncovered by now. However, the extant mostly up on their toes due to their hip smaller, hollow-boned birds) due to the fossil evidence does not support their and ankle construction. dinosaur’s large size and thick bones. evolution from lower forms of life. Yet, in spite of the abundant fossil record, our “knowledge of dinosaurs is very fragmentary and much that has been written remains speculation,” and “many authors have failed to dif- * Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology Department, Northwest State College, ferentiate between speculation and fact” [email protected] (Croft, 1982, p. 9). Although much has Accepted for publication June 27, 2009 been learned since these words were 120 Creation Research Society Quarterly written, it is still true that we know nithischians were a very large and varied much a matter of opinion” (Horner comparatively little about dinosaurs, group (Parker, 2000). This classification and Lessem, 1993 , p.128), and this is partly because most of our knowledge also has come under fire. Forster (2000, one reason why so much disagreement is based on footprints, bones, teeth, and 46) wrote that “most paleontologists now exists about their phylogeny. Another a few body parts such as scales. These feel that we simply need to stop consider- problem is about half of all putative parts make up only about ten percent ing the Dinosauria as being composed species are known only by “a few teeth of the animal (Croft, 1982). The many of only the Saurischia and Ornithischia.” or bone scraps” (Horner and Lessem, major unknowns include their specific Among the reasons is that paleontolo- 1993, p. 128). diet (although, judging on structures gists know almost nothing “about the such as teeth, most types are classified early evolution of these creatures, and in as herbivores or carnivores) and whether particular, the evolution of the dinosaurs The Origin of Dinosaurs they were ectotherms, or cold-blooded before the saurishian-ornithischian split” Dinosaurs were abundant in number (the common view in the past), or en- (Forster, 2000, p. 46). The taxonomy and variety around the world by the dotherms, warm-blooded (the view that in paleontology that formed the basis Late Triassic (Forster, 2000, p. 49). much accumulated evidence supports) of modern taxonomy was problematic Their variety and abundance coupled (ex. DeYoung, 2000, pp. 94–98). from the beginning of the discovery of with a lack of any empirical evidence dinosaurs. for their evolution has resulted in many As E.D. Cope and O.C. Marsh vied phylogeny proposals. One of the most Dinosaur Taxonomy for the glory of finding spectacular common phylogeny theories today is Dinosaurs are part of the archosauria dinosaurs and mammals in the that dinosaurs evolved from an alliga- (ancient lizard) clade that includes thec- American West, they fell into a pat- tor-like reptile. Haines (1999) wrote that odontians saurischians, ornithschians, tern of rush and superficiality born there is still much crocodilians, and the flying pterosaurs of their intense competition and controversy about how and when (Weishampel et. al, 2007). The only mutual dislike. Both wanted to bag dinosaurs evolved. But the most members of the archosauria clade still as many names as possible, so they popular current theory has dino- alive today are crocodiles and alligators published too quickly, often with saurs first appearing as small, two- (Parker, 2000). Dinosauria is divided inadequate descriptions, careless legged carnivores in the mid-Triassic, into two significantly distinct dinosaur study, and poor illustrations. In this around 235 million years ago with a families, those with birdlike hips that unseemly rush, they frequently gave combination of features that marked point downward and toward the tail, the names to fragmentary material that them as different (p. 14). ornithischians, and those with lizardlike could not be well characterized The Archosaura reptiles (from which hips that point downward and to the and sometimes described the same some believe the dinosaurs have de- front, the saurischians. The saurischi- creature twice by failing to make scended) are thecodonts that first ap- ans include some small, slightly built proper distinctions among the frag- peared in the fossil record during the reptiles and others that are large fierce ments … both Cope and Marsh Triassic (Benton, 1984). Thecodonts, a animals believed to have evolved before often described and officially named term meaning “socket-toothed,” were dinosaurs. So far, all “attempts to relate a species when only a few bones large, heavy crocodile-like animals that these two types of dinosaurs to the Tri- had been excavated and most of the crawled low to the ground and on all assic pseudosuchians” are problematic skeleton remained in the ground four legs. They had long jaws and tails because “there appears to be a puzzling (Gould, 1991, p. 87). similar to crocodiles, and for this reason overlap in time between the two groups,” In spite of years of intensive effort, some argue that they were only a type of and, so far, “possible evolutionary links major disagreement still exists among primitive crocodile. between them obstinately refuse to ap- the experts on dinosaur classification, Other experts argue that thecodonts pear” (Cox, 1976, p. 314). which is one reason why determining were an offshoot or branch of the line The saurischia are divided into the their phylogeny is so difficult for pale- that led to the dinosaurs. The theory is theropods (beast feet), which walked on ontologists. The most recent taxonomy that a thecodont’s (or some other Archo- two three-toed birdlike feet with sharp proposal is not based on evolution or saur’s) limb position evolved to allow the claws, and the sauropods (lizard feet), fossil trees but cladistic analysis using dinosaur precursors to walk in a more which walked on four feet and had small 107 anatomical traits (Weishampel et. al, upright position until they eventually heads, long necks, and bulky bodies such 2007). The fact is, how “closely related could walk on their back legs, becom- as apatosaurs (Cranfield, 2002). The or- one fossil animal is to another is very ing the dinosaurs that we know today Volume 46, Fall 2009 121

from the fossil record. This speculation esis was that prosauropods were direct two very different animals, as well as is not directly based on evidence but is descendants from certain thecodontians. birds, into one clade, an idea finally the most plausible conjecture postulated Another hypothesis is that carnosaurs widely accepted by the mid 1980s. Also, for dinosaur evolution because all other were one monophyletic group called the group class Thecodontia has now possibilities are even less tenable. No theropoda, which evolved from Podoke- been abandoned by many paleontolo- fossil evidence exists for this widely ac- sauridae (Weishampel, 1990). Another gists. Although the monophyletic view cepted theory, or for any of the other less theory is that carnosaurs evolved from now dominates, evidence for “multiple accepted theories. a primitive coelurosaur-like animal, a roots of Dinosauria might still exist and Another candidate for the earliest group of birdlike dinosaurs. These many in fact may be more obvious now that the direct dinosaur ancestor is a house- theories are all unconstrained by fossil cover of ‘Thecodontia’ has been blown” cat-sized animal named Lagosuchus, evidence but rather rely on morphologi- (Fastovsky and Weishampel, 2005, p. 91). believed by evolutionists to have lived cal comparisons and conjecture. Conse- The reason for these disagreements is 235 million years ago in Argentina quently, the imaginations of Darwinists because these theories are based largely (Horner and Lessem, 1993). Some pa- are allowed great freedom in developing on speculation, not fossil evidence (Fas- leontologists speculate that “Lagosuchus hypotheses. Some evolutionists reject tovsky and Weishampel, 2005). or one of its relatives may have been the all of these theories, concluding that ancestor of the dinosaurs” because they dinosaurs evolved from some “unspeci- possessed “many of the features thought fied quadrupeds” (Weishampel, 1990 The First Dinosaurs to be present in [the] oldest dinosaurs” p. 193). (Forster, 2000, p. 44). From the fragmen- The earliest known ornithischian Prosauropods tary remains recovered so far, Forster dinosaur is Pisanosaurus, known by only One of the first putative dinosaurs was (2000) concludes that Lagosuchus is one poorly preserved badly weathered the Prosauropoda, a group, of which 17 “probably not the ancestor” of dinosaurs fragmentary skeleton discovered by Gali- genera are now known (Forster, 2000, but “is at least closely related to the an- leo Scaglia in Argentina (Forster, 2000, pp. 18–50). The problem with the cestors of the dinosaurs” (p. 45). Others p. 46). Only some jaw parts, a shoulder Prosauropoda origins theory is that they argue that yet some other Archosaur blade fragment, parts of the hind leg, were common at the end of the Late that appeared in the late Permian, many and a few vertebrae were found. Based Triassic, both contemporaneously with, of which strongly resemble crocodiles, on the small, blunt teeth that lie side by as well as after, the dinosaurs that they were their ancestor (Richardson, 2003, side in the jaw, it was first judged to be a supposedly evolved into (Forster, 2000, pp. 40–41). very early ornithischian (Forster, 2000). p. 50). The herbivorous monsters with One theory popular for years is that Although the teeth are characteristic long necks, bodies, and tails appeared in some amphibian crawled out of the of ornithischians, and not either herre- large numbers around the world, causing water, adapted to land, and eventu- rasaurids or saurischian dinosaurs, some paleontologists to conclude that “they ally evolved into the Crocodylotarsi paleontologists are not convinced that must have evolved and spread very rap- (crocodile ankle) that later evolved into Pisanosaurus is even an ornithischian idly around the ancient world” (Forster, the dinosaurs and the Ornithosuchia dinosaur. The fact that it was a small, 2000). Forster (2000) concludes: (bird-crocodile), which became the lightly built creature only as large as a Exactly what the ancestors of prosau- crocodilians (ex. Forster, 2000, p. 44). medium-sized dog indicates that it may ropods were, what they looked like, Furthermore, the thecodontians are not be a dinosaur at all, but rather an and where the prosauropods evolved theorized to have given rise to theropods, extinct animal of some other type. It is is still a mystery. Although the name which gave rise to the saurischians, then not known if it walked on two or four prosauropod, meaning “before- the sauropods, camosaurs and coeluro- legs, but evidence suggests that it may sauropods,” implies they were the saurs (Croft, 1982). The thecodontians have been bipedal (Forster, 2000). ancestors of the enormous sauropods, also gave rise to the ornithischians, So much controversy over dinosaur paleontologists now believe they did which gave rise to the ornithopods, and origins exists that some argue for diphy- not give rise to the sauropods. They stegosaurs. From these groups evolved letic (having two separate) origins, others were already too specialized to have pachycephalosaurs, hadrosaurs, cera- for three or four or more separate origins developed into the sauropods. The topsians, and ankylosaurs (Croft, 1982). from different stem archosaurs (Fastovsky prosauropods and sauropods instead In 1990 three widely accepted hy- and Weishampel, 2005). In the 1970s a shared a common, yet unknown, potheses of carnosauria (meat-eating revolution in dinosaur origins occurred, ancestor, giving them a first cousin dinosaurs) origins existed. One hypoth- uniting saurischians and ornithischians, relationship. (p. 50) 122 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Herrerasaurus that also gave rise to the pterosaurs. dently acquired by members of the One of the earliest known well-docu- (p. 81) different groups. This, however, mented animals described as early In other words, a birdlike flying does not debar such characters from pre-dinosaurs are rather small bipedal reptile evolved into a dinosaur, and consideration as indications of theropods called Herrerasaurus that dinosaurs in turn later evolved into relationship. Study of fossil forms evolutionists date back to the Late birds. This claim illustrates the major increasingly indicates that there Triassic about 245 million years ago. problems that exist for determining even has been an enormous amount of Herrerasaurus were four or five feet a tentative evolutionary phylogeny. parallelism in evolution (Romer, tall but may have grown as large as ten 1966, p. 136). feet long and up to 500 pounds. They Much confusion has existed about ran on their hind legs and had huge Phylogeny dinosaur phylogeny for other reasons. An teeth. Only one complete skeleton has Because Dinosauria appear in large example is a dinosaur called Iguanodon, been found, allowing a good picture of numbers in many parts of the world and discovered in 1822. The find consisted the animal (Forster, 2000). The lone no fossil record exists that documents of a few large teeth that were similar to complete skeleton is the earliest whole their evolution, the whole field of dino- iguana teeth, only much longer. For dinosaur skeleton known and was found saur phylogeny is rife with speculation. this reason the creature was named in Argentina in 1988. One of the most heated proposals was Iguanodon, meaning “iguana-tooth,” Because Herrerasaurus possess many removing dinosaurs from class Reptilia and was believed to be a giant iguana. dinosaur features shared by both Sau- and placing it in a new class called Dino- Later, a partial skeleton was discovered rischia and Ornithischia, Herrerasaurus sauria, a major rethinking in paleontol- and a new reconstruction resulted in a is considered by some their common ogy (Weishampel, 1990). ponderous, heavy creature with a large ancestor, or at least related to their com- A major problem is that, as so many horn, indicating that the animal was mon ancestor. Others conclude that Her- dinosaurs are known only by fossil frag- a reptilian, a rhino, or a pachyderm rerasaurus “wasn’t a direct ancestor” of ments, it is difficult to determine what equivalent. dinosaurs “but it’s the best we’ve got from species many belong to, not to men- More finds indicated limbs closer to that time” (Horner and Lessem, 1993, tion whether they are a phylogenetic a kangaroo than a pachyderm, producing p. 125). Because it does not have many ancestor of some other animal (Forster, a kind of chimera. Next, research by T. dinosaurian features, other paleontolo- 2000). An example is the discovery of H. Huxley discovered the creature had gists have concluded Herrerasaurus were three species that some paleontologists a pelvis and hind limbs like a ground- not even dinosaurs (Forster, 2000) but concluded were not three separate dwelling bird similar to an emu. With another extinct reptile that happened species (Herrerasaurus, Isehisaurus, more discoveries, it looked more like the to have some traits common to both and Frenguellisaurus) but one species, picture we have of a T. rex today. Saurischia and Ornithischia. This con- namely Herrerasaurus. Furthermore, fusion “shows how little we know about many paleontologists consider another the early evolution of the dinosaurs” putative primitive early dinosaur, the The Fossil Record (Forster, 2000, p. 46). Novacek (1996) Staurikosaurus, to be a herrerasaurid The fossil record indicates that dinosaurs summarized another theory of dinosaur as well. As Fastovsky and Weishampel were “extremely rare in the early part of evolution that argues, (2005) conclude, “So far, we haven’t the Late Triassic,” but by the end of the dinosaurs are part of a whole range yet identified who within Archosauria Triassic entirely “new groups of dino- of forms called archosaurs, where might have the closest relationship to saurs” had rapidly “spread world wide familiar lineages like crocodiles also Dinosauria” (p. 92). in an ever-increasing array of species” eventually branched off. But the Another major problem is that con- without leaving a trace of fossil evidence details of this story—namely which structing phylogenic trees has proved (Forster, 2000, p. 49). The fact is that kinds of other archosaurs are clearly so difficult that parallel evolution has no one knows why this “ever-increasing the closest kin of the dinosaurs—are been proposed to explain the existing array” of new species occurred, nor do not decisively known. It has been conflicting tree hypothesis. we have any fossil evidence to document suggested that the nearest relatives of Many similarities in structural fea- their evolution— “abrupt appearance” is dinosaurs may have been some early tures among end forms of different the only term that can describe what the forms of the winged “flying reptiles,” archosaurian lines have not been fossil record reveals. Based on an exten- the pterosaurs. Thus dinosaurs might inherited as such from a common sive study of the fossil record, Fastovsky be rooted in the unknown ancestor ancestor but have been indepen- and Weishampel (2005) concluded Volume 46, Fall 2009 123 that the likelihood of determining the dinosaurs is highly speculative (Forster, inches tall and as thin as a tortilla. The progenitor of any one lineage being fos- 2000). Many other fossils are incomplete crest is believed to be an ornamental silized is nil. Dinosaur bones are usually and/or badly damaged, requiring what is feature used to attract mates. very easy to identify because they have assumed to be a closely related animal The leading experts, Horner and several unique traits, such as an extra called an analogy to fill in the missing Lessem, admit the animal that the T. hole in their skull, grasping hands, and parts (Shipman, 1986). Analogies are rex and the tyrannosaurids evolved from specialized anklebones, problematic because they require the is not known: “maybe they came from but it is dinosaurs’ hips that are most assumption that two similar fossils can the allosaur line of big predators, maybe distinctive. They had five fused be compared in detail. If two fossils have they came from a common ancestor, sacral vertebrae that helped to create certain bone similarities, the analogue along with the Troodontids, a man-sized a very strong hip. Together with a method assumes that they are also similar group of dinosaurs with many birdlike specialized socket for the thigh bone, in ways that cannot be compared due to features” (Horner and Lessem, 1993, p. this gave dinosaurs their powerful lack of physical evidence. The next sec- 127). Horner and Lessem (1993, p. 127) upright posture. A long tail put their tion looks at some specific examples. admit that, although “you can imagine center of balance firmly over the a hypothetical ancestral tyrannosaurid,” pelvis, allowing them to run on two no evidence of this hypothetical ances- legs. This also freed their front limbs Tyrannosaurus rex tor has ever been found. They conclude for catching food. All this was helped The best-known dinosaur is T. rex, an a logical T. rex dinosaur ancestor is a by a highly specialized skeleton. 18-foot-tall, 42-foot-long 14,000-pound meat-eating creature, but “which one Many of their bones contained air monster, the largest carnivore that has we can’t say yet” (Horner and Lessem, sacs, like birds, and in the course of ever lived. It was classified as a therapod, 1993, p. 127). evolution they reduced many bones a meat-eating, hollow-boned animal that Another very early dinosaur, Or- that were not absolutely necessary can range in size from the Placodus and nithodesmus, was first identified as a for structural strength. For their size, the ichthyosaur Cymbospondylus. All pterosaur (Parker, 2003). Further stud- dinosaurs were probably surprisingly dinosaurs are postulated to have evolved ies concluded it was not a pterosaur but light (Haines, 1999, p. 14). from an animal the size of a chicken. So rather a small dinosaur. Other fossils first The process used to find a clade’s far 32 T. rex specimens have been locat- identified as ornithodesmus have been ancestor is to use the hierarchy of char- ed, half of which are close to complete regrouped back with the pterosaurs! acters in the cladogram to determine (Weishampel et al., 2007). Horner and Many other examples of dinosaur reclas- what features should exist in an ancestor. Lessem (1993, p. 124) wrote, “T. rex was sification could be cited. Eight named The next step is to find evidence of the last and most spectacular product of and one unnamed species of Troodonti- an organism that most closely match- dinosaur evolution. It was an experiment dae exist, and four phylogenetic hypoth- es the expected combinations of that can’t be repeated.” eses have been proposed to explain their characters and character states. As Darwinists estimate that dinosaurs origins (Weishampel et al, 2007). we have seen, the likelihood of the first evolved 225 million years ago, and Clearly, the “evidence is limited and very progenitor of lineage being fos- T. rex 190 million years ago. How they there continue to be many disagree- silized is nil; however, we can com- know this from only 32 specimens is ments” in the field of dinosaur phylog- monly find representatives of closely unknown. So far, not a single direct T. eny, and often these disagreements are related lineages that embody most rex ancestor has been located. Potential to the degree that it calls into question of the features of the hypothetical ancestors, including Coelophysis, Her- the basis of dinosaur macroevolution ancestor (Fastovsky and Weishampel, rerasaurus, Eoraptor, and Allosaurus, all (Parker, 2003, p. 159). The enormous 2005, p. 92). have been eliminated by most experts as differences between pterosaurs and The “first dinosaurs are known from possible T. rex ancestors. ornithodesmus illustrate the difficulty a small number of mostly incomplete Two fossil specimens considered of even determining the type a set of specimens that so far have been found by some paleontologists to be the most dinosaur bone fragments belongs to, in only two locations in South America” primitive T. rex fossils are a dinosaur even if a complete skeleton, which is (Forster, 2000, p. 42). Unfortunately, only called Guanlong Wucaii (Xu et al., only five percent or less of the animal, partial remains of one animal commonly 2006). This dinosaur identified as a T. exists. Identifying evolution transitional speculated to be the dinosaur ancestor, rex ancestral link from the teeth and forms is even more difficult. Lagosuchus and its kin, have been dis- pelvic structures is a nine-foot-long adult Another problem is that dinosaurs covered, so its status as the ancestor of the that had a head crest that was about 2.5 were not primitive as the word is nor- 124 Creation Research Society Quarterly mally defined. An example is the intel- the only evidence for this theory is their For this reason, other methods have ligent design of the eye of T. rex. It has morphological similarity. Since no fos- been utilized to determine their phy- been assumed that they had very poor, sil evidence exists to support any evolu- logeny. Since 1980 cladistic methods fussy vision, but recent research has tion theory, this speculation remains have revolutionized our views of their shown that they were able to achieve assumption (Norman and Wellnhofer, phylogeny. Computer algorithms also very detailed images similar to that of 2000, p. 136). Parker concluded that have been used to produce similarity many modern animals (DeYoung, 2000). horned dinosaurs “were, in general, a comparisons, often using contempora- Many other examples exist to show that group that underwent relatively little neously existing species that are limited dinosaurs were very well designed for evolution, as is evident from the many in helping us to determine their evolu- their environment. thousands of specimens that have been tionary history. found in hundreds of sites” (2003, p. Benton (1984, p. 142) concludes 373). that so “many riddles remain unsolved” Horned Dinosaurs The fossil record shows that “the that “a single fossil find can sometimes Horned dinosaurs (ceratopids) were very horned dinosaurs were relatively ‘con- provide us with exciting new evidence successful animals that lived throughout servative,’ a term used to describe a and provide all new theory.” How dino- the northern hemisphere (Norman and group that does not change very much saurs “came to be” and what they are, are Wellnhofer, 2000). The ceratopians from its original basic shape and form, “questions pondered since the creation of (horned-face) had shelf-like ridges or despite a long time for evolution to the name by Sir Richard Owen just over expanded areas around their skull edges occur” (Parker, 2003, p. 373). In other 150 years ago” and are still being asked and a sharp, narrow parrot-like beak words, as is true of all dinosaurs, they (Fastovsky and Weishampel, 2005, p. (Parker, 2003). They ranged from the appeared suddenly in the fossil record 87). We can conclude with the following size of a pig to twice the size of large as fully developed, horned dinosaurs observation, which is still true today: rhinoceroses, which they resemble. The and did not change until they became Although many pages have been best-known horned dinosaur, and one extinct. They have been dated all the written discussing the mystery of the of the largest, was the Triceratops. Tri- way to the very end of the dinosaur age. extinction of the dinosaurs, almost ceratops, meaning “three-horned face,” Norman and Wellnhofer (2000, p. 134) as much uncertainty surrounds is an ornithischian dinosaur that has a wrote that the evolutionary “relations of their origin—or origins. … the pelvis shape similar to that of birds, and the so-called short-frilled ceratopids are poor paleontologist searching for a crownlike hat, plus three large horns, not clear. Each is so distinct that kinship answers is therefore, in the origin two on its head and one on its snout, is not at all obvious.” of the dinosaurs, confronted with providing the source of its name. complexity where he hoped for Since their horns preserve well and simplicity, while in the replace- literally hundreds of remains of these Conclusions ment of the pseudosuchians by their dinosaurs have been uncovered, horned Over 30 million dinosaur bones and varied offspring he meets a sudden dinosaurs as a group are excellent ex- parts, some in excellent states of pres- (if delayed) simple event where he amples useful to determine the limits of ervation, have been identified, and expected complexity (Cox, 1976, evolution. Although hundreds of Tricer- although much speculation exists, not p. 3140). atop skeletons, many very complete, a single documented plausible direct The more paleontological discover- have been found since the first one was ancestor has yet been located. All known ies that are made, the more we realize uncovered in 1855, no evidence of their dinosaurs appear fully formed in the our knowledge is complete and still evolution has ever been uncovered. This fossil record. As Forster (2000, p. 42) no ancestral form is found. As a result, is especially problematic for Darwinists admits, “much mystery remains about paleontologists are forced to conjecture because it is the largest horned dinosaur the origin of the dinosaurs.” Several pos- about their ancestors based on little known, and it is easily identified by its sible candidates for their ancestors have evidence. In conclusion, no credible very unique skeletal traits, especially its been suggested, but difficulties exist with evidence exists for dinosaur evolution distinctive skull and horns. In one loca- all of them, and most are likely only ex- from a primitive precursor animal, sup- tion alone, thirty-two Triceratops skulls tinct reptiles and not evolutionary links. porting the creation model. Dinosaurs were recovered. Furthermore, confusion has reigned for appear suddenly and evidently also went One theory is that they evolved more than a century over dinosaurian extinct rather suddenly. from “bipedal ancestors not unlike phylogeny in spite of the discovery of Acknowledgments: I wish to thank Psittacosaurus or Microceratops,” but much fossil evidence. Andrew Fabich, PhD, Jody Allen, RN, Volume 46, Fall 2009 125

Joel Klenck, PhD, and John Upchurch the Dinosaurs, 2nd edition. Cambridge ing Cliffs. Doubleday Anchor, New for their feedback on an earlier draft of University Press, New York, NY. York, NY. this manuscript. Forster, C. 2000. The first dinosaurs. In Parker, S. 2000. The Encyclopedia of the Age Silverberg, R. (editor), The Ultimate Di- of the Dinosaurs. Pegasus, Surry, UK. nosaur, pp. 41–52. Ibooks (A Division of Parker, S. 2003. Dinosaurs: The Complete References Simon and Schuster), New York, NY. Guide to Dinosaurs. Firefl y Books, Cres- Bakker, R.T., and P.M. Galton. 1974. Di- Gould, S. 1991. Bully for Brontosaurus. cent Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada. nosaur monophyly and a new class of Norton, New York, NY. Richardson, H.. 2003. Dinosaurs and Pre- vertebrates. Nature 248:168–172. Haines, T. 1999. Walking with Dinosaurs. historic Life. Dorling Kindersley, New Benton, M. 1984. The Dinosaur Encyclope- BBC Worldwide Ltd, London, UK. York, NY. dia. Aladdin, New York, NY. Horner, J., and D. Lessem. 1993. The Com- Romer, A. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Cox, B. 1976. Mysteries of early dinosaur plete T. Rex. Simon and Schuster, New University of Chicago Press, Chicago, evolution. Nature 264:314. York, NY. IL. Cranfi eld, I. 2002. The Illustrated Diction- Hwang, S.H. 2005. Phylogenetic patterns of Shipman, P. 1986. How a 125 million-year- ary of Dinosaurs. Salamander Books, enamel microstructure in dinosaur teeth. old dinosaur evolved in 160 years. Dis- London, UK. Journal of Morphology 266:208–240. cover 7(10): 94–102. Croft, L.R. 1982. The Last Dinosaurs: A Lingham-Soliar, T. 2008. A unique cross sec- Weishampel, D. (editor). 1990. The Dino- New Look at the Extinction of the Di- tion through the skin of the dinosaur Psit- sauria. University of California Press, nosaurs. Haslam Printers Ltd, Chorley, tacosaurus from China showing a com- Berkeley, CA. Lancashire, UK. plex fi bre architecture. Proceedings of the Weishample, D., P. Dodson, and H. Osmolska DeYoung, D. 2000. Dinosaurs and Creation. Royal Society B. 275(1636):775–780 (editors). 2007. The Dinosauria. Univer- Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI. Norman, D., and P.Wellnhofer. 2000. The sity of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Dixon, D. 2004. The Pocket Book of Dino- Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs: Xu, X., J.M. Clark, C.A. Forster, M. Norell, saurs. Salamander Books, London, UK. An Original and Compelling Insight into G.M. Erickson, D.A. Eberth, C. Jia, and Fastovsky, D.E., and D.B. Weishampel. Life in the Dinosaur Kingdom. Salaman- Q. Zhao. 2006. A basal Tyrannosauroid 2005. The Evolution and Extinction of der Books, London, UK. dinosaur from the late Jurassic of China. Novacek, M. 1996. Dinosaurs of the Flam- Nature 439:715–718.

Book Review

The Evolution by Thomas S. Fowler Controversy: and Daniel Kuebler A Survey of Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Competing Schools 2007, 382 pages, $28.00.

AuthorsAuthors FFowlerowler aandnd KKuebleruebler ccompareompare unaddressed. Similar books have had The book begins with a brief his- and contrast the various schools of proponents write a chapter supporting tory of the controversy, a review of the thought regarding origins and the de- their viewpoint and then have others evidence, and the principle points of velopment of life on Earth. The book critique the chapter. Fowler and Kue- dispute. The next section discusses the discusses biological issues; the origin bler choose to evaluate each position major origin positions including the of the universe, psychology, sociology, themselves, giving the evidence pro and neo-Darwinian, creationist, intelligent linguistics, and religion are left largely con for each. design, and meta-Darwinian schools. 126 Creation Research Society Quarterly

The neo-Darwinian camp claims that But bias does indeed creep in, be- similarities of physiology and function of natural selection and mutations are ginning with the title, The Evolution organisms suggesting common ancestry sufficient to explain the development Controversy. In the public’s mind, evolu- of all life. Creationist answers to these of life on Earth. The creationist school tion assumes that “common descent ... problems are given and evaluated. For is represented by the young-earth posi- by natural forces alone are responsible creation friendly readers of this section, a tion. God was active in establishing the for the emergence of all organisms” sense of frustration results because of the original life-forms; change in morphol- (p. 366). The first sentence of chapter superficial examination of the evidence ogy and genetics is limited within a 1 begins, “Charles Darwin’s theory of and arguments. While the authors strive comparatively brief time frame. Other organic evolution...” (p. 21). Since neo- for balance, it seems as if they pick and creation positions such as theistic evo- Darwinism is the reigning consensus of choose from the creationist literature, lution and progressive creation are only the intellectual-academic establishment, giving an uneven evaluation. One ex- briefly referenced. Intelligent design other competing schools are constantly ample is the treatment of the second has much commonality with creation, playing catch-up or reacting to this natu- law of thermodynamics (entropy) argu- emphasizing irreducible complexity, ralist paradigm. Perhaps a more neutral ment. The authors give the evolutionist aside from the age issue. Lastly, the title like The Origins Controversy would “open system” response (pp. 225–226) meta-Darwinian school includes mac- prepare the reader for an equal start at without evaluating the creationist coun- roevolution, punctuated equilibrium, the opening gate. Each school should terarguments. Introducing raw energy exaptation, neutral theory, complexity begin with a clean slate in presenting alone to an open system will not create theory, and endosymbiosis. evidence. For example, the authors complexity; a coded plan or template The final section deals with public assume the validity of vast geological needs to exist for growth to take place. policy issues and a summary of the four time without proving it, appealing to the Another example of superficial handling origins positions. One valuable feature authority of “the commonly accepted concerns the RATE group findings. of this book is its many summary tables. chronology” (pp. 84, 86). The first RATE book is referenced (p. The volume also includes a helpful The creationist chapter describes 219), and the 2005 RATE conclusions glossary of terms, a bibliography, and the major U.S. creation science organi- are mentioned (p. 220), but the final an index. zations: The Institute for Creation Re- research results are not evaluated. How does one present the various search, Creation Research Society, An- Fowler and Kuebler do a reasonable views on a contentious issue without swers in Genesis, Geoscience Research job in presenting origins views in a fairly taking sides? The authors claim “that Institute, and Center for Scientific Cre- objective fashion. The primary merit of this book is more objective than any ation (Walt Brown). Six major hurdles The Evolution Debate is its summary other that we know of on the subject” (pp. 195–196) are erected for creation of arguments and counterarguments. (p. 15). They hold no theory as a priori science to be a viable alternative to evo- However, many partisans of each school truth and evaluate each on a strictly lutionism. They are the distant starlight will be less than satisfied with their pre- scientific basis. The authors state that problem, terrestrial evidence for a very sentation and evaluation. no position must emerge as the winner. ancient earth, radioisotope dating, the A host of prepublication reviewers have fossil record, uniformity of the genetic Don Ensign striven mightily to ferret out any hint of code (pseudogenes, synteny blocks), and [email protected] bias (pp. 16–17). Volume 46, Fall 2009 127 Stellar Radiation Entropy as Evidence of Supernatural Order and Creation

James R. Powell*

Abstract he second law of thermodynamics, or increasing entropy, is one of Tthe most fundamental and empirical laws of physics, and it holds great implications for understanding order and design in the universe and the origin of this order. Large increases in entropy from stellar radiation contribute to diffusion of energy and point to a high state of initial energy order that cannot be accounted for naturally or solely by the first law of thermodynamics. This is one of the greatest arguments for supernatural order that can only be the result of a Creator.

Introduction More recently, Professor Thomas Banks of the Department The second law of thermodynamics is an immutable law of of Physics, UC Santa Cruz, has stated, “The Second Law of physics never violated by observation or experiment, and ever- Thermodynamics is one of the most robust and profound increasing entropy in any closed or bounded system points physical principles … Ever since the discovery of the Second directly to an earlier state of higher energy order. Sir Arthur Law, physicists have been faced with the question of why the Eddington was an English astrophysicist and contemporary universe began in a low entropy state” (Banks, 2007, p.1). of Einstein who theoretically investigated stellar interiors and On the grandest cosmological scale, radiant energy from temperature and first proposed that star radiation is a subatomic billions of stars illuminates the universe, producing a large process, now known to be the nuclear fusion of hydrogen. Ed- and possibly the predominant entropy source along with dington (1929) wrote: quasi-stellar active galactic nuclei (AGN), gamma ray bursts The law that entropy always increases—the second law of (GRBs), and supernovae. For a numerical example, an estimate thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position of stellar entropy demonstrates that a large source of energy among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you and earlier state of order is required for this emission of radi- that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with ant energy to even be possible. Energy order is a proposed Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s conceptual term, which we will discuss in more detail later equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, in this paper; it better quantifies energy as order as contrasted well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. with the disorder of entropy. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Entropy is one of the greatest witnesses to God’s sovereign thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for power and control over the universe attested to by Scripture it but to collapse in deepest humiliation (p. 74). in Romans 8:20–21: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption.” †

* James R. Powell, 8614 Turning Leaf, Boerne, TX 78015, †All Scripture references from the new american standard bible, [email protected] 1977, copyright by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permis- Accepted for publication September 7, 2009 sion. 128 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Stellar Radiant Energy Entropy where equation (6) is the ratio of microstates due to radiated The most fundamental form of the second law of thermody- energy from stars diffused each second into the quiescent namics as established by Boltzmann, (Fermi, 1937) is: radiation background or ‘blackness’ of space at Tcmb = 2.725 K. For the estimated number of stars at a median radiation S = k ln w, (1) temperature of 6000 K radiating from the total stellar surface

area into the universe at Tcmb, equation (6) yields the ratio where S is the entropy in units of J/K, k is Boltzmann’s constant, and w may be thought of as the thermodynamic probability of 8.43 x 10^71 71 wf/wi = e or ln(wf/wi) = 8.43 x 10 . (7) an isolated system being in a particular state, a dimensionless number that connects the microscopic, or statistical level, to the This dimensionless number is the increase in microstates macroscopic, or classical measurements (Fermi, 1937, p. 57). and disorder due to the energy radiated by all stars each second This is true since w is the number of microstates corresponding in the observable universe. The incremental entropy rate is to an observed macrostate as the measure or degree of disorder the same numerical result as equation (4), of a system. A change in entropy can be written by expanding equation (1) in differential form to compare microstates as 71 49 ∆S = k[ln(wf/wi)] = k(8.43 x 10 ) = 1.16 x 10 [J/sK].

(8) ∆S = k ln (wf/wi), (2) with w expanded into a ratio of microstates, the final microstate The total radiated energy each second from equations over the initial microstate. This equation follows from any ∆S (3) and (4), dQ = (dS/dt)(T), or (dS/dt)(Tcmb) = (1.16 X 49 49 as the macroscopic sum (S = S1 + S2 + … + Sn) of a number 10 J/sK)(2.725K) = 3.16 x 10 J/s. This means that, for this of microscopic incremental dS changes (such as from radiant example, the estimated entropy increase from stellar radia- energy photons) equal to Sf – Si = (k ln wf) – (k ln wi) = k ln tion across the universe during the 500 seconds it takes for 51 (wf/wi). The initial or ground state of entropy, wi = 1, corre- sunlight to reach earth is 5.8 x 10 J/K. From the first law of sponds to perfect order posited at creation (Van Ness, 1969, thermodynamics, dU/dt = dQ/dt – dW/dt, where dW/dt is the pp. 93–94). The differential increase in entropy also can be amount of work done per second, equal to zero in this case written as (Fermi, 1937, p. 52): (Van Ness, 1969, p. 28). Given that dQ/dt = (dS/dt)(T), the rate of change of internal energy, dU/dt = (dS/dt)(T). Where dS = dQ/T, (3) did this large amount of energy radiated each second, dU/dt = 3.16 x 1049 J/s, originate? Could anything we know about in where dQ is the heat energy added to a closed system in the natural universe be the source of this energy, or the high thermodynamic equilibrium at temperature T and dS is the state of order transformed into entropy each second in equation incremental transformation of energy into entropy. An estimate (8)? Could this reasonably be accounted for as originating in of the increase in the entropy of the universe due to stellar another natural process, considering that all observed natural radiation as an entropy rate (from the appendix) is processes tend to increasing entropy and decreasing energy order? Or, if disorder results only from ordered energy, then 4 what is the source of this order? Since energy cannot be cre- dS/dt = dQT/(dtTcmb) = nσTavg As/Tcmb ated or destroyed naturally, and every natural or spontaneous = 1.16 x 1049 [J/sK]. (4) process tends to disorder, then the origin of order cannot be natural but must be supernatural. For an order-of-magnitude estimate of the stellar radiation contribution to the overall entropy change of the universe each second, we can equate the entropy change equation (2) per Discussion second and this expression for the rate of change of entropy The classical thermodynamics association of “disorder” with from stellar radiation (4) to yield entropy is now being questioned because an increase in entropy, as an increase in disorder in any closed system as a 4 completely natural process, is in direct conflict with evolu- k ln (wf/wi) = nσTavg As/Tcmb. (5) tion. Evolution is also defined as a natural or spontaneous Therefore, process that supposedly “reverses” entropy with an unknown source of added energy. The escape from these philosophi- 4 wf/wi = e^[(nσTavg As)/kTcmb], (6) cal entanglements is to require that entropy be restricted to Volume 46, Fall 2009 129

quantitative measurements in units of J/K. Equation (8) is a finite time and certainly after an infinite time, after which real entropy in J/K per second that requires initial energy order only fluctuations about this equilibrium state can take place. to enable the diffusion of energy. “Entropy is a measure of the As the universe is far from equilibrium it must have a finite unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure age and hence a beginning. This beginning must be a state of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder” of minimum entropy at which the cosmos was born. This was (Daintith, 2005, emphasis added). In a recent paper, C. G. brought about by God who also created values of parameters Chakrabarti and I. Chakrabarti state that w in equation (1) is such as initial energy, matter, entropy and so on (p. 383). “the degree of disorder or simply disorder of the system,” and Kragh (2008) adds that, they rewrite equation (1) directly as “Entropy = k ln (Disorder)” Assuming that the law of entropy increase is valid for the (Chakrabarti and Chakrabarti, 2007, p. 560). Freeman Dyson, universe as a whole, it is but a small step to conclude that the the Nobel laureate, has said, “The laws of thermodynamics universe cannot have existed eternally. If so, it has presumably decree that each quantity of energy has a characteristic quality come into existence some finite time in the past, an event that called entropy associated with it. The entropy measures the many people would not hesitate to identify with a creative act. degree of disorder associated with energy … The highest form The claim that thermodynamics leads to a finite-aged, cre- (of energy) being the one with the least disorder or entropy.” ated universe has been called the entropological or entropic (Dyson, 1971, p. 52). argument for creation (p. 47). Therefore, as understood scientifically, entropy is disorder, Similarly, Bishop E. W. Barnes (1933) has written, or energy disorder. To quantify disorder with the necessary It is a singular fact that … speculations based on the second formalism, we can define “energy order” as the ratio of total law of thermodynamics seem to re-establish the cosmological energy to entropy, or the “orderliness” of energy in terms of argument (for the existence of God) with the utmost direct- the amount of disorder, fractionally. In the case of blackbody ness and simplicity. The organisation of the energy of the

radiation, this radiant energy order as a ratio, ε0, is cosmos is always diminishing…as a result of it there will finally be in the cosmos no organised energy capable of doing 4 3 work. In the beginning there must have been a maximum ε0 = dU/dS = aT V/(4/3)aT V = ¾T [K] (9) organisation of energy … Against this thermodynamical argu- where the change in internal energy, dU = aT4V is the total ment we can bring no valid objection (pp. 595–596). radiant energy in a volume V, and dS = (4/3) aT3V is the mag- This was summarized best, however, by Dr. Henry Mor- nitude of blackbody radiation entropy in the same volume, V ris Jr., founder and past president of the Institute for Creation

(Planck, 1959). ε0 is thus the energy order dependent solely Research, in his paper, “Entropy and Open Systems”: on T, or temperature as the quantification of thermal radiant The entropy principle points directly to creation. That is, energy order. This logically follows from thermodynamics in if all things are now running down to disorder, they must general since thermal energy heat flow is always dependent on originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is ∆T. The energy order of the CMB, for example, is ¾(2.73K) = no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial 2.05K, or low energy order given the low usable energy-diffuse condition, its cause must have been supernatural (Morris, nature of the background radiation. The sun as a blackbody 1976, p. 6). radiator at 5900 K has an energy order of 4425 K, much more Dr. Gordon Van Wylen, former chairman of the Depart- usable energy, or much higher energy order than the CMB. ment of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michi-

ε0 may thus be a useful metric and quantification of energy gan, has commented that the question that arises is how the order over disorder, an indicator of available thermal radiant universe got into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, energy in terms of entropy. Eddington (1929, p. 71) states, “As since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy. regards heat-energy the temperature is the measure of its de- Van Wylen and Sonntag conclude this subject by stating, “How gree of organisation; the lower the temperature, the greater the did [the universe] get in the low state of entropy? … the authors disorganization.” The quantification of energy order in terms see the second law of thermodynamics as man’s description of of temperature is thus an inverse measure of entropy. the prior and continuing work of a creator” (Van Wylen and Entropy necessitates supernatural order and a Creator. Dr. Sonntag, 1973, p. 248). It is fitting to conclude this section Helge Kragh labels this the “entropic creation argument,” high- with a comment by Eddington (1933): lighting a 1991 paper by Peter T. Landsberg, “From Entropy It is the opposite extrapolation towards the past which gives to God?” (Kragh, 2007, p. 369). Landsberg (1991) writes, real cause to suspect a weakness in the present conception The entropological ‘proof’ for the existence of God runs of science. The beginning seems to present insuperable dif- roughly as follows. The entropy law ensures that an isolated ficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. system reaches internal thermal equilibrium possibly after a We may have to let it go at that (pp. 124–125). 130 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Conclusion Evolution is neither a conservative nor a degenerative process. Entropy increase ranks among the most absolute and ob- Therefore it is concluded that evolution could not have oc- servable physical principles in the universe. Everything is curred, since the first and second laws of thermodynamics becoming increasingly disordered in terms of available energy would prevent any process that consistently produces greater because entropy, the disordering of energy, is irreversibly order and complexity in the physical universe (Williams, increasing as demonstrated by the large entropy change from 1981, pp. 21–22). star radiation. If this diffusion of energy is quantifiable and Again, from Eddington (1929), real, then it must result from preextant energy order that is As a scientist I simply do not believe that the present order of just as quantifiable and real, and this ordered state also cannot things started off with a bang; unscientifically I feel equally be accounted for as originating from another natural, entropy- unwilling to accept the implied discontinuity in the divine increasing process. This quantification of order implies design nature [that God wound up the material universe and left it to as believed by Eddington (1929): chance ever since]. But I can make no suggestion to evade the “We admit that the world contains both chance and design, deadlock (Eddington, 1929, pp. 84–85, brackets added). or at any rate chance and the antithesis of chance. This We cannot see the infinite, eternal God directly, but we antithesis is emphasized by our method of the measurement can understand more about Him through what has been made of entropy” (p. 77). and how the creation is increasingly disordered in terms of The initial or originating order must be the result of a available energy according to His Word. In Romans 8:20–22, supernatural process, from the Creator Himself. Again, from we read: Eddington (1929): For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, Travelling backwards into the past we find a world with more but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the cre- and more organisation. If there is no barrier to stop us earlier ation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption we must reach a moment when the energy of the world was into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we wholly organized with none of the random element in it. It know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of is impossible to go back any further under the present system childbirth together until now (emphases added). of natural law (p. 84). This observed trend to disorder necessarily leads us to In the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans, he writes, “For order, and the order of the universe is the most overwhelm- since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes, ing proof of the existence of the God of the Bible. German His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, Nobel laureate, physicist Max Planck, explains this order in being understood through what has been made” (1:20). The a May 1937 address. word for “world” used here is the Greek word kosmos, which At all events we should say in summing up that, according to means “order,” the subject of this paper. Looking at “His everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense eternal power” in this verse in more detail, the Greek word realm of nature … a certain order prevails—one independent for power is dynamis, which means “[miraculous] power, of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain might, or strength, or the ability to accomplish a task or do through our senses this order can be formulated in terms of work (Thomas, 1981, p. 1644). This could be interpreted purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order identically with the scientific definition of power, the capac- of the universe (Planck, 1968, p. 144). ity to exert energy or do work per unit time in units of watts Entropy is the observable transformation of ordered energy or Joules/second. The applied energy, then, in Romans 1:20 into a less ordered state. This posits a supernatural source of would be power (in watts, or J/s) x time (s) with t → ∞, which order that was understood by Einstein. In his biography of means infinite energy. This source of infinite energy can only Einstein, Isaacson (2007) writes: be the infinite God who created the universe with the high But mainly, his beliefs seemed to arise from the sense of state of initial order attested to by the increasing entropy we awe and transcendent order that he discovered through his observe. One of the greatest evidences of the supernatural God scientific work. Whether embracing the beauty of his gravita- of the universe is the increase in entropy and disordering of tional field equations or rejecting the uncertainty in quantum energy in all natural processes, which can only be the result of mechanics, he displayed a profound faith in the orderliness the initial order established by God Himself and understood of the universe” (p. 385, emphases added). through what has been made. The logical conclusion of Dr. Emmett Williams is: It seems more reasonable to believe that the existing order References and complexity in the physical universe was created into it Banks, T. 2007. Entropy and initial conditions in cosmology. Journal by God … Scientific laws overrule the process of evolution … of High Energy Physics, eprint: arXiv:hep-th/0701146V1 Volume 46, Fall 2009 131

Barnes, E. 1933. Scientific Theory and Religion. Cambridge University Book Company, New York, NY. Press, Cambridge, and Bentley House, London, UK. Van Wylen, G., and R. Sonntag. 1973. Fundamentals of Classical Britt, R. 2003. Imperfect estimate claims universe has 70 sextillion Thermodynamics (Thermal and Transport Science) 2nd Edition. stars. Science News at Space.com. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Chakrabarti, C., and I. Chakrabarti. 2007. Boltzmann entropy: prob- Weisstein, E.. 2007. Radiation constant (definition). Wolfram Re- ability and information. Romanian Journal of Physics 52:5–7; search, Scienceworld.wolfram.com 559–564. Williams, E. (editor). 1981. Thermodynamics and the Development of Daintith, J. 2005. Oxford Dictionary of Science. Oxford University Order. Creation Research Society Books, St. Joseph, MO. Press, Oxford, UK. Dyson, F. 1971. Energy in the universe. Scientific American 225(3):51–59. Eddington, A. 1929. The Nature of the Physical World. Macmillan, New York, NY. Appendix: An Estimate Eddington, A. 1933. The Expanding Universe. Cambridge University of Stellar Radiation Entropy Press, Cambridge and Bentley House, London, UK. Fermi, E. 1937. Thermodynamics. Dover Publications, Inc., New For ideal blackbody radiant energy-heat transfer into free space York, NY. at a low T(K) with transmissivity e ≈ 1, Gitt, W. 1996. Stars and Their Purpose, Signposts in Space. Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Bielefeld, Germany. Q = U = aT4V [J] (i) Goddard Space Flight Center. 2008a. Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lifecycles/Image31.gif. (Planck, 1959, p. 63). This is the energy of blackbody radia- (Accessed, May, 2008) tion at T(K) in a volume V which is the total radiant energy in Goddard Space Flight Center. 2008b. Wilkinson Microwave Anisot- Joules with the radiation density constant a = 8π5k4/15c3h3 = ropy Probe (WMAP) five year results on the oldest light in the 7.57 x 10-16 J/m3K4, and Boltzmann’s constant k = 1.38 x 10-23 universe, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.htm. (Accessed, J/K (Weisstein, 2007); and T is the radiation temperature of June, 2008) the blackbody source. Isaacson, W. 2007. Einstein, His Life and Universe. Simon & Shuster, We can better quantify radiant energy transfer in terms of New York, NY. radiant exitance or radiant emittance from an emitting surface, Kragh, H. 2007. Cosmology and the entropic creation argument. M, in Js-1m-2 or wm-2, as from the surface of an emitting star. Caliber Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences Energy dQ/dt radiated each second would then be, 37(2):369–382. Kragh, H. 2008. Entropic Creation, Religious Contexts of Ther- 4 -1 dQ/dt = Φ = MAs = σT As [Js ] (ii) modynamics and Cosmology. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT. (Simon, 1974, p. 36), where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann con- Landsberg, P. 1991. From entropy to God? In Martinas, K., L. stant = 5.67 x 10-8 wm-2K-4; M is the radiant exitance, from the

Ropolyi, and P. Szegedi (editors), Thermodynamics: History Stefan-Boltzmann equation; As is the spherical surface area and Philosophy, pp. 379–403. World Scientific Publishing Co., of the emitting star, and using our sun as the median main 2 8 Singapore, Malaysia. sequence star, As = 4πRs and radius of the sun ~ 7 x 10 m; Morris, H., Jr. 1976. Entropy and open systems. Acts and Facts, T is the radiant energy temperature; and Φ is the radiant flux http://www.icr.org/article/entropy-open-systems. (Accessed, in Js-1 or watts. March, 2009) For an order-of-magnitude calculation, we can estimate Planck, M. 1959. The Theory of Heat Radiation. Dover Publications, dQ/dt for the number, n, of stars in the observable universe or Inc., Mineola, NY. “Hubble volume” using (1) A median radiation temperature,

Planck, M. 1968. May 1937 address. In Barth, A. (editor), The Cre- Tavg of 6000K for stars derived from the Hertsprung-Russell ation in the Light of Modern Science, pp. 135–149. Jerusalem (H-R) diagram line of main sequence stars (90% of all stars) Post Press, Jerusalem. with similar radiation temperature to our sun’s photosphere at Simon, R. 1974. Electro-Optics Handbook. RCA Corporation Techni- 5900K (Simon, 1974), a typical main sequence star (Goddard cal Series EOH-11, Burlington, MA. Space Flight Center, 2008a); and knowing that (2) star radi- Thomas, R. 1981. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Holman ant energy closely conforms to the ideal blackbody radiation

Bible Publishers, Nashville, TN. spectrum (Simon, 1974). As is the spherical surface area of the Van Ness, H. 1969. Understanding Thermodynamics. McGraw-Hill average main sequence star like our sun = 4π (7 x 108m)2 = 132 Creation Research Society Quarterly

6.16 x 1018 m2. Equation (ii) now becomes a total star radiant 4 dS/dt = dQT/(dt Tcmb) = nσTavg As/Tcmb energy rate, = 1.16 x 1049 [J/sK], (iv) 4 dQT/dt = MTAs = ΦT = nσTavg As [J/s], (iii) where Tcmb is the equilibrium temperature of the cosmic where n is approximately 7 x 1022 stars (Britt, 2003). This is microwave background radiation (CMB), also a blackbody a conservative number since some scientists think it may be spectrum at 2.725K (Goddard Space Flight Center, 2008b). higher. “Today the total number of stars in the observable Entropy rate, dS/dt, here, is an estimate of total stellar radiant universe is estimated to be 1025 … Nobody knows the actual energy diffusion into the universe each second. number” (Gitt, 1996, p.19). Combining equations (3) and (iii) we can estimate the entropy change dS due to stellar radiation each second as

Book Review

DVD God of Wonders produced by Jim Tetlow Eternal Productions, 2008, 85 minutes, $20.00.

This DVD is hosted by Dr. John Whit- of man and the remedy for that state, The last two sections of the DVD comb and features stunning photog- Jesus Christ. include confrontational interviews raphy and computer animation. It The substance of the video includes with people about their conscience and highlights the glories of nature including interviews with several creation scientists what this tells us about God. The gospel deep space, hummingbirds, and atomic including Don DeYoung, Jason Lisle, message is clearly presented in the last details. The program demonstrates that and Larry Vardiman. Each interview section of the video entitled “God of the glory of God is evident through- focuses on some aspect of creation or Love.” This video is a valuable asset to out the created world. There are four life forms which highlights attributes of the creationist library, and promises to subsections to the fi lm featuring God’s the Creator. There is special coverage appeal to young and older audiences power, wisdom, justice, and love. The of thunderstorms, the energy within the alike. producers show how these attributes of atom, and the design of the butterfl y and God can be clearly seen in nature and hummingbird. The quality of the nature Jeremy Maurer the human conscience. The last part of footage is spectacular, although some of [email protected] the production deals with the sinful state the interviews are less professional. Volume 46, Fall 2009 133

Lessons from Twentieth-Century Geology

Introduction the Shell Research Lab from 1943 to still had a tight grip on the culture, op- Today’s creationists—facing an aggres- 1964 and then became a fi xture at the position to God was simply “science,” sive, powerful monopoly of atheism— United States Geological Survey until and Hubbert was no exception. His can easily forget that nothing is new his retirement in 1976. He also taught 1967 article, “Critique of the Principle under the sun. Our forefathers faced in the California University system at of Uniformity,” provides an interesting the same in the 1960s; it was less overtly Stanford and Berkeley. During his day, window on the hurdles faced by the early atheist (they just called it “science” he was one of the best-known geologists creationists. Even more interesting are then) but no less assertive or driven by in the world, famous for his bell-curve the erroneous views about history and a religious commitment to naturalism. predictions about the future of the philosophy that were part and parcel One of the leaders in the fi eld of geology world’s oil supply (Figure 2). He was a of that day’s thought. Enlightenment during the early days of creation science president of the Geological Society of propaganda still had a tight grip on was Marion King Hubbert (1903–1989). America and an honored member of the Western culture. For example, his view A short analysis of his writing from the National Academy of Sciences. of the history of his science was nothing mid 1960s opens a window onto the But Hubbert was also an aggressive more than an atheistic rant: world faced by Drs. Morris and Gish proponent of naturalism, though in the During the last fi ve hundred years, and their colleagues. mid-twentieth century, the term “world- the tortuous evolution of geological Hubbert (Figure 1) was born in 1903 view” did not possess today’s familiarity. science has been characterized by in San Saba, Texas, and was educated Nor was there a signifi cant perception a progressive emancipation from through the PhD level, earning that in the church or in the public that the constraints and impediments degree at the University of Chicago in philosophical and religious commit- imposed by assumptions of Special 1937. He worked as a geophysicist for ments characterized atheists. Positivism Creations and interferences from

Figure 1. Marion King Hubbert. From Figure 2. The Hubbert Curve predicted the world’s future oil supply and has peake.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_ar- proved remarkably accurate in the decades since Hubbert’s fi rst prediction in chive.html (as of August 14, 2009). 1956. From www.geo.cornell.edu/.../peak_oil.html (as of August 14, 2009). 134 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Divine Providence in geological were demonstrating otherwise. Hubbert were their real motives (Hooykaas, (and human) affairs. A major part of demonstrates that even the intellectual 1999, p. 153). this emancipation has been accom- elite were not immune from bad history After explaining that religious op- plished by the employment of the and even worse philosophy. All of these position to Copernicus had only been Principle of Uniformity, but this rests errors have one thing in common—they advanced on exegetical grounds, not upon insecure grounds due in large were myths used in the service of an doctrinal, he stated that it “did not part to its having been formulated anti-Christian naturalism. change anything in religious belief” in ignorance of the later-developed Among them is one still bravely (Hooykaas, 1999, p. 154) and showed laws of thermodynamics (Hubbert, pushed by atheists, despite its repeated that Copernicus’s ideas actually did 1967, p. 31). scholarly repudiation. As the story goes, the opposite—elevating man from his American pragmatism is on full the true signifi cance of the Copernican previous Ptolemaic “earthly” position to display too. Despite the fact that he revolution was the blow to Christianity a “heavenly” one. Showing the theologi- places little confi dence in the principle caused by the displacement of man from cal incompetence of these detractors, of uniformity, he rejoices that it was so the center of the universe and therefore Hooykaas fi nished his analysis with an useful in overthrowing a biblical view of from the center of God’s affections and accurate assessment. science and history. His vitriol continues attentions. Man owed his high rank in creation all the way to his conclusion. After retell- Inevitably, the demise of the geo- to his being made in the image ing the story of the French astronomer centric system carried with it strong of God: the position of his dwell- Laplace dismissing the necessity of repercussions for the philosophical ing place had nothing to do with the “God Hypothesis” when talking to systems and theological dogmas this honorable stature. Indeed if it Napoleon, Hubbert (1967, pp. 31–32) which formed its principle supports. were true that the central position echoes the same dream for geology: “It The theological dogma that the conferred dignity, Hell would have may be that the time has now arrived earth, being the abode of God’s favor- been the place most esteemed by when geologists too may explicitly ite Creation, Man, could not occupy the adherents of the geocentric declare their lack of necessity for that a lesser place than the seat of honor system. For it, so they believed, was particular hypothesis.” at the center of the universe, was se- located in the centre of the Earth Ironically, God had other plans. The verely shaken by the establishment of (Hooykaas, 1999, p. 155, emphasis Creation Research Society had just been the earth, not as the stationary center in original). founded, and the Institute for Creation of the universe, but as only one of the Of course, a little logic would have Research was just over the horizon. six known planets encircling the sun done the same thing: Hubbert might Today many more people recognize (Hubbert, 1967, p. 3). have wondered why, if heliocentrism that atheism is a religion and that sci- We know better now (and some his- crushed Christianity, the chief scientists ence owes its origins to Christianity. A torians knew better then). For example, who developed the new astronomy—Co- closer look at Hubbert’s paper reveals Hooykaas (1999) summarized his re- pernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and New- a number of other related errors, both search (dating back to the mid twentieth ton—remained devout Christians. in his understanding of the history of century) in his fi nal book. Regarding the Similarly, mythology obscured the geology and the philosophical positions Copernican myth, he noted, beginnings of geology from Hubbert’s associated with it. Examining examples a supposed connection between view. of both can help us see just how much man’s rank in the hierarch of cre- The second major scientifi c revolu- things have changed since the early days ated beings and the ‘importance’ tion is that which may be referred to of creation science. of the place of this terrestrial abode as the Huttonian-Lyellian-Darwin- has occupied many writers on the ian. During this, an earth with a pre- Errors of History Copernican controversy (Hooykaas, sumed Biblical history of only some Only recently have the myths surround- 1999, p. 153). 6000 years, whose plant and animal ing the origins of geology been identifi ed He then debunks the idea: inhabitants were initiated by Divine as such and set aside by serious historical The proponents of this explanation Creation, was supplanted by an earth study. It is interesting to examine the deem it unnecessary to adduce solid the length of whose decipherable extent to which these errors were en- proofs for their contention. Yet it is history was estimated to be at least trenched in the highest echelons of geo- one of those ‘clever’ constructions by hundreds of millions of years, and logical thinking, even in the 1960s when moderns who think they know better whose plant and animal inhabitants pioneers like Reijer Hooykaas (1963) than our ancestors themselves what had evolved during those years from Volume 46, Fall 2009 135

ever more primitive ancestral forms. The attacks began as early as 1793 Throughout its history the Nep- Man, instead of being God’s highest when the Irish chemist, Richard tunist-Vulcanist controversy was a and most favored Creation, was re- Kirwan, with no personal knowledge mixture of geology and theology, and duced to being a direct biological de- of geology, coupled the Wernerian the central issue was the Huttonian scendent, in common with all other system to a literal interpretation of versus the Biblical interpretation members of the animal kingdom, of the Bible in support of the charge of of geologic history (Hubbert, 1967, the long animal evolutionary chain atheism against Hutton (Hubbert. p. 10). (Hubbert, 1967, p. 3). 1967, p. 9). Rudwick (2005) first counters by The errors in this statement would This story is unmasked by Gould distancing Neptunist geognosy from take a long discussion to point out com- (1984, p. 13), who noted that “the Werner. pletely. Suffi ce it to say, that a quick textbook tale of uniformitarian good- Historians and historically minded read through Rudwick (2005) will ies versus catastrophist baddies is a bit geologists have commonly ascribed demonstrate that the traditional Bibli- of self-serving, historically inaccurate the Neptunist system to Werner cal view of history had been rejected by rhetoric.” (and many of them, until recently, the Enlightenment savants well back Then Rudwick (2005) fi lls us in on routinely castigated him for it). But into the 1700s. In fact, de Luc noted a more accurate version. He fi rst credits Werner was merely giving his own that he was one of the only intellectual Kirwan with being a “chemist and min- expression to a widely held kind of defenders of the Flood in the late 1700s, eralogist” (p. 334), whose 1793 paper geotheory (p. 175). and his system did not even hold to a dealt with the supposed igneous origin And as to Werner’s supposed “theo- young earth. of rocks. As Rudwick notes, Kirwan was logical” motivation, Rudwick (2005) Furthermore, Hubbert’s emphasis courteous to Hutton, and “only briefl y” notes, on British geologists at the expense of the referred to “the broader implications of He defined geognosy unambigu- continental savants only illustrates the Hutton’s geotheory” (Rudwick, 2005, ously as a branch of mineral natural ongoing infl uence of Lyell’s nationalistic p. 334). When he did, he attacked the history, concerned above all with bias. Gould (1975; 1987) laid bare the philosophical eternalism of Hutton, the structural situation and spatial “empiricist myth” of Hutton, Playfair, not the “deep time” that we associate relations of rock masses. He fi rmly and Lyell as the fathers of geology contra today with the geological timescale. excluded “hypotheses,” for example British “fundamentalists,” propagated This philosophical aversion was com- about the origin of the earth, arguing by apologists for scientism like Geikie, mon to most European savants of that that such speculations were quite whom Hubbert liberally cited. time—Christian or not. different from the sober inferences Sinking even deeper into Enlighten- As Rudwick (2005) notes later that followed directly from what ment propaganda, Hubbert attempts to (pp. 335–336), it was only after the could be observed (pp. 421–422, confl ate Werner’s Neptunism and Gen- revolutionary terror in France that Kir- emphasis added). esis, going as far as to say that Werner’s wan—making an explicit link between Again, Hubbert could have deduced Neptunism “had an implied time scale geology and morality—asserted a more as much by researching the facts that: (1) which was compatible with Biblical Biblical position in opposition to Hut- Werner never published a “geotheory,” chronology” (Hubbert, 1967, p. 9). ton, whose model, though deistic in its and (2) his views were quite conventional Rudwick (2005, p. 125) showed theology, was rightly seen as promoting compared to other European savants; in otherwise: “Likewise, Werner com- atheism. Though Rudwick deplores the other words, he accepted an indetermi- mented in print—casually and just in subsequent development of scriptural nately, yet not eternally, old earth. passing—that the Geognostic pile of geology in answer to Hutton and Lyell, So why did someone of Hubbert’s rock masses must have accumulated ‘in it is clear in retrospect that Kirwan was caliber embrace these errors? Perhaps the immense time span…of our earth’s prescient in understanding the broader because he (like all too many others) existence.’” implications of earth history without a developed a template of history based Sticking to his paradigm of atheism’s Creator. Ironically, Hubbert completes on his faith commitments to atheism. emancipation from the chains of Chris- Kirwan’s argument by his illogical posi- Facts were fi tted to drive the story, not tianity, Hubbert also botched the debate tion of praising uniformity for overthrow- the other way around—a strange posi- between Hutton and Richard Kirwan, ing Christianity, while rejecting it on its tion for an “empiricist.” It didn’t help an Irish savant, whom Hubbert imme- logical merits! that he gained his historical information diately accuses of having no personal But Hubbert is not fi nished mischar- from propagandists like Geikie. As he knowledge of geology. acterizing Neptunism: started, so he ended: 136 Creation Research Society Quarterly

In our historical review, we have events, devised to explain our present- and walked away. In that paradigm, traced a somewhat tortuous, but es- day observations. miracles become the divine “interfer- sentially unidirectional, progression What are our assumptions in ing” with creation decried by Hubbert. toward emancipation from the idea such a procedure? Fundamentally, Instead, the founders of science were that so-called natural laws could be they are two: keenly aware that “wonders” were the set aside arbitrarily and terrestrial (1) We assume that natural laws are norm—just the continued existence of affairs manipulated at will by the invariant with time. anything was a “miracle.” Were God to dictates of a Divine Providence (2) We exclude hypotheses of the withdraw His maintaining providence (Hubbert, 1967, p. 28). violation of natural laws by Di- for even a moment, the universe would In the 1960s, this view of Christianity vine Providence, or other forms cease to exist. was still seen as “scientifi c,” despite its of supernaturalism. It is only in the context of that theological inaccuracy and philosophi- These are not arbitrary assump- Biblical view (Hooykaas, 1972; Glover, cal naiveté. Today, in retrospect, we can tions, nor are they peculiar to geo- 1984) that the idea of invariant natural see unmasked commitments to mate- logic science. Rather, they represent law can be secured and science can be rialism, evolutionism, positivism, and the distilled essence of all human settled. Enlightenment philosophers atheism. When we look at our increasing experience, and are common to all kept the uniformity but discarded the awareness of the complexity of real his- sciences…. only logical basis for it. As Hume noted tory, we can gain a greater appreciation The second assumption is actu- long ago, universal laws cannot be justi- for the work of the early creationists, ally a corollary of the fi rst, but it fi ed empirically because our observation who paved the way for modern views requires to be explicitly stated in does not reach across space and time in a by challenging the arrogant scientism view of the fact that for centuries manner suffi cient to insure uniformity at of their day. Today’s atheists are just as the failure to accept this assump- all times in all places. This is especially committed and outspoken as Hubbert, tion has been one of the principle true for someone who thinks the Earth but more and more people are seeing the hindrances to the advancement of is 4.6 billion years old. blatant religious bias that accompanies scientifi c understanding (Hubbert, Thus, when Hubbert leaps to his their “analysis,” thanks largely to the 1967, pp. 29–30, emphasis in origi- second assumption of discarding God, unremitting work of Christians who are nal). he fails to see that he has just “thrown unafraid to point out the obvious. Here, Hubbert’s view of history shows out the baby with the bathwater.” The that his historiography has remained arrogance of his positivism is mani- Errors of Philosophy stubbornly a part of the scientistic mind- fested in his following sentence, where If Hubbert’s historical errors were signifi - set, and this statement might well be contrary to Hume’s (and many others’) cant, they pale beside his philosophical made by a current geologist. The irony logical analyses, he asserts that these “analysis.” After praising uniformity for is that his two fundamental assumptions assumptions can be confi rmed by “the overthrowing Christianity, he claims are contradictory! distilled essence of human experience.” that Lyell’s views were inconsistent While it is true that science rests He then makes another error common to and takes on the task of addressing the on invariant natural laws, it is also true atheists: he claims both assumptions are past. Although the following quote is that the origins of science in Christian a part of science. What he doesn’t real- somewhat long, it is quite revealing of Europe lay in the ability of thirteenth- ize is that rather than strengthening his Hubbert’s commitments. to seventeenth-century theologians assumptions, what he is doing is binding Perhaps in answer to this we should to justify this sweeping assumption. science to the altar of positivism, where consider what are the logical essen- They did so by linking it to the nature it lays supine, waiting for the knife of tials in the deciphering of history, of God. It is essential that Christians logic to fall. not just geological history, but any avoid the trap of thinking that “invariant His arrogance is revealed again in kind of history. Because it is impos- natural law” is not something intrinsic his fi nal paragraph. He sees the tenac- sible for us to observe anything to matter and energy, but that it is the ity of human belief in God as if it were except the present, our interpreta- manifestation of what theologians call some psychological pest, clinging like tions of prior events must neces- “Providence”—God’s ongoing involve- a parasite to an evolving human race, sarily consist of inferences based ment in His creation. All too often, we rather than taking any time to wonder upon present observations. History, unconsciously accept the deistic formu- why so many people in so many places human or geological, represent our lation of God that when He created, He at so many different times have affi rmed hypothesis, couched in terms of past endowed matter and energy with “laws” theism. As a confi rmed atheist, he can- Volume 46, Fall 2009 137

not possibly accept the logical answer blow in a culture that still worshipped Geological Time. Harvard University that it is because there really is a God technology. Press, Cambridge, MA. who created the cosmos. And of course This was the world that welcomed Hooykaas, R. 1963. The Principle of Unifor- since others have discussed it at length, The Genesis Flood in 1961 and the fi rst mity in Geology, Biology, and Theology, we need not waste too much time on manifestation of the modern creation- second impression. E.J. Brill, London, the other obvious contradiction in his ist movement, the Creation Research UK. statement—for science is a child of Society, in 1963. Today creationists Hooykaas, R. 1972. Religion and the Rise of Christianity alone. face a variety of challenges, but as this Modern Science. Regent College Pub- To sum it up: the rise of science was historical retrospective shows us, the lishing, Vancouver, Canada. not an extension of classical learning. opposition has always been there. Like Hooykaas, R. 1999. Fact, Faith, and Fiction It was the natural outgrowth of Chris- our forefathers, we do not rely on our in the Development of Science. Kluwer tian doctrine: Nature exists because intellect, our cleverness, or our skill in Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Neth- it was created by God. To love and debate. We simply rely on the promise of erlands. honor God, one must fully appreci- God in 1 Corinthians 1:27 (KJV): Hubbert, M.K. 1967. Critique of the prin- ate the wonders of his handiwork. But God hath chosen the foolish ciple of uniformity. In Albritton, C.C., Moreover, because God is perfect, things of the world to confound the Jr. (editor), Uniformity and Simplicity: his handiwork functions in accord wise; and God hath chosen the weak A Symposium on the Principle of the with immutable principles. By the things of the world to confound the Uniformity of Nature, pp. 3–33. Geologi- full use of our God-given powers of things which are mighty. cal Society of America Special Paper 89, reason and observation, we ought to New York, NY. be able to discover these principles References Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of (Stark, 2003, p. 157). Glover, W. 1984. Biblical Origins of Mod- Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory ern Secular Culture. Mercer University in the Age of Revolution, University of Conclusion Press, Macon, GA. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. M. King Hubbert exemplifi ed geology in Gould, S.J. 1975. Catastrophes and steady Stark, R. 2003. For the Glory of God. Prince- the mid-twentieth century. It had a view state Earth. Natural History 84(2):15– ton University Press, Princeton, NJ. of its own history built on Enlighten- 18. Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961. ment propaganda rather than rigorous Gould, S.J. 1984. Toward the vindication of The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and scholarship. It was aggressively atheistic punctuational change in catastrophes and Reformed Publishing Company, Phila- and positivistic. Logic never stood in Earth history. In Berggren, W.A., and J.A. delphia, PA. the way of its commitment to a world Van Couvering (editors), Catastrophes without God, and anyone with the te- and Earth History, pp. 9–34. Princeton John K. Reed, PhD merity to question its many errors would University Press, Princeton, NJ. 915 Hunting Horn Way have been informed that they were Gould, S.J. 1987. Time’s Arrow Time’s Cycle: Evans, GA 30809 “unscientific”—a professional death Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of 138 Creation Research Society Quarterly

The policy of the editorial staff of CRSQ is to allow letters to the editor to express a variety of views. As such, the content of all letters is solely the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily refl ect the opinion of the CRSQ editorial staff or the Creation Research Society.

Proving Ropen

There are techniques that would record fabricate. Miniature microwave motion regional, and local governments, and accurate proof of living pterosaurs. The detection might be adapted. Distance the other relevant authorities, including evidences stated by “Reports of Living might be extended by fi tting coherent religious authorities. Perpetuate active Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacifi c,” by emitters. Microwaves stimulate physi- agreements, with specifi c improvement Jonathan D. Whitcomb (CRSQ 45:200– ologies, so microwaves might be rapidly process arrangements, and laws with 212), and by others, merit further inves- pulsed. That could prevent cellular mi- complete facilitation capacities should tigations. Portable telemetry equipment crowave accumulation thresholds and be accomplished to entirely protect could be designed, perfected, and placed consequent physiologic stimulation and ropen pterosaurs’ individual lives, their in locations of multiple ropen sightings, reduce harm. Equipment could be at- essentials for living, and their whole- mostly clear of trees. Camoufl aged and site solar recharged. Twelve equipment some natural-aesthetic habitat areas and automated equipment would silently sites per set, for example, might cover ecological conditions. Sincere regard detect, locate, and track ropen suspects, a reported sighting location for 3–12 should be invoked and maintained by both visual and audio telemetry. months and then be moved to another for their comfort, health, and happi- Equipment would be placed in sets and location. Equipment should be designed ness—and for the wisdom and whole radio interconnected, so as to triangulate to be adaptable to similar surveillances counsel of God their Creator, concern- a suspect. Triangulation could generate and telemetry of other natural creatures ing carefully keeping them … if they are 3-D perspective during portions of a in other environments, including place- proved discovered. sighting. Motion detection and tracking ments upon elevated, small-diameter, requires non-harmful and physiologic guyed columns. Lawrence E. Smith non-stimulus energies. Miniature, low- Planning for ropen surveillances Applied Science Design energy coherent UHF radar would be should fi rst acquire formal agreements 826 Oak Street best but might be diffi cult to obtain or and legal permissions by the national, Lawrence, KS 66044-5524 Volume 46, Fall 2009 139

Lunar Recession: A Gravitational Decompression-Induced Genesis Flood-Related Phenomenon

Don DeYoung (2008) discusses earth sudden speed up in its outward motion” A remnant, small continuing “excess” tides caused by the moon’s gravitational (De Young, 2008, p.104, 105, emphases lunar recession rate would result from a infl uence, the consequent slow-down of added). sudden temporary reduction, and subse- the earth’s rotation rate, the consequent Henry notes, “The primary cause quent full restoration, of the gravitational lunar recession rate, and estimates of of lunar recession is …the tides of the force. A reduction of gravitational force, the age of the moon as determined earth’s oceans” (Henry, 2006, p.68, which I have proposed initiated the Gen- from its recession rate and notes that emphasis added), indicating thereby esis Flood (Hunter, 2000a, 2004b), and the current recession rate of the moon that there are other components of the three other factors, which, during the from the earth, as accurately measured lunar recession, which are not due to Flood, would be consequent thereupon, by laser ranging to refl ectors placed on tidal interaction with the earth’s oceans. as discussed below, may have initiated the moon during the 1969–1972 Apollo DeYoung lists “unknown frictional ef- lunar recession or caused “a sudden missions, is 3.82+/- 0.07 cm/yr (Cart- fects, continental drift, fl uid core mo- speed up in [the moon’s] outward mo- wright, 1999). tion of the earth, ice distribution, and tion” (DeYoung, 2008, p.105, emphasis Jonathan Henry (2006) also dis- solar activity” as other possible causes added). cussed estimates of the moon’s age as of earth rotational slowdown and conse- determined from its recession rate, and quent lunar recession (DeYoung, 2008, 1. Gravitational both Henry and DeYoung note that es- p.105). The causes and magnitudes of Decompression timates of an upper limit on the moon’s these other components of the lunar In 2000 DeYoung noted that the expo- age of about 1.3 Ga, using the current recession rate are diffi cult to establish nent of the separation distance (r) in lunar recession rate of 3.82 cm/yr, fall far and quantify, but they are probably Newton’s universal gravitational law short of the presumed age of the earth- minor compared to the primary tidal (Newton, 1687) is exactly 2 and that “if moon system of 4.6 Ga. component. the exponent deviated just slightly from Henry and DeYoung both discuss Nicolson (1981) noted that the in- exactly 2, planet orbits and the entire uni- the efforts of secular theorists to resolve crease in the moon’s orbital period due verse would become unstable” (DeYoung, this discrepancy, with Henry noting that to tidal interaction with the earth is about 2000, p.44, emphasis added). Thus an one response by some secular theorists, 12.5 parts per 10 11 per year and that the immediate effect of a temporary reduc- in an effort to “save conventional lunar increase in the moon’s orbital period due tion of gravitational force, effected by an chronology,” has been to “minimize to all causes is about 22 parts per 10 11 increase of the value of the r-exponent, the lunar recession rate” (Henry, 2006, per year. Thus, assuming a relationship would have included, among other pp.68, emphases added). Henry also between the moon’s orbital period and things, recessions of all orbiting bodies notes that Lambeck suggested “only a its recession rate, an additional “excess” in the universe. variable energy sink can solve the time- lunar recession rate, which is not due to Also in 2000, I proposed a gravita- scale problem and the only energy sink tidal interaction with the earth and the tional decompression model of initiation that can vary signifi cantly with time is other minor causes noted by DeYoung, of the Genesis Flood (Hunter, 2000a), the ocean” (Lambeck, 1980, p.288, might be inferred. speculating that the Flood was initiated emphasis added) and that Bowden noted Secular theorists have long speculat- by a sudden, temporary decompression “particularly the Americas which are ed that such an “excess” lunar recession of the earth, consequent upon a tempo- strung out from north to south across rate may be evidence for the decreasing rary reduction, by God, of the magnitude the path of the tides are responsible for strength with time of G, the Universal of the universal gravitational constant a high energy dissipation rate” (Bowden, Gravitational Constant (Van Flandern, (G). In retrospect, and especially in view 2002, p.3, emphases added). 1981; Wesson, 1980). De Young how- of DeYoung’s reminder of “the serious- DeYoung too, notes that some secu- ever, after reviewing attempts by secular ness and the implications of challenging lar researchers, in “a desperate attempt to theorists to prove variation of G, which science with respect to the values of the preserve the assumed 4.6 billion year age included studies of the lunar recession basic constants” and his admonition that for the moon” assume that “the current rate, noted that “experiments to deter- “it should never be done lightly or in an value of lunar recession, 3.82 cm/yr, must mine a change in the value of G have ad hoc way to solve present problems” be anomalously high” and suggests that thus far been unsuccessful” (DeYoung, (DeYoung, 1990, p.130, emphases “at some point, the moon underwent a 1990, p.131, emphasis added). added) publication of this hypothesis, 140 Creation Research Society Quarterly insofar as it advocated a reduction of G, Genesis Flood by bringing the earth’s gravitational law as: F = G m m / c c e m was ill-considered. mantle to its melting temperature, r 2 (where: F is the attractive force c c Assuming that God set the universe resulting in mantle melting and differ- between the earth and the moon at the up such that all masses within the entiation with consequent exsolution of end of Creation Week, G is the created c universe would interact gravitationally water from the mantle and formation of universal gravitational constant, m e with each other according to Newton’s the present continents. The gravitational and m are the masses of the earth and m subsequently discovered universal force was, I postulated, partially restored moon respectively, and r is the separa- c gravitational law, we might reasonably on Day 40 of the Flood, stopping the tion distance between the earth and the assume that, having thus set the universe “fountains of the great deep” and pos- moon at the end of Creation Week). up, God would be easily able to change sibly the “windows of heaven” and fully If, at the initiation of the Genesis these relationships if and when required. restored on Day 150, initiating the down- Flood, the exponent of r is suddenly, c Because gravitational force reduces ex- faulting of the ocean basins. temporarily, increased from 2 to say ponentially with increased r-exponent It is easy to demonstrate, as follows, 2.010, the gravitational attractive force of the universal gravitational law (Fig- using Newton’s universal gravitational between the earth and the moon is re- ure 1), a more effectual gravitational law, that a small remnant, continuing duced and now given by F = G m f 1 c e decompression, with the same mantle “excess” lunar recession rate would m / r 2.010 (where is Flood Day 1 m f 1 f 1 differentiation and astrophysical effects, result from a temporary reduction and and r f 1 = r c ). Because of the now re- would have been achieved by increasing subsequently staged full restoration of duced attractive force due to the larger r the value of the r-exponent from 2 to 2 + the gravitational force during the Gen- exponent, the moon’s orbit would begin n (where n is as yet undetermined). An esis Flood. to spiral outward, increasing the separa- increase of just 2% in the r-exponent to Assume the moon orbiting the earth tion distance to r after 40 days (where f 40 2.04 would halve the gravitational force at the created separation distance r at is Flood Day 40). The gravitational at- c f 40 throughout the universe (Figure 1). the end of Creation Week. The attrac- tractive force between the earth and the Such a universal gravitational de- tive force F between the earth and the moon at Day 40 is now given by F = c f 40 compression, I postulated, initiated the moon is given by Newton’s universal G m m / r 2.010 c e m f 40 If, then, on Day 40, the exponent of the separation distance r is partially restored, to say 2.005, the attractive force between the earth and the moon is now given by F = G m m / r 2.005 f 40 c e m f 40 (where f 40 is Flood Day 40), which, due to the now increased radius (from r to r c ), and to the larger r exponent, is less f 40 than the original created attractive force F . The partially restored gravitational c force then would not be suffi cient to completely arrest the outward spiralling increase in the moon’s orbital radius ini- tiated by the change of the value of the exponent of the separation distance from 2 to 2.010. Thus, in addition to lunar recession induced by tidal interaction with the earth, the moon would have an “excess” recession rate which would be considerably reduced from that due to the temporarily reduced gravitational Figure 1. Gravitational attractive force F between the earth and the moon vs. r force between Day 1 and Day 40. 2 exponent. From Newton’s universal gravitational law (F = G m1 m2 / r ), where If, then, on Day 150, the exponent F is the gravitational attractive force between the earth and the moon, G is the of the separation distance r is fully re- gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the earth and the moon re- stored to its original created value of 2, spectively, and r is the separation distance between the earth and the moon. the attractive force F f 150 is now given by Volume 46, Fall 2009 141

2 F f 150 = G c m e m m / r f 150 (where f 150 is rapid addition of a large volume of water that leads to testable predictions” (Wil- Flood Day 150), which, because of the during the Flood would have caused a liams, 2004, p.50, emphasis added). further increased separation distance sudden increase in tidal resistance, with Confi rmatory evidence for gravitational

(from r f 40 to r f 150), is still less than the a consequent sudden slowing of earth decompression-initiated “excess” lunar original created attractive force F and rotation rate and consequent increase recessions may exist, for instance, in c, so an “excess” lunar recession rate will of the lunar recession rate. the orbits of planetary satellites such as continue. Phobos and Deimos, which orbit Mars, In addition to, and consequent upon, 4. Rapid Formation of the which has no oceans and little atmo- the postulated reduction of gravitational Present Continents during sphere and thus provides little or no tidal force at the initiation of the Flood de- the Flood resistance to orbiting satellites. scribed above, there are three other We might reasonably assume that lu- A temporary gravitational decom- phenomena, which, during the Flood, nar recession constitutes a very minor pression would have had other effects would have contributed signifi cantly to imperfection in the solar system, which throughout the solar system and the lunar recession. may not conform to the “very good” universe. Such effects may include description of the fi nished creation on recessions of all orbits, decompression- 2. Rapid Redistribution of Day 7 of Creation Week (Gen. 1:31). induced melting and differentiation of Mass from the Earth’s It is then perhaps conceivable that the the mantles of planets and planetary Mantle to Its Surface confi guration of the pre-Flood seas and satellites, melting and explosive frag- during the Flood land, established on Day 3 of Creation mentation of a small planet to produce In the gravitational decompression Week (Gen. 1:10), may have been such the asteroids and possibly comets, and Flood model, decompression-induced that, during the antediluvian period, explosion of stars to produce super melting and differentiation of the earth’s there was little or no lunar tidal interac- novae. mantle, probably during the fi rst 40 days tion with the earth’s seas, and thus little Acknowledgments: The helpful advice of the Flood, resulted in the outward or no lunar recession. of Don DeYoung and the comments of redistribution of molten rock to the In the gravitational decompres- an anonymous reviewer assisted in the earth’s surface, initially as ultramafi c sion model the Americas, with Africa, preparation of this discussion and are and mafi c volcanics in the Precambrian Australia, and Eurasia, were all formed gratefully acknowledged. shield areas which now form the cores of during the Genesis Flood by differentia- continents, with a consequent small in- tion from the earth’s mantle (Hunter, References crease in the earth’s diameter of 95–100 2004a) and all are, in effect, “strung out CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- km (Hunter, 2000a, p.66). The outward from north to south across the path of terly movement of mass would have caused a the tides” (Henry, 2008, p.69, emphasis Bowden, M. 2002. The moon is still young. slowing of the earth’s rotation rate, with added; cf. Bowden, 2002, p.3). The www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp a consequent speed up of lunar orbital rapid formation of the continents by Cartwright, D.E. 1999. Tides—A Scientifi c velocity and consequent increase of the mantle differentiation, probably during History. Cambridge University Press, lunar recession rate. the fi rst 40 days of the Genesis Flood Cambridge, UK. (Hunter, 2004a), would have caused a DeYoung, D.B., 2008. Tides and the creation 3. Rapid Addition of a sudden increase in tidal resistance, with worldview. CRSQ 45:100–108. Large Volume of Water a consequent sudden slowing of earth DeYoung, D.B., 2000. Gravity the mystery to the Earth’s Oceans rotation rate and consequent increase force. Creation 22(3):41–44. during the Flood of the lunar recession rate. DeYoung, D.B., 1990. Changing con- As noted by DeYoung and Henry, the stants and gravitation. Minisymposium primary cause of lunar recession is the Conclusion on variable constants—III. CRSQ gravitational interaction of the moon In consideration of the four factors dis- 26:130–131. with the water of the earth’s oceans. cussed above, most or all of the current Henry, J., 2006. The moon’s recession and During the Flood, probably during the lunar recession rate may have been ini- age. Journal of Creation 20(2):65–70. fi rst 40 days, a signifi cant volume of tiated during the Genesis Flood. Some Hunter, M.J. 1996. Is the pre-Flood/Flood water was rapidly added to the earth’s may consider this conclusion interesting boundary in the earth’s mantle? CEN oceans, from the mantle (“fountains of but somewhat speculative, but, as Wil- Technical Journal 10(3):345–357. the great deep”) and from above (“win- liams (2004) described science, it is “a Hunter, M.J. 2000a. The pre-Flood/Flood dows of heaven”) (Hunter, 2000b). The combination of observation and theory boundary at the base of the earth’s 142 Creation Research Society Quarterly

transition zone. CEN Technical Journal Lambeck, K. 1980. The Earth’s Variable Wesson, P.S. 1980. Does gravity change with 14(1):60–74. Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Con- time? Physics Today 33(7):32–37. Hunter, M.J. 2000b. Scriptural constraints sequences. Cambridge University Press, Williams, A., 2004. The biblical origins of on the variation of water level during the London, UK. science. A review of For The Glory of Genesis Flood. CEN Technical Journal Newton, I. 1687. Philosophiae Naturalis God: How Monotheism Led to Refor- 14(2):91–94. Principia Mathematica. Royal Society mations, Science, Witch-hunts and the Hunter, M.J. 2004a. Is there a Genesis of London, London, England. End of Slavery, by Rodney Stark. TJ Flood heat dissipation problem? CRSQ Nicolson, I. 1981. Gravity, Black Holes and 18(2):49–52. 40:221–225. the Universe. David and Charles, New- Hunter, M.J. 2004b. Did God use gravi- ton Abbot, London, UK. M. J. Hunter tational decompression to trigger the Van Flandern, T.C. 1981. Is the gravitational Charters Towers Genesis Flood? TJ 18(2):66–68. constant changing? Astrophysical Journal Queensland, Australia 248:813–816. [email protected]

Symmetric Variation and Natural Selection

The environment produces conditions ric,” a term I prefer to “silent,” as the lat- mutations of just one gene are unable within which life exists, and symmetric ter would imply nothing has happened) to cope. Nevertheless, this one original variation produces the genetic changes or mutate to produce another amino gene, with what function it does possess, in accordance with the environment. acid, which may even be outside the could act as a guide to the mutating Nature selects which changes will group of the originals. One of the UK’s copies, thus aiding things to go in the survive from the palette of symmetric top mathematicians supports this view right direction. variation. However, in the case of gene (Stewart, 1994). Symmetric variation is, I believe, duplication there is a remarkable differ- The life-form’s repair system would the major reason why life-forms remain ence. In an experiment (Calder, 1973), normally return unwelcome changes within their respective kinds. bacteria were fed on synthetic alcohol, back to their symmetric state, but no and the gene involved broke down the harm will come to these freely mutating References substance to an extent. Nevertheless, copies because the bacteria already has CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- more suitable genes were needed to do a functioning gene. Symmetric varia- terly a more complete job. tion does this work by itself, without the Brown, C. 1999, The principle of symmetric The original or parent gene dupli- intervention of natural selection. variation as it relates to silent mutations. cated and these copies could mutate So, in this case natural selection is CRSQ 36:100. freely, as natural selection was not polic- overruled. Darwin once said that natural Brown, C. 2000. The production of form, hox ing them; rather it was keeping an eye on selection would not come into effect in genes, and symmetric variation. CRSQ the gene that was having some success in those situations that did not produce 37:224–225. breaking the substance down. In time, benefi t or harm (Darwin, 1998, p.68). Calder, N. 1973. The Life Game. BBC Books these copies produced genes better fi tted However, Darwin would not have ex- London, UK. to the job. pected any of these situations to become Darwin, C. 1998. The Origin of Species. Ox- What produced the changes by way good without natural selection—I won- ford University Press, Oxford, UK. of mutations is covered by the rules laid der what he would have said about this Stewart, I. 1994. Broken symmetry in the down by the way symmetric variation situation! genetic code? New Scientist 141:16. works (Brown, 1999 and 2000). Here, Gene duplication is a useful tool mutations either produce the same for creation. As we have seen, it can Colin Brown amino acid (hence the term “symmet- overcome diffi cult circumstances where United Kingdom Volume 46, Fall 2009 143 Author and Title INDEX for Volume 45, 2008–2009

Lazella M. Lawson*

his title/author index covers articles, panorama notes and other Tfeatures. For items with two or more pages, the reference is to the first page only. After the page number, a letter indicates which type of entry is involved: article (A), panorama note (P), letter to the editor (L), book or video review (R), cover photo (CP), or other departments (such as editorials, laboratory director’s comments, president’s remarks, photo essays, etc.) (D).

Armitage, Mark Diamonds Are a World’s Best B A Mend, 54 (P) Akridge, A. Jerry God Saw That the Light Was Bartlett, Jonathan Death on the Plains of Nebraska, Good: Light Production in Statistical and Philosophical 126 (P) Photinus pyralis, 66 (P) Notions of Randomness in The Lesser Light to Govern the Creation Biology, 91 (A) Akridge, M. Elizabeth Night: Further Notes on Light Death on the Plains of Nebraska, Production in Photinus pyralis, Battleground University: Finding Truth 126 (P) 225 (P) in Fiction, Emmett L. Williams, 190 A New Report of Unique Features (R) All the Voices of the Wind, Donald En- in the Peristome of Funaria sign, 133 (R) hygrometrica, 191 (A) Bergman, Jerry Evidence for the Lack of Snake Anderson, Kevin Author and Title Index for Volume 44, Evolution, 258 (A) One Hand Clapping, 1 (D) Lazella Lawson, 120 (A) Evolution and the Origin of Hu- What Is New Is Old Again, 241 (D) man Language, 109 (A) The Wonderful Unscientific Lysenkoism—The Tragedy of Gov- Teaching of the Creation Re- ernment-Enforced Darwinism, search Society, 77 (D) 285 (A) Why the Inverted Human Retina Is a Superior Design, 213 (A)

The Black Hole War, Carl Stebner, 232 (R)

*Lazella M. Lawson, Newhall, CA 144 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, Evolution: The Shadow of Creation, Gary Locklair, 233 (D) D David A Kaufmann, 65 (R)

The Brain of Archaeopteryx and the Darwin Day in America, Dan Schobert, Evolution and Other Fairy Tales, Hugh Flight Muscles of Protoavis, Colin 108 (R) Miller, 4 (R) Brown, 71 (P) Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Explore Evolution: The Arguments For Brown, Colin Science of Intelligent Design, Wayne and Against Neo-Darwinism, Wayne The Brain of Archaeopteryx and Frair, 90 (R) Frair, 125 (R) the Flight Muscles of Protoavis, 71 (P) Death on the Plains of Nebraska, A. Jerry Normal Insect Flight with Abnor- Akridge and M. Elizabeth Akridge, mal Wings, 298 (P) 126 (P) F

Brown, Robert Dependency of Radioisotope Age on Geo- Frair, Wayne Dependency of Radioisotope Age logic History, R. H. Brown, 72 (P) Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the on Geologic History, 72 (P) Science of Intelligent Design, Young Earth, Old Universe? 231 (L) The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of 90 (R) Intelligence in Biological Systems, The Design of Life: Discovering Wayne Frair, 23 (R) Signs of Intelligence in Biologi- cal Systems, 23 (R) C The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Explore Evolution: The Arguments Scientific Pretensions, Jeffrey Stueber, For and Against Neo-Darwin- Calcium Carbonate Glaebules: Paleosol 291 (R) ism, 125 (R) Indicators or Groundwater-Derived Understanding Intelligent Design, Features? Emmett L. Williams, 60 DeYoung, Don 292 (R) (P) Cosmos: Images from Here to the Edge of the Universe, 119 (R) Froede, Carl R Jr. Calkins, Joseph Heaven Without Her, 298 (R) Hurricane Ivan’s Impact (Septem- Why the Inverted Human Retina is In the Name of Education, 99 (R) ber 16, 2004) on the Alabama a Superior Design, 213 (A) The Shack: Where Tragedy Con- Gulf Coast Illustrates Matthew fronts Eternity, 245 (R) 7:24–27, 134 (P) Coffin, Harold G. The Signs and Seasons: Under- Where is the Pre-Flood/Flood Two Mystery Mountains, 293 (P) standing the Elements of Classi- Boundary? 24 (A) cal Astronomy, 80 (R) The Committee, Douglas B. Sharp, 299 The Six Days of Genesis, 17 (R) (R) Tides and the Creation Worldview, 100 (A) G Continentally Correlative Flood Strata Sequences Are Essentially Globally Diamonds Are a World’s Best Mend, Gene Duplication Produce Gene Fami- Correlative and Synchronous, M. J. Mark H. Armitage, 54 (P) lies?/Did, Yingguang Liu, 179 (A) Hunter, 142 (L) Geology by Design: Interpreting Rocks Cosmos: Images from Here to the Edge of and Their Catastrophic Record, Em- the Universe, Don DeYoung, 119 (R) E mett L. Williams, 124 (R)

Criswell, Daniel The Edge of Evolution, Ker C. Thomson, The Genesis Debate (DVD), Jeffrey Neandertal DNA and Modern 282 (R) Stueber, 269 (R) Humans, 246 (A) Ensign, Donald Gillmann, Ralph Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, All the Voices of the Wind, 133 (R) Creationism and Its Critics in Ralph Gillmann, 236 (R) Antiquity, 236 (R) Erkel, Michael The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes, Gary Cover Designs by Michael Erkel God, Hilbert, Weyl, Einstein, and Unifi- Johnson, 53 (R) and Associates, (CP) cations, Robert A. Herrmann, 140 (L) Volume 46, Fall 2009 145 H J M

Heaven Without Her, Don B. DeYoung, Johnson, Gary The Man Who Found Time: James 298 (R) The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes, Hutton and the Discovery of Earth’s 53 (R) Antiquity, John K. Reed, 254 (R) Heinze, Thomas F. A Scientist Presents Evidence for Maurer, Jeremy Belief, The Language of God, The Privileged Planet: How Our Thomas F. Heinze, 178 (R) K Place in the Cosmos Is De- signed for Discovery, 282 (R) Hennigan, Tom Kaufmann, David A. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Evolution: The Shadow of Creation, Miller, Hugh Our Children from Nature-Defi- 65 (R) Evolution and Other Fairy Tales, cit Disorder, 147 (R) 4 (R)

Herrmann, Robert A. God, Hilbert, Weyl, Einstein, and L Unifications, 140 (L) N Language/Evolution and the Origin of Howe, George F. Human, Jerry Bergman, 109 (A) Neandertal DNA and Modern Humans, Five Features Correlate with Seed Daniel Criswell, 246 (A) Weight in Yuccas to Support Larssen, Per A. a Seed-Dispersal Hypothesis, Mutation And Natural Selection: Neo-Darwinian Evolution/Mutation 153 (A) The Central Dogma of Neo- And Natural Selection: The Central Darwinian Evolution, 271 (A) Dogma of, Per A. Larssen, 271 (A) Hung, Cheng Yeng A Realistic Simulation Model for Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Uranium Series Geochrono- Children from Nature-Deficit Disor- logical Dating, 40 (A) der, Tom Hennigan, 147 (R) O

Hunter, M. J. Lawson, Lazella Oard, Michael Continentally Correlative Flood Author and Title Index for Volume Where is the Pre-Flood/Flood Strata Sequences Are Essen- 44, 120 (A) Boundary? 24 (A) tially Globally Correlative and Synchronous, 142 (L) Light Production in Photinus pyralis/ One Hand Clapping, Kevin Anderson, God Saw That the Light Was Good:, 1 (D) Hurricane Ivan’s Impact (September 16, Mark H. Armitage, 66 (P) 2004) on the Alabama Gulf Coast Illustrates Matthew 7:24–27, Carl R. Light Production in Photinus pyra- Froede Jr., 134 (P) lis/The Lesser Light to Govern the P Night: Further Notes on, Mark Armitage, 225 (P) Peristome of Funaria hygrometrica/A New Report of Unique Features in I Liu, Yingguang the, Mark Armitage, 191 (A) Did Gene Duplication Produce In the Name of Education, Don DeY- Gene Families? 179 (A) Powell, James R. oung, 99 (R) Unification of Fundamental Forces Locklair, Gary at High Radiation Temperature Insect Flight with Abnormal Wings/Nor- Board of Directors Meeting Min- in the Creator, “The Consum- mal, Colin Brown, 298 (P) utes, 233 (D) ing Fire,” 18 (A)

The Irrational Atheist, John K. Reed, 187 Lysenkoism—The Tragedy of Govern- The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in (R) ment-Enforced Darwinism, Jerry the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, Bergman, 285 (A) Jeremy Maurer, 282 (R) 146 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific/Re- The Six Days of Genesis, Don DeYoung, ports of Living, Jonathan D. Whit- 17 (R) W comb, 200 (A) Snake Evolution/Evidence for the Lack What Is New Is Old Again, Kevin Ander- of, Jerry Bergman, 258 (A) son, 241 (D)

R Statistical and Philosophical Notions of Where is the Pre-Flood/Flood Bound- Randomness in Creation Biology, ary? Michael Oard and Carl Froede, Reed, John K. Jonathan Bartlett, 91 (A) Jr., 24 (A) Reply to Hunter: “I’m From Mis- souri,” 145 (L) Stebner, Carl Whitcomb, Jonathan D. The Irrational Atheist, 187 (R) The Black Hole War, 232 (R) Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the The Man Who Found Time: James Southwest Pacific, 200 (A) Hutton and the Discovery of Stueber, Jeffrey Earth’s Antiquity, 254 (R) The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Williams, Emmett L. Toppling the Timescale, Part III: Its Scientific Pretensions, 291 Battleground University: Finding Madness in the Methods, 6 (A) (R) Truth in Fiction, 190 (R) Toppling the Timescale, Part IV: The Genesis Debate (DVD), 269 Calcium Carbonate Glaebules: (R) Paleosol Indicators or Ground- Assaying the Golden (FeS2) Spikes, 81 (A) water-Derived Features? 60 (P) Geology by Design: Interpreting Reply to Hunter: “I’m From Missouri,” Rocks and Their Catastrophic John K. Reed, 145 (L) T Record, 124 (R)

Retina is a Superior Design/Why the Thomson, Ker C. The Wonderful Unscientific Teaching of Inverted Human, Jerry Bergman and The Edge of Evolution, 282 (R) the Creation Research Society, Kevin Joseph Calkins, 213 (A) Anderson, 77 (D) Toppling the Timescale, Part III: Mad- ness in the Methods, John K. Reed, S 6 (A) Y Toppling the Timescale, Part IV: Assay- Young Earth, Old Universe? Robert Schobert, Dan ing the Golden (FeS2) Spikes, John Darwin Day in America, 108 (R) K. Reed, 81 (A) Brown, 231 (L)

A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Two Mystery Mountains, Harold G. Cof- The Language of God, Thomas F. fin, 293 (P) Heinze, 178 (R)

Seed-Dispersal Hypothesis/Five Features Correlate with Seed Weight in Yuc- U cas to Support a, George Howe, 153 (A) Understanding Intelligent Design, Wayne Frair, 292 (R) The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity, Don DeYoung, 245 (R) Unification of Fundamental Forces at High Radiation Temperature in the Sharp, Douglas B. Creator, “The Consuming Fire,” The Committee, 299 (R) James R. Powell, 18 (A)

The Signs and Seasons: Understanding Uranium Series Geochronological Dat- the Elements of Classical Astronomy, ing/A Realistic Simulation Model Don DeYoung, 80 (R) for, Cheng Yeng Hung, 40 (A) Volume 46, Fall 2009 147

Book Review

Extinction by Darek Isaacs Watchmen 33, Jacksonville, AL, of Evolution 2009, 167 pages, $13..00.

VAILABLE THROUGH ACRS BOOKS!

What would happen if the logic behind “Institute for Progressive Lineage” be- dant it’s a no-brainer that not only should the theory of evolution, as advocated by fore his tragic death, admonishing his inferior species, such as the negroes of “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins, students to embrace evolution in all its Southern Africa, Australian aborigines were fully implemented and lived out glorious fullness and be brave enough and South American “Fuegians,” as in our culture? That intriguing question to live it out. Contrary to his colleagues, specifi cally mentioned by Darwin, be serves as the premise for this book by who often seek to downplay or deceive prevented from “breeding” but also that fi rst-time creationist author Darek Isaacs. people about the practical implications the superior races have an explicit evolu- Extinction’s highly provocative (and of Darwinism, true believer Oxidant tionary mandate to eliminate them. humorous) answer to the question in knows that a genuine understanding Oxidant goes on to argue that since this part fi ction, part nonfi ction publica- of evolution eliminates the possibility there is obviously no God and man clear- tion is provided by rabidly evolutionary of God and thus sees no reason not to ly evolved from animals, all religions are professor, Dr. Iman Oxidant, a fi ctional speak openly about it. Thus, as defi ned bogus inventions, especially Christianity, composite of “enlightened” souls like by his “Four Sub Laws of Evolution,” and that the concepts of sin, much less Dawkins who believe in philosophical drawn directly from statements made by the need for a Savior, like Jesus, need materialism, the extremist view that if it Darwin, Oxidant proceeds to spell out, to be discarded. Under evolution there can’t be measured by science it doesn’t in frighteningly stark terms, the effects is no right or wrong, and man is free exist, or that the universe consists of a fully realized ideology of evolution to use his brains and brawn in any way nothing but physical matter. Oxidant would have on our world. that will give him an advantage in the represents Darwinism taken to its logical Among the topics Oxidant covers is struggle for existence (passing along his conclusion. A brilliant invention, the evolution’s inherent racism, as suggested genes). For that matter, since, accord- good doctor, who does not lack for ego, by the oft-ignored subtitle of Darwin’s ing to Darwin, women are inferior to treads boldly where only angels (or, in Origin of Species—Or the Preservation men physically and mentally, evolution this case, demons) would dare to go, of Favored Races in the Struggle for dictates that they have no say in matters fearlessly spewing out what other, less Life and which Darwin spelled out in of sex. They simply exist to be “bred” at honest, evolutionists would never utter other works. Obviously, Darwin thought the earliest feasible age and as often as publically but must believe if they are himself a member of the most favored possible by any men who have the ability true to their convictions. race—the white race—which, if he to do so. Marriage, like religion, is a false The fi ctional part of the book con- didn’t say so himself, was more prosper- construct that simply serves to prevent sists of a series of Internet seminars ous and produced more intelligent (and men from spreading their genes, and Oxidant (who may remind some of even better looking) offspring than other since there is no such thing as sin, rape is the senior demon in C. S. Lewis’s The “lesser” races. And, since evolution is just fi ne as far as evolution is concerned. Screwtape Letters) delivered for the based on the survival of the fi ttest, to Oxi- Of course, in this scenario things like 148 Creation Research Society Quarterly adoption make absolutely no sense, not rationed health care with its specter of this godless ideology on society would to mention mercy, compassion, forgive- “death panels.” Isaacs also draws the con- only produce a literal hell on earth does ness, feeding the poor, or loving your nection between evolution and the (past not seem to faze these folks. However, enemy. Indeed, Oxidant argues, for the and future?) eugenics movement, as well Isaacs’s well-reasoned book, which ends sake of the planet, evolution demands a as the atrocities committed by Hitler, the with a presentation of the gospel, makes “culling of the herd”; that is, the human embodiment of evolution’s “ultimate it clear that this is exactly the dark path population, through abortion, euthana- leader,” the Holocaust notwithstand- to which Darwinism leads. sia, and other necessary means in order ing. Isaacs writes, “Hitler…did nothing Highly readable and thought pro- to remove the weak, the feeble, and the wrong if measured by the standards of voking, The Extinction of Evolution is a unproductive. natural selection. Based on the survival surprisingly powerful book from a young While Dr. Oxidant is a fictional of the fittest, the strong have every right author. If this debut publication is any creation, Isaacs makes it clear that the to exterminate, extinguish, sterilize, rape indication, Darek Isaacs represents a negative effects of evolutionary thinking, and murder the weak” (p. 139). And, of dynamic, new voice in the battle against however obscured for public consump- course, under evolution homosexuals evolution, and I wouldn’t be surprised tion, are all too real. Viewing people would be “bred out” of existence. if we hear more from him in the days as soulless animals is clearly the belief Isaacs goes on to state that facts alone ahead. I would highly recommend of environmental extremists who view will never defeat evolution because evo- Extinction to creationists, and I would human beings as little more than “para- lution is really not science or based on recommend it as a witnessing tool, like sites” on the earth. An evolution mind- science. Like Dr. Oxidant, it is a made- Mere Christianity, to pass along to evo- set is also clearly behind the push for up fiction that makes great claims for lutionist friends. abortion and euthanasia. If the book had itself and provides a “respectable” ratio- come out today, it would no doubt have nale for those who wish to remove God Terry P. Beh included the hot topic of government- from their lives. That seeking to impose [email protected] Volume 46, Fall 2009 149 Instructions to Authors

Submission Appearance Electronic submissions of all manuscripts and graphics are pre- Manuscripts shall be computer-printed or neatly typed. Lines ferred and should be sent to the editor of the Creation Research should be double-spaced, including figure legends, table Society Quarterly in Word, WordPerfect, or Rich Text Format footnotes, and references. All pages should be sequentially (see the inside front cover for address). Printed copies also are numbered. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publica- accepted. If submitting a printed copy, an original plus two tion, an electronic version is requested (Word, WordPerfect, copies of each manuscript should be sent to the editor. The or Rich Text Format), with the graphics in separate electronic manuscript and copies will not be returned to authors unless files. However, if submission of an electronic final version is a stamped, self-addressed envelope accompanies submission. not possible for the author, then a cleanly printed or typed If submitting a manuscript electronically, a printed copy is not copy is acceptable. necessary unless specifically requested by the Quarterly editor. Submitted manuscripts should have the following organi- Manuscripts containing more than 35 pages (double-spaced zational format: and including references, tables, and figure legends) are dis- 1. Title page. This page should contain the title of the manu- couraged. An author who determines that the topic cannot be script, the author’s name, and all relevant contact information adequately covered within this number of pages is encouraged (including mailing address, telephone number, fax number, to submit separate papers that can be serialized. and e-mail address). If the manuscript is submitted by multiple All submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by two or authors, one author should serve as the corresponding author, more technical referees. However, each section editor of the and this should be noted on the title page. Quarterly has final authority regarding the acceptance of a 2. Abstract page. This is page 1 of the manuscript, and should manuscript for publication. While some manuscripts may be contain the article title at the top, followed by the abstract for accepted with little or no modification, typically editors will the article. Abstracts should be between 75 and 200 words in seek specific revisions of the manuscript before acceptance. length and present an overview of the material discussed in Authors will then be asked to submit revisions based upon the article, including all major conclusions. Use of abbrevia- comments made by the referees. In these instances, authors tions and references in the abstract should be avoided. This are encouraged to submit a detailed letter explaining changes page should also contain at least five key words appropriate made in the revision, and, if necessary, give reasons for not for identifying this article via a computer search. incorporating specific changes suggested by the editor or 3. Introduction. The introduction should provide sufficient reviewer. If an author believes the rejection of a manuscript background information to allow the reader to understand was not justified, an appeal may be made to the Quarterly the relevance and significance of the article for creation sci- editor (details of appeal process at the Society’s web site, www. ence. creationresearch.org). 4. Body of the text. Two types of headings are typically used Authors who are unsure of proper English usage should by the CRSQ. A major heading consists of a large font bold have their manuscripts checked by someone proficient in the print that is centered in column, and is used for each major English language. Also, authors should endeavor to make change of focus or topic. A minor heading consists of a regular certain the manuscript (particularly the references) conforms font bold print that is flush to the left margin, and is used fol- to the style and format of the Quarterly. Manuscripts may be lowing a major heading and helps to organize points within rejected on the basis of poor English or lack of conformity to each major topic. Do not split words with hyphens, or use all the proper format. capital letters for any words. Also, do not use bold type, except The Quarterly is a journal of original writings, and only for headings (italics can be occasionally used to draw distinc- under unusual circumstances will previously published mate- tion to specific words). Italics should not be used for foreign rial be reprinted. Questions regarding this should be submitted words in common usage, e.g., “et al.”, “ibid.”, “ca.” and “ad to the Editor ([email protected]) prior to infinitum.” Previously published literature should be cited us- submitting any previously published material. In addition, ing the author’s last name(s) and the year of publication (ex. manuscripts submitted to the Quarterly should not be concur- Smith, 2003; Smith and Jones, 2003). If the citation has more rently submitted to another journal. Violation of this will result than two authors, only the first author’s name should appear in immediate rejection of the submitted manuscript. Also, if (ex. Smith et al., 2003). Contributing authors should examine an author uses copyrighted photographs or other material, a this issue of the CRSQ or consult the Society’s web site for release from the copyright holder should be submitted. specific examples as well as a more detailed explanation of 150 Creation Research Society Quarterly manuscript preparation. Frequently-used terms can be abbrevi- not embed figures in the text. Each figure should contain ated by placing abbreviations in parentheses following the first a legend that provides sufficient description to enable the usage of the term in the text, for example, polyacrylamide gel reader to understand the basic concepts of the figure without electrophoresis (PAGE) or catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT). needing to refer to the text. Legends should be on a separate Only the abbreviation need be used afterward. If numerous page from the figure. All figures and drawings should be of abbreviations are used, authors should consider providing a high quality (hand-drawn illustrations and lettering should be list of abbreviations. Also, because of the variable usage of professionally done). Images are to be a minimum resolution of the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution,” authors 300 dpi at 100% size. Patterns, not shading, should be used to should clearly define how they are specifically using these distinguish areas within graphs or other figures. Unacceptable terms. Use of the term “creationism” should be avoided. All illustrations will result in rejection of the manuscript. Authors figures and tables should be cited in the body of the text, and are also strongly encouraged to submit an electronic version be numbered in the sequential order that they appear in the (.cdr, .cpt, .gif, .jpg, and .tif formats) of all figures in individual text (figures and tables are numbered separately with Arabic files that are separate from the electronic file containing the and Roman numerals, respectively). text and tables. 5. Summary. A summary paragraph(s) is often useful for readers. The summary should provide the reader an overview Special Sections of the material just presented, and often helps the reader to Letters to the Editor: summarize the salient points and conclusions the author has Submission of letters regarding topics relevant to the Society made throughout the text. or creation science is encouraged. Submission of letters com- 6. References. Authors should take extra measures to be certain menting upon articles published in the Quarterly will be that all references cited within the text are documented in published two issues after the article’s original publication the reference section. These references should be formatted date. Authors will be given an opportunity for a concurrent in the current CRSQ style. (When the Quarterly appears in response. No further letters referring to a specific Quarterly the references multiple times, then an abbreviation to CRSQ article will be published. Following this period, individuals is acceptable.) The examples below cover the most common who desire to write additional responses/comments (particu- types of references: larly critical comments) regarding a specific Quarterly article Robinson, D.A., and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. A quantitative approach are encouraged to submit their own articles to the Quarterly to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34:196–208. for review and publication. Lipman, E.A., B. Schuler, O. Bakajin, and W.A. Eaton. 2003. Single-molecule measurement of protein folding kinetics. Sci- Editor’s Forum: ence 301:1233–1235. Occasionally, the editor will invite individuals to submit differ- Margulis, L. 1971a. The origin of plant and animal cells. American ing opinions on specific topics relevant to the Quarterly. Each Scientific 59:230–235. author will have opportunity to present a position paper (2000 Margulis, L. 1971b. Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. words), and one response (1000 words) to the differing position Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of Grasses of the United States. Dover paper. In all matters, the editor will have final and complete Publications, New York. editorial control. Topics for these forums will be solely at the Walker, T.B. 1994. A Biblical geologic model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), editor’s discretion, but suggestions of topics are welcome. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 581–592. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Book Reviews: 7. Tables. All tables cited in the text should be individually All book reviews should be submitted to the book review editor, placed in numerical order following the reference section, and who will determine the acceptability of each submitted review. not embedded in the text. Each table should have a header Book reviews should be limited to 1000 words. Following the statement that serves as a title for that table (see a current issue style of reviews printed in this issue, all book reviews should of the Quarterly for specific examples). Use tabs, rather than contain the following information: book title, author, publish- multiple spaces, in aligning columns within a table. Tables er, publication date, number of pages, and retail cost. Reviews should be composed with 14-point type to insure proper ap- should endeavor to present the salient points of the book that pearance in the columns of the CRSQ. are relevant to the issues of creation/evolution. Typically, such 8. Figures. All figures cited in the text should be individually points are accompanied by the reviewer’s analysis of the book’s placed in numerical order, and placed after the tables. Do content, clarity, and relevance to the creation issue. Volume 46, Fall 2009 151

Creation Research Society Membership/Subscription Application and Renewal Form The membership/subscription categories are defined below: 1. Voting Member ...... Those having at least an earned master’s degree in a recognized area of science. 2. Sustaining Member ...... Those without an advanced degree in science, but who are interested in and support the work of the Society. 3. Student Member ...... Those who are enrolled full time in high schools, undergraduate colleges, or postgraduate science programs (e.g., MS, PhD, MD, and DVM). Those holding post-doctoral positions are not eligible. A graduate student with a MS degree may request voting member status while enrolled as a student member. 4. Senior Member ...... Voting or sustaining members who are age 65 or older. 5. Life Member ...... A special category for voting and sustaining members, entitling them to a lifetime membership in the Society. 6. Subscriber ...... Libraries, churches, schools, etc., and individuals who do not subscribe to the Statement of Belief. All members (categories 1–5 above) must subscribe to the Statement of Belief as defined on the next page. Please complete the lower portion of this form and mail it with payment to CRS Membership Secretary, P.O. Box 8263, St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263, or fax for credit card payment to (816) 279-2312. Applications may also be completed online at creationresearch.org. ✁ This is a ❏ new ❏ renewal application for the subscription year beginning Summer ❏ 2008 ❏ ______. (Please type or print legibly.) Name ______Address ______City ______State ______Postal/Zip code ______Country ______Phone (optional) ______Email ______Degree ______Field ______Year granted ______Institution ______Presently associated with ______I have read and subscribe to the CRS Statement of Belief. Signature ______For foreign orders, including Canadian, payment must be made in U.S. dollars by a check drawn on a U.S. bank, international money order, or credit card. Please do not send cash. ‡ New PAPERLESS option: You may Indicate applicable category  Indicate payment  now opt out of receiving paper copies Paper** Canada Other Paper- of the CRS periodicals (CRS Quarterly ❏ Voting ❏ Sustaining USA Mexico countries less‡ and Creation Matters). By choosing this ❏ Regular [per year] ❏ $35 ❏ $53 ❏ $70 ❏ $31 option you may register for access to the ❏ Senior [per year] ❏ $30 ❏ $48 ❏ $65 ❏ $26 Premium Area of the website, where you ❏ Life member ❏ $500 ❏ $500 ❏ $500 ❏ $500 may view or download electronic (PDF) ❏ Student* [one year; multi-year not permitted] ❏ $30 ❏ $48 ❏ $65 ❏ $26 versions of these publications. Of course, ❏ Subscriber [per year] ❏ $38 ❏ $56 ❏ $73 ❏ $34 regular members and subscribers may also * Student members are required to complete the bottom portion of this form. have access to the Premium Area. Only ** Rates for the paper option include postage for First Class Mail International (FCMI), members, however, will access to the which is equivalent to airmail. Surface mail delivery is no longer available. Members Exclusive Area of the website. Member/Subscriber $______per year (multi-year not permitted for students) x _____ years Student Members are required to complete the following: SUBTOTAL $______School or institution now attending ______Optional contribution + $______Life membership + $______TOTAL $______Your current student status: ❏ high school; ❏ undergraduate; ❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard ❏ Discover graduate program ❏ MS ❏ PhD; ❏ other ______❏ American Express ❏ Check/money order Year you expect to graduate or complete your degree ______Card number ______Expiration date (mo/yr) ______Major, if college or graduate student ______Phone number (______) ______Signature ______Signature ______152 Creation Research Society Quarterly Order Blank for Past Issues Cost of complete volumes (per volume): ...... members (all categories) – $18.00 + S/H nonmembers and subscribers (libraries, schools, churches, etc.) – $25.00 + S/H Cost of single issues (per issue): ...... members (all categories) – $5.00 + S/H nonmembers and subscribers (libraries, schools, churches, etc.) – $7.00 + S/H

Number Number Volume 1 2 3 4 Volume 1 2 3 4 CRSQ on CD, version 2.0 21     34     Members, $75; nonmembers 22     35     and subscribers, $100. 23     36     24     37     Upgrade: Members, $40; nonmembers 25     38     and subscribers, $55. (Prices on this 26     39     item include postage and handling.) 27     40     Two-set CD contains volumes 1–41         28 41 (through March, 2005) of the 29     42     Creation Research Society Quarterly 30     43     31     44     and volumes 1–9 (through December, 32     45     2004) of Creation Matters in 33     46   Adobe Acrobat format. Volumes 1–20 are available on CD. See “CRSQ on CD” advertisement on right for details. Add 20% for postage (for U.S. orders: min. $5, max. $25; for Canadian orders: min. $10, no max.; for other foreign orders: min. $15, no max.) Total enclosed: $______Make check or money order payable to Creation Research Society. Please do not send cash. For foreign orders, including Canadian, please use a check in U.S. funds drawn on a U.S. bank, an international money order, or a credit card. (Please type or print legibly) Name ______Address ______City ______State ______Zip ______Country ______❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard ❏ Discover ❏ American Express Card number ______Expiration date (mo/yr) ______Signature ______Mail to: Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323, USA

Creation Research Society History—The Creation Research Society was organized fund for these purposes are tax deductible. As part of its 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it in 1963, with Dr. Walter E. Lammerts as fi rst president vigorous research and fi eld study programs, the Society is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and editor of a quarterly publication. Initially started operates The Van Andel Creation Research Center in and scientifi cally true in all the original autographs. To as an informal committee of 10 scientists, it has grown Chino Valley, Arizona. the student of nature this means that the account of rapidly, evidently fi lling a need for an association devoted Membership—Voting membership is limited to origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple to research and publication in the fi eld of scientifi c scientists who have at least an earned graduate degree historical truths. creation, with a current membership of over 600 voting in a natural or applied science and subscribe to the 2. All basic types of living things, including humans, members (graduate degrees in science) and about 1000 Statement of Belief. Sustaining membership is available were made by direct creative acts of God during non-voting members. The Creation Research Society for those who do not meet the academic criterion for the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever Quarterly is a peer-reviewed technical journal. It has voting membership, but do subscribe to the Statement biological changes have occurred since Creation Week been gradually enlarged and modifi ed, and is currently of Belief. have accomplished only changes within the original recognized as one of the outstanding publications in the Statement of Belief—Members of the Creation created kinds. fi eld. In 1996 the CRSQ was joined by the newsletter Research Society, which include research scientists 3. The Great Flood described in Genesis, commonly Creation Matters as a source of information of interest representing various fi elds of scientifi c inquiry, are com- referred to as the Noachian Flood, was a historical event to creationists. mitted to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and worldwide in its extent and effect. Activities—The Society is a research and publication early history, and thus to a concept of dynamic special 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women society, and also engages in various meetings and creation (as opposed to evolution) both of the universe of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Sav- promotional activities. There is no affi liation with any and the earth with its complexity of living forms. We ior. The act of the special creation of Adam and Eve as other scientifi c or religious organizations. Its members propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint, and one man and woman and their subsequent fall into sin conduct research on problems related to its purposes, since 1964 have published a quarterly of research articles is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for and a research fund and research center are maintained in this fi eld. All members of the Society subscribe to the all people. Therefore, salvation can come only through to assist in such projects. Contributions to the research following statement of belief: accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. ResourcesCREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY The Heavens Declare: The Solar System DVD (52 Min) Regular Price: $15.00 / Member Price: $13.00 This DVD presents all the wonderful discoveries of our solar system. Secular astronomers think that life may be found elsewhere in the solar system, but each of the solar system’s planets and moons are unique from the Earth. Only Earth is specially made for life.

What You Aren’t Being Told about Astronomy Vol. 1: Our Created Solar System DVD (106 min) Regular Price: $15.00 / Member Price: $13.00 In this video the viewer is given a tour of our magnificent solar system with amazing photographs and graphics from NASA and other sources. The viewer is shown how the planets and their moons defy evolutionary speculations of their origin. Some planets should not even exist, according to evolutionary models. There are so many problems with the origin of the solar systems bodies that creation is the most viable option of their origin.

The Young Sun: Is the Sun Really Billions of Years Old? DVD (44 min) Regular Price: $15.00 / Member Price: $13.00 In this DVD, a documentary style exploration takes a closer look into the known processes of the workings of the sun. It explores the most popular theories about the origin of the sun and shows why it is impossible that any of these theories of star formation explain the origin of the sun.

The Message of the Grand Canyon: Does It Support God’s Word? DVD (60 min) Regular Price: $13.00 / Member Price: $11.00 In this video, noted creationist and river rafter, Tom Vail, offers his insights and experience on the geology of Grand Canyon. He discusses some of the canyon’s unusual formations, such as dramatic bends in multiple layers of rock. Mr. Vail explains how he thinks the canyon provides excellent support of a global flood and a young earth. Presented at a layman’s level, this video offers a very informative creationist perspective of Grand Canyon; its age, formation, and biblical significance.

Orders can by placed through Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323-9186 Phone: 1-877-CRS-BOOK (1-877-277-2665); Fax: (928) 636-9921 www.creationresearch.org For credit card payments, (Visa, MasterCard, For U.S. orders, add 20% for S/H (min $5, max $15) Discover, and American Express), For Canadian orders, add 20% for S/H (min. $5, no max.) please include the card number, expiration For foreign orders, add 25% for S/H (min. $15, no max.) date (month/year), and your phone number. Orders must be pre-paid.